View Full Version : Shep Smith has some thoughts for TSA
djohn2oo8
11-14-2017, 07:26 PM
930545785435054082
djohn2oo8
11-14-2017, 07:28 PM
930548856261087232
djohn2oo8
11-14-2017, 07:30 PM
930549259996483584
930550282932621313
dabom
11-14-2017, 07:56 PM
:lol
Real American Hero right here. :tu
AaronY
11-14-2017, 08:07 PM
Trump fans taking this well: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Shep%20smith&src=typed_query
dabom
11-14-2017, 08:09 PM
Those snow flake repubs/bots will protest anything. :lol
Spurminator
11-14-2017, 08:10 PM
How he still has a job there is one of life's great mysteries.
baseline bum
11-14-2017, 09:12 PM
How he still has a job there is one of life's great mysteries.
I guess they want real journalism for a couple of hours a day there, hence keeping on Smith and Chris Wallace. I fear for American local news if Hannity ends up walking to Sinclair though.
boutons_deux
11-14-2017, 09:21 PM
I remember Shep crying in Nola reporting Katrina, and thinking this guy shouldn't be at fox
How he still has a job there is one of life's great mysteries.
He's their news anchor man. He actually reports the news in an unbiased way.
The rest of the slots on that network are for shilling.
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 09:37 PM
930545785435054082
Cuck, tbh.
AaronY
11-14-2017, 09:47 PM
Cuck, tbh.
Excellent counterpoint.
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 09:54 PM
Excellent counterpoint.
All that needs to be said. Shep trying to make it sound like The State Department is part of one assembly line just pressing stamps on nuclear deals with a "murderer" as Hillary has called Putin. :lmao
DarrinS
11-14-2017, 10:19 PM
Uranium One is not important
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 10:40 PM
N/M
Th'Pusher
11-14-2017, 10:54 PM
N/M
That's probably best tbh.
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 10:56 PM
I guess they want real journalism for a couple of hours a day there, hence keeping on Smith and Chris Wallace. I fear for American local news if Hannity ends up walking to Sinclair though.
Ah. The "real journalists" are the globalist cucks you say. :lmao
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 10:57 PM
That's probably best tbh.
And yet you run your mouth like a twat :lol
930545785435054082
I wonder if Shep and Hannity duked it out in the hallway after the show?
Here's the clip in its entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5Zbs_j_Hc
Spurtacular
11-14-2017, 11:23 PM
Here's the clip in its entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5Zbs_j_Hc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWNQOSe6TBU&t=2s
baseline bum
11-14-2017, 11:43 PM
Ah. The "real journalists" are the globalist cucks you say. :lmao
With all due respect, go fuck your mother little faggot.
pgardn
11-14-2017, 11:50 PM
Ah. The "real journalists" are the globalist cucks you say. :lmao
What exactly is a globalist?
LMAO URANIUM ONE! BAHAHAHAHAHA. :lmao Not even Jeff Sessions is stupid enough to look into that conspiracy theory shit. :rollin
baseline bum
11-14-2017, 11:51 PM
What exactly is a globalist?
Someone who isn't a right wing conspiracy theorist.
DarrinS
11-15-2017, 12:40 AM
Just dig into the law firm that paid both CrowdStrike and Fusion GPS. That is the birth of Muh Russia.
DarrinS
11-15-2017, 12:45 AM
Maybe try to find the origin of this mindfuck.
DarrinS
11-15-2017, 12:46 AM
i.e., the dossier
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 02:43 AM
i.e., the dossier
yes the evil dossier funded by clinton's campaign that was not used during the campaign
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 05:39 AM
With all due respect, go fuck your mother little faggot.:rollin
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 05:40 AM
Just dig into the law firm that paid both CrowdStrike and Fusion GPS. That is the birth of Muh Russia.
Maybe try to find the origin of this mindfuck.
i.e., the dossierlol the birth of the Russia business is all the business Trump's people conducted with Russians.
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 10:15 AM
So explain how DNC and the dossier that wasn't used during the campaign forced trump jr to meet with Russians and communicate with wikileaks
baseline bum
11-15-2017, 10:57 AM
lol the birth of the Russia business is all the business Trump's people conducted with Russians.
And all the lies from his camp about their involvement with Russia and Wikileaks.
DarrinS
11-15-2017, 12:29 PM
So explain how DNC and the dossier that wasn't used during the campaign forced trump jr to meet with Russians and communicate with wikileaks
Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in July 2016. He briefed the NYT, WaPo, et. al. in Sept. 2016. Hillary went into her “Putin puppet” attack in October debate.
baseline bum
11-15-2017, 12:32 PM
Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in July 2016. He briefed the NYT, WaPo, et. al. in Sept. 2016. Hillary went into her “Putin puppet” attack in October debate.
So that made Uday, Cuckner, and Manafort go back in time to meet the Russian government lawyer in June 2016?
FuzzyLumpkins
11-15-2017, 12:35 PM
Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in July 2016. He briefed the NYT, WaPo, et. al. in Sept. 2016. Hillary went into her “Putin puppet” attack in October debate.
You really are trying very hard with this whataboutism. How about we all agree that Hillary should be burned at the stake and move on to the actual investigation that is going on?
I mean you at no point ever question the veracity of what is in the report. This amusing because nothing in the dossier has ever been disproven except at the word of a group of liars. OTOH, much of what it reports about accepting money and coordination with the Russians has proven true despite said lies.
Nevermind that the dossier's investigation was commissioned from the US and has always been against Russian interests.
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 12:43 PM
Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in July 2016. He briefed the NYT, WaPo, et. al. in Sept. 2016. Hillary went into her “Putin puppet” attack in October debate.
You didn't explain how this forced Don Jr to meet with Russians and keep an open line with wikileaks
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 01:19 PM
You didn't explain how this forced Don Jr to meet with Russians and keep an open line with wikileaksFusion GPS hired the Russians who had hired Fusion GPS who had been hired by the law firm who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to entrap them!
WAKE UP
ALSO MURDERS
RandomGuy
11-15-2017, 05:13 PM
930545785435054082
Looks like he has decided to salvage what is left of his integrity.
RandomGuy
11-15-2017, 05:15 PM
Fusion GPS hired the Russians who had hired Fusion GPS who had been hired by the law firm who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to entrap them!
WAKE UP
ALSO MURDERS
What about the Benghazi pizza mail servers?
RandomGuy
11-15-2017, 05:17 PM
Steele gave the dossier to the FBI in July 2016. He briefed the NYT, WaPo, et. al. in Sept. 2016. Hillary went into her “Putin puppet” attack in October debate.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,"
koriwhat
11-15-2017, 05:24 PM
930545785435054082
and them surgeons took apart sheps face.... dude was always weird looking but way more feminine these days. so odd.
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 06:06 PM
and them surgeons took apart sheps face.... dude was always weird looking but way more feminine these days. so odd.
Excellent contributions to the discussion.
"His face looks funny!"
koriwhat
11-15-2017, 06:09 PM
Excellent contributions to the discussion.
"His face looks funny!"
well, the russia thing is lmao levels and that bs narrative has gotten a special council so why not uranium1 and the clinton cartel?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 06:11 PM
well, the russia thing is lmao levels and that bs narrative has gotten a special council so why not uranium1 and the clinton cartel?Because there isn't even anything suspicious about the Uranium One sale. See video above.
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 06:30 PM
well, the russia thing is lmao levels and that bs narrative has gotten a special council so why not uranium1 and the clinton cartel?
Did you even watch the video with funny face man?
Because there isn't even anything suspicious about the Uranium One sale. See video above.
I'm not watching that liberal cockgargler's video, but does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation? Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state? Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States? Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted? Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 06:34 PM
I'm not watching that liberal cockgargler's video, but does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation? Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state? Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States? Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted? Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?Take it up with Fox News.
And Sessions.
And Wray.
None of them see the conspiracy you do -- so put it all together for them.
Post your conspiracy theory -- not your innuendo. Not your stupid questions.
Thanks in advance.
Take it up with Fox News.
And Sessions.
And Wray.
None of them see the conspiracy you do -- so put it all together for them.
Post your conspiracy theory -- not your innuendo. Not your stupid questions.
Thanks in advance.
I'll take it up with you since you clearly watched the segment and said there wasn't anything suspicious about the Uranium One deal.
I'll add to it as well.
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted? Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 06:55 PM
I'll take it up with you since you clearly watched the segment and said there wasn't anything suspicious about the Uranium One deal.
I'll add to it as well.
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted? Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?Hey, more questions.
I'll wait for you to end your tantrum and tell everyone what you think really happened.
I'm sure it may be awhile since you're really worked up about it. Make sure your timeline is accurate.
spurraider21
11-15-2017, 07:09 PM
:lol threats from government. It's a fucking NDA
Hey, more questions.
I'll wait for you to end your tantrum and tell everyone what you think really happened.
I'm sure it may be awhile since you're really worked up about it. Make sure your timeline is accurate.
Hey, another dodge. Stop being a pussy.
clambake
11-15-2017, 07:22 PM
Hey, another dodge. Stop being a pussy.
you seem a little chippy today. is the kid keeping you up?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:24 PM
Hey, another dodge. Stop being a pussy.:lol You can't watch a 24 second video. That's being a pussy.
Watch the video.
State your conspiracy theory.
Save everyone some time and get directly to your embarrassment.
you seem a little chippy today. is the kid keeping you up?
Due December 17th. Just finished remodel and baby room. Couldn't be happier.
:lol You can't watch a 24 second video. That's being a pussy.
Watch the video.
State your conspiracy theory.
Save everyone some time and get directly to your embarrassment.
I refuse to watch that flamer. You did watch the video though and commented on it so stop being a pussy and dodging the questions.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:28 PM
I refuse to watch that flamer. You did watch the video though and commented on it so stop being a pussy and dodging the questions.Stop being a pussy and dodging the video.
lol homophobe
Did you even watch the video with funny face man?
Did you?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:29 PM
Did you?:cry Somebody tell me what's in the 24 second video. I'm afraid of teh ghey! :cry
Stop being a pussy and dodging the video.
lol homophobe
I don't need to watch the video you already did. Why are you scared to answer the questions?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:30 PM
I don't need to watch the video you already did. Why are you scared to answer the questions?I don't need to answer your questions when the video is right there for you. Why are you afraid to watch a 24 second video?
Don't bother Chumpdumper I see djohn has arrived.
djohn wipe Shep's jizz off your chin and answer the following
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
I don't need to watch the video you already did. Why are you scared to answer the questions?
Scared of the stone cold truth.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:36 PM
Don't bother Chumpdumper I see djohn has arrived.
djohn wipe Shep's jizz off your chin and answer the following
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?:lol Ol' Shep really triggered you today.
Sad!
:lol Ol' Shep really triggered you today.
Sad!
Projecting emotions again today. Par.
Scared of the stone cold truth.
You are free to answer my questions as well.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:39 PM
Projecting emotions again today. Par.I watched the video.
How about you?
You are free to answer my questions as well.You are free to watch the 24 second video as well.
koriwhat
11-15-2017, 07:39 PM
Did you even watch the video with funny face man?
in that same light... russia russia russia!
djohn2oo8
11-15-2017, 07:41 PM
You watched the video TSA?
You watched the video TSA?
I have not and I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:44 PM
I have not and I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me.I was wondering why you prefer bitching about not watching a 24 second video for an hour instead of watching a 24 second video.
I was wondering why you prefer bitching about not watching a 24 second video for an hour instead of watching a 24 second video.
The only one bitching about the video is you. You had your chance to answer and repeatedly dodged. Move on.
djohn2oo8
11-15-2017, 07:50 PM
I have not and I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me.
The videos will answer all of your questions. Press play.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:50 PM
The only one bitching about the video is you. You had your chance to answer and repeatedly dodged. Move on.Why are you not watching the 24 second video when you explicitly want to know what is in the 24 second video that will take you 24 seconds to watch?
The way to move on is for you to watch the 24 second video.
The videos will answer all of your questions. Press play.
I have no way to watch the video at this time. Be kind and answer the questions.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 07:58 PM
I have no way to watch the video at this time. Be kind and answer the questions.:lmao
Too late for that excuse.
Click on the 24 second video and the 24 second video will play.
The whole process will take approximately 24 seconds.
:lmao
Too late for that excuse.
Click on the 24 second video and the 24 second video will play.
The whole process will take approximately 24 seconds.
I'm sitting in the office skyping with customers in Hong Kong. I could watch it but couldn't turn on volume. You had your chance. Move on.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:04 PM
I'm sitting in the office skyping with customers in Hong Kong. I could watch it but couldn't turn on volume. You had your chance. Move on.We can wait for you.
How long should skype this take?
Six hours?
A Week?
We can wait for you.
How long should skype this take?
Six hours?
A Week?
You don't need to wait for anyone. You had your chance. Move on.
DisAsTerBot
11-15-2017, 08:08 PM
Skyping with customers and simultaneously being a faggot on ST?
Impressive tbh
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:08 PM
You don't need to wait for anyone. You had your chance. Move on.A month?
Ten years?
Do they talk that much?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:10 PM
Skyping with customers and simultaneously being a faggot on ST?
Impressive tbhWell he did change his story from outright refusing to watch any video by a homosexual to just being on a call with foreigners that will last as long as no one answers his questions seven.
A month?
Ten years?
Do they talk that much?
They ask more stupid questions than you
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:13 PM
They ask more stupid questions than youTwenty years?
I'm sure you'll let us know when the session is over, right?
Twenty years?
I'm sure you'll let us know when the session is over, right?
Its more entertaining watching you wear out your F5 key.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:23 PM
Its more entertaining watching you wear out your F5 key.So you were just lying about the skype?
Is your story changing again?
:lol this is entertaining.
So you were just lying about the skype?
Is your story changing again?
:lol this is entertaining.
No I'm still on skype, and you are still here responding in seconds.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:25 PM
No I'm still on skype, and you are still here responding in seconds.As are you.
:lol
At work.
I won't even need to watch the video, the lack of answers from rent free OP was all I was really after.
Spurtacular
11-15-2017, 08:28 PM
With all due respect, go fuck your mother little faggot.
Triggered.
Spurtacular
11-15-2017, 08:28 PM
:rollin
Triggered, too.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:31 PM
I won't even need to watch the video, the lack of answers from rent free OP was all I was really after.Your lying about a 24 second video was all I was really after.
As are you.
:lol
At work.
I've got 4 containers of avocados sold since I've been here. That's around $225,000. When I'm done with Hong Kong I've got more meetings set with buyers from China. What have you accomplished in your last hour?
Your lying about a 24 second video was all I was really after.
Not all of us have the freedom to watch YouTube 24/7
baseline bum
11-15-2017, 08:33 PM
Triggered.
Was she shaved?
benefactor
11-15-2017, 08:34 PM
:lol...what is it with you guys?
:cry there are charges but I'm not naming them :cry
:cry in a thread about a video but I'm not watching it :cry
It's like I'm playing cards with my brother's kids or something
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:39 PM
I've got 4 containers of avocados sold since I've been here. That's around $225,000. When I'm done with Hong Kong I've got more meetings set with buyers from China. What have you accomplished in your last hour?I don't post from work.
Not all of us have the freedom to watch YouTube 24/7This is how I can tell I got to you. You get super pissy and personal.
Why is it important for you to do this?
:lol the freedom to watch a 24 second video.
I don't post from work.
This is how I can tell I got to you. You get super pissy and personal.
Why is it important to you do do this?
Pointing out your constant state of logged on is neither pissy nor personal. You must work some extremely short hours to claim having never posted from work.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:44 PM
Pointing out your constant state of logged on is neither pissy nor personal.Of course it is -- it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.
You must work some extremely short hours to claim having never posted from work.You must really be desperate to change the subject.
I can't dick around while on Skype with the buyers from Shanghai. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if one of you three pussies answers the questions about Shep.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:45 PM
I can't dick around while on Skype with the buyers from Shanghai. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if one of you three pussies answers the questions about Shep.But the only thing stopping you from watching the video is being on skype.
Or did you lie?
Of course it is -- it's completely irrelevant to the conversation.You must really be desperate to change the subject.
You are free to stay on topic and answer the questions. Or dodge. I'll check tomorrow.
Quadzilla99
11-15-2017, 08:47 PM
Excellent contributions to the discussion.
"His face looks funny!"
:lmao
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 08:48 PM
You are free to stay on topic and answer the questions. Or dodge. I'll check tomorrow.You are free to watch the 24 second video to answer your questions yourself since that is what the entire thread is about. Or try to change the subject to me. I'll see you make it about me tomorrow.
djohn2oo8
11-15-2017, 08:49 PM
Quick. Somebody hack his "buyer's" Skype account and play the video.
Here's the clip in its entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5Zbs_j_Hc
$600,000 in sales later and I'm finally able to see why all of you dodged like complete pussies :rollin
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
:lol methodical annihilation
:lol total demolition
:lol you must watch the 24 seconds
:lol answer to all of my questions...no
djohn2oo8
11-15-2017, 10:18 PM
Shep went and ripped TSA and crew a new doo doo hole.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:18 PM
$600,000 in sales later and I'm finally able to see why all of you dodged like complete pussies :rollin
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
:lol methodical annihilation
:lol total demolition
:lol you must watch the 24 seconds
:lol answer to all of my questions...no:lol maybe now that you quit dodging you can post your conspiracy theory in full.
You are free to watch the 24 second video to answer your questions yourself since that is what the entire thread is about. Or try to change the subject to me. I'll see you make it about me tomorrow.
You could have just answered with a blanket "no" to all my questions and saved yourself some time, not that you had anything better to do apparently.
DarrinS
11-15-2017, 10:19 PM
Shep went and ripped TSA and crew a new doo doo hole.
Dookie!
Hey, that reminds me, how’s the capital crimes punishable by death case going?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:20 PM
You could have just answered with a blanket "no" to all my questions and saved yourself some time, not that you had anything better to do apparently.You could have just watched a video and try to not make it personal when you get mad.
$600,000 in sales later and I'm finally able to see why all of you dodged like complete pussies :rollin
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
:lol methodical annihilation
:lol total demolition
:lol you must watch the 24 seconds
:lol answer to all of my questions...no
I have no idea how you came up with that conclusion. That is not what the guy in the video explained. For well over 5 minutes.
Is that selective hearing you got.
djohn2oo8
11-15-2017, 10:22 PM
Dookie!
Hey, that reminds me, how’s the capital crimes punishable by death case going?
How are your no indictment claims going?
https://i.giphy.com/media/3oEdv5XT0tYl7B77yM/giphy.webp
:lol maybe now that you quit dodging you can post your conspiracy theory in full.
You are free to watch the 24 second video to answer your questions yourself since that is what the entire thread is about
:lol
I have no idea how you came up with that conclusion. That is not what the guy in the video explained. For well over 5 minutes.
Is that selective hearing you got.
Those are questions not conclusions. Fucking moron.
Those are questions not conclusions. Fucking moron.
Oh so you haven't watched the video then? And you call me a moron?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Shep went and ripped TSA and crew a new doo doo hole.
Strangely your new favorite fag left out some important pieces. No wonder you wouldn't answer my questions
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:26 PM
:lolSwears he'll never watch video of homosexual.
Watches video of homosexual.
:lol
Oh so you haven't watched the video then? And you call me a moron?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I watched your video moron. You are dumber than advertised.
Swears he'll never watch video of homosexual.
Watches video of homosexual.
:lol
Are you ready to discuss what the "thread is all about" ?
Now that we've all seen the 24 second clip, with Reck and myself having watched the segment in its entirety, why were you all dodging these questions?
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:34 PM
Are you ready to discuss what the "thread is all about" ?I have been asking you for your conspiracy theory all along.
You didn't even have to watch the video to post that.
Go ahead and post it. Skip the question game.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:35 PM
Now that we've all seen the 24 second clip, with Reck and myself having watched the segment in its entirety, why were you all dodging these questions?
Did he mention the Clinton Foundation didn't publicly disclose Telfer's 2.35 million in donations until they were caught by the NYT?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Did he mention the threats the undercover informant received from our government agencies?Because you wouldn't watch the video and your whining about it was hilarious.
Post your conspiracy theory. Skip the question game.
I watched your video moron. You are dumber than advertised.
Then you obviously ignored all of the points he raised about the deal which he dismantled one by one.
Your questions are not necessary because they're useless and irrelevant to the truth.
Chucho
11-15-2017, 10:38 PM
Because you wouldn't watch the video and your whining about it was hilarious.
Post your conspiracy theory. Skip the question game.
Why not answer his questions tho? They're valid and would enrich the conversation. Isn't that the point of a discussion board?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:39 PM
Why not answer his questions tho? They're valid and would enrich the conversation. Isn't that the point of a discussion board?Because all he had to do was watch a 24 second video to answer all his questions.
I am perfectly willing to discuss his conspiracy theory. All he has to do is post it.
Chucho
11-15-2017, 10:41 PM
Because all he had to do was watch a 24 second video to answer all his questions.
I am perfectly willing to discuss his conspiracy theory. All he has to do is post it.
Fair enough.
Because you wouldn't watch the video and your whining about it was hilarious.
Post your conspiracy theory. Skip the question game.couldn't watch the video, and the only whining about the video came from you, multiple times
:cry 24 seconds pls
Question game is done, already a resounding "no" to all posed.
Because there isn't even anything suspicious about the Uranium One sale. See video abovestill sticking with this?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:43 PM
couldn't watch the video, and the only whining about the video came from you, multiple times
:cry 24 seconds pls
Question game is done, already a resounding "no" to all posed.Great.
Post your conspiracy theory so we can discuss it.
Then you obviously ignored all of the points he raised about the deal which he dismantled one by one.
Your questions are not necessary because they're useless and irrelevant to the truth.
None of my questions were brought up in his "dismantling" :lol
Why not answer his questions tho? They're valid and would enrich the conversation. Isn't that the point of a discussion board?
Notice they still won't touch the questions.
Great.
Post your conspiracy theory so we can discuss it.
If you knew the answers to all my questions were no how can you claim there isn't even anything suspicious about the Uranium One sale and offer Shep's video as proof?
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 10:52 PM
If you knew the answers to all my questions were no how can you claim there isn't even anything suspicious about the Uranium One sale and offer Shep's video as proof?Hey another question game.
I mentioned Sessions and Wray.
They're my proof.
Post your conspiracy theory. Let's discuss it. Skip the question game.
None of my questions were brought up in his "dismantling" :lol
That's what I'm saying. It's TSA made up conspiracy questions.
Doesn't merit any mentions or devotion of time.
Hey another question game.
I mentioned Sessions and Wray.
They're my proof.
Post your conspiracy theory. Let's discuss it. Skip the question game.
Dodge # ??? I'm losing track tonight.
That's what I'm saying. It's TSA made up conspiracy questions.
Doesn't merit any mentions or devotion of time.
You think my questions are made up of falsehoods? Is your entire knowledge of Uranium One based on Shep Smith's piece? :lol
Hey another question game.
I mentioned Sessions and Wray.
They're my proof.
Post your conspiracy theory. Let's discuss it. Skip the question game.
You offered Shep's video as proof. Don't backtrack.
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 11:45 PM
Dodge # ??? I'm losing track tonight.Post your conspiracy theory.
Let's discuss it. Quit dodging.
You offered Shep's video as proof. Don't backtrack.
Take it up with Fox News.
And Sessions.
And Wray.
None of them see the conspiracy you do -- so put it all together for them.
Post your conspiracy theory -- not your innuendo. Not your stupid questions.
Thanks in advance.
Post your conspiracy theory.
Let's discuss it.
You've been dodging that all night.
Post your conspiracy theory.
Let's discuss it. Quit dodging.
Post your conspiracy theory.
Let's discuss it.
You've been dodging that all night.
:lol projecting again
You had your chance. You dodged. Try again tomorrow after "work"
Pavlov
11-15-2017, 11:52 PM
:lol projecting again
You had your chance. You dodged. Try again tomorrow after "work"Try what?
You're the one who flat out refuses to discuss or even present your conspiracy theory.
What are you afraid of?
Try what?
You're the one who flat out refuses to discuss or even present your conspiracy theory.
What are you afraid of?
I've discussed it numerous times, specifically with you. Refer your ST notebook if you need a refresher.
You are free to watch the 24 second video to answer your questions yourself since that is what the entire thread is about
Back to discussing what you requested earlier, are you actually going to discuss the omissions from your boy Shep?
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 12:42 AM
I've discussed it numerous times, specifically with you. Refer your ST notebook if you need a refresher. You certainly are loathe to just state your conspiracy theory.
Back to discussing what you requested earlier, are you actually going to discuss the omissions from your boy Shep? There is no Uranium One investigation at DoJ or FBI. I requested your conspiracy theory so we can discuss it.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
No more question games. Thanks in advance.
spurraider21
11-16-2017, 01:17 AM
:cry can you please answer my list of questions about a short video clip instead of me just watching the short video clip?
You certainly are loathe to just state your conspiracy theory.
There is no Uranium One investigation at DoJ or FBI. I requested your conspiracy theory so we can discuss it.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
No more question games. Thanks in advance.
No more question games says Chumpdumper. Top 3 most ironic post in ST history.
:cry can you please answer my list of questions about a short video clip instead of me just watching the short video clip?
Another dodging pussy decides to throw his hat in the ring :lol
Did Shep omit information from his lol dismantling yes or no?
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 01:24 AM
No more question games says Chumpdumper. Top 3 most ironic post in ST history.You're still not posting your conspiracy theory.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
spurraider21
11-16-2017, 01:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5Zbs_j_Hc
he does mention that a few million in donations werent disclosed until after the NYT exposed it
clambake
11-16-2017, 01:36 AM
i said he was chippy today.
You're still not posting your conspiracy theory.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
You had your chance for discussion earlier and you refused. Hopefully you aren't "at work" too long tomorrow. I'm sure we can circle back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5Zbs_j_Hc
he does mention that a few million in donations werent disclosed until after the NYT exposed it
Nice to see you sack up. Continue on with the rest...
i said he was chippy today.
If you want to see the finished remodel and baby room just ask
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 01:58 AM
You had your chance for discussion earlier and you refused. Hopefully you aren't "at work" too long tomorrow. I'm sure we can circle back.Hey, trying to make it about me again.
You're still not posting your conspiracy theory.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
Or you simply don't believe any of it yourself.
Just like all the other conspiracy theories you have abandoned.
spurraider21
11-16-2017, 02:04 AM
Nice to see you sack up. Continue on with the rest...
i think he addressed everything needed. no need for him to describe what an NDA is... :lol threatened by the government, :lol boom testimony
Hey, trying to make it about me again.
You're still not posting your conspiracy theory.
Just post it.
We'll discuss it.
Or you simply don't believe any of it yourself.
Just like all the other conspiracy theories you have abandoned.
Remember the thread you are in and that you reminded eveeryone exactly what this thread was about. You whine about the Shep video for hours and then once I'm able to watch it you refuse to discuss it. Keep flailing.
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 02:10 AM
Remember the thread you are in and that you reminded eveeryone exactly what this thread was about. You whine about the Shep video for hours and then once I'm able to watch it you refuse to discuss it. Keep flailing.All your questions about that 24 second video were answered when you watched the 24 second video.
Keep dodging.
Or just post your conspiracy theory.
We'll discuss it.
i think he addressed everything needed. no need for him to describe what an NDA is... :lol threatened by the government, :lol boom testimony
You think he addressed everything needed?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 02:11 AM
You think he addressed everything needed?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?:lmao
Now I know you will never post your conspiracy theory.
Thanks again for your abject cowardice.
All your questions about that 24 second video were answered when you watched the 24 second video.
Keep dodging.
Or just post your conspiracy theory.
We'll discuss it.
In his attempt to debunk did your boy Shep omit important information about Uranium One yes or no?
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 02:17 AM
In his attempt to debunk did your boy Shep omit important information about Uranium One yes or no?No.
You think the information you keep posting is important.
You need to explain why.
That means you need to post your conspiracy theory. Put it all together.
Are you going to post your theory?
Yes or no.
:lmao
Now I know you will never post your conspiracy theory.
Thanks again for your abject cowardice.
Lying to save face makes you look even more pathetic. I've posted my thoughts on this countless times. Keep begging for it though, definitely not a sign of desperation.
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 02:20 AM
Lying to save face makes you look even more pathetic. I've posted my thoughts on this countless times. Keep begging for it though, definitely not a sign of desperation.You've actually just posted little tidbits of innuendo like you have repeatedly done today.
Just post your theory.
We'll discuss it.
Are you going to post your theory?
Yes or no.
No.
I got what I needed with that thanks, unfortunately you don't get to demand anything from me. Sorry bout your needs, sleep tight.
Pavlov
11-16-2017, 02:29 AM
I got what I needed with that thanks, unfortunately you don't get to demand anything from me. Sorry bout your needs, sleep tight.Called it.
:lmao
Now I know you will never post your conspiracy theory.
Thanks again for your abject cowardice.I got what I needed with that thanks, unfortunately you just look silly now.
You got called out and you folded.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 01:10 PM
You think he addressed everything needed?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
http://www.fosscad.org/fc/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/i_can_haz_questions.jpeg
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 01:13 PM
You think he addressed everything needed?
Did he mention the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One?
Does he mention the FBI keeping top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation?
Did he mention the Uranium One Chairman's 2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state?
Does he mention Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States?
Has he already heard the testimony from the undercover informant who's NDA was recently lifted?
https://notwriting.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spaghettiwall.jpg
So what?
I see a lot of wishful implications.
But no coherent theory. Almost as if you don't have one. Just like the 9-11 twoofers.
https://notwriting.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spaghettiwall.jpg
So what?
I see a lot of wishful implications.
But no coherent theory. Almost as if you don't have one. Just like the 9-11 twoofers.
I'll give you a simple yes or no question since asking detailed questions proved to be too much for the other pussies in this thread.
Did Shepard Smith leave out key details when "demolishing" the Uranium One conspiracy yes or no?
Quadzilla99
11-17-2017, 01:23 PM
Nice to see you sack up. Continue on with the rest...
Nice to see you watch the Shep Smith obliteration of your retarded theory and ignore everything but what fits your narrative
Nice to see you watch the Shep Smith obliteration of your retarded theory and ignore everything but what fits your narrative
What is my theory and how could Shep obliterate anything while purposely leaving out key facts?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 01:25 PM
I'll give you a simple yes or no question since asking detailed questions proved to be too much for the other pussies in this thread.
Did Shepard Smith leave out key details when "demolishing" the Uranium One conspiracy yes or no?:lol
You flipped out when you got an answer you didn't want.
It's extremely clear you don't want to commit to a conspiracy theory; you won't start a thread on it. You'll only try to distract with your innuendo in the Trump/Russia thread.
Prove me wrong. Start your Uranium One conspiracy thread and commit to your theory.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 01:25 PM
What is my theory and how could Shep obliterate anything while purposely leaving out key facts?Do you even have a theory?
Post it.
Start a new mother of all conspiracies thread.
Chucho
11-17-2017, 01:26 PM
Do you even have a theory?
Post it.
Why do you keep calling sexual assault victims/accusers lying sluts?
AaronY
11-17-2017, 01:33 PM
What is my theory and how could Shep obliterate anything while purposely leaving out key facts?
Sure he destroyed 98% of my theory but what about the 2% he didn't destroy?!
How come no one talks about that?!?
Sure he destroyed 98% of my theory but what about the 2% he didn't destroy?!
How come no one talks about that?!?
What's my theory again?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 01:42 PM
What's my theory again?Your theory is if you stall long enough with inane questions you won't have to commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory and just stick with stupid distracting innuendo in Trump/Russia threads.
Chucho
11-17-2017, 01:44 PM
Your theory is if you stall long enough with inane questions you won't have to commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory and just stick with stupid distracting innuendo in Trump/Russia threads.
Sounds a lot like why you won't explain why you keep referring to sexual assault victims/accusers as lying sluts. When in Rome.
Your theory is if you stall long enough with inane questions you won't have to commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory and just stick with stupid distracting innuendo in Trump/Russia threads.
This thread is about Shep Smith apparently "destroying" the Uranium One conspiracy. I brought up the facts he conveniently failed to mention and no one here wants to discuss them. I am not the one stalling ITT.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 01:55 PM
This thread is about Shep Smith apparently "destroying" the Uranium One conspiracy. I brought up the facts he conveniently failed to mention and no one here wants to discuss them. I am not the one stalling ITT.I said the things he didn't bring up weren't important.
You don't want to discuss why you think they are important because that would mean you'd have to commit to a conspiracy theory.
Why don't you want to discuss things you think are important?
Quadzilla99
11-17-2017, 02:08 PM
What's my theory again?
Something something Clintons are evil something something where's there smoke there must be fire something something so let me produce some more smoke
clambake
11-17-2017, 02:12 PM
gonna be a long night, boys
better order some pizza
boutons_deux
11-17-2017, 02:23 PM
What's my theory again?
Your practice, not theory, is swallow whatever fabricated, debunked, false-outrage, deflecting, WhatAboutism LIES as unchallengeable truths that you defend with 100s of msgs in dozens of threads.
I said the things he didn't bring up weren't important.
You don't want to discuss why you think they are important because that would mean you'd have to commit to a conspiracy theory.
Why don't you want to discuss things you think are important?
Interesting.
$500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One
FBI kept top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States
Uranium One Chairman's donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state, and Clinton tried to hide the donation
Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States
None of this is important concerning the Uranium One story is that correct Chumpdumper?
Your practice, not theory, is swallow whatever fabricated, debunked, false-outrage, deflecting, WhatAboutism LIES as unchallengeable truths that you defend with 100s of msgs in dozens of threads.
the fucking irony
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:26 PM
I'll give you a simple yes or no question since asking detailed questions proved to be too much for the other pussies in this thread.
Did Shepard Smith leave out key details when "demolishing" the Uranium One conspiracy yes or no?
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:27 PM
Interesting.
$500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One
FBI kept top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States
Uranium One Chairman's donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state, and Clinton tried to hide the donation
Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States
None of this is important concerning the Uranium One story is that correct Chumpdumper?
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 02:29 PM
Interesting.
$500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One
FBI kept top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States
Uranium One Chairman's donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state, and Clinton tried to hide the donation
Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States
None of this is important concerning the Uranium One story is that correct Chumpdumper?Another inane question that has already been asked and answered.
If you think they're important, you're going to have to explain why you think they are important.
Everyone now knows you will not do that.
You will not start a Uranium One thread.
You will not commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory.
You will bring up Uranium One only as a distraction in Trump/Russia threads.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 02:31 PM
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.Will you post your Uranium One conspiracy theory?
Yes or no.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:34 PM
Let me help you out here.
I will show you an example of a testable, coherent, falsifiable theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then, predicting what Trump will, or won't do is sort of a mugs game. He never fails to do the stupidest shit possible, just when you think he can't be dumber.
The thing about a good theory though, it that it both explains facts, and you can make testable predictions.
Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.
Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.
Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin
Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump
Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.
Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.
Fact 7:
Donald Trump, when forced to sign a bipartisan sanctions bill passed with a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress, issued a signing statement saying most of it was unconstitutional, and that his administration would enforce it as little as possible.
Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.
This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.
Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.
The way to falsify the theory:
1) Trump criticizes Putin/Russia (good)
2) Trump orders/takes action that materially harms Russian interests (definitive)
Bullshit conspiracy theories fail very often because either: they cannot be falsified, or they directly conflict with observed reality. This theory can be falsified, and does not conflict with what we know as fact.
Donald Trump is unpredictable except for Russia.
He may be stupid enough to fire Mueller if Mueller starts asking questions that will expose how he has been compromised.
If he does so, he will be impeached. The Republican party will have almost no choice at that point. Congress will find their spine, because they want to be re-elected, and Trump will have gone too far for all but the most jaded hacks
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:35 PM
Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.
This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.
Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:37 PM
That is a coherent, testable theory, that can be used to predict actions and behavior if true.
It takes a modest amount of thought. But is separates bullshit nutbaggery from something that might merit consideration from any decent skeptic.
Another inane question that has already been asked and answered.
If you think they're important, you're going to have to explain why you think they are important.
Everyone now knows you will not do that.
You will not start a Uranium One thread.
You will not commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory.
You will bring up Uranium One only as a distraction in Trump/Russia threads.Why do you think these facts are not important to the story?
I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:37 PM
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
That is a coherent, testable theory, that can be used to predict actions and behavior if true.
It takes a modest amount of thought. But is separates bullshit nutbaggery from something that might merit consideration from any decent skeptic.
Stop spamming your Trump theory in this thread please. If you don't want to discuss the facts that Shep Smith omitted during his segment just leave. Thanks.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 02:38 PM
Why do you think these facts are not important to the story? The facts Shep brought up were adequate showing a quid pro quo was pretty near impossible considering Clinton's non-role in an inter-agency commission.
I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:38 PM
Why do you think these facts are not important to the story?
I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 02:39 PM
Stop spamming your Trump theory in this thread please. If you don't want to discuss the facts that Shep Smith omitted during his segment just leave. Thanks.
It was merely an example for you of what a theory might look like. It appears you need help doing that.
The facts Shep brought up were adequate showing a quid pro quo was pretty near impossible considering Clinton's non-role in an inter-agency commission. And her "non-role" was confirmed by who?
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no. I think discussing the deal without committing to a theory is adequate.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 02:45 PM
And her "non-role" was confirmed by who?Show her role in your conspiracy theory. Prove her role. Your burden of proof.
I think discussing the deal without committing to a theory is adequate.This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
Show her role in your conspiracy theory. Prove her role. Your burden of proof. I never claimed she had a role so I don't have to prove anything. You brought up her "non-role" so I just want to know where that was confirmed and by who. So who confirmed her "non-role"?
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
Yes.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 03:52 PM
I think discussing the deal without committing to a theory is adequate.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 03:55 PM
I never claimed she had a role so I don't have to prove anything.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.
Yes.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.What do you think really happened in the Uranium One deal?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 03:56 PM
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.
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.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"?
What do you think really happened in the Uranium One deal?I don't really know and I'm curious to hear what the FBI informant has to say.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:04 PM
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"?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.
I don't really knowThen why are you posting innuendo like you actually think something nefarious happened?
Only to distract.
Like a pussy.
Various news reports that have her underlings at state actually handling the deal.Which underlings said that? Be specific.
Do you think she had a bigger role?
Yes or no.I think so.
Then why are you posting innuendo like you actually think something happened?I do think something happened I'm just not sure what.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 04:08 PM
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
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.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 04:10 PM
I do think something happened I'm just not sure what.
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.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:12 PM
Which underlings said that? Be specific.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.:king
I think so.Then don't be a pussy about it when people say you do think that.
I do think something happened I'm just not sure what.So you don't have to be specific but everyone else does.
Pussy.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 04:14 PM
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
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.
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.
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.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:20 PM
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.
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.
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-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/
spurraider21
11-17-2017, 04:32 PM
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.
Did you get any good testimony from the people who got immunity in the email thing?
So you can actually post a theory in the meantime.
Already have I apologize if you didn't like it.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:36 PM
Already have I apologize if you didn't like it.Don't ever demand specificity again, pussy.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:37 PM
We know for a fact she received money while Secretary of State from Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer.The money went straight to her?
Is there a canceled check?
Be specific.
Did you get any good testimony from the people who got immunity in the email thing?
Combetta produced some good lol's.
"According to the F.B.I. documents, 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."
Don't ever demand specificity again, pussy.
Is this the right time to throw out buzz words about your emotional state?
The money went straight to her?
Is there a canceled check?
Be specific.Why did you edit out the very next sentence? Be specific.
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.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:41 PM
Is this the right time to throw out buzz words about your emotional state?:lol you get triggered when the whip is reversed.
Sorry. Don't be a hypocrite next time.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:43 PM
Why did you edit out the very next sentence? Be specific.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.
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?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:52 PM
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 shit 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.
No, because you shit 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.
It wasn't a lie and I already said I could have worded it differently.
Are you going to keep focusing on this one sentence for the next page or are you ready to move on?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 04:59 PM
It wasn't a lie and I already said I could have worded it differently.
Are you going to keep focusing on this one sentence for the next page or are you ready to move on?All your innuendo hinges on Clinton's getting money directly from the Uranium One chairman.
The money did not go to her.
The money went to the Clinton Foundation.
You want to conflate the two by lying about it.
All your innuendo hinges on Clinton's getting money directly from the Uranium One chairman.
The money did not go to her.
The money went to the Clinton Foundation.
You want to conflate the two by lying about it.
The money didn't go to the Clinton Foundation, the money went to a subsidiary called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
This subsidiary was set up so Clinton could bypass the agreement signed that all donors to the foundation would be made public while she was Secretary of State.
Why do you lie to conflate the two?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 05:15 PM
The money didn't go to the Clinton Foundation, the money went to a subsidiary called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
This subsidiary was set up so Clinton could bypass the agreement signed that all donors to the foundation would be made public while she was Secretary of State.
Why do you lie to conflate the two?:lol The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is part of the Clinton Foundation, therefore money that goes to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is going to the Clinton Foundation.
It is not going to Hillary Clinton.
The subsidiary was set up with the money you originally accused the old chairman of Uranium One of giving directly to Bill or Hillary or whatever stupid conspiracy you were trying to imply before you finally figured out he was already out of the company. Did you just figure that out like last week?
:lol The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is part of the Clinton Foundation, therefore money that goes to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership is going to the Clinton Foundation.
It is not going to Hillary Clinton.
The subsidiary was set up with the money you originally accused the old chairman of Uranium One of giving directly to Bill or Hillary or whatever stupid conspiracy you were trying to imply before you finally figured out he was already out of the company. Did you just figure that out like last week?
I've already clarified I meant "she" as in the Clinton Foundation. Every other instance that I've mentioned Telfer's donations here I've said they went to the foundation so just drop it as you are just flat wrong in thinking I thought donations went directly to Clinton. I did predict you would try and focus on this so I'm not really surprised.
You aren't even addressing the donations made from the Uranium One's chairman Ian Telfer while she was Secretary of State and are trying to obfuscate by bringing up Frank Guistra's donations.
Did Ian Telfer, Uranium One's chairman, make donations to the foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State yes or no?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 05:32 PM
I've already clarified I meant "she" as in the Clinton Foundation.She is not the Clinton Foundation.
Every other instance that I've mentioned Telfer's donations here I've said they went to the foundation so just drop it as you are just flat wrong in thinking I thought donations went directly to Clinton. I did predict you would try and focus on this so I'm not really surprised.Your entire conspiracy innuendo is that Hillary Clinton benefited directly from these donations to the Clinton Foundation.
This is simply bullshit since you agree the Clinton Foundation is not Hillary Clinton.
Pretty much ends your conspiracy right there.
Nice try, I guess.
She is not the Clinton Foundation.Your entire conspiracy innuendo is that Hillary Clinton benefited directly from these donations to the Clinton Foundation.
This is simply bullshit since you agree the Clinton Foundation is not Hillary Clinton.
Pretty much ends your conspiracy right there.
Nice try, I guess.
Did Hillary Clinton benefit from the $500,000 speaking fee her husband received from the Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One?
Spurminator
11-17-2017, 05:37 PM
Imagine if the alt-right detective squad spent half as much time on the actual billionaire President and his suspiciously financed real estate empire and foreign dealings as they do the losing candidate from an election that was over a year ago.
Quadzilla99
11-17-2017, 05:39 PM
Something something Clintons are evil something something where's there smoke there must be fire something something so let me produce some more smoke
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 05:41 PM
Did Hillary Clinton benefit from the $500,000 speaking fee her husband received from the Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One?I don't know their financial arrangement -- but if your pay-for-play has been reduced from the hundreds of millions you previously touted to $500,000, I'm inclined to believe you are completely full of shit on this whole thing.
Feel free to prove your accusations.
If you actually have any.
What are your actual accusations?
Imagine if the alt-right detective squad spent half as much time on the actual billionaire President and his suspiciously financed real estate empire and foreign dealings as they do the losing candidate from an election that was over a year ago.
There is already a Special Counsel dedicated to that :lol
I don't know their financial arrangement -- but if your pay-for-play has been reduced from the hundreds of millions you previously touted to $500,000, I'm inclined to believe you are completely full of shit on this whole thing.
Feel free to prove your accusations.
If you actually have any.
What are your actual accusations?
So you are not okay with pay-for-play if it's $100 million, but if it is only pay-for-play $500,000 than you are okay with that.
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 05:58 PM
So you are not okay with pay-for-play if it's $100 million, but if it is only pay-for-play $500,000 than you are okay with that.No. I am inclined to believe there is no pay per play simply because you have been so incredibly stupid in trying to describe anything about the Clinton Foundation.
This is your conspiracy innuendo.
You have to convince people to believe your conspiracy innuendo.
You stupidly whiffed on every single thing you tried to say about the Clinton Foundation.
You aren't convincing because you have been so stupid.
You have a reputation for pushing stupid, false conspiracy innuendo on this site. I see nothing different ITT.
You aren't even addressing the donations made from the Uranium One's chairman Ian Telfer while she was Secretary of State and are trying to obfuscate by bringing up Frank Guistra's donations.
Did Ian Telfer, Uranium One's chairman, make donations to the foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State yes or no?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 06:55 PM
I've already clarified I meant "she" as in the Clinton Foundation. Every other instance that I've mentioned Telfer's donations here I've said they went to the foundation so just drop it as you are just flat wrong in thinking I thought donations went directly to Clinton. I did predict you would try and focus on this so I'm not really surprised.
You aren't even addressing the donations made from the Uranium One's chairman Ian Telfer while she was Secretary of State and are trying to obfuscate by bringing up Frank Guistra's donations.
Did Ian Telfer, Uranium One's chairman, make donations to the foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State yes or no?Yes.
The foundation.
Not Clinton.
All these are matters of fact and asking such questions is just stalling on your part.
The innuendo is yours.
State your conspiracy theory that includes all your innuendo or quit repeating your innuendo.
Yes.
The foundation.
Not Clinton.
All these are matters of fact and asking such questions is just stalling on your part.
The innuendo is yours.
State your conspiracy theory that includes all your innuendo or quit repeating your innuendo.
Were the donations made in the manner that Clinton signed and agreed to when she became secretary of state? Why did the Clinton's set up a subsidiary where they could skirt the agreement she signed?
Pavlov
11-17-2017, 07:09 PM
Were the donations made in the manner that Clinton signed and agreed to when she became secretary of state? Why did the Clinton's set up a subsidiary where they could skirt the agreement she signed?False premise. Try again.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 07:15 PM
We know for a fact she received money while Secretary of State from Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer.
We know for a fact she received exactly zero money from him.
You do understand the Clintons get no monetary benefit from the Foundation, yes?
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 07:19 PM
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?
Not a theory. More bullshit.
You suck at this, really really hard.
Testable.
Falsifiable.
If you can't do that, you got nothing. I am trying to help you.
.
RandomGuy
11-17-2017, 07:28 PM
The money didn't go to the Clinton Foundation, the money went to a subsidiary called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
This subsidiary was set up so Clinton could bypass the agreement signed that all donors to the foundation would be made public while she was Secretary of State.
Why do you lie to conflate the two?
Its in the org chart and part of the consolidated financials.
The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership ("CGEP") builds social businesses to generate
social impact and financial returns by addressing market gaps in developing countries’
supply or distribution chains. CGEP works with smallholder farmers, fishers, women
entrepreneurs, and youth to improve their livelihoods by providing the tools they need – from
training and financing to technology and innovation – and bringing them into markets where
they can prosper. CGEP incorporates individuals into one of three market-driven models –
supply chain businesses, inclusive distribution businesses, and vocational training center
businesses. Through these models, CGEP seeks to help people work themselves out of
poverty. CGEP’s successful pilot programs are incorporated to form for-profit enterprise
entities in which the Clinton Foundation typically holds a significant ownership position.
Included in the consolidated financial statements are the following entities carrying out the
work of CGEP: Acceso Fund, LLC; Acceso Worldwide Fund, Inc.; Haiti Development Fund,
LLC and Acceso Peanut Enterprise Corporation, S.A.
If you say it is exempt show the agreement that says it is. If the agreement says "Clinton foundation" then it is part of that, and would presumably not be exempt as you say it is.
spurraider21
11-17-2017, 07:39 PM
But but Clinton! Tarmac!
Pavlov
11-18-2017, 03:45 AM
Why do you think these facts are not important to the story?
I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.
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.
Yeah, about that witness -- federal prosecutors have some thoughts for you.
Doubts surface about key witness in Uranium One probe of Clinton
Michael Isikoff
Federal officials have serious questions about the credibility of a key witness in congressional investigations of Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of a uranium-mining company to Russian interests, two sources knowledgeable about the case tell Yahoo News.
The witness, a Florida businessman and former FBI informant named William Douglas Campbell, was considered so unreliable that prosecutors dropped him as a witness in an unrelated case involving Russian uranium sales, according to the sources.
The investigations by two House subcommittees, apparently spurred by a tweet from President Trump last month, focus on allegations about Clinton’s role in approving the controversial sale of Uranium One, a company that owned American uranium mines, to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy company, in 2010. Campbell has suggested he can prove that approval of the sale was a quid pro quo for donations by Russian-connected parties to the Clinton Foundation.
But there are mounting questions about Campbell’s credibility in light of his track record as an informant in a separate FBI investigation into a Russian businessman named Vadim Mikerin, who was in charge of U.S. operations for Tenex — a separate unit of Rosatom that was not involved in the Uranium One purchase.
Court records and interviews with the sources who are familiar with the case indicate that Campbell provided key information to the FBI about a scheme orchestrated by Mikerin to collect kickbacks from American companies doing business with Tenex. The bureau enlisted Campbell as an undercover informant who wore a wire in his conversations with Russian officials.
But he proved a “disaster” as a potential witness in the case when doubts arose about his descriptions of some events that could not be documented, one of the sources said. As a result, prosecutors dropped extortion charges against Mikerin that relied on Campbell’s testimony. “There was no question that [Campbell’s] credibility was such that [the prosecutors] had to restructure the case,” the source said. “He got cut out of the case entirely.”
Mikerin pleaded guilty to the remaining money laundering charges in August 2015 and was sentenced to four years in prison, which he is still serving.
“This is a smear job,” Victoria Toensing, Campbell’s lawyer, told Yahoo News when asked about the doubts law enforcement officials had about her client’s credibility. “That was not the reason” prosecutors removed him as a witness against Mikerin, she said. Instead, it was because “the Obama administration didn’t want to bring a big extortion case against Russia” and risk testimony from Campbell that would have undermined the Uranium One sale and undercut the president’s efforts to “reset” relations with Russia. So instead, “they covered it up,” she said.
The questions about Campbell and his purported knowledge about the Uranium One sale have become a political lightning rod in recent weeks, with Democrats charging they are only being raised now to distract attention from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign and its ties to the Kremlin.
Top Republicans initiated the Uranium One probes after President Trump tweeted on Oct. 19 that the sale to Russia “with Clinton help and Obama administration knowledge is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!” Two House panels — subcommittees of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Intelligence Committee — have begun investigations. House Republican leaders are also calling for the appointment of a Justice Department special counsel to conduct a criminal probe of the Uranium One deal.
In announcing one of the congressional inquiries three days after Trump’s tweet, Rep. Ron DeSantis, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform National Security Subcommittee, said he had “explosive” information from a “confidential informant” who he said “would be able to link” the Obama administration’s approval of the sale of Uranium One to Russia to “millions of dollars” in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The sale of Uranium One was unanimously approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency panel of nine Cabinet members on which Clinton, who was then secretary of state, sat.
Campbell, who is expected to testify behind closed doors to DeSantis’s panel, repeated that claim in an interview with Reuters this week for a story that named him publicly for the first time. He told the news agency that he had worked for the Justice Department “undercover for several years,” and that he had “documentation” that could show a relationship between approval of the Uranium One sale by the Obama administration and “political influence.” (Toensing, Campbell’s lawyer, said her client was “dazed” at the time of the interview because the reporter caught up while he was recovering from chemotherapy treatment for cancer. She said “there are documents” in Campbell’s possession, but declined to specify what they were.)
But sources with detailed knowledge of his earlier role are skeptical. The sources confirm that Campbell approached the FBI with information about Mikerin’s role in a kickback scheme involving American companies doing business with the Tenex unit of Rosatom. Campbell was hired as a consultant to Tenex and was also paid by Cassidy Associates, a major Washington lobbying firm, that had been hired by Tenex to promote its business in the U.S.
The investigation that followed was a significant one — far more so than was publicly revealed at the time. The FBI was able to trace $2.1 million in bribes paid to Mikerin and others and wired to offshore shell companies in Cyprus, Latvia and Switzerland. U.S. intelligence officials suspected — but were never able to conclusively prove — that these payments ultimately benefited entities connected to Vladimir Putin.
But Campbell’s importance to the Mikerin investigation faded after prosecutors discovered discrepancies in his account of his dealings with Mikerin and other Russian figures, sources said. Investigators also were unable to verify some of his more explosive allegations, including claims that he was threatened with violence if he did not participate in the scheme by helping to arrange kickbacks in exchange for contracts with Tenex. The doubts were serious enough that the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland — which was prosecuting Mikerin under the direction of then U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, now the deputy attorney general — felt compelled to alert defense lawyers to them. There were also other questions about his background, including two DUI convictions in 2009 and 2012.
Eventually, fearing Campbell would not withstand scrutiny in open trial, prosecutors dropped him as a potential witness and scrapped the charges against Mikerin that would have relied on his testimony.
Those problems arose again last year when Campbell filed a lawsuit against Mikerin in federal court in Baltimore, accusing him of racketeering and seeking damages. At the time, Mikerin was already serving his sentence at a federal prison in North Carolina. Because legal proceedings were still pending against another defendant in the case, Justice Department prosecutors wrote to Campbell’s then lawyer, accusing him of violating the terms of his agreement with the government. Prosecutors threatened to reveal derogatory information to the judge about Campbell’s dealings with the government If he pursued the civil case,. Campbell later dropped the suit.
Toensing, Campbell’s lawyer, said that Campbell would be able to tell Congress that discussions about the Uranium One sale were raised by Russian officials during his dealings with them. But sources who spoke to Yahoo News said that during the course of hours of interrogations by the FBI and Justice Department lawyers, Campbell never mentioned any connection between Mikerin’s dealings and the sale of Uranium One. Nor did he ever volunteer that he had documents or information relating to the Uranium One sale. The issue, one of the sources said, never came up.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/doubts-surface-key-witness-uranium-one-probe-clinton-203614558.html
They'll probably have him testify anyway. Hope he's not "dazed."
Splits
11-19-2017, 06:51 PM
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GRJRDeRsr40/WhCX93t4g1I/AAAAAAAA1Lg/aHCpdD_kyqoA-RQlTYUW28Gr1xCq6dYhgCLcBGAs/s640/Screenshot%2B2017-11-18%2Bat%2B12.27.33%2BPM.png
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.