Washington Post: Clinton Campaign paid for research that led to Trump-Russia dossier

[jc456]

cause the evidence tells us that. read up, it's all out on the internet right now. every news outlet is discussing it now. wow.

You seem confused. Perhaps a nap will help.
You just said there was no evidence that the donation was made.

I mean, I have to take some information at face value:

Fact check: No, the Clintons were not paid millions by Russia

"The main question is: At the time of the deal’s consummation, did the Clinton Foundation and the former president himself, receive money from the Russians to grease the wheels for the deal?

Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013.

All told, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from those linked to Uranium One and UrAsia, but it went to the charity organization and not the Clinton family. Furthermore, most of those donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, according to The Post."

So what's your point? The article shows clearly that it was not a bribe. Are you changing your position?

well you asked if it was paid. I believe I satisfied that. now what happened to the money? well interesting enough, since it s a public charity, they don't have to show where it goes. How fking convenient. Easy65 posted:

"Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Well, I'm not a fking genius per sey, but, why is it only the Clinton Foundation had a win and not the US that put this supposedly together.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why? Too funny, you know what tool, you believe what the fk you want and I will believe what I want. I'd say right now, the advantage is mine.

Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why?

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

 

[BlindBoo]

Reading back through the posts from snowflakes, they post seemingly as if believing the title of this thread is even in dispute.

Evidence presented now shows Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid a foreign agent through a Russia-linked firm (that just took the 5th under oath before Congress) $9 MILLION for a fake report filled with Russia-generated propaganda, which they illegally ... ILLEGALLY ... used against a candidate in a US election.

Once again, had Donald Trump been under multiple FBI investigations - for crimes that included Espionage, Influence Peddling / Treason - Democrats and their surrogate propaganda-pushing media would have forced him out of the race.
- Instead, the Obama administration, their media, and snowflakes defended her.

Had Donald Trump paid $9 MILLION to a company linked to the Russians for a report containing information / propaganda the Russians wrote for him to use against Hillary he would be Impeached at the very least right now, if not under arrest.
- Seditious / Stupid snowflakes are instead defending Hillary.

Not only did Hillary, Comey, Obama, and the DNC fund / pay for this information, they illegally used it in a US election - THEY COMMITTED CRIMES .. and leftist extremists / snowflakes continue to drone on about false allegations they have been unable to substantiate after 1 year of multiple investigations to include a stacked Counsel headed by the man who hid Russian crimes back in 2009.

Holy $hit, you can't get any more partisan, any more ignorant, any more f*ed up than that.

God help this country....

Partisan lying campaign by design?

 

[BlindBoo]

Officials familiar with the process say even if the application to monitor Page included information from the dossier, it would only be after the FBI had corroborated the information through its own investigation. The officials would not say what or how much was corroborated.

FBI used dossier allegations to bolster Trump-Russia investigation - CNNPolitics

So the real question is what was corroborated?

I love it, what is your investment in defending this? the facts are out. you are on the wrong side right now. the evidence is out. tough to argue what is already exposed. you're late. the game is over.

Why didn't Clinton use the information in the Dossier against Trump in the election? If she had it she certainly would have don't you think? Is the Dossier the reason they had a tap on the Russians too?

It's way premature to claim victory or even do your little touchdown dance.............

If she did, she would be breaking the law, as we find she did, just year later.

Second, they always use someone else to do their dirty work for them. If there is any danger for them, they throw them under bus. If stop being loyal, they got thrown under the bus.

They were tapping Trump before the dossier, illegally. They tried to get FISA two times and failed. Dossier was just a way to get the FISA warrant and make it "legal".

Sounds like your mind is already made up on the whole tapping Trump thing.

Actually, they did wiretap Manaforte.

Based on the dossier or his conversations with the Russians?

 

[bendog]

I love it, what is your investment in defending this? the facts are out. you are on the wrong side right now. the evidence is out. tough to argue what is already exposed. you're late. the game is over.

Why didn't Clinton use the information in the Dossier against Trump in the election? If she had it she certainly would have don't you think? Is the Dossier the reason they had a tap on the Russians too?

It's way premature to claim victory or even do your little touchdown dance.............

If she did, she would be breaking the law, as we find she did, just year later.

Second, they always use someone else to do their dirty work for them. If there is any danger for them, they throw them under bus. If stop being loyal, they got thrown under the bus.

They were tapping Trump before the dossier, illegally. They tried to get FISA two times and failed. Dossier was just a way to get the FISA warrant and make it "legal".

Sounds like your mind is already made up on the whole tapping Trump thing.

Actually, they did wiretap Manaforte.

Based on the dossier or his conversations with the Russians?

I think the tap was based on his failure to comply with laws requiring him to disclose working for foreign govts, including Russia and it's former territories.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You seem confused. Perhaps a nap will help.
You just said there was no evidence that the donation was made.

I mean, I have to take some information at face value:

Fact check: No, the Clintons were not paid millions by Russia

"The main question is: At the time of the deal’s consummation, did the Clinton Foundation and the former president himself, receive money from the Russians to grease the wheels for the deal?

Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013.

All told, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from those linked to Uranium One and UrAsia, but it went to the charity organization and not the Clinton family. Furthermore, most of those donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, according to The Post."

So what's your point? The article shows clearly that it was not a bribe. Are you changing your position?

well you asked if it was paid. I believe I satisfied that. now what happened to the money? well interesting enough, since it s a public charity, they don't have to show where it goes. How fking convenient. Easy65 posted:

"Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Well, I'm not a fking genius per sey, but, why is it only the Clinton Foundation had a win and not the US that put this supposedly together.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why? Too funny, you know what tool, you believe what the fk you want and I will believe what I want. I'd say right now, the advantage is mine.

Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why?

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

 

[bendog]

I mean, I have to take some information at face value:

Fact check: No, the Clintons were not paid millions by Russia

"The main question is: At the time of the deal’s consummation, did the Clinton Foundation and the former president himself, receive money from the Russians to grease the wheels for the deal?

Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013.

All told, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from those linked to Uranium One and UrAsia, but it went to the charity organization and not the Clinton family. Furthermore, most of those donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign, according to The Post."

So what's your point? The article shows clearly that it was not a bribe. Are you changing your position?

well you asked if it was paid. I believe I satisfied that. now what happened to the money? well interesting enough, since it s a public charity, they don't have to show where it goes. How fking convenient. Easy65 posted:

"Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Well, I'm not a fking genius per sey, but, why is it only the Clinton Foundation had a win and not the US that put this supposedly together.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why? Too funny, you know what tool, you believe what the fk you want and I will believe what I want. I'd say right now, the advantage is mine.

Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why?

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So what's your point? The article shows clearly that it was not a bribe. Are you changing your position?

well you asked if it was paid. I believe I satisfied that. now what happened to the money? well interesting enough, since it s a public charity, they don't have to show where it goes. How fking convenient. Easy65 posted:

"Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Well, I'm not a fking genius per sey, but, why is it only the Clinton Foundation had a win and not the US that put this supposedly together.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why? Too funny, you know what tool, you believe what the fk you want and I will believe what I want. I'd say right now, the advantage is mine.

Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why?

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

 

[jc456]

well you asked if it was paid. I believe I satisfied that. now what happened to the money? well interesting enough, since it s a public charity, they don't have to show where it goes. How fking convenient. Easy65 posted:

"Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Well, I'm not a fking genius per sey, but, why is it only the Clinton Foundation had a win and not the US that put this supposedly together.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why? Too funny, you know what tool, you believe what the fk you want and I will believe what I want. I'd say right now, the advantage is mine.

Financial disclosures show 90% of Clinton Foundation cash goes to 'administrative' costs for Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea."

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

And again, what was the advantage of the US doing this deal? What is the fking win for the US? again, per the libturd manipulator you are, you fail to comment. why?

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Bullshit.
Post it up, dope.

Again, I answered this, dope. Go back and look.



You just posted an article that showed quite clearly that the $145 m was received during her 08 campaign. Well before she was in a position to do anything. You're right. You can believe what you want. I can also mock you relentlessly for it.

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

 

[Ame®icano]

Sounds like your mind is already made up on the whole tapping Trump thing.

His campaign certainly was.

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman

By the way, what were two failed FISA warrant requests for?

What was third FISA warrant based on, on dossier paid by Clinton campaign and DNC?

So, how your mind is set up, deny everything?

 

[koshergrl]

This is going to be fun watching D's turn into pretzels over this one. NOW getting dirt on an opponent isn't ******* collusion.

What I find amazing is their collective memory loss. We've been saying since the stupid Russian thing got started that Trump was going to use this investigation to uncover the criminal connections between the Russians and the last admin, and the FBI.

Trump is brilliant. But leftists never learn. He can play the same trick over and over, and they will always fail to see it coming. He exposed the press, now he's exposing the last admin and the FBI.

 

[jc456]

so? when you order on line do you buy it first and then get the merchandise later?

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Use your logic before your words.
She lost that campaign. No one knew she would later become the SoS.

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

 

[jc456]

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

not sure why that's such a big deal and why you felt the need to insult me. I merely asked how. Thanks for posting it. Still doesn't rule out quid pro quo though. just doesn't. a fee for a favor. that favor can be at anytime in life.

 

[Ame®icano]

Imo neither Bill nor Hill were ethical, and certainly not to the standards I'd want in a potus ... but there just wasn't anything illegal.

Which is why the RW "Mueller hysteria" is pathetically twisted to reach an outcome not factually there, but one they desperately want to see.

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

Did he get the permission?

From your link: "The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

not sure why that's such a big deal and why you felt the need to insult me. I merely asked how. Thanks for posting it. Still doesn't rule out quid pro quo though. just doesn't. a fee for a favor. that favor can be at anytime in life.

I insult you because you speed post dumb shit without any thought.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As far as the foundation donations, I agree.
That is a lot of money coming in from some questionable sources. Although it is a charity, they should have curbed their activity while serving in an official capacity. If nothing else it creates unnecessary shitstorms like this one. I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though.

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

Did he get the permission?

From your link: "The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision."

Another dummy.

What did I just post that YOU responded to?
That was from my link as well.
My god, I gave you the link and your poor reading skills has you asking me questions.

That request was for meetings that never happened as State said it wasn't a good idea.

 

[imawhosure]

The progressive retards’ spin on this is just priceless.

I did not read the entire thread. Have any journalists asked how Senator McINSANE got the fake ass dossier Crooked Hillary paid for?

Only a few have ever reported on it.

Let me explain to you two, from a reasonably, reliable source, which all leftists on here will tell me to prove it. You two have read my posts, and know I am reasonably accurate.

1. The Democrats released the information on who financed the dossier. Why? Because they knew Nunez wad going to get his hands on it through the bank records, so wanted the release so THEY could control the narrative, which is failing miserably.

2. The Republicans already HAD the proof, but where holding onto it, along with much, much, MUCH more. They wanted to release it right after Christmas, with other MASSIVE revelations coming through the winter months, when people were in their homes, watching tv. This has moved the timeline a little, but trust me when I say this is the BEST week the left is going to have for quite awhile, and this week is none........to.......good.

3. Do you want to know why the left suddenly has turned, and distanced themselves from Hillary while wanting her to shut up? Now you know why! They were aware that the jig was up, and some believe (believe it or not) that they are going to try and make her the fall person for this fiasco. Shultz will also be pointed at since they changed DNC chairs.

4. What the Democrats do NOT know, is how much information the Republicans really have. They are frozen in time and must send out underlings (paid posters) in case those on high have their cuckaraches in a vice, and come January or February are exposed, thus negating everything they said.

5. People on here THINK this is all about the Trump dossier, and Uranium one. Well, that is only partially true. What you are about to witness over the next 4 or 5 months, is the collapse of the leftists everywhere, but the darkest of blue states. Any Democratic incumbent, will be painted as a COLLUDER, or INCOMPETENT once the full force of this is put out.

6. And finally, Mantefort is in deep trouble from what I hear; but then in deeper doo is the Podesta group, Comey, Holder, and possibly Muehller. They had the goods on the people trying to purchase our uranium; they were in government when they had it, and unless they have PROOF they informed congress, their careers are over!

And so, will they get Hillary?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I doubt it, because to do so is not politically wise. But the rest of them, and while doing so, unmask the corruption that is going on in the DNC, and what actually happened under Obama?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! As Obama liked to say, "oh yes we can-)"

Your pretty much right on the mark. Insider sources are telling me that this is going to be a blood bath as people roll over and place blame on anyone but themselves.. They will eat their young! Make no mistake, its already happening... MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and Rachel Madcow are beside themselves because they no longer control the narrative and it's exploding in their faces..

NO matter how they now lie now they cant defend their positions.

The progressive retards’ spin on this is just priceless.

I did not read the entire thread. Have any journalists asked how Senator McINSANE got the fake ass dossier Crooked Hillary paid for?

Only a few have ever reported on it.

Let me explain to you two, from a reasonably, reliable source, which all leftists on here will tell me to prove it. You two have read my posts, and know I am reasonably accurate.

1. The Democrats released the information on who financed the dossier. Why? Because they knew Nunez wad going to get his hands on it through the bank records, so wanted the release so THEY could control the narrative, which is failing miserably.

2. The Republicans already HAD the proof, but where holding onto it, along with much, much, MUCH more. They wanted to release it right after Christmas, with other MASSIVE revelations coming through the winter months, when people were in their homes, watching tv. This has moved the timeline a little, but trust me when I say this is the BEST week the left is going to have for quite awhile, and this week is none........to.......good.

3. Do you want to know why the left suddenly has turned, and distanced themselves from Hillary while wanting her to shut up? Now you know why! They were aware that the jig was up, and some believe (believe it or not) that they are going to try and make her the fall person for this fiasco. Shultz will also be pointed at since they changed DNC chairs.

4. What the Democrats do NOT know, is how much information the Republicans really have. They are frozen in time and must send out underlings (paid posters) in case those on high have their cuckaraches in a vice, and come January or February are exposed, thus negating everything they said.

5. People on here THINK this is all about the Trump dossier, and Uranium one. Well, that is only partially true. What you are about to witness over the next 4 or 5 months, is the collapse of the leftists everywhere, but the darkest of blue states. Any Democratic incumbent, will be painted as a COLLUDER, or INCOMPETENT once the full force of this is put out.

6. And finally, Mantefort is in deep trouble from what I hear; but then in deeper doo is the Podesta group, Comey, Holder, and possibly Muehller. They had the goods on the people trying to purchase our uranium; they were in government when they had it, and unless they have PROOF they informed congress, their careers are over!

And so, will they get Hillary?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I doubt it, because to do so is not politically wise. But the rest of them, and while doing so, unmask the corruption that is going on in the DNC, and what actually happened under Obama?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! As Obama liked to say, "oh yes we can-)"

Your pretty much right on the mark. Insider sources are telling me that this is going to be a blood bath as people roll over and place blame on anyone but themselves.. They will eat their young! Make no mistake, its already happening... MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and Rachel Madcow are beside themselves because they no longer control the narrative and it's exploding in their faces..

NO matter how they now lie now they cant defend their positions.

Oh yes Billy Bob, but I got a question for ya! Should we tell the leftists what the next 2 legs of the 3 legged stool are to drop over the winter months? No, maybe not.

Oh hell, as Obamaites used to say, "yes we can-)" Lets just ask two questions, and let them go from there, shall we.

QUESTION------>

1. Who REALLY hacked the DNC I wonder?

2. Computers, computers, what was up with all those computers and smashed hard drives, and why did they flee to Pakistan?

That about sums it up, along with how once the threads are pulled from all THREE of these questions if you include Uranium one, I doubt that Democrat will claim to be Democrats anymore-)

 

[MarkDuffy]

CNN: Podesta, Wasserman Schultz Said They Didn’t Know Who Funded Dossier

Former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta recently told Senate investigators that they did not know who funded research that led to the so-called Trump dossier, CNN reported on Thursday.

CNN reported, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the matter, that Podesta and Wasserman Schultz made their denials before the Washington Post reported on Tuesday that Clinton’s campaign and the DNC partly paid for research firm Fusion GPS’ work that ended up in the dossier.

According to one source CNN cited, Podesta in September told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he was not aware of a contractual relationship between Clinton’s campaign and Fusion GPS.

Wasserman Schultz told CNN that she “didn’t have any awareness of the arrangement at all” and said she was “certainly” not going to confirm the subject of any discussion. According to CNN, Senate investigators interviewed Wasserman Schultz earlier in October.

According to the Washington Post’s report, Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie retained Fusion GPS in April 2016. One source told the Washington Post that Perkins Coie did not inform Clinton’s campaign or the DNC of Fusion GPS’ role in conducting research into Donald Trump.

CNN reported, citing multiple unnamed sources, that Elias sat next to Podesta during his Senate interview, but was present as Podesta’s lawyer rather than as an additional witness.

Perkins Coie authorized Fusion GPS to disclose its role in partly funding that research in a letter CNN obtained dated Tuesday.

CNN: Podesta, Wasserman Schultz Said They Didn't Know Who Funded Dossier

 

[bripat9643]

How do you know?

Know what?

" I do know that Bill did seek ethics clearance from State on the speech though." how do you know?

I read news. Why don't you?

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

"The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president's speaker's bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.

Documents show Bill Clinton's personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later."

not sure why that's such a big deal and why you felt the need to insult me. I merely asked how. Thanks for posting it. Still doesn't rule out quid pro quo though. just doesn't. a fee for a favor. that favor can be at anytime in life.

I insult you because you speed post dumb shit without any thought.