You mean like when Hillary sold our uranium to the Russians for payments to her criminal charity? If thats the standard, you are one confused little man.
Russian troll.You mean like when Hillary sold our uranium to the Russians for payments to her criminal charity? If thats the standard, you are one confused little man.
Russian troll.
You know your only reason to post in here is to troll.
View attachment 4718
Free vodka tonight?
Repeating the same repub tropes, over and over.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Don't hold your breath.Fox News’ Napolitano drops bomb on viewers: ‘Schiff is correct’ on evidence of Trump conspiracy and obstruction
I guess the OP can apologize now. lol.
Snopes is a liberal conspiracy to make conservatives look bad by presenting facts.
Foundation Admits to Disclosure Mistakes
One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:
Snopes is liberal Democratic leaning and anything presented there must be taken with a gain of salt.
If you read the Snopes link presented above you will see things like:
The Clintons know who their "friends" are, especially ones that give large sums of money (the quid) to Hillary (the pro) and can influence the other 8 members of the comittee that would approve the deal with Russia for uranium (the quo).
Even if you dismiss this, you cannot deny the Clintons have a long history of dirty deals and underhanded behavior.
Snopes is liberal Democratic leaning and anything presented there must be taken with a gain of salt.
If you read the Snopes link presented above you will see things like:
The Clintons know who their "friends" are, especially ones that give large sums of money (the quid) to Hillary (the pro) and can influence the other 8 members of the comittee that would approve the deal with Russia for uranium (the quo).
Even if you dismiss this, you cannot deny the Clintons have a long history of dirty deals and underhanded behavior.
Good one.Facts do have a liberal bias, huh?
That's never been more true, either. It's not like you care about that, anyway. You're just in it for the liberal tears.
Why hasn't the OP apologized for this thread yet?
I will say this I do think all of the focus on Russia has been to the detriment (in terms of time that could have otherwise been spent on them) of explaining to the public how Trump was allegedly (since no court other than public opinion has weighed in) been involved in the other crimes I have listed in the second paragraph on this post....
________________
All those things HAVE been reported on MSNBC, were they over-shadowed by the Mueller report, absolutely. Should they have concentrated more on those, maybe but those are on-going investigations that will come to courts in the future. Hopefully they will come up before the election.I have nothing to apologize for... I stopped watching MSNBC shows that shifted their focus to every minute detail about what was going on in the Mueller investigation.
This does not mean I like Trump... I think he has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution, he has allegedly committing Fraud involving hush money payouts at least one former mistress while he was in office, there is the U.S. support for Saudi Arabia in their war using illegal tactics that can be described as War Crimes under Trump.
Now it looks like Mueller didn't find enough evidence to conclusively say that Trump entered into a conspiracy with Russia that doesn't mean the released report in whatever redacted form won't indicate some circumstantial evidence that just didn't rise to the level where he felt a prosecutor would indict a person.
I will say this I do think all of the focus on Russia has been to the detriment (in terms of time that could have otherwise been spent on them) of explaining to the public how Trump was allegedly (since no court other than public opinion has weighed in) been involved in the other crimes I have listed in the second paragraph on this post....
Here is a good video that largely shares my views on this issue
________________
I mean there's a reason 1 party loves Russians now. It's an effort to tear the USA apart and it seems to be working.
All those things HAVE been reported on MSNBC, were they over-shadowed by the Mueller report, absolutely. Should they have concentrated more on those, maybe but those are on-going investigations that will come to courts in the future. Hopefully they will come up before the election.
Agree with most of your post except this little part.
We have seen clear evidence to how Russia tried to and is still actively trying to undermine democracies around the world (hint ours too) and we have Russian agents in jail that we caught who pled guilty to doing just that.
I mean there's a reason 1 party loves Russians now. It's an effort to tear the USA apart and it seems to be working.
Do we fight against it or do we do what you suggested? Or do we just divide the country now?
It's quite a pickle isn't it?
That's fine....
remember it wasn't too long ago that Romney was Hawkish toward Russia and President Obama suggested Romney had an 80's view toward Russia.
As such Russia preferred the Democratic Candidate.
Hillary was more hawkish on Russia than Trump was and because of that Russia preferred that Trump won in 2016.
Putin is a person who goes around ordering murders/assassinations (allegedly). He is however rational in the CIA world view sense of how they evaluate foreign governments. So it's fairly logical that he would prefer a President who says the least hawkish things about Russia.
some may call this whataboutism it's not it'a just context... every major power has and probably will continue to interfere in other countries politics in ways both subtle and painfully blatant....
https://ccisf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/201612201405.pdf scans of the Time July 16, 1996 issue detailing how Yeltsin accepted help from U.S. advisors to win an election. Obviously that benefited us.
and if Mueller's report came back with a conclusion that Russia and Trump conspired to win Trump 2016 we'd know where Putin got the idea....
My suggestion is to secure our elections as Mike Figuerra suggested in the video I linked (I guess you didn't watch it... I'd recommend it)... going to paper ballots and eliminating electronic voting machines which caused a bit of a stir in the 2004 election. Tulsi Gabbard introduced such a bill and where is it now?
If one is worried about election interference then why not support measures that would in some way mitigate those concerns like Gabbard's bill would have it taken up and passed.
Isn't it odd that given the concern about the another nation interfering with our elections no real measures to help secure our elections were championed by the ones who thought collusion would be proven without a doubt? If that is one's concern then introduce measures that would mitigate foreign interference in our elections...
Or maybe they did and I just didn't really notice.
______________
Bottom line is whoever the Dem candidate is, they're going to have to go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to have any chance. Right now Trump wins Michigan according to polls.
No, this was from a poll after his '"vindication" on collusion.Umm.. https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2019/03/08/poll-trump-is-in-big-trouble-in-michigan
Are you sure you're not confusing WI with MI?
Bottom line is whoever the Dem candidate is, they're going to have to go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to have any chance. Right now Trump wins Michigan according to polls.
No, this was from a poll after his '"vindication" on collusion.