This_person
Well-Known Member
What does Sessions have to do with anything I've posted or am saying? I know nothing about Sessions' discussion with Congress today (I was working)
Donald Trump Jr Coordinated with Wikileaks
- Thread starter Sapidus
- Start date
What does Sessions have to do with anything I've posted or am saying? I know nothing about Sessions' discussion with Congress today (I was working)
littlelady
God bless the USA
Is that like a walkabout? I can’t help you if you can’t follow your own posts. And, yes, I think you have consciously chosen to be clueless. Nice try.
Last edited:
littlelady
God bless the USA
I got cha. And, I am not a spelling Nazi, so carry on. If you don’t get it, you just don’t it. But, there is always hope for change, or something like that.
warneckutz
Well-Known Member
Speaking of weirdos... whatever happened to the one dude that would type in his own language and delete the post a few minutes or hours later? Lance?
No person in this country is so high that he or she is above the law. This includes Hillary Clinton.
There is no station in life or standing in government or political aspiration that absolves someone from criminal conduct. In this way, we are all creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. An orderly society cannot function if it permits individuals to disregard the law with impunity.
This fundamental principle, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a century ago, is what gives sustenance to our democracy. Without it, lawlessness, chaos and tyranny at the hands of the few would inexorably ensue.
It follows, then, that Clinton is no higher or lower than any American. She must abide by the rule of law regardless of her condition or circumstance. Running for high office, including the presidency, does not somehow establish an entitlement to legal absolution.
Yet, this essential doctrine seemed to be entirely lost on Democrats during Tuesday’s hearing by the House Judiciary Committee in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, asked the following question: “In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?”
Sessions responded that “the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents and that would be wrong.”
Conyers, a notorious partisan, appears to have deliberately misstated both the law and the facts. The Justice Department is duty-bound to investigate acts that appear to have violated criminal statutes. If there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of charges, our system of justice demands they be brought.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...her-actions-and-scrutiny-special-counsel.html
There is no station in life or standing in government or political aspiration that absolves someone from criminal conduct. In this way, we are all creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. An orderly society cannot function if it permits individuals to disregard the law with impunity.
This fundamental principle, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a century ago, is what gives sustenance to our democracy. Without it, lawlessness, chaos and tyranny at the hands of the few would inexorably ensue.
It follows, then, that Clinton is no higher or lower than any American. She must abide by the rule of law regardless of her condition or circumstance. Running for high office, including the presidency, does not somehow establish an entitlement to legal absolution.
Yet, this essential doctrine seemed to be entirely lost on Democrats during Tuesday’s hearing by the House Judiciary Committee in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, asked the following question: “In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?”
Sessions responded that “the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents and that would be wrong.”
Conyers, a notorious partisan, appears to have deliberately misstated both the law and the facts. The Justice Department is duty-bound to investigate acts that appear to have violated criminal statutes. If there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of charges, our system of justice demands they be brought.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...her-actions-and-scrutiny-special-counsel.html
In the case of the uranium there is absolutely no crime or even a hint of impropriety. It is merely a smoke screen to avoid talking about Russia. But keep on swallowing the crap they feed you.
If you don’t believe me maybe you will
Listen to Fox News explain what it is less than nothing.
“To begin with, as Smith pointed out, Uranium One was actually a Canadian company that happens to have had holdings in U.S. uranium mines. It was not an American company and the sale did not involve the export of uranium, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission explicitly blocked.
Second, as Smith said, “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction.” Clinton sat on a board called the Committee on Foreign Investments, which includes nine government department heads and advises the president on foreign transactions with national security.
“The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One,” Smith noted. “It was unanimous. Not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don’t know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly.”
https://shareblue.com/watch-a-fox-host-destroy-his-very-own-networks-favorite-phony-clinton-scandal/
Do you deny that all the did was Quote Shep. Smith? Does it change any of the things he said? Do you only believe it if it is linked directly to Fox News?
So, we're comparing someone who obviously broke the law by disseminating highly classified information over an unsecured network, to someone who called their political opponent a doody head, and one is equal to the other?
Alrighty then...
Alrighty then...
PsyOps
Pixelated
You do know information has come out showing that Comey's original statement said Hillary was "grossly negligent" and he was advised to change it to "extremely careless"? You do know that Comey drafted up his recommendation to not indict Hillary before the investigation was complete? You do know that Loretta Lynch told Comey to not call it an "investigation", but to call it a "matter", and he willingly complied; thus changing the name of the agency to the FBM?
You are so invested in your leftist thinking that you're unable to see that the fix was in for Clinton. She was never going to be indicted, even though EVERYTHING Comey did showed she committed criminal acts. Well, the dynamics have changed. There's a new sheriff in town. One way or another, there will be another investigation opened on Clinton.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
I love how you progressives box in Hillary
- like her influence did not expend past DoS
- or Clinton didn't personally approve the sale, a committee did that
Background on the U.S.-Russia Uranium deal
1. The Uranium One deal
The Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, took control of the Canadian company Uranium One, which had uranium-mining stakes that stretched from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world's largest uranium producers, per NYT, and brought Vladimir Putin closer to his goal of becoming one of the world's major atomic energy players.
Where things get complicated
2. The Clintons' involvement
- A 2015 story by the New York Times' Jo Becker and Mike McIntire revealed that leaders of the Canadian mining industry that built, financed, and eventually made the sale of what would become Uranium One to Russia have been major donors to the Clinton Foundation.
- And since uranium is considered a "strategic asset with implications for national security," the deal needed approval from several U.S. government agencies. Becker and McIntire note that the State Department, then run by Hillary Clinton, was among the agencies that signed off on the sale.
- Canadian records show that as Moscow gradually took over Uranium One from 2009-2013, Uranium One's chairman, among others with ties to the company, used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite Hillary Clinton being under a White House agreement to publicly identify all donors.
- In June 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow, the same month the Rosatom deal went through. The money came from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.
- The Clintons' defense: Brian Fallon, then a spokesman for Hillary's Clinton's initial presidential campaign, said there was no evidence supporting the theory that she, as secretary of state, helped support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation. He also noted that multiple U.S. agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the uranium deal.
The Obama administration's involvement
- A report last week by The Hill's John Solomon and Alison Spann says the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russia had used bribery, kickbacks, and extortion to get a stake in the U.S. atomic energy industry — but the Obama administration allowed the deal to move forward anyway. The Justice Department kept investigating for four more years.
- Why it matters: "The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions," a person who worked on the case told The Hill.
any other Person / Gov. Employee / DOD Personal would be in jail serving a long prison sentence
The deal was approved by a nine-member interagency group known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and was ultimately approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rosatom had previously purchased 17 per cent of Uranium One’s shares in 2009.
The interagency group is composed of the following departments: State, Defence, Treasury, Commerce, Energy, ad Homeland Security. The US attorney general’s office also has a say, as does the US Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That means that Ms Clinton’s department was not the only federal agency with a say in the sale.
The Clinton Foundation did receive some money from at least one Uranium One investor, but it appears that other claims were overblown. That investor was Ian Telfer, who donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the foundation during and after the review.
But, the main Uranium One donor to the foundation, Frank Giustra, divested himself from his stake in the company three years before it was sold., and 18 months before Ms Clinton became secretary of State.
Separately, The New York Times reported last year that former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to give a speech to a conference in Moscow in 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-it-true-truth-explained-obama-a8030116.html
The interagency group is composed of the following departments: State, Defence, Treasury, Commerce, Energy, ad Homeland Security. The US attorney general’s office also has a say, as does the US Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That means that Ms Clinton’s department was not the only federal agency with a say in the sale.
The Clinton Foundation did receive some money from at least one Uranium One investor, but it appears that other claims were overblown. That investor was Ian Telfer, who donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the foundation during and after the review.
But, the main Uranium One donor to the foundation, Frank Giustra, divested himself from his stake in the company three years before it was sold., and 18 months before Ms Clinton became secretary of State.
Separately, The New York Times reported last year that former President Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to give a speech to a conference in Moscow in 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-it-true-truth-explained-obama-a8030116.html
This_person
Well-Known Member
Most thinking people significantly, sincerely disagree with you.
then why did the CF FAIL to disclose the donations and Bills Speaking Fee at the time
oh right a paperwork error
PsyOps
Pixelated
You sound like Obama saying there was "not even a smidgeon of corruption" in the IRS. If our government decides to go after this U1 deal, they are going to find deep collusionbetween the Clintons and the Russians, where massive amounts of money were funneled to the Clinton foundation in exchange for this U1 deal. No one has to wonder why Hillary needed her own private server to conduct State Dept business.
I don't expect you to do see how corruption has followed the Clintons that go back decades; back the Arkansas. You're leftist thinking forces you to filter it out. But it's there, as bright as the blood that follows their deplorable behavior.
Most certainly would be.
You should really educate your self.
Step Smith and the national review are now saying it is clearly debunked and Sessions is walking back that discussion of investigation.
But Trump and co. got you all riled up over Hillary and not paying attention to what is actually going on. It's like shooting fish in a barrel you guys fall for it every time.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...ump-for-inaccurate-claims-on-uranium-one-deal
Seriously try reading the above article. You will quickly tire yourself out and need a nap
between the Clintons and the Russians, where massive amounts of money were funneled to the Clinton foundation in exchange for this U1 deal. No one has to wonder why Hillary needed her own private server to conduct State Dept business.
I don't expect you to do see how corruption has followed the Clintons that go back decades; back the Arkansas. You're leftist thinking forces you to filter it out. But it's there, as bright as the blood that follows their deplorable behavior.
Keep dreaming. Trump and Co have really done a number on you. You do realize they are just redirecting your anger. It should be at them but they know how to play you like a fiddle,
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...ump-for-inaccurate-claims-on-uranium-one-deal
PsyOps
Pixelated
You can post that article a golzillion times and won't change anything. My "anger" has been centrally focused on the Clintons for a very long time. They wield massive power in the political realm. The only fiddle being played here is the Clintons managing to convince a large sect of our population that they are this pristine, upstanding, heroes of the democrat party. With Donna Brazile, this is all starting to unravel.
I'm going to throw a Midnightrider at you (since you two seem to be such good buddies)... if there is an appearance of impropriety, why not investigate it? That's what he's been telling us all along with the Trump collusion investigation; even though absolutely no evidence has been shown there was criminal collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians.