In my fourth attempt to get information, I ask forum Democrats to provide proof that Russia...

[Syriusly]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

 

[Syriusly]

• As a private citizen his opinion can change and evolve. He argued against invading Iraq with Sean Hannity whom verified this.

Of course his opinion can change- but he said he didn't want to go into Iraq but he is on record otherwise
during a September 2002 interview on Howard Stern's radio show Trump was asked if he supported invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," he answered.

• Wow he was wrong by 3 as far as how many times he was on Time. How horrible.

Not horrible- but it is another lie- people- and news organizations make mistakes- when CNN makes a mistake Trump calls it 'Fake News"- when Trump makes a 'mistake'- you just excuse it as being just a mistake.

• Here is evidence.

No- thats not evidence. Trump claimed there were 3-5 million illegal votes cast in 2016- and you just dumped a pile of crap on the floor and claim that is evidence for Trump's claim. Trump has never been able to provide any evidence of 3-5 million illegal voters- he was just parroting what he was hearing from the Fake Right Wing News.

Not quite.

Sean Hannity Says Trump Was Opposed to Iraq War

Sean Hannity Says Trump Was Opposed to Iraq War
Donald Trump did in fact oppose the Iraq War, despite public claims he made that say otherwise.

Fox News anchor Sean Hannity confirmed in a tweet Monday evening he and Trump, the Republican candidate for president, used to argue about the Iraq War back in 2003 when it began.

Hannity said Trump was not in favor of it when asked by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post.

Of course his opinion can change- but he said he didn't want to go into Iraq but he is on record otherwise
during a September 2002 interview on Howard Stern's radio show Trump was asked if he supported invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," he answered.

How does "Yeah, I guess" I support invading Iraq" square with Trump's claim he was always against the war in Iraq?

However, he told Sean Hannity he was against it.

I would like to hear more of the context with Howard Stern.

Let's compare transcripts- you provide the transcript from Sean Hannity's program- and I will provide it from Howard Stern's program.

Deal?

I'll do your work for you.

What he told Stern is ambigious. It seems like the thought the initial invasion was a mistake.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/297953-hannity-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war

Fox News's Sean Hannity came to Donald TrumpDonald defense Monday night, corroborating the GOP presidential nominee's debate claim that he had expressed doubts about the Iraq War to the anchor.

In a post-debate interview between Trump and Hannity, the Fox News anchor backed up the business magnate's account of conversations about the Iraq invasion.




"You know how many times we had conversations about that? You told me I was wrong, in fairness," Hannity said.

"It was respectful and I understood where you were coming from," Trump responded.

"I was against the war, I thought it would destabilize the Middle East. I didn't realize it would be managed so badly," he added.
Trump mentioned Hannity to push back on accusations from debate moderator Lester Holt that he initially supported the Iraq War.

"I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox," Trump said.

"He and I used to have arguments about the war," Trump added. "I said it's a terrible, stupid thing. It's going to destabilize the Middle East, and that's exactly what it's done."

Howard Stern in a 2002 radio interview asked Trump whether he supported invading Iraq.

"Yeah, I guess so," Trump replied. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

He addressed the Stern interview during the debate, calling it "mainstream media nonsense" that he supported the

So to recap:

• There is no transcript of a conversation between Trump and Hannity before the war- nor any date of when he supposedly spoke with Hannity.
  
• Retrospectively, Trump supposedly told Hannity he was against the war.
  
• There is a transcript of his conversation with Howard Stern in 2002 where Trump expresses weak support for the invasion.

Remember- it doesn't matter how often he told people in 2005 or 2010 that he was against the Iraq War- because Trump has claimed he was always against the Iraq War.

But in 2002- he clearly wasn't against the Iraq War- unless he was lying to Howard Stern

In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

 

[CMike]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

The media said there is no proof of illegal voting. I posted proof. Therefore, what the media and this article said is false.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[CMike]

Not quite.

Sean Hannity Says Trump Was Opposed to Iraq War

Sean Hannity Says Trump Was Opposed to Iraq War
Donald Trump did in fact oppose the Iraq War, despite public claims he made that say otherwise.

Fox News anchor Sean Hannity confirmed in a tweet Monday evening he and Trump, the Republican candidate for president, used to argue about the Iraq War back in 2003 when it began.

Hannity said Trump was not in favor of it when asked by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post.

Of course his opinion can change- but he said he didn't want to go into Iraq but he is on record otherwise
during a September 2002 interview on Howard Stern's radio show Trump was asked if he supported invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," he answered.

How does "Yeah, I guess" I support invading Iraq" square with Trump's claim he was always against the war in Iraq?

However, he told Sean Hannity he was against it.

I would like to hear more of the context with Howard Stern.

Let's compare transcripts- you provide the transcript from Sean Hannity's program- and I will provide it from Howard Stern's program.

Deal?

I'll do your work for you.

What he told Stern is ambigious. It seems like the thought the initial invasion was a mistake.

Hannity backs up Trump on Iraq War

Fox News's Sean Hannity came to Donald TrumpDonald defense Monday night, corroborating the GOP presidential nominee's debate claim that he had expressed doubts about the Iraq War to the anchor.

In a post-debate interview between Trump and Hannity, the Fox News anchor backed up the business magnate's account of conversations about the Iraq invasion.




"You know how many times we had conversations about that? You told me I was wrong, in fairness," Hannity said.

"It was respectful and I understood where you were coming from," Trump responded.

"I was against the war, I thought it would destabilize the Middle East. I didn't realize it would be managed so badly," he added.
Trump mentioned Hannity to push back on accusations from debate moderator Lester Holt that he initially supported the Iraq War.

"I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox," Trump said.

"He and I used to have arguments about the war," Trump added. "I said it's a terrible, stupid thing. It's going to destabilize the Middle East, and that's exactly what it's done."

Howard Stern in a 2002 radio interview asked Trump whether he supported invading Iraq.

"Yeah, I guess so," Trump replied. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

He addressed the Stern interview during the debate, calling it "mainstream media nonsense" that he supported the

So to recap:

• There is no transcript of a conversation between Trump and Hannity before the war- nor any date of when he supposedly spoke with Hannity.
  
• Retrospectively, Trump supposedly told Hannity he was against the war.
  
• There is a transcript of his conversation with Howard Stern in 2002 where Trump expresses weak support for the invasion.

Remember- it doesn't matter how often he told people in 2005 or 2010 that he was against the Iraq War- because Trump has claimed he was always against the Iraq War.

But in 2002- he clearly wasn't against the Iraq War- unless he was lying to Howard Stern

In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

Nope. Based on Howard Stern he didn't like the beginning of the war. Based on Hannity he spoke up numerous times against the war.

As a private citizen he could have changing and/or complex thoughts about the war.

I have been for the war. I don't like the way it was fucked up.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Syriusly]

Of course his opinion can change- but he said he didn't want to go into Iraq but he is on record otherwise
during a September 2002 interview on Howard Stern's radio show Trump was asked if he supported invading Iraq. "Yeah, I guess so," he answered.

How does "Yeah, I guess" I support invading Iraq" square with Trump's claim he was always against the war in Iraq?

However, he told Sean Hannity he was against it.

I would like to hear more of the context with Howard Stern.

Let's compare transcripts- you provide the transcript from Sean Hannity's program- and I will provide it from Howard Stern's program.

Deal?

I'll do your work for you.

What he told Stern is ambigious. It seems like the thought the initial invasion was a mistake.

Hannity backs up Trump on Iraq War

Fox News's Sean Hannity came to Donald TrumpDonald defense Monday night, corroborating the GOP presidential nominee's debate claim that he had expressed doubts about the Iraq War to the anchor.

In a post-debate interview between Trump and Hannity, the Fox News anchor backed up the business magnate's account of conversations about the Iraq invasion.




"You know how many times we had conversations about that? You told me I was wrong, in fairness," Hannity said.

"It was respectful and I understood where you were coming from," Trump responded.

"I was against the war, I thought it would destabilize the Middle East. I didn't realize it would be managed so badly," he added.
Trump mentioned Hannity to push back on accusations from debate moderator Lester Holt that he initially supported the Iraq War.

"I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox," Trump said.

"He and I used to have arguments about the war," Trump added. "I said it's a terrible, stupid thing. It's going to destabilize the Middle East, and that's exactly what it's done."

Howard Stern in a 2002 radio interview asked Trump whether he supported invading Iraq.

"Yeah, I guess so," Trump replied. "I wish the first time it was done correctly."

He addressed the Stern interview during the debate, calling it "mainstream media nonsense" that he supported the

So to recap:

• There is no transcript of a conversation between Trump and Hannity before the war- nor any date of when he supposedly spoke with Hannity.
  
• Retrospectively, Trump supposedly told Hannity he was against the war.
  
• There is a transcript of his conversation with Howard Stern in 2002 where Trump expresses weak support for the invasion.

Remember- it doesn't matter how often he told people in 2005 or 2010 that he was against the Iraq War- because Trump has claimed he was always against the Iraq War.

But in 2002- he clearly wasn't against the Iraq War- unless he was lying to Howard Stern

In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq

Nope. Based on Howard Stern he didn't like the beginning of the war. Based on Hannity he spoke up numerous times against the war.

As a private citizen he could have changing and/or complex thoughts about the war.

I have been for the war. I don't like the way it was fucked up.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Of course he could change his mind.

What Trump lied about is always being against the war.

That is the lie- yes eventually he was against the war. But Trump's lie is that he was always against the war.

 

[Syriusly]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

The media said there is no proof of illegal voting. I posted proof. Therefore, what the media and this article said is false.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Trump said there was 3-5 million illegal votes. Trump has never been able to provide any proof- nor has anyone been able to find any proof of 3-5 million illegal votes- therefore Trump said is false.

Which brings us back to the original list of lies- and yes- Trump did lie.

 

[boedicca]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

The media said there is no proof of illegal voting. I posted proof. Therefore, what the media and this article said is false.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Trump said there was 3-5 million illegal votes. Trump has never been able to provide any proof- nor has anyone been able to find any proof of 3-5 million illegal votes- therefore Trump said is false.

Which brings us back to the original list of lies- and yes- Trump did lie.

SRSLY - please keep whinging about the illegal votes and the Russians through the 2020 election!

 

[Syriusly]

Trump lies to the American voters almost every day and in almost every tweet.

Trump gives new meaning to congenital, perennial liar

Trump lies only to the liberals .

Then why does Trump lie to Conservatives all of the time?

Trump lies to the American voters almost every day and in almost every tweet.

Trump gives new meaning to congenital, perennial liar

Why don't you give us some examples please?

Sure- glad to

President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List

Jan. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)Jan. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)Jan. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)Jan. 25 “Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)Jan. 25 ore viewers.)

It's a lies, lies the democrats and their MSM propaganda minions. I'll take the first few.

My comments are in red.


President Trump’s Lies, the Definitive List

Jan. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)Actually this seems to acknowledge he was for it. As a private citizen his opinion can change and evolve. He argued against invading Iraq with Sean Hannity whom verified this. Jan. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)Wow he was wrong by 3 as far as how many times he was on Time. How horrible. Jan. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.) Here is evidence.
Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts
Not surprisingly the dems are trying to thwart an investigation into voter fraud.

Hillary did flat out lie in sworn testimony before Congress. That within itself is a felony.

Feb. 7 “And yet the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years.” (It was higher in the 1980s and '90s.)

 

[Syriusly]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

The media said there is no proof of illegal voting. I posted proof. Therefore, what the media and this article said is false.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Trump said there was 3-5 million illegal votes. Trump has never been able to provide any proof- nor has anyone been able to find any proof of 3-5 million illegal votes- therefore Trump said is false.

Which brings us back to the original list of lies- and yes- Trump did lie.

SRSLY - please keep whinging about the illegal votes and the Russians through the 2020 election!

Whinging?

LOL.

What I hope is that the FBI and Congress will finish their investigations into the Russian meddling in the 2016 elections- and I really hope that the investigations conclude that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

As much as I detest Trump- proof of collusion would be really bad for our country. The only thing worse would be covering up any collusion. So I hope there just wasn't any- and the investigations make that very clear.

I also hope that the investigations eventually reveal how Russia tried to attack our election, and what the consequences were, and what we should do to prevent this in the future.

 

[Syriusly]

Feb. 16 “We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before so that's the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.”

(George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all won bigger margins in the Electoral College.)

 

[Syriusly]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

 

[tinydancer]

If Russia helped Trump win the election, please explain what they're getting for their help.

Hillary Clinton took a bribe from the Russians and they gained a huge pile of uranium.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Wouldn't the Russians have preferred Hillary, since they already had a great working relationship?

You guys work so hard on ignorance. There must must a reason for it. Because it feeds your delusions?

The Uranium deal goes through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Not the State Department. Try to figure out why. Hint: Uranium - Nuclear? Is that clue enough?

What is the source for
RW DISINFORMATION?
Fox Noise of course

How's the New York mother trucking Times for you? I'm sick to death of the denials. It happened. It's real. Pay to play between the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors.
Eat this.

U.S.
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover
By WILSON ANDREWS APRIL 23, 2015

Uranium investors’ efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved with approving the Russian bid.

Uranium investors

September 2005

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

2006

Uranium One

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

FebRuary 2007

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

June 2008

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Rosatom

2008-2010

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.

June 2009

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.

2010-2011

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

June 2010

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29, 2010

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.

Rest of timeline at link


Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Wow.....whole lots of stuff- and with no substance.

There were donations to the Clinton Foundation- but Hillary Clinton had no authority to approve any deal.

The closest you get is that the State Department was one of 9 Departments that at one point approved gave approval on the deal.

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Homeland Security
4. Department of Commerce
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Energy
8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

So where are the donations to Treasury Secretary? To the Attorney General? To the Secretary of Defense?

Making donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to 'swing' this deal- when State is only one of 9 Departments that has to approve the deal- and it also has to be approved of by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Go ***** at the New York Times. Wait! You're not saying they're fake news are you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You exposed nothing other than your partisan blindness.

The media has said that there is no evidence of 3-5 million illegal votes- which Trump claimed.

And the media which is 99.997% AGAINST Trump, they would never lie, would they?

I was responding to the post that referred to the media.

Feel free to post the evidence that Trump has provided of those 3-5 million illegal votes.

It isn't the media which doesn't have the 'proof'- it is Trump that doesn't have the proof.

And we all know that Trump lies- constantly.

But Trumpster's don't care if he lies.

The media said there is no proof of illegal voting. I posted proof. Therefore, what the media and this article said is false.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You have proof that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast? My goodness!

Where is it?

 

[boedicca]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

Obabblecare just expanded Medicaid and drove individuals who already had private plans into the exchanges.

You're also neglecting the fact that ObamaCare is not health care. An expensive policy with high deductibles and an inaccessible doctor network is just a waste of money.

 

[Syriusly]

If Russia helped Trump win the election, please explain what they're getting for their help.

Hillary Clinton took a bribe from the Russians and they gained a huge pile of uranium.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Wouldn't the Russians have preferred Hillary, since they already had a great working relationship?

You guys work so hard on ignorance. There must must a reason for it. Because it feeds your delusions?

The Uranium deal goes through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Not the State Department. Try to figure out why. Hint: Uranium - Nuclear? Is that clue enough?

What is the source for
RW DISINFORMATION?
Fox Noise of course

How's the New York mother trucking Times for you? I'm sick to death of the denials. It happened. It's real. Pay to play between the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors.
Eat this.

U.S.
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover
By WILSON ANDREWS APRIL 23, 2015

Uranium investors’ efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved with approving the Russian bid.

Uranium investors

September 2005

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

2006

Uranium One

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

FebRuary 2007

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

June 2008

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Rosatom

2008-2010

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.

June 2009

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.

2010-2011

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

June 2010

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29, 2010

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.

Rest of timeline at link


Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Wow.....whole lots of stuff- and with no substance.

There were donations to the Clinton Foundation- but Hillary Clinton had no authority to approve any deal.

The closest you get is that the State Department was one of 9 Departments that at one point approved gave approval on the deal.

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Homeland Security
4. Department of Commerce
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Energy
8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

So where are the donations to Treasury Secretary? To the Attorney General? To the Secretary of Defense?

Making donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to 'swing' this deal- when State is only one of 9 Departments that has to approve the deal- and it also has to be approved of by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Go ***** at the New York Times. Wait! You're not saying they're fake news are you?

Oops- did my pointing out the facts upset your narrative that Hillary Clinton sold American Uranium to Russia? "pay to play"? LOL

There were donations to the Clinton Foundation- but Hillary Clinton had no authority to approve any deal.

The closest you get is that the State Department was one of 9 Departments that at one point approved gave approval on the deal.

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Homeland Security
4. Department of Commerce
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Energy
8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

So where are the donations to Treasury Secretary? To the Attorney General? To the Secretary of Defense?

Making donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to 'swing' this deal- when State is only one of 9 Departments that has to approve the deal- and it also has to be approved of by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction

 

[Syriusly]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

Obabblecare just expanded Medicaid and drove individuals who already had private plans into the exchanges.

You're also neglecting the fact that ObamaCare is not health care. An expensive policy with high deductibles and an inaccessible doctor network is just a waste of money.

Of course Obamacare is not healthcare. But Trump lied and said "Obamacare covers very few people"

And that is a lie- because the ACA expanded coverage for a net of about 20 million- including:

• Persons with pre-existing conditions
• Adult children who could go onto their parents policies.
• The expansion of Medicaid
• The new policies written under the exchanges.

Is the ACA perfect? Nope.

Is it better than anything that the Republicans have put forth so far.

Yep.

 

[Syriusly]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

Obabblecare just expanded Medicaid and drove individuals who already had private plans into the exchanges.

You're also neglecting the fact that ObamaCare is not health care. An expensive policy with high deductibles and an inaccessible doctor network is just a waste of money.

How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy

How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy
Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half

 

[boedicca]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

Obabblecare just expanded Medicaid and drove individuals who already had private plans into the exchanges.

You're also neglecting the fact that ObamaCare is not health care. An expensive policy with high deductibles and an inaccessible doctor network is just a waste of money.

Of course Obamacare is not healthcare. But Trump lied and said "Obamacare covers very few people"

And that is a lie- because the ACA expanded coverage for a net of about 20 million- including:

• Persons with pre-existing conditions
• Adult children who could go onto their parents policies.
• The expansion of Medicaid
• The new policies written under the exchanges.

Is the ACA perfect? Nope.

Is it better than anything that the Republicans have put forth so far.

Yep.

You are neglecting all of the people who lost health coverage due to ObabbleCare. Given the HYUUUUUGE number that Obabble promised would be covered, the actual net result is quite paltry.

And, given that so many insurers are dropping out, there is a snowballing amount of people who are now left without insurance choices because ObabbleCare destroyed what little free market we had left in their areas.

Thanks Obabble!

 

[boedicca]

Feb. 24 “Obamacare covers very few people — and remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved that was taken away from them — it was taken away from them.”

(Obamacare increased coverage by a net of about 20 million.)

Obabblecare just expanded Medicaid and drove individuals who already had private plans into the exchanges.

You're also neglecting the fact that ObamaCare is not health care. An expensive policy with high deductibles and an inaccessible doctor network is just a waste of money.

How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy

How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy
Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half

That is such a crock. The stats used to claim that health care bills cause bankruptcy are bogus. Anyone who files for bankruptcy has a variety of bills. Even one $20 unpaid co-pay was thrown into the "health bills cause bankruptcy" Fake Facts analysis.

 

[CMike]

You guys work so hard on ignorance. There must must a reason for it. Because it feeds your delusions?

The Uranium deal goes through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Not the State Department. Try to figure out why. Hint: Uranium - Nuclear? Is that clue enough?

What is the source for
RW DISINFORMATION?
Fox Noise of course

How's the New York mother trucking Times for you? I'm sick to death of the denials. It happened. It's real. Pay to play between the Clinton Foundation and foreign donors.
Eat this.

U.S.
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover
By WILSON ANDREWS APRIL 23, 2015

Uranium investors’ efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved with approving the Russian bid.

Uranium investors

September 2005

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

2006

Uranium One

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

FebRuary 2007

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

June 2008

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Rosatom

2008-2010

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.

June 2009

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.

2010-2011

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

June 2010

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29, 2010

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.

Rest of timeline at link


Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Wow.....whole lots of stuff- and with no substance.

There were donations to the Clinton Foundation- but Hillary Clinton had no authority to approve any deal.

The closest you get is that the State Department was one of 9 Departments that at one point approved gave approval on the deal.

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Homeland Security
4. Department of Commerce
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Energy
8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

So where are the donations to Treasury Secretary? To the Attorney General? To the Secretary of Defense?

Making donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to 'swing' this deal- when State is only one of 9 Departments that has to approve the deal- and it also has to be approved of by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Go ***** at the New York Times. Wait! You're not saying they're fake news are you?

Oops- did my pointing out the facts upset your narrative that Hillary Clinton sold American Uranium to Russia? "pay to play"? LOL

There were donations to the Clinton Foundation- but Hillary Clinton had no authority to approve any deal.

The closest you get is that the State Department was one of 9 Departments that at one point approved gave approval on the deal.

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Homeland Security
4. Department of Commerce
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Energy
8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

So where are the donations to Treasury Secretary? To the Attorney General? To the Secretary of Defense?

Making donations to the Clinton Foundation in order to 'swing' this deal- when State is only one of 9 Departments that has to approve the deal- and it also has to be approved of by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission


The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction

Unfortunately, secretary of state, is an extremely powerful position that had a gigantic say in this. And greasing Hillary's palms with millions of dollars is a pretty good incentive for Hillary to get things through.