General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsbenld74
(9,911 posts)Easily enough proved
As is
Podesta ties
nikibatts
(2,198 posts)"The Uranium One deal was not Clintons 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 the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee cant veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters.
The timing of most of the donations does not match
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lions share $131.3 million came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the companys founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times Ian Telfer, the companys chairman:
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustras charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years, he said.
The timing of Telfers donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all."
Phoenix61
(17,023 posts)dumber than what he has already said but... I think I will be waiting for a long, long time. It's just pathetic and embarrassing.
wishstar
(5,272 posts)For once it was so refreshing that today the mainstream media ignored his previous Clinton/Russia garbage. But he isn't giving up on trying to get them all in a tizzy chasing his fake accusations down a rabbit hole.
Instead USA Today came out with their major, pages long expose of Trump & Co's. long history of financial deals with Russian pro-Putin criminals, in great detail.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)to distract from his own lies & investigation. It just makes him look more guilty.
I looked at a few of his newest tweets. What a lying credit stealing ass. I see that he's using Murdoch's fake news rag the NY Post to attack the reputable NYTs too.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)who believe the crap he spews out daily.
Yeah, they laugh and clap, yell "Lock her up" and have a great time - but this show is about over.
His ratings are about to get him canceled!