IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,823
- 33,848
- 136
brandonbull
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2005
- 6,365
- 1,223
- 126
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/277
Interesting take from one of the Podesta emails, they were polling for Clinton’s vulnerabilities during the campaign and there was this:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
Interesting take from one of the Podesta emails, they were polling for Clinton’s vulnerabilities during the campaign and there was this:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,076
- 9,554
- 146
Well yeah but those people would not be made aware of the fact that the bulk of those donations were from the founder who sold his stake 3 years before and donated before Clinton was SOS. That and 8 other agencies had to approve the deal so it would be stupid to put that much to one person.https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/277
Interesting take from one of the Podesta emails, they were polling for Clinton’s vulnerabilities during the campaign and there was this:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
But you're right. Voters are ignorant of facts.
So the story is that the Russians bribed ONE person of the NINE members of the CFIUS whose only role in the matter was an advisory one, as in, Obama was the only person who had the power of yay or nay on the sale. Damn those Russkies are a clever bunch.
MomentsofSanity
Lifer
- Jan 25, 2011
- 17,076
- 9,554
- 146
Not only that. They knew to do it BEFORE she became SOS. Like $130+ million of it.
freaking geniuses.
It's based on false premises & innuendo. Where are these super sekrit documents that supposedly document the intent & chain of payments from the Russians to the CF? Some author claims he's seen them & that's more than good enough for UC. It's what he wants to believe, so he does, and he thinks it's because of... reasons, somehow.
The reason he raised the topic of Mikeren's criminality was simply to segue into to usual scurrilous accusations, the same unfounded accusations that we've endured for over a year. He has derailed his own thread at this point, quite intentionally, because the lack of any connection between Mikeren & the Clintons is entirely obvious.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/277
Interesting take from one of the Podesta emails, they were polling for Clinton’s vulnerabilities during the campaign and there was this:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
Yes, they know that scurrilous innuendo can be effective. That's all that's ever been offered.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,796
- 572
- 126
Trump was a republican nominee just like McCain. The fact that the republicans spent years on a quixotic quest to reverse the ACA while President Obama was in office shows that 2016 wasn't that much out of the norm for today's republicans
Thus, saying that you don't care about Hillary's crossover voters (while also failing to address the former President Obama voters who turned to Trump in 2016 even with the evidence presented) while you care about Bernie's shows an imo a particular bias.
Seeing that bias indicates to me that 2020 is not in the bag yet until Trump goes even further in damaging the country so much so that he loses even his hardcore base...only that might inflict irreparable harm upon the U.S. reputation with other countries
Too bad most pundits couldn't see that Trump had a decent chance of winning earlier on and the DNC blithely acted like 2016 was similar to other elections
___________
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,796
- 572
- 126
The Hill is an established news outlet from what I've read.
It's interesting that The Hill's reporting on the issue is wholesale ignored, even though setting aside any Clinton aspects the fact of Russia trying to influence anything concerning fissionable material is concerning no matter who is involved.
If Trump was linked to it this however thinly it would be being reported by CNN, MSNBC and other outlets and rightly so.
_______________
It's interesting that The Hill's reporting on the issue is wholesale ignored, even though setting aside any Clinton aspects the fact of Russia trying to influence anything concerning fissionable material is concerning no matter who is involved.
If Trump was linked to it this however thinly it would be being reported by CNN, MSNBC and other outlets and rightly so.
_______________
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Russian uranium scheme gets scant media attention
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...ian-uranium-scheme-gets-scant-media-attention
Since The Hill story broke on Tuesday morning (through the Thursday morning shows), the broadcast networks haven't said a word about this matter, despite its coming up at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (which was covered live on CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox News Channel)," MRC research director Rich Noyes told me. "Since Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash first revealed this scandal in early 2015, the broadcast networks have spent only 3 minutes, 1 second on the uranium story."
Bribes, kickbacks, gag orders, blackmail, Russians, uranium. What more do the broadcast networks need before they find this mushrooming story worth some airtime?
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...ian-uranium-scheme-gets-scant-media-attention
Since The Hill story broke on Tuesday morning (through the Thursday morning shows), the broadcast networks haven't said a word about this matter, despite its coming up at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (which was covered live on CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox News Channel)," MRC research director Rich Noyes told me. "Since Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash first revealed this scandal in early 2015, the broadcast networks have spent only 3 minutes, 1 second on the uranium story."
Bribes, kickbacks, gag orders, blackmail, Russians, uranium. What more do the broadcast networks need before they find this mushrooming story worth some airtime?
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,160
- 15,581
- 136
I wonder what those number would be for Trumps tax returns. It is a shame wikileaks dont have those.... wink winkhttps://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/277
Interesting take from one of the Podesta emails, they were polling for Clinton’s vulnerabilities during the campaign and there was this:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,796
- 572
- 126
So you have doubts that in an alternate universe where Trump's name is the place of Clinton's in The Hill article and Trump's wife had received a large single day speaking fee from a source related to a Russian nuclear company any major establishment news sources would be covering it?
Anything like this linked to Trump would be covered, and rightly so.
Just because Trump is corrupt with Russia doesn't mean other's can't be. Russia would probably approach anyone with power in U.S. politics.
_____________
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,508
- 17,002
- 136
Yes and some of those people didn't give Putin what he wanted so what's the story? Continued Russian meddling? Yeah, goes who's trying to sweep that under the rug?
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,854
- 31,344
- 146
wait, based on what you are responding to here, are you suggesting that it was actually Hillary meeting with the Russians in Trump tower, and not Don Jr?
wtf man--who's the carnival barker that fed you this bit of tripe?
Another Clinton hater pipes up... Just because you can connect dots in your head doesn't mean there's any connection in reality.
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,796
- 572
- 126
If The Hill was some 3rd rank site with no history then yeah you'd have a point; however, it actually has a history of credible reporting... perhaps they misfired on this one.
Hillary may not be directly linked to this but Bill Clinton apparently did get a sizable speaking fee from a bank that had ties to the Kremlin.
I don't hate either Clinton; I'd rather that Trump not be President.
However, that doesn't mean that anyone is above criticism. If you have a person in politics who's a sacred cow then you're part of the problem.
___________
Last edited:
Is there a reason why you keep linking right wing editorial pieces as if they are relevant information? This is pretty strange.
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
Is there a reason you can’t answer the simple question on why the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions from Russian nuclear officials prior to the Uranium One deal? That’s pretty strange...
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
Charities are generally in the habit of taking donations.
You're the one that needs to prove it was anything nefarious.
You were raving about the Evil Hillary cheater when there was still a chance to prevent Trump from becoming President.
No evidence has been presented that Mikeren acted with the knowledge of higher ups in Rosatom, merely accusation & innuendo.
It's the same wrt the alleged millions routed from Russia to support the Clinton campaign. Zero evidence.
Document that such donations occurred. I don't believe you can. It's the "Why did you quit beating your wife?" question.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter