You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

AreWeSure ago

You talk about crimes, but I see no evidence for the claims. The sale of Uranium One involved no crimes and multiple federal agencies confirmed it posed no threat to US security. You are using this for your claim of treason?

Joule is an American company. It is not controlled by Moscow or by Russian investors. And not a single word of that email concerns bribes.

You seem to alleging lobbying crimes, but it's not clear at all the specifics. The Panama Papers didn't reveal any crimes on behalf of the Podesta Group. Sberbank only became their client this year and they are publically registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank. See here

https://archive.is/ANo1b*

The issue they were hired to lobby on is US sanctions against the bank.

*Also there's a bonus there!

witch_doctor1 ago

Using your position as SOS to enrich yourself is absolutely 100% illegal. And if the Clinton Foundation wasn't about buying influence, why has the funding dried up now that HRC is at the back of the bus?

AreWeSure ago

There zero evidence of her enriching herself by using her position.

They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing.

witch_doctor1 ago

That's crazy talk. If you can't see that the Clinton's got rich by using their status, then you aren't really looking, because that is crystal clear and irrefutable.

"They were buying prestige, not influence. It was an ago thing." This is cognitive dissonance.

AreWeSure ago

You are making a vastly different claim from she used her office to enrich herself. You don't even seem to understand it.

There still hasn't been a single quid pro quo shown even after more emails revealed than any other figure in public life.

Don-Keyhote ago

The fact that the Clinton's have publicly stated that their standard of proof is "you can't prove that a decision was made based exclusively on a contribution" (real quote essentially) says enough. Nervous at ctr yet?

AreWeSure ago

Essentially or real quote? Forgive me, if I suspect you dropped some nuances.

Not nervous. Not ”at ctr." That sounds like you wanting an excuse not to engage the debate. Ad hominem and all that.

Do you know the process by which the US government approved the sale of Uranium One? And what Hillary Clinton's involvement was?

Don-Keyhote ago

The quotes message is clear and I'll answer this with another by Maureen dowd writing about a Clinton scandal: "the thing about it was: with the Clintons the charge was plausible."

AreWeSure ago

Maureen Dowd hates the Clintons.

So you can't find the quote you paraphrased? Because I would like to see that.