Why Would Russia Contrtibute $$$ to Clinton Foundation?

[Political Junky]

The Clinton campaign and the DNC claimed they have NOTHING to do with the Trump dossier. Yet, we now know they both LIED...as they often do, without consequence...and D voters are unaware.

Even the hard left Washington Post reports it...
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The post also said that several claims in the dossier have been proven true. So who paid for it doesn't matter. Truth or fiction matters

Here is a good article for you to read. Now...just accept it. I voted for a blowhard, but you voted for a CRIMINAL!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/
Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t just pay for the Kremlin-aided smear job on Donald Trump before the election; she continued to use the dirt after the election to frame her humiliating loss as a Russian conspiracy to steal the election.

Bitter to the core, she and her campaign aides hatched a scheme, just 24 hours after conceding the race, to spoon-feed the dirty rumors to an eager liberal media and manufacture the narrative Russia secretly colluded with her neophyte foe to sabotage her coronation.

But it was Hillary who was trying to kneecap Trump, even after he licked her, fair and square, in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other blue states.

But here's the part you ignored. The stuff in the dossier is real. Since it's real it shows he colluded with Russia and they even admitted it on released emails.

So, while your story telling is grade a level..it has nothing to do with the dossier and it's authenticity.

Which has nothing to do with the OP.

Why would Russia contribute $$$ to the Clinton Foundation, and why would they pay Bill Clinton nearly 4-times his normal fee for speaking events?

-Geaux

Certainly no one will pay that to hear Trump speak.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Clinton campaign and the DNC claimed they have NOTHING to do with the Trump dossier. Yet, we now know they both LIED...as they often do, without consequence...and D voters are unaware.

Even the hard left Washington Post reports it...
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The post also said that several claims in the dossier have been proven true. So who paid for it doesn't matter. Truth or fiction matters

Here is a good article for you to read. Now...just accept it. I voted for a blowhard, but you voted for a CRIMINAL!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/
Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t just pay for the Kremlin-aided smear job on Donald Trump before the election; she continued to use the dirt after the election to frame her humiliating loss as a Russian conspiracy to steal the election.

Bitter to the core, she and her campaign aides hatched a scheme, just 24 hours after conceding the race, to spoon-feed the dirty rumors to an eager liberal media and manufacture the narrative Russia secretly colluded with her neophyte foe to sabotage her coronation.

But it was Hillary who was trying to kneecap Trump, even after he licked her, fair and square, in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other blue states.

But here's the part you ignored. The stuff in the dossier is real. Since it's real it shows he colluded with Russia and they even admitted it on released emails.

So, while your story telling is grade a level..it has nothing to do with the dossier and it's authenticity.

View attachment 156801
So that's why this is happening? No, the Russian collusion is a Democrat thing, not Trumps.

That's why what's happening? You just posted a funny but phoney cartoon. Is that all you have to show that the dossier is fake?
Because, uh...

 

[jknowgood]

The Clinton campaign and the DNC claimed they have NOTHING to do with the Trump dossier. Yet, we now know they both LIED...as they often do, without consequence...and D voters are unaware.

Even the hard left Washington Post reports it...
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

The post also said that several claims in the dossier have been proven true. So who paid for it doesn't matter. Truth or fiction matters

Here is a good article for you to read. Now...just accept it. I voted for a blowhard, but you voted for a CRIMINAL!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/
Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t just pay for the Kremlin-aided smear job on Donald Trump before the election; she continued to use the dirt after the election to frame her humiliating loss as a Russian conspiracy to steal the election.

Bitter to the core, she and her campaign aides hatched a scheme, just 24 hours after conceding the race, to spoon-feed the dirty rumors to an eager liberal media and manufacture the narrative Russia secretly colluded with her neophyte foe to sabotage her coronation.

But it was Hillary who was trying to kneecap Trump, even after he licked her, fair and square, in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other blue states.

But here's the part you ignored. The stuff in the dossier is real. Since it's real it shows he colluded with Russia and they even admitted it on released emails.

So, while your story telling is grade a level..it has nothing to do with the dossier and it's authenticity.

View attachment 156801
So that's why this is happening? No, the Russian collusion is a Democrat thing, not Trumps.

That's why what's happening? You just posted a funny but phoney cartoon. Is that all you have to show that the dossier is fake?
Because, uh...

No, that the supposedly Trump collusion turned out to be Hillary's Russian collusion.

 

[2aguy]

Just curious as to why?

-Geaux

One...she was for sale...and two, they believed she would be the next President. Remember, no one believed Trump was going to win...

 

[ClosedCaption]

The post also said that several claims in the dossier have been proven true. So who paid for it doesn't matter. Truth or fiction matters

Here is a good article for you to read. Now...just accept it. I voted for a blowhard, but you voted for a CRIMINAL!

http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/how-team-hillary-played-the-press-for-fools-on-russia/
Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t just pay for the Kremlin-aided smear job on Donald Trump before the election; she continued to use the dirt after the election to frame her humiliating loss as a Russian conspiracy to steal the election.

Bitter to the core, she and her campaign aides hatched a scheme, just 24 hours after conceding the race, to spoon-feed the dirty rumors to an eager liberal media and manufacture the narrative Russia secretly colluded with her neophyte foe to sabotage her coronation.

But it was Hillary who was trying to kneecap Trump, even after he licked her, fair and square, in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other blue states.

But here's the part you ignored. The stuff in the dossier is real. Since it's real it shows he colluded with Russia and they even admitted it on released emails.

So, while your story telling is grade a level..it has nothing to do with the dossier and it's authenticity.

View attachment 156801
So that's why this is happening? No, the Russian collusion is a Democrat thing, not Trumps.

That's why what's happening? You just posted a funny but phoney cartoon. Is that all you have to show that the dossier is fake?
Because, uh...

No, that the supposedly Trump collusion turned out to be Hillary's Russian collusion.

Oh so, if Hilary colluded that means Trump could've? How does this new Trump defense work? 2 collusion can't exist in the world?

 

[Geaux4it]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Going to be a fun week

Lock her up

#MAGA

-Geaux

 

[frigidweirdo]

Just curious as to why?

-Geaux

Sort of like asking why you would lick Putin's balls.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

 

[Geaux4it]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

 

[frigidweirdo]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

 

[Geaux4it]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

 

[frigidweirdo]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

 

[Geaux4it]

Still no logical answers from the left

-Geaux

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

Its not my case. The case has already been made and I'm sure you've seen it but just don't want to believe it

-Geaux

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ask a silly question and demand a logical answer.... then when you don't get one claim that it's because the left don't have any answers to anything. Well, no, they don't have answers to your made up questions.

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

Its not my case. The case has already been made and I'm sure you've seen it but just don't want to believe it

-Geaux

In other words you don't have anything.

So why did you start a thread about it then?

Waste of ******* time, this thread should be closed for bullshit. I'm going to report it.

 

[Geaux4it]

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

Its not my case. The case has already been made and I'm sure you've seen it but just don't want to believe it

-Geaux

In other words you don't have anything.

So why did you start a thread about it then?

Waste of ******* time, this thread should be closed for bullshit. I'm going to report it.

Report away--Try not being so lazy.

-Geaux

linton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

 

[Geaux4it]

So you deny the russians gavve over 100 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Is that right?

-Geaux

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

Its not my case. The case has already been made and I'm sure you've seen it but just don't want to believe it

-Geaux

In other words you don't have anything.

So why did you start a thread about it then?

Waste of ******* time, this thread should be closed for bullshit. I'm going to report it.

^^^^^ Triggered ^^^^^

 

[Geaux4it]

Anything else I can help you with

frigidweirdo

-Geaux

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.

Assessment: Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.

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

 

[JoeMoma]

Just curious as to why?

-Geaux

Obviously because of the benevolent nature of the Russians, they simply wanted to contribute to a charity that does good things all around the world.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm denying that you've offered proof for this on this thread.

So you are not denying it didn't happen, but want proof. What would constitute proof for you? Do we need a special investigator?

-Geaux

This is your thread. I would expect YOU to make YOUR case. You don't seem willing to do so.

Just make your case. What do you have?

Its not my case. The case has already been made and I'm sure you've seen it but just don't want to believe it

-Geaux

In other words you don't have anything.

So why did you start a thread about it then?

Waste of ******* time, this thread should be closed for bullshit. I'm going to report it.

Report away--Try not being so lazy.

-Geaux

linton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

It's not me that's being lazy, it's YOUR ******* ARGUMENT, don't you get it?