TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#3,551
#3,551
Mick said:
The very best scenario for the Trump clan is that Manafort is a Russian foreign agent. He used the dimwits Kushner and Jr to become compromised by meeting with another Russian agent in Trump Tower promising dirt on Hillary. The Russian lawyer (other agent) used Simpson to communicate this to the FBI for which the FISA warrants could be obtained. Once Trump found out about this he tried to protect his little dimwits and tried to Obstruct Justice in order to save his "good" name.
Click to expand...

The only collusion I’ve seen proof of is from the Hillary campaign and the media, to ensure Trump won the primaries.
 
#3,552
#3,552
I left one out. The collusion between the Clintons and the Russians on uranium

The rest is just an insane witch hunt
 
#3,553
#3,553
Vol8188 said:
The only collusion I’ve seen proof of is from the Hillary campaign and the media, to ensure Trump won the primaries.
Click to expand...

That probably cost her a few votes but what crime did she and they commit? It was unethical and dirty. Remember the right wing media also helped Trump in the primaries. Little Marco. Cruz's father was the second shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,554
#3,554
Mick said:
That probably cost her a few votes but what crime did she and they commit? It was unethical and dirty. Remember the right wing media also helped Trump in the primaries. Little Marco. Cruz's father was the second shooter.
Click to expand...

Uranium one would be the crime she committed.
 
#3,556
#3,556
Vol8188 said:
Uranium one would be the crime she committed.
Click to expand...

Oh Yeah? What crime exactly did she commit?

The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,557
#3,557
OuterBanksVol said:
Oh Yeah? What crime exactly did she commit?

The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
Click to expand...

Smokescreen?
 
#3,558
#3,558
Feds claim evidence of bank fraud by Manafort: Court filing - ABC News

A federal court has unsealed a filing against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in which prosecutors with the special counsel’s office accuse Manafort of conducting “a series of bank frauds,” new, uncharged allegations that come on top of the conspiracy and money laundering charges he already faces.

The filing says the government has opposed a more lenient bail package for Manafort “in light of additional criminal conduct that we have learned since the Court’s initial bail determination,” and adds that the conduct in question “includes a series of bank frauds and bank fraud conspiracies.”
 
#3,559
#3,559
Mick said:
I told you the analogy of your posting style. You post like a drunk crackhead cussing the trees that jump out in front of you.
Click to expand...

Bless your heart.

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,564
#3,564
Mick said:
What kind of evidence do you have to support that accusation? Russians gave to her foundation and after that the trail stops.
Click to expand...

And to Bill personally. Let’s not pretend like neither of those are significant. If you don’t believe her charity is a front to launder political favors, you’re out of your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,565
#3,565
OuterBanksVol said:
Oh Yeah? What crime exactly did she commit?

The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
Click to expand...

Lol “she was powerless” “she had no veto powers”

Also...”all 9 had to approve”

Did you read your own crap?
 
#3,566
#3,566
Vol8188 said:
Lol “she was powerless” “she had no veto powers”

Also...”all 9 had to approve”

Did you read your own crap?
Click to expand...

Need me to dumb it down for you Junior? It's straigt forward: HRC had 1 of 9 votes. The only crime here is the attack of stupidly by the Fox News knuckledraggers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,569
#3,569
Mick said:
Feds claim evidence of bank fraud by Manafort: Court filing - ABC News

A federal court has unsealed a filing against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in which prosecutors with the special counsel’s office accuse Manafort of conducting “a series of bank frauds,” new, uncharged allegations that come on top of the conspiracy and money laundering charges he already faces.

The filing says the government has opposed a more lenient bail package for Manafort “in light of additional criminal conduct that we have learned since the Court’s initial bail determination,” and adds that the conduct in question “includes a series of bank frauds and bank fraud conspiracies.”
Click to expand...

He should roll on Trump any day now. Don’t worry this’ll get em impeached soon.
 
#3,571
#3,571
Vol8188 said:
If it took all 9 votes to pass, Her voting against would be a VETO.

Why can’t you comprehend that?
Click to expand...

100% accurate. You’re point is excellent, all it took was her vote to stop it, but never happened because she’s crooked like her POS husband.
 
#3,572
#3,572
Vol8188 said:
If it took all 9 votes to pass, Her voting against would be a VETO.

Why can’t you comprehend that?
Click to expand...

Lawdy.

Only when a body passes a proposal would someone be able to wield a veto. In this case if 8 of the cabinet members / department heads that sit on the CFIUS voted to approve the sale, but HRC voted against it, the proposal simply fails. That is not a veto.

Again, there is ZERO evidence of criminal behavior by HRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,575
#3,575
OuterBanksVol said:
Lawdy.

Only when a body passes a proposal would someone be able to wield a veto. In this case if 8 of the cabinet members / department heads that sit on the CFIUS voted to approve the sale, but HRC voted against it, the proposal simply fails. That is not a veto.

Again, there is ZERO evidence of criminal behavior by HRC.
Click to expand...

So she could have stopped this? Which is the same as having veto power. Surely you’re not so dense that you can’t comprehend that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top