Senate Intel Committee backs assessment of Russian election meddling

Bohter

Michael Peterson status
Mar 7, 2006
2,665
232
63
Never mind...nothing to see here....just creating another boogie-man.
Russia the Enemy Part II.
America...we might need your support (i.e. money) when we take some military action of some sort....so them Russians are bad...ok?
The controllers (that George Carlin spoke of) love to play with your minds....
...and it's apparently working.
:bigdeal:
 

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
55,015
16,825
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
Autoprax said:
squidley said:
Autoprax said:
squidley said:
.
At least Russians seem to be smarter than half of Americans.
.
You should move their.

They are doing gay lock down hard.
Okay, I guess it's up to me to state the .......OBVIOUS.

Where is the evidence of ...you know ...collusion?

Yes, Russia probably tried to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Even if I didn't know anything about this specific instance I would be amazed if I found out that Russia failed to try. So what? We do it to other countries all the time. Everybody does it. To m y knowledge here aren't any laws forbidding foreign governments from exerting influence in any way alleged of Russia, and there shouldn't be.

Duh.
.
Would you be saying the same thing if Hillary was president and accused of the same things?
Had Hillary won would the left be worried about Russians meddling???
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,842
23,456
113
62
Vagina Point
GromsDad said:
Autoprax said:
squidley said:
Autoprax said:
squidley said:
.
At least Russians seem to be smarter than half of Americans.
.
You should move their.

They are doing gay lock down hard.
Okay, I guess it's up to me to state the .......OBVIOUS.

Where is the evidence of ...you know ...collusion?

Yes, Russia probably tried to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Even if I didn't know anything about this specific instance I would be amazed if I found out that Russia failed to try. So what? We do it to other countries all the time. Everybody does it. To m y knowledge here aren't any laws forbidding foreign governments from exerting influence in any way alleged of Russia, and there shouldn't be.

Duh.
.
Would you be saying the same thing if Hillary was president and accused of the same things?
Had Hillary won would the left be worried about Russians meddling???
Some would.

I wouldn't be defending her the way you dummies do Trump.

 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,596
2,359
113
.
Hacked emails show extent of foreign government donations to Clinton Foundation

A newly disclosed internal email about a potential $1 million gift from the country of Qatar to the Clinton Foundation is shedding light on how the charity dealt with donations from foreign governments during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.

An ethics agreement with the Obama administration placed certain limits on such contributions during her tenure. It was designed to avoid the impression that foreign governments could curry favor with the top U.S. diplomat by supporting the foundation that her husband started.

But that agreement did not stop donations from foreign governments entirely. Contributions from governments that had given before Clinton took office were allowed, provided those donations did not represent substantial increases over past giving.

The newly disclosed email, part of the thousands of hacked documents being made public by WikiLeaks, gives a sense of the scale of that giving from one U.S. ally with, at times, complicated relations with the American government.

According to an email sent to Clinton Foundation officials, the ambassador to Qatar requested a meeting with former president Bill Clinton in 2012, apparently so that he could present a $1 million check that Qatar had promised in honor of Clinton’s birthday in 2011.

Amitabh Desai, who served as a foreign-policy adviser to the former president, wrote other officials that he had met with the Qatari official. Using Clinton’s initials, Desai indicated that the ambassador had requested “to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011.”

The email was first reported by Reuters.

The Clinton campaign and foundation officials have refused to authenticate individual emails released by WikiLeaks, noting that the Russians, who have been accused by U.S. intelligence of orchestrating recent cyberhacks, sometimes doctor or fake documents.

It is not clear whether Bill Clinton ever met with the ambassador or whether the official presented the check. But foundation officials have disclosed that Qatar donated to the Clinton Foundation in 2012 as part of a series of gifts that have so far totaled between $1 million and $5 million.

The Clinton Foundation previously indicated that Qatar was one of seven foreign governments that made donations to the global philanthropy while Clinton was secretary of state. But the amount of Qatar’s giving during that time has not been previously known.

Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, said, “Since 2002, Qatar has been among our hundreds of thousands of donors who have supported the Clinton Foundation’s overall humanitarian work including making life-saving HIV/AIDS treatment available to millions of people in more than 70 countries, combating childhood obesity here in the United States and working to empower girls and women around the world.”

Although Qatar has been criticized for infringement of human rights, it has also sought credibility in the West through philanthropy.

The government-linked Qatari agency that is organizing the 2022 FIFA World Cup was also a sponsor of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2013, with the head of the committee appearing onstage with Bill Clinton to discuss efforts to help improve agriculture and feed the hungry with technology designed to cool soccer stadiums.
.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,842
23,456
113
62
Vagina Point
So investigate her.

This is kind of a red herring though.

She's not president and the question was would would the left want an investigation if she were president.

Can you not understand that?
 

GromsDad

Duke status
Jan 21, 2014
55,015
16,825
113
West of the Atlantic. East of the ICW.
Autoprax said:
GromsDad said:
Autoprax said:
squidley said:
Autoprax said:
You should move their.

They are doing gay lock down hard.
Okay, I guess it's up to me to state the .......OBVIOUS.

Where is the evidence of ...you know ...collusion?

Yes, Russia probably tried to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. Even if I didn't know anything about this specific instance I would be amazed if I found out that Russia failed to try. So what? We do it to other countries all the time. Everybody does it. To m y knowledge here aren't any laws forbidding foreign governments from exerting influence in any way alleged of Russia, and there shouldn't be.

Duh.
.
Would you be saying the same thing if Hillary was president and accused of the same things?
Had Hillary won would the left be worried about Russians meddling???
Some would.

I wouldn't be defending her the way you dummies do Trump.
My question was not a defense of Trump. It was a rebuke of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of people like you.
 

Autoprax

Duke status
Jan 24, 2011
68,842
23,456
113
62
Vagina Point
GromsDad said:
My question was not a defense of Trump. It was a rebuke of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of people like you.
Yes, and I answered it honestly.

But that doesn't matter cuz ya dumb.

It's okay.

I get it.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,596
2,359
113
.
What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

11/14/2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week raised the possibility that a special counsel may be appointed to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, specifically suggestions that a U.S. government panel approved the sale of a large uranium firm to Russian interests in exchange for donations to the foundation.

The so-called Uranium One deal has been a focus of conservative media and President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly asked on Twitter why the DOJ is not actively investigating the matter.

Below are the must-read questions — and some answers — regarding the controversy.

What is the Uranium One deal?

The deal in question involves the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, with mining interests in the U.S. to Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency. The sale occurred in stages, beginning in 2009 when Rosatom purchased a minority stake in Uranium One, and continued in 2010, when the Russian agency took ownership of a 51 percent share of the company. In 2013, a third transaction gave Rosatom full ownership of Uranium One.

With its purchase of Uranium One, Rosatom assumed control of roughly 20 percent of uranium production capacity in the U.S. The current licenses issued to Rosatom’s U.S. subsidiaries, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, prohibit the company from exporting uranium outside the country, according to OilPrice.com.

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What are the allegations of wrongdoing?

Controversy surrounding the deal largely pertains to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state in 2010 when the State Department signed off on Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. Several of Uranium One’s owners were also donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $145 million to the charitable foundation, and critics have alleged that Clinton greenlighted the sale to appease donors to her family’s charity.

Connections between Clinton Foundation donors and Uranium One were first published in 2015 by The New York Times, which based its reporting in part on the book “Clinton Cash,” by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer.

The allegations resurfaced last October, when The Hill reported that the FBI was investigating Kremlin “bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States.”

Is there any truth to the allegations?

As PolitiFact has laid out in great detail, there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other [OBAMA] government agencies approved the Uranium One sale.....
So The Clinton foundation received $millions from Uranium One. Her department approved the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company. And strategic U.S. interests were harmed by the sale. But there was nooooooooo collusion.

According to witnesses the 2016 meeting between Trump's team and Russian officials was an attempt to gain promised information about Hitlery's Uranium One sale.
.
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,596
2,359
113
Autoprax said:
Therefore, what?

Russia tried to corrupt both venal candidates so trump gets a pass?

Your logic suck balls.
"both venal candidates"? Oh?? Where is the pile of cash which Trump received from Russia? Where is Trump's approval for the sale of a massively strategic U.S. interest? Where is any collusion? Where is any quid pro quo?

"But squidley, everybody does it."

Then why does the left keep SCREAMING about Trump for things only Hitlery did?
.
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,755
23,374
113
the Uranium One story is from last year.

it has been so thoroughly debunked it's laughable that you'd even
attempt to trot it out here.

that point aside, these are not mutually exclusive endeavors.

investigate both of them if there is a there there.


I predict ifall does not return to defend his position.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
89,138
18,189
113
FecalFace said:
ifallalot said:
it’s the committee that heads up the IC...

:roflmao:

And at the very bottom of the quote...

“Social media”

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
207.3 million Facebook users in the US

137.5 million in total voted in 2016

If you think the Facebook Troll Farm haven't had an impact on the election and reinforcement of lies that form most people's social media bubbles, you are way, way dumber than previously thought.

GromsDad entire worldview is based on Russian troll farm memes that use rotten allegories.
These people still made their own decision to vote. It follows your standard worldview of a complete lack of personal responsibility and eternal victimhood.

If the “meddling” happened and the “correct” candidate was elected we wouldn’t hear a word about any of this

Dummy
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,596
2,359
113
afoaf said:
the Uranium One story is from last year.

it has been so thoroughly debunked it's laughable that you'd even
attempt to trot it out here.

that point aside, these are not mutually exclusive endeavors.

investigate both of them if there is a there there.


I predict ifall does not return to defend his position.
Flat out. The last time I checked you leftists LOST in your attempt to excuse Hitlery for selling Russia 20% of America's uranium reserves. ..........LOST.
.
 

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
89,138
18,189
113
The article basically only said that the IC found that the methodology and tradecraft used was legit and the conclusions were credible. No “proof” of anything but trolling

Beyond that, information, whether from hacks, withholding, or trolling is just information. The people still made their own decision and millions of people think it’s the “wrong” decision, hence the investigation even taking place
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
49,755
23,374
113
squidley said:
Flat out. The last time I checked you leftists LOST in your attempt to excuse Hitlery for selling Russia 20% of America's uranium reserves. ..........LOST.
.
when Jeff Sessions was asked while testifying to congress about whether
or not he was going to order a second special counsel to pursue the Uranium
One conspiracy, he chuckled a bit before saying:

JSessions said:
It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of the appointment of a special counsel...We will use the proper standards, and that's the only thing I can tell you, Mr. Jordan. You can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standard that requires a special counsel.
your response is a non-response.

Uranium One was a flop-scandal...one in a long string of ginned up stories
that have been trotted out in an attempt to distract from Mueller's work.

I don't know why you're capitalizing the word "LOST"

the outcome of the election does not prevent Clinton nor Trump from being
investigated for possible criminal acts.