Reply With Quote
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
Great. If you don't think she had a role, then there can be no conspiracy involving her.
You wrapped everything up nicely by just being a pussy.
What do you think really happened in the Uranium One deal?Yes.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
Well, if you won't go into any more detail than that, there must be nothing to it.
I accept that you are only trying to distract from Trump/Russia.
The only one being a pussy here is the one repeatedly dodging questions. You brought up her "non-role" don't run now. I want to know where that was confirmed and by who. So who confirmed her "non-role"?
I don't really know and I'm curious to hear what the FBI informant has to say.What do you think really happened in the Uranium One deal?
Various news reports that have her underlings at state actually handling the deal. If you want court testimony, you need to produce the same for your innuendo.
Do you think she had a bigger role?
Yes or no.
Then why are you posting innuendo like you actually think something nefarious happened?I don't really know
Only to distract.
Like a pussy.
Which underlings said that? Be specific.
I think so.Do you think she had a bigger role?
Yes or no.
I do think something happened I'm just not sure what.Then why are you posting innuendo like you actually think something happened?
How is this falsifiable?
What evidence would falsify it?
Who has done the misleading?
You have to also clearly define your terms. "misled" is too vague.
Good start, though.
Then put up theories, and see if they can be falsified. That is how you get at the truth.
You don't need to be 100% sure to do that. Theory, test, evidence. Either it holds up, or not. If not, move on to the next testable theory.
If you can't test it, it is a useless theory.
The underlings didn't say it. Not that I saw. I'll be more specific if you have specific accusations against anyone involved. It's your conspiracy theory.
Then don't be a pussy about it when people say you do think that.I think so.
So you don't have to be specific but everyone else does.I do think something happened I'm just not sure what.
Pussy.
Better:
Hillary Clinton used her influence both inside and outside the government, to push through a deal that would have been rejected, because she received money from gangsters or crooked businessmen that would benefit, then actively attempted to conceal her involvement in a way that was illegal.
Is that closer?
(edit)
It is a bit complex. You have a lot of moving parts here, and a lot of difficult lines of evidence required. This makes it inherently fragile. Simpler tends to be more robust.
I am forced to wait for the testimony from the undercover FBI informant to test the quid pro quo theory he/she says there is proof of.
So you can actually post a theory in the meantime.
We know for a fact she received money while Secretary of State from Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer. We also know they used the Clinton Foundation subsidiary to hide this and not disclose the donation to the public like Clinton agreed to do when she became Secretary of State. If this wasn't a "donation" to use Clinton's influence why attempt to hide it like they did?
===========
We'll have more questions than answers after the informant's testimony but I'm really hoping the below is cleared up. I wan't to know how and why other FBI officials and the CFIUS committee was kept in the dark about the ongoing investigation.
===========
The relevance of the Hill report for Clinton’s role would be whether she knew anything about this investigation at a time when she could have used her role in CFIUS to block the Russian deal. (It could also be relevant for the actions by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, whose department has a seat on CFIUS.)
For now at least, we aren’t aware of any evidence that Clinton knew anything about the FBI investigation. If anything, the Hill’s reporting suggests the opposite.
The Hill article quoted Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, saying that he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case.
" ‘I had no idea this case was being conducted,’ a surprised Hosko said in an interview," the Hill article reported.
At least one key lawmaker -- then-Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time -- also said he did not know about the investigation.
If the assistant FBI director at the time knew nothing of the investigation, then Clinton -- someone in a different department and several rungs higher in the organizational chart -- might not have known about it.
Stewart A. Baker, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson, was skeptical that such information would have reached the Secretary of State -- "at least not until she was asked to weigh in on the transaction, and that would only happen if it were deeply controversial, which it was not. In my experience, the State Department was always one of the quickest agencies to urge approval of a deal, and they did that without checking with the Secretary."
The vast majority of cases that CFIUS reviews are handled by lower-ranking staffers and appointees, added Stephen Heifetz, a partner at the law firm Steptoe & Johnson who specializes in CFIUS law.
"Even though the heads of the CFIUS agencies comprise CFIUS as a matter of law," he said, "it is relatively rare to have a cabinet secretary directly involved in a CFIUS case."
That said, several experts said they were surprised that word had not filtered up from the FBI.
The FBI "is well represented as part of the Justice Department’s CFIUS team," Baker said. "It would be somewhat surprising to me if a company was under scrutiny as a buyer in CFIUS and simultaneously under investigation for criminal behavior by the FBI, but the criminal investigation was not known to the FBI’s representatives on CFIUS."
In addition, it’s Justice Department policy to consolidate all Foreign Corrupt Practices Act inquiries within department headquarters in Washington, said Michael Koehler, a professor at Southern Illinois University School of Law and an expert on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This makes word of those cases more likely to reach top officials than other types of investigations.
And the fact that the Mikerin case included a confidential informant makes it "more likely than not that top Justice Department or FBI officials either knew of the inquiry or should have known of the inquiry," Koehler said.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ton-and-urani/
Did you get any good testimony from the people who got immunity in the email thing?
Already have I apologize if you didn't like it.
Don't ever demand specificity again, pussy.
The money went straight to her?
Is there a canceled check?
Be specific.
Combetta produced some good lol's.
"According to the F.B.I. do ents, Mr. Combetta told the bureau in February that he did not recall deleting the emails. But in May, he told a different story.
In the days after Mrs. Clinton’s staffers called Platte River Networks in March 2015, Mr. Combetta said realized that he had not followed a December 2014 order from Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers to have the emails deleted. Mr. Combetta then used a program called BleachBit to delete the messages, the bureau said.
In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server."
Is this the right time to throw out buzz words about your emotional state?
Why did you edit out the very next sentence? Be specific.
you get triggered when the whip is reversed.
Sorry. Don't be a hypocrite next time.
Because you said the money went directly to Clinton.
We know for a fact she received money while Secretary of State from Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer.
This is false.
Why did you lie?
Be specific.
She as in the Clinton Foundation, which is made clear in the very next sentence. Sure I could have worded it differently but whatever it is what it is. Are you going to keep focusing on this one sentence for the next page or are you ready to move on?
No, because you yourself right out of the gate.
Hillary Clinton is not the Clinton Foundation.
A payment to the foundation is not a payment to Hillary Clinton.
Why do you lie to conflate the two?
Be specific.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
