Since he's on Russia and fake news, has anybody in the media even asked Trump about the still unsigned sanctions bill?
I think he signed that one and it was reported he talked to putting first... Or is it another bill you speak of?
Since he's on Russia and fake news, has anybody in the media even asked Trump about the still unsigned sanctions bill?
This story is from NY Times and The Hill. You think they are trying to make something stick to Crooked Hillary?
I think he signed that one and it was reported he talked to putting first... Or is it another bill you speak of?
Politicians should not have charities, it's a bucket that all sorts of shady people can pour money into.
Yes, it's a terrible look. Way back when I was at uni, I had a course by a US professor regarding various political-judiciary issues. Some of the cases we reviewed were, stricto sensu, legal; however they were liable to create "the appearance of impropriety" which had an impact on the public opinion regarding the issue. This in turn could cause public pressure towards one side in the case.Seriously. It's so bizarre why we allow this.
This is all the proof we need to know its fake. Pushed by Putins bot armyStory is being pushed by bots:
https://twitter.com/conspirator0/status/920840387543097347?s=09
Appears they are attempting to reverse the collusion narrative.
The Twitter thread is relevant.
Trump's going all in on Twitter, now saying the Steele Dossier was made up by Russia/Dems/FBI. Incredible. A fucking loon runs the country. I use the word "run" really fucking loosely.
Some of the base facts are probably not fake, but the direction they're spun definitely is. That's the Soviet way: start from a grain of truth and spin a lie around it.This is all the proof we need to know its fake. Pushed by Putins bot army
I do agree with this. The kernel started as a donation with this vast fake narrative spun from it.Some of the base facts are probably not fake, but the direction they're spun definitely is. That's the Soviet way: start from a grain of truth and spin a lie around it.
Surprised that Trump hasn't demanded that the DoD provide him a bot army that's ten times bigger.This is all the proof we need to know its fake. Pushed by Putins bot army
Surprised that Trump hasn't demanded that the DoD provide him a bot army that's ten times bigger.
Because #TrumpHugeHands isn't trending.How do we know that he hasn't? :3c
Trump vindicated again, no wonder her acts so cocky when you accused of Russian ties.
Lol, it's more like Trump has obviously farted in the lift but is trying to pin it on someone else.
I'm still not buying this story unless something concrete actually comes up beyond dodgy russians.
Weve had the Senate investigatory committee tell us that the dossiers been vetted back to like Aug. 2016 but this one Hill story is totally vindicating Trump even though it has nothing to do with the investigation into his campaign?
Weve had the Senate investigatory committee tell us that the dossiers been vetted back to like Aug. 2016 but this one Hill story is totally vindicating Trump even though it has nothing to do with the investigation into his campaign?
Trump's knee deep in Russian shit, The Hill stories don't dispute that. All these The Hill stories show is The Clinton's and Obama might be knee deep in the shit too. Mitt Romney continues to be vindicated for his Russia comments in 2012.
and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton's foundation.
collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal
Yes, this might have been a quid pro quo which Obama considered acceptable to have START pass. He probably considered the treaty much more important than stopping a crooked business deal.I mean New START was signed in 2010 and it could've well been part of the negotiations to allow the sale. I still believe it's not as nefarious as this article makes it out to be for Obama - they still prosecuted the involved parties in 2014/15. It's not like the uranium is being shipped to Russia.
Also this is confusingly written:
Then right after:
So, does he have proof they gave it to the foundation, or just one ”assisting" it?
The Times has nothing to do with this story. As I've said on the previous page, it's (co-)written by a pretty sketchy journalist.
But it is just adding on to a story that was originally put out by NYT. It's a fact that the Clintons accepted millions from Russians while Hillary was Secretary of State, and then this uranium deal happened. This is obviously a far bigger deal than someone tangentially related to Trump having an email exchange with a Russian that apparently goes nowhere, for example, yet we liberals are rabid for that news while quick to dismiss this. I have to agree with the conservative lunatics that there is more proof of wrongdoing here than in any Trump/Russia stuff so far.
But it is just adding on to a story that was originally put out by NYT. It's a fact that the Clintons accepted millions from Russians while Hillary was Secretary of State, and then this uranium deal happened. This is obviously a far bigger deal than someone tangentially related to Trump having an email exchange with a Russian that apparently goes nowhere, for example, yet we liberals are rabid for that news while quick to dismiss this. I have to agree with the conservative lunatics that there is more proof of wrongdoing here than in any Trump/Russia stuff so far.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra and Telfer, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. The Times reported that Telfer also donated to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity based in Canada. These were donations made to the Clinton Foundation, not directly to the Clintons.
As PolitiFact found, the majority of these donations were made before and during Clintons 2008 presidential run. So Trumps claim that Hillary Clinton gave [uranium to] Russia for a big payment is not accurate. If she had actually become president, she would have had more power over the deal than as the head of one agency among nine represented on CFIUS.
You're right, donations to a charitable organization from Russian people and then this deal happening involving different Russian people is a far bigger story than close associates of Trump exchanging emails with a hostile foreign state regarding damaging information on another U.S. citizen running for President.
You're right, donations to a charitable organization from Russian people and then this deal happening involving different Russian people is a far bigger story than close associates of Trump exchanging emails with a hostile foreign state regarding damaging information on another U.S. citizen running for President.
You're right, donations to a charitable organization from Russian people and then this deal happening involving different Russian people is a far bigger story than close associates of Trump exchanging emails with a hostile foreign state regarding damaging information on another U.S. citizen running for President.
The donations also happened years ago when we didn't know Russia's true nature. Actually we're still revealing layer upon layer of how much propaganda they're putting out now to sway public opinion. We had no idea how much they did until recently. We can only assume Russia is meddling in all ways now.
All of that propaganda wasn't trying to get Clinton elected FFS.
But it is just adding on to a story that was originally put out by NYT. It's a fact that the Clintons accepted millions from Russians while Hillary was Secretary of State, and then this uranium deal happened. This is obviously a far bigger deal than someone tangentially related to Trump having an email exchange with a Russian that apparently goes nowhere, for example, yet we liberals are rabid for that news while quick to dismiss this. I have to agree with the conservative lunatics that there is more proof of wrongdoing here than in any Trump/Russia stuff so far.
The fact that the Russian bots are in overdrive attempting in vain to make this a big story, tells me it isn't.
Well it's huge on Fox, though there's nothing on CNN or NYT for me yet.
Trump vindicated again, no wonder her acts so cocky when you accused of Russian ties.
Our intelligence agenceis certainly knew "Russia's true nature". Just because it wasn't all released to the press until recently means nothing. All of the experts testifying over this Russia stuff have made it clear that this is and has been how Russia operates.
In his meeting with Puerto Rico's governor today, Trump called (his) Russian Collusion story a hoax and said Uranium is the real story and that the media is covering it up because "it affects people they protect."
Here is a crazy man, spouting crackpot conspiracy, on live television. The President. At a meeting with the governor of Puerto Rico, ostensibly to discuss the state of the island after the Hurricane and initial recovery.
how surprising
The Republican playbook since the Fox News era began is to perpetuate a counter-narrative. Doesn't have to be true since their base won't double check their voices of authority.In his meeting with Puerto Rico's governor today, Trump called (his) Russian Collusion story a hoax and said Uranium is the real story and that the media is covering it up because "it affects people they protect."
Here is a crazy man, spouting crackpot conspiracy, on live television. The President. At a meeting with the governor of Puerto Rico, ostensibly to discuss the state of the island after the Hurricane and initial recovery.
Pompeo: "Yes, the IC's assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the elections." #FDDSummit
What a load of horseshit.
This is propaganda aimed at trivializing Russian ops and smearing Clinton, Obama, Comey and Mueller all at once.
So when NYT did their article, it was propaganda aimed at trivializing Russian ops and smearing Clinton etc?