Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
She is not the Clinton Foundation.Your entire conspiracy innuendo is that Hillary Clinton benefited directly from these donations to 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.
This is simply bull 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?
Imagine if the alt-right detective squad spent half as much time on the actual billionaire President and his su iously financed real estate empire and foreign dealings as they do the losing candidate from an election that was over a year ago.
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 on this whole thing.
Feel free to prove your accusations.
If you actually have any.
What are your actual accusations?
There is already a Special Counsel dedicated to that
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.
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?
False premise. Try again.
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...nal-benefit-f/
Not a theory. More bull .
You suck at this, really really hard.
Testable.
Falsifiable.
If you can't do that, you got nothing. I am trying to help you.
.
Its in the org chart and part of the consolidated financials.
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.
But but Clinton! Tarmac!
Yeah, about that witness -- federal prosecutors have some thoughts for you.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/doubts-su...203614558.htmlDoubts 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 do ented, 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 “do entation” 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 do ents” 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 s companies in Cyprus, Latvia and Switzerland. U.S. intelligence officials suspected — but were never able to conclusively prove — that these payments ultimately benefited en ies 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 do ents or information relating to the Uranium One sale. The issue, one of the sources said, never came up.
They'll probably have him testify anyway. Hope he's not "dazed."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
