Must be her Parkinsons. Better then dementia though.

10/17/2017 8:02:10 PM

^ 1600, where Hillary doesn’t live. lol.

10/17/2017 8:04:29 PM

^^^^ i'm very familiar with it just don't understand why it's in the news again

[Edited on October 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2017 7:35:16 AM

Because 'whataboutism' cannot function without her.

10/18/2017 9:21:35 AM

^^ again, because it's been revealed Obama administration should have known about it when they gave the Russians 20% of our uranium

10/18/2017 10:00:16 AM

that was "revealed" a long time ago, years ago

and "should" is a strong word here

though, to be fair, i wouldn't give any foreign nation a single inch of influence or control over nuclear materials, so quite frankly, i have very little trouble believing this happened because of bribe and kickbacks

they're all pieces of shit in the end, but that's because humans are pieces of shit in the end

[Edited on October 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM. Reason : a]

10/18/2017 11:09:50 AM

Also, a lot of conservatives did get one thing about Obama right. His naivety and being an idealist. He did want to trust and reset the Russia relationship. He failed spectacularly.

10/18/2017 11:17:06 AM

^yep, which is amazing considering he followed in the footsteps of Bush on that one

I seriously wonder what position of power we'd be in if we had never gone into Iraq

10/18/2017 11:19:20 AM

Quote :

"^^ again, because it's been revealed Obama administration should have known about it when they gave the Russians 20% of our uranium"

known about what, 1 company bribing another company?

10/18/2017 1:23:23 PM

Pro tip: if the President tweets about something and it's being propagated by a bunch of Russian twitter bots (and Fox News), it's probably bullshit!



https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/920840387543097347?s=09

10/19/2017 11:24:58 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-uranium-russia-hillary-clinton-tweet-a8008851.html

This pretty much sums it up well.

Quote :

"Some have claimed that the approval of the deal was a quid pro quo exchange for Moscow donations to the Clinton Foundation, the charity run by the Clinton family that included the international development arm known as the Clinton Global Initiative. However, then-Secretary of State Clinton did not have the power of veto or approval over the deal with the firm. She was one of nine cabinet members and department heads collectively charged with advising the president on potential national security issues with such transactions on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US. Several sources told The Hill newspaper "they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.""

Quote :

"The timings of the donations don't match either; of the alleged $145m reportedly contributed to the foundation by investors, most came from a single donor who sold his stake three years before the Russia deal."

Quote :

"In December 2015, Mr Mikerin was sentenced to 48 months in prison and ordered to forfeit more than $2m. However, the FBI is barely mentioned as a player in the court records and the newspaper said "the lack of fanfare" on the part of the FBI or DOJ touting their own accomplishment left many within the bureau and Congress "with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.""

[Edited on October 19, 2017 at 1:12 PM. Reason : a]

10/19/2017 1:12:14 PM

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22470/silenced-fbi-informant-called-testify-corrupt-ryan-saavedra

This could be interesting

10/20/2017 9:37:09 AM

The letter she links to is not on the site. Not saying there is no letter of course, probably is, but a suspect news site reporting on a years-old story and pretty much lifting the entirety of The Hill's report is a bit underwhelming.

Again, see my above post.

That being said, would not surprise me in the least if there was a lot of truth to all of this.

[Edited on October 20, 2017 at 10:19 AM. Reason : a]

10/20/2017 10:16:38 AM

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-seeks-information-fbi-informant-uranium-one-probe

Okay, at least confirmed the letters.

Quote :

"VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION The Honorable Jeff Sessions Attorney General United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20220 Dear Attorney General Sessions: On October 12, 2017, I wrote to several agencies, including the Department of Justice, regarding the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction that was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) during the Obama administration. In that letter, I noted that the Department had an ongoing criminal investigation into Rosatom officials during the CFIUS approval process and asked, among other things, whether CFIUS was informed of that criminal matter. On October 18, 2017, The Hill reported that “[a]n American businessman . . . worked for years undercover as an FBI confidential witness” to assist in the Department’s criminal investigation.[1] According to the reporting, the confidential witness “was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress.”[2] Further, the witness’ attorney said, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA.”[3] These restrictions appear to improperly prevent the individual from making critical, good faith disclosures to Congress of potential wrongdoing. They also purport to limit the Committee’s access to information it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of oversight. This Committee has oversight jurisdiction of the Justice Department, and if this NDA does in fact exist, it hinders the Committee’s ability to do its job. Accordingly, please provide a copy of the NDA by November 1, 2017. In addition, should the NDA exist, I request that you release him from it and pledge not to engage in any form of retaliation against him for good faith communications with Congress. Should you have further questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown or DeLisa Lay of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on the Judiciary October 18, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Ms. Victoria Toensing diGenova & Toensing, LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Dear Ms. Toensing: On October 12, 2017, I wrote to several agencies, including the Department of Justice, regarding the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction that was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) during the Obama administration. In that letter, I noted that the Department had an ongoing criminal investigation into Rosatom officials during the CFIUS approval process and asked, among other things, whether CFIUS was informed of that criminal matter. On October 18, 2017, The Hill reported that you represent a confidential informant used by the FBI during its criminal investigation into Rosatom employees connected to the CFIUS transaction.[4] Reporting indicates that “the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil” and that the scheme involved “bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, and extortion.”[5] Further, the reporting indicates that your client can testify that “FBI agents made comments to him suggesting political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe” and “that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal.”[6] It appears that your client possesses unique information about the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction and how the Justice Department handled the criminal investigation into the Russian criminal conspiracy. Such information is critical to the Committee’s oversight of the Justice Department and its ongoing inquiry into the manner in which CFIUS approved the transaction. Accordingly, the Committee requests to interview your client. Please contact Committee staff by October 25, 2017, to arrange the interview. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on the Judiciary"

[Edited on October 20, 2017 at 11:35 AM. Reason : a]

10/20/2017 11:35:07 AM

The reason for the illegal server was to hide goings on of the Clinton Foundation.

10/22/2017 8:19:12 PM

Quote :

"This could be interesting"

It's interesting telling that you find that interesting and not any of the wild shit that the Trump campaign/White House has pulled.

[Edited on October 22, 2017 at 10:37 PM. Reason : Outside of Trump's tweets, bc you obviously love those]

10/22/2017 10:36:36 PM

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/922844976094072832

Lol. They were lost witthhhouuutttt her.

10/24/2017 11:25:24 AM

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/922854468315680768

But wait, there’s more!

Lol, we are forevermore living in 2016.

10/24/2017 12:14:58 PM

holy shit, these people are terrified of the trump-russia investigation

10/24/2017 12:17:24 PM

The Clintons suck but this is honestly the best proof ever that they were right about that vast right wing conspiracy.

10/24/2017 12:19:23 PM

yeah the conspiracy is definitely the guys wanting to ask questions. i'm sure those russians gave the millions of dollars for good and just reasons, nothing to see there

10/24/2017 6:31:05 PM

^^ ooooh....a little too soon for that one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.d017d3824482

Washington Post Reporting that Clinton, DNC paid for the fake Trump Dossier.

So much for the Democratic Party, the DNC, and Clinton & Co.

Big Question: What did Obama know and when?

10/24/2017 7:40:54 PM

How is he not banned from posting?

10/24/2017 8:44:30 PM

He’s a circus animal who comes around only when Clinton (new or old) news comes along.

10/24/2017 8:51:05 PM

For real though, I don't get how people are still obsessed with hating her so much. She suffered a humiliating defeat, she's pretty boring and somewhat abrasive, and nobody will ever be able to pin her down for anything because she's too damn good at being elusive. What fun is derived in paying attention to her anymore?

[Edited on October 24, 2017 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2017 8:57:10 PM

So, somewhat related to the direct topic, I love the the derailment of logic:

Opposition research is purchased in every single campaign.

Opposition research was surely purchased in any of the previous campaigns in which Clinton ran.

Nothing was ever turned over to the FBI or brought to the attention of anyone as criminal or treasonous as a result of said research.

Opposition research is purchased on Trump by the GOP and subsequently extended by Dems.

Said research uncovers potential criminal and treasonous activity.

Part of that activity is the possibility of Trump willing to work with an adversary to get dirt on Clinton.

Trump says this is okay, opposition research is okay, but that there's nothing there.

Trump says that the fake news that came of the fake opposition research was paid for by the Democrats, the FBI and Russia and that's criminal.

The GOP starts going crazy looking to investigate Hillary for things that would have come up during opposition research years ago but didn't.

Washington Post confirms Dems and GOP individuals paid for opposition research on Trump.

It's somehow a big deal that Dems were 1/2 of the purchasing party and the whole investigation is a witch hunt.

10/24/2017 9:36:11 PM

Quote :

"nobody will ever be able to pin her down for anything because she's too damn good at being elusive"

truth...and too many people are embedded into the establishment to prevent any harm because they are all connected...

Still no report on MSNBC on this developing bombshell.
Small side-link on CNN
Nothing on ABC
Side link on CBS
And nothing trending on FB
Nothing on Buzzfeed (the "news" site that dropped the dossier even after saying they couldn't confirm anything in it)

10/24/2017 9:51:39 PM

Because it doesn't fucking matter?

10/25/2017 12:33:13 AM

Where is the Clinton hate going to go when they cease to be relevant in the political landscape?

10/25/2017 9:01:36 AM

Quote :

"https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.d017d3824482 Washington Post Reporting that Clinton, DNC paid for the fake Trump Dossier. So much for the Democratic Party, the DNC, and Clinton & Co."

when was this ever in question? it was widely known and reported that the dossier was started by republicans who abandoned it when trump became their candidate and it was then picked up by the DNC.

i can't see anything behind the paywall, but what exactly about this is new? what exactly is the "developing bombshell"?

[Edited on October 25, 2017 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2017 9:20:35 AM

That dude is totally obsessed with Hillary. I'm really not sure why at this point. He's a bit unhinged.

EDIT: Wow, I just saw kdogg-charater just came out of nowhere and bumped a dozen+ random threads with random comments. This Breaking News Bombshell apparently really energized him.

[Edited on October 25, 2017 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ]

10/25/2017 9:27:04 AM

So, if this thread was locked would he just...go away? Is this is a thing that can be looked into?

10/25/2017 9:29:16 AM

^^

10/25/2017 10:40:06 AM

Quote :

"Nothing was ever turned over to the FBI or brought to the attention of anyone as criminal or treasonous as a result of said research. "

you sure about that?

10/25/2017 10:49:20 AM

As a result of opposition research, yes I am sure.

Obviously the FBI had its investigation ongoing at some point but that was not a result of the opposition research that was certainly collected during her campaigns.

What I was getting at is that opposition research is not wrong or improper at all. But, the fact that as a result of the opposition research paid for by both political parties, information was obtained that was so concerning they turned it over to our FBI and CIA. And THAT is what the real story is as it relates to opposition research from last year - potential criminal and treasonous activity.

^^that donkey picture is fucking hilarious

[Edited on October 25, 2017 at 11:19 AM. Reason : a]

10/25/2017 11:19:12 AM

Donkey Animal Style?

Donkey In N Out?

Plaz 2 explain

10/25/2017 11:44:07 AM

On a scale of Lincoln to Trump, how honest do you think these stories about Hillary shielding an accused sexual harasser on her 2008 campaign team?

1/26/2018 5:08:19 PM

I’m sure it’s true. She did take action but not enough for someone who claims to be a feminist defending women’s rights.

1/26/2018 6:46:06 PM

Where were the whistleblowers and leakers? More evidence true democrats care about winning power not about the issues they play up in speeches. I don't know how many ways you have to see this come to fruition.

1/26/2018 7:49:59 PM

Quote :

"On a scale of Lincoln to Trump, how honest do you think these stories about Hillary shielding an accused sexual harasser on her 2008 campaign team? "

shielding? everyone knows Bill is a sex predator

lincoln wasnt that great

Quote :

" Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?) Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North. "

[Edited on January 27, 2018 at 6:25 AM. Reason : g]

1/27/2018 6:22:45 AM

#hottake

1/27/2018 11:33:21 AM

The initial 2008 response doesn't really bother me too much, but allowing the guy to hang around and be involved in 2016 does. Though he actually worked for a super PAC in 2016, so I'm not sure what Hillary's involvement was then.

Mostly it's yet another reason for me to loathe be skeptical of those who tout their religiosity.

1/27/2018 5:01:15 PM

those burgers look good

1/27/2018 5:35:13 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5369935/FBI-informant-Russia-paid-influence-Clinton-uranium.html

Did she at least give the $500k cash in her bank account back yet?


[Edited on February 9, 2018 at 8:02 AM. Reason : G]

2/9/2018 8:00:45 AM

holy hell that is a lot of factual errors in that, OEP

2/9/2018 8:48:36 AM

Never stopped him before!

2/9/2018 9:18:43 AM

It’d be a pretty big scandal to have a sitting president profit directly from the presidency I bet. Dodged a bullet..

2/9/2018 9:28:06 AM

and Clinton was just a former president, can you imagine the outrage if he was making money while he was president?

2/9/2018 9:52:13 AM

I really wish they would go away. The more visible they are, the more helpful they are for the GOP

https://www.wral.com/apnewsbreak-hillary-bill-clinton-to-go-on-tour-this-year/17900893/

10/8/2018 12:24:05 PM

another racist joke

https://youtu.be/br84Cpee8Nc?t=14

[Edited on October 30, 2018 at 7:25 PM. Reason : s]

10/30/2018 7:21:57 PM