Special prosecutor named

[pilebuck13]

Sessions looking pretty smart right about now with his early recusal.

LB there is nothing illegal here. It's hilarious all we're seeing is shareblue media matters pushing there agenda to make him look bad no real crimes though all political shit

[chico2663]

Sessions looking pretty smart right about now with his early recusal.

When you get caught lying under oath that is the best thing you can do is hide.

[jtoler]

No Michael Savage, the typical pubby, scare mongering lying racist.

[chico2663]

LB there is nothing illegal here. It's hilarious all we're seeing is shareblue media matters pushing there agenda to make him look bad no real crimes though all political shit

rudi, sessions and jaret sp are going to jail. Trump will be fine cause I don't think he did anything

[pilebuck13]

rudi, sessions and jaret sp are going to jail. Trump will be fine cause I don't think he did anything

For what?

[qwertvt]

I really don't think being impeached means anything. Bill Clinton was impeached and remained President. Not really sure.

There are two phases of the impeachment process.

1 - The House votes to impeach as they did with Bill Clinton.

In Bill's case he was impeached.

This is only serves as an indictment of certain crimes.

2 - If the House impeaches a president, then it moves to the Senate where there is a trial overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To remove a sitting president, you would need a 2/3 vote for a removal.

Bill Clinton was impeached but was acquitted in the Senate hearings.

Nixon resigned before impeachment because there was overwhelming evidence against him. He knew he would be the first president to be impeached and kicked out of office.

If Trump is impeached and subsequently found guilty by the Senate, Pence becomes POTUS and then he must select his replacement as vice president and the replacement must be approved by Congress.

[pilebuck13]

There are two phases of the impeachment process.

1 - The House votes to impeach as they did with Bill Clinton.

In Bill's case he was impeached.

This is only serves as an indictment of certain crimes.

2 - If the House impeaches a president, then it moves to the Senate where there is a trial overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To remove a sitting president, you would need a 2/3 vote for a removal.

Bill Clinton was impeached but was acquitted in the Senate hearings.

Nixon resigned before impeachment because there was overwhelming evidence against him. He knew he would be the first president to be impeached and kicked out of office.

If Trump is impeached and subsequently found guilty by the Senate, Pence becomes POTUS and then he must select his replacement as vice president and the replacement must be approved by Congress.

Guilty of what exactly please explain?

[nyplayer33]

Guilty of nothing...cause media puts there feelings ahead of reporting news.

[qwertvt]

Guilty of what exactly please explain?

See Article 2 Section 4 of the U.S Constitution.

My synopsis of impeachment was just an overview. I am not suggesting Trump is guilty of a crime.

In Bill Clinton's case he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

[nyplayer33]

Kushner will be potus..2020..or his wife.

[5mike5]

At least they won't have diarrhea of the mouth

[chico2663]

[QUOTE=pilebuck13;26973128]For what?[/QUOTE
This starts with wendy deng soros. the girl that set up jaret and ivanka. She is putins gf and was on vacay with ivanka before trump got really invested in the election. Jaret sp has been doing business deals with russians and chinese. Shit is about to hit the fan with him. Rudy was on fox bragging about what was getting ready to hit before wiki let it go. Sessions is very dirty and involved with the flynn shit. Trump is just someone who got help from his friends,].Sort of like a patsy.

[VeggieDog]

If everyone in hear can't realize that this is deeper then party lines I feel sorry for you. It's obvious our government is absolutely corrupt and out of control, no one will ever be able to stop it, trump no one

Post of the year! Nailed it. Just like George Carlin said about the rich and powerful: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

[nyplayer33]

Alan d is about the law and such..he was on the oj team

[chico2663]

Alan d is about the law and such..he was on the oj team

I follow him but he is good friends with donald. I'm not sure if trump will have any egg on his face. i think it is his minions

[chico2663]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN18F2KK

Says in this article that the Trump is going to get mueller off the case because his firm represents manafort and jared

[thechaoz]

all these jerks suck, lawyers and sellouts, crooks and egotists, warmongers and moneychangers, liars and plotters of discord, they can all go to hell.

Russia is a better people, they
drove out scum like this and took their country back, but US will not.

Trump caved, Sessions caved, and Rosenstein calls the shots.

The joke is on regular Americans,
you see, they need you to fear Russia
so the NWO can take over all humanity.

They are commies and scum, you must be high

[nyplayer33]

Assuming Alan d is good friends with donald...does that mean he will advise him to get lawyer...or represent him??

[nyplayer33]

CNN is full of a n ti donald people...van jones...many others. Are they reporting news or reporting a story biased to there feelings and agenda?

[19th Hole]

SNOWBALL
pilebuck thats not the point.
they know 100 percent Russia
did not and cannot and would not interfere in an American election.

all they want to do is drill it in your
head that Russia is bad so that
you accept the eventual war they
are planning. Russia is the last and final obstacle that can resist them.

~~


Originally Posted by pilebuck13
If everyone in hear can't realize that this is deeper then party lines I feel sorry for you. It's obvious our government is absolutely corrupt and out of control, no one will ever be able to stop it, trump no one
~~~

Post of the year! Nailed it. Just like George Carlin said about the rich and powerful: "It's a big club, and you ain't in it."

~~~
“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it!”
I often think of these words, spoken by the great comedian George Carlin, when I read about the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Every year, global elites descend on Davos to discuss the big issues of the day in a Bilderberg-like conclave. This year, George Soros was there. So was Bill Gates.
The most important world leaders go. As do CEOs of the world’s largest companies, mainstream media bigwigs, and prominent academics. Central bankers attend, too.
In short, it’s a bunch of out-of-touch, self-anointed elites meeting to hand down from above their uniformly bad “solutions” to the world’s problems. Then they pat each other on the back for all the good they’re doing.
No matter the problem, their prescription is always more welfare, more warfare, more money printing, more taxes, and of course, more centralization of power into global institutions.

Interestingly, Donald Trump has never been invited to Davos. But his many opponents surely have.
This year, former Vice President Joe Biden gave a provocative speech. He accused Russia of trying to “collapse the liberal international order.” It was basically a call to arms and only increased tensions.
Rising populism was another hot topic. The Davos crowd sees it as a huge threat.
One professional academic there claimed: “We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”
Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), struck a similar tone: “It probably means more redistribution than we have in place at the moment.”
Speaking of the IMF, the global elite has wanted a supranational global currency for a long time. In fact, it already has one on deck.
The IMF issues a type of international currency called the “Special Drawing Right,” or SDR. The SDR is simply a basket of other fiat currencies—the US dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound.
The SDR is not based on sound economics or the interests of the common man. It’s just another cockamamie invention of the economic witch doctors in academia and government.
The SDR is dangerous. It gives the government—in this case, a global government—more power.
The SDR is nothing new. The IMF has been slowly building it up since 1969. They’ve just been patiently waiting for the right moment to use it to displace the US dollar as the world’s premier currency.
Another 1929- or 2008-style financial collapse would be the perfect excuse for the globalists to execute their SDR solution.
Trump has inherited a stock market bubble near its peak—fueled by the Fed’s easy money policies. And he knows it. In recent months, he’s called the stock market a “big, fat, ugly bubble.”
There’s an excellent chance this bubble will burst on Trump’s watch. He might play along with the global elites’ SDR scheme, but I doubt it.
Nick Giambruno

[chico2663]

Assuming Alan d is good friends with donald...does that mean he will advise him to get lawyer...or represent him??

Everyone is telling him to lawyer up. He needs to quit screwing around with flynn. Sort of like if your a dope dealer and one of the guys get busted. Quit fuckking with him.

[chico2663]

SNOWBALL
pilebuck thats not the point.
they know 100 percent Russia
did not and cannot and would not interfere in an American election.

all they want to do is drill it in your
head that Russia is bad so that
you accept the eventual war they
are planning. Russia is the last and final obstacle that can resist them.

~~


Originally Posted by pilebuck13
If everyone in hear can't realize that this is deeper then party lines I feel sorry for you. It's obvious our government is absolutely corrupt and out of control, no one will ever be able to stop it, trump no one
~~~


~~~
“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it!”
I often think of these words, spoken by the great comedian George Carlin, when I read about the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Every year, global elites descend on Davos to discuss the big issues of the day in a Bilderberg-like conclave. This year, George Soros was there. So was Bill Gates.
The most important world leaders go. As do CEOs of the world’s largest companies, mainstream media bigwigs, and prominent academics. Central bankers attend, too.
In short, it’s a bunch of out-of-touch, self-anointed elites meeting to hand down from above their uniformly bad “solutions” to the world’s problems. Then they pat each other on the back for all the good they’re doing.
No matter the problem, their prescription is always more welfare, more warfare, more money printing, more taxes, and of course, more centralization of power into global institutions.

Interestingly, Donald Trump has never been invited to Davos. But his many opponents surely have.
This year, former Vice President Joe Biden gave a provocative speech. He accused Russia of trying to “collapse the liberal international order.” It was basically a call to arms and only increased tensions.
Rising populism was another hot topic. The Davos crowd sees it as a huge threat.
One professional academic there claimed: “We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”
Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), struck a similar tone: “It probably means more redistribution than we have in place at the moment.”
Speaking of the IMF, the global elite has wanted a supranational global currency for a long time. In fact, it already has one on deck.
The IMF issues a type of international currency called the “Special Drawing Right,” or SDR. The SDR is simply a basket of other fiat currencies—the US dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound.
The SDR is not based on sound economics or the interests of the common man. It’s just another cockamamie invention of the economic witch doctors in academia and government.
The SDR is dangerous. It gives the government—in this case, a global government—more power.
The SDR is nothing new. The IMF has been slowly building it up since 1969. They’ve just been patiently waiting for the right moment to use it to displace the US dollar as the world’s premier currency.
Another 1929- or 2008-style financial collapse would be the perfect excuse for the globalists to execute their SDR solution.
Trump has inherited a stock market bubble near its peak—fueled by the Fed’s easy money policies. And he knows it. In recent months, he’s called the stock market a “big, fat, ugly bubble.”
There’s an excellent chance this bubble will burst on Trump’s watch. He might play along with the global elites’ SDR scheme, but I doubt it.
Nick Giambruno

The one world currency is the mark of the beast. They have been talking for sometime about micro chipping. Right now mexico has micro chip some of their dea agents so they can go back and forth by the border. So they know where they are at all times. Interesting times that we live in

[hockey216]

Fake News.....

Jose Fernandez, then-assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, sat on the committee. Fernandez told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” Fernandez did not respond to our requests for comment.
“Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.”
At the time the sale was underway, the Obama administration was attempting to “reset” its relations with Russia, with Clinton leading the effort as secretary of state. But there is no evidence approval of the sale was connected to the reset policy. The national security concern that the United States faced when CFIUS considered the deal concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources, the Times reported.
Yet the Uranium One deal was not on the radar of Michael McFaul, even though he was aware of many CFIUS cases in his role as the National Security Council’s senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs from 2009 to 2012 (and as a prime architect of the administration’s reset policy). McFaul, now senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said Fernandez could not “dictate the outcome of any decision single-handedly,” as he was one of nine members.
“Knowing how the CFIUS process works and how the bureaucracy at the State Department works, I cannot imagine that such an issue would be reviewed by the secretary of state. There is a hierarchy in place precisely to protect the secretary’s time for only the most important of issues and meetings,” McFaul said.
“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015.
Some Republican lawmakers in 2010 did raise concerns about the deal — but they sent their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. (Treasury chairs the CFIUS.) Final approval was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which noted that the mines would remain under the control of U.S. subsidiaries. “Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ [the Russian firm] holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC said. (Some uranium yellowcake is extracted, processed in Canada and returned to the United States.)
We asked the Trump campaign for evidence that Clinton or the State Department had more of a role in the deal than any of the eight other member agencies of CFIUS, and did not receive a response.

nothing in your article disproves anything i said.

-bill clinton got 500k speaking fee (double his rate) from bank tied to kremlin that owned uranium one stock
-tons of ppl and banks that owned uranium one stock donated millions to clinton foundation
- 20% of our uranium went to russia
- uranium one's chairman donated $2.35 million to clinton foundation through his charity and donated $250k back in 07
-hillary failed to disclose the donations when became secretary of state

even the LIBERAL propoganda media like new york times admits it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

http://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/

[hockey216]

A new scandal hit Hillary Clinton on Thursday thanks to an exhaustive report from Mike McIntire and Jo Becker at The New York Times.
The story involves a Canadian company called Uranium One, a Russian investor, the State Department, and The Clinton Foundation.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation," The Times reports.
Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.
• Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.
• Uranium One's mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it's considered a strategic asset to the US.
• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.
• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.
• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia's government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.
• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.
• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation's contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.
"Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million," The Times reports. "Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
The Times' revelations appear to have originated from reporting in "Clinton Cash," a forthcoming book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, which was provided to the newspaper for advance reporting. The report said The Times "scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting."
The Clinton campaign and its allies have aggressively dismissed the book as partisan conspiracy-mongering. In a statement to The Times, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said the State Department was only one of multiple US government bodies that approved the transaction.
"[No one] has produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation," Fallon told The Times. "To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the US government's review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless."
Hillary Clinton with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the State Department in Washington on July 13, 2011.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Here are some key points from the Times report:

• According to The Times, Uranium One's involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev's bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
• Soon after, Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan's state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton's foundation.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev with former US President Bill Clinton in Almaty in 2005. Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov SZH/DH

• After the legality of the Kazakhstan deal was called into question, Uranium One asked the American embassy in Kazakhstan for help. Uranium One's executive vice president copied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a cable saying he wanted an official written confirmation that the company's licenses in Kazakhstan were still valid, according to The Times. Soon after, the embassy's energy officer met with Kazakh officials.
• In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government. Rosatom also said that after that, the agency "did not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private," The Times noted in a timeline of the events.

Vladimir Putin, then Russia's prime minister, with Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, in 2010.REUTERS/Ria Novosti/Pool/Alexei Druzhinin

• Investors with ties to Uranium One and UrAsia donated millions to the foundation in 2010 and 2011. These donations were disclosed. In addition to this, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month that the Russians closed the deal for the majority stake in Uranium One. The speaking fee was one of Clinton's highest, according to The Times.
• The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state, were charged with reviewing the deal that would give Rosatom a majority stake because uranium is "considered a strategic asset with implications for national security," according to The Times.
• The concern was American dependence on foreign uranium. The Times notes that while the US "gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves."
• Four members of Congress signed a letter expressing concern over the deal, and two others drafted legislation to kill it. One senator contended that the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity" as well as "a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission made assurances that the US uranium would be preserved for domestic use regardless of the deal.

Putin with Nazarbayev after a joint statement following their talks in Moscow's Kremlin in 2007. Nazarbayev invited Putin to pay an official visit to Kazakhstan to discuss joint uranium mining and enrichment.REUTERS/Yuri Kochetkov/Pool

• Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, "including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One," The Times notes.
• After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves."

US President Barack Obama with Putin before the first session of the G20 Summit in Los Cabos in June 2012.REUTERS/Andres Stapff

• A source with knowledge of the Clintons' fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: "Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?"
• Despite claims by Russia that the country didn't intend to increase its stake in Uranium One or take the company private, ARMZ — the subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency — took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange in January 2013.

"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown," The Times concluded. "But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."
Now that Hillary Clinton formally announced a presidential run, her foundation has come under increasing scrutiny.
Her family's charities are refiling at least five tax returns after Reuters found errors in how the foundations reported donations from governments, the news wire reported this week.
Michael B. Kelley contributed to this report.

[chico2663]

A new scandal hit Hillary Clinton on Thursday thanks to an exhaustive report from Mike McIntire and Jo Becker at The New York Times.
The story involves a Canadian company called Uranium One, a Russian investor, the State Department, and The Clinton Foundation.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation," The Times reports.
Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.
• Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.
• Uranium One's mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it's considered a strategic asset to the US.
• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.
• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.
• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia's government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.
• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.
• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation's contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.
"Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million," The Times reports. "Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
The Times' revelations appear to have originated from reporting in "Clinton Cash," a forthcoming book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, which was provided to the newspaper for advance reporting. The report said The Times "scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting."
The Clinton campaign and its allies have aggressively dismissed the book as partisan conspiracy-mongering. In a statement to The Times, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said the State Department was only one of multiple US government bodies that approved the transaction.
"[No one] has produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation," Fallon told The Times. "To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the US government's review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless."
Hillary Clinton with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the State Department in Washington on July 13, 2011.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Here are some key points from the Times report:

• According to The Times, Uranium One's involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev's bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
• Soon after, Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan's state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton's foundation.

Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev with former US President Bill Clinton in Almaty in 2005. Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov SZH/DH

• After the legality of the Kazakhstan deal was called into question, Uranium One asked the American embassy in Kazakhstan for help. Uranium One's executive vice president copied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a cable saying he wanted an official written confirmation that the company's licenses in Kazakhstan were still valid, according to The Times. Soon after, the embassy's energy officer met with Kazakh officials.
• In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government. Rosatom also said that after that, the agency "did not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private," The Times noted in a timeline of the events.

Vladimir Putin, then Russia's prime minister, with Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, in 2010.REUTERS/Ria Novosti/Pool/Alexei Druzhinin

• Investors with ties to Uranium One and UrAsia donated millions to the foundation in 2010 and 2011. These donations were disclosed. In addition to this, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month that the Russians closed the deal for the majority stake in Uranium One. The speaking fee was one of Clinton's highest, according to The Times.
• The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state, were charged with reviewing the deal that would give Rosatom a majority stake because uranium is "considered a strategic asset with implications for national security," according to The Times.
• The concern was American dependence on foreign uranium. The Times notes that while the US "gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20% of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves."
• Four members of Congress signed a letter expressing concern over the deal, and two others drafted legislation to kill it. One senator contended that the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity" as well as "a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission made assurances that the US uranium would be preserved for domestic use regardless of the deal.

Putin with Nazarbayev after a joint statement following their talks in Moscow's Kremlin in 2007. Nazarbayev invited Putin to pay an official visit to Kazakhstan to discuss joint uranium mining and enrichment.REUTERS/Yuri Kochetkov/Pool

• Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, "including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One," The Times notes.
• After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves."

US President Barack Obama with Putin before the first session of the G20 Summit in Los Cabos in June 2012.REUTERS/Andres Stapff

• A source with knowledge of the Clintons' fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: "Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?"
• Despite claims by Russia that the country didn't intend to increase its stake in Uranium One or take the company private, ARMZ — the subsidiary of Russia's atomic energy agency — took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange in January 2013.

"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown," The Times concluded. "But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."
Now that Hillary Clinton formally announced a presidential run, her foundation has come under increasing scrutiny.
Her family's charities are refiling at least five tax returns after Reuters found errors in how the foundations reported donations from governments, the news wire reported this week.
Michael B. Kelley contributed to this report.

Trump’s claim is a reductive version of his source material’s findings and runs into several problems.
First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.
The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo.
Clinton’s unsubstantiated role

[chico2663]

hockey turn off faux

[brooks85]

lol the moron who follows fake memes on facebook is telling someone to turn off the only major media outlet reporting any kind of truth right now... typical liberal garbage

[chico2663]

the moron who knows I blocked him is saying something. What is it? I don't know cause he is blocked!

[brooks85]

^lol chico the only one dumb enough to not get it yet

[Russian Rocket]

lol the moron who follows fake memes on facebook is telling someone to turn off the only major media outlet reporting any kind of truth right now... typical liberal garbage

the moron who knows I blocked him is saying something. What is it? I don't know cause he is blocked!

Chico something tells me that you're actually still reading Brooks' posts.

[chico2663]

Chico something tells me that you're actually still reading Brooks' posts.

Hell no.I got tired of sheep,running,post history, moron. pos,lying ,coward. liberal or embarrassing. It is tedious dealing with his childish ass. He still hasn't made a declarative statement in 27000 posts.

[chico2663]

The dip shit starts posts with my name in it knowing I can't see them. For some reason he thinks jtoler and I validate him because we both got tired of his jibberish. I'm no one. He is wasting his breathe.

[brooks85]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN18F2KK




Says in this article that the Trump is going to get mueller off the case because his firm represents manafort and jared

lol this liberal clown never learns, same reason he follows fake memes


headline from article;

White House looking at ethics rule to weaken special investigation: sources



lol some people are just destined to be scammed throughout their life, forever gullible.

[nyplayer33]

Conflict of interest let Mueller go

[JIBBBY]