Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
Apparently no one was informed about this either. No heads up to those approving such deals nor a heads up to the Obama admin. There must be a good reason why the FBI would do this and it certainly raises questions about how it relates to comey and his handling of the Clinton investigation.
So the state department didn't do their due diligence before approving a huge deal of strategic national importance? Or they did and the FBI lied?
Apparently no one was informed about this either. No heads up to those approving such deals nor a heads up to the Obama admin. There must be a good reason why the FBI would do this and it certainly raises questions about how it relates to comey and his handling of the Clinton investigation.
I've always found this attempt to tie this into some sort of bribery thing on Clinton pretty silly though considering the sheer number of other agencies that signed off on it. It's just not practical to bribe that many people, and bribing Clinton alone would accomplish nothing.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478Even when it's tenuous at best, the Clinton Foundation is still shady. It's obvious different governments would want to donate to it in hopes they could curry favors with the Clintons. For example, does it really matter if Hillary says she wouldn't have accepted foreign donations if she became president when they've already done it in the past? How would anyone know she isn't taken stuff like that into account when she makes decisions?
Even when it's tenuous at best, the Clinton Foundation is still shady. It's obvious different governments would want to donate to it in hopes they could curry favors with the Clintons. For example, does it really matter if Hillary says she wouldn't have accepted foreign donations if she became president when they've already done it in the past? How would anyone know she isn't taken stuff like that into account when she makes decisions?
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/clinton-foundation/478
Compared to most charities, the Clinton foundation looks very transparent and honest.
Whatever their ethics, the Clintons aren't stupid enough to risk a bribery charge, and ending her political career, for a donation to their foundation. This is not money they can use for themselves or for campaigns, or even super-PACS. This entire idiotic theory is something that Bernie supporters ripped right off the pages of Breitbart. You want to believe whatever conservative media has to say about the Clintons? Go right ahead. The rest of us are focused on defeating Trump.
Even when it's tenuous at best, the Clinton Foundation is still shady. It's obvious different governments would want to donate to it in hopes they could curry favors with the Clintons. For example, does it really matter if Hillary says she wouldn't have accepted foreign donations if she became president when they've already done it in the past? How would anyone know she isn't taken stuff like that into account when she makes decisions?
Bernie supporters do not believe the lies spread by right wing propaganda.
Bernie supporters do not believe the lies spread by right wing propaganda.
When it affects him personally, he may open his eyes.You will never change the opinion of people like him with watchdog reports and facts. His mind was diddled by Russian psyops and he has no ability to think for himself anymore. He just regurgitates his talking points and moves on.
He made blanket statements about bernie supporters with no evidence to back them up.Are you joking? You can use the search function on here to find it but right about the time it dawned on Bernie supporters that he had lost the primary they suddenly started repeating attacks on Clinton from right wing media.
Whatever their ethics, the Clintons aren't stupid enough to risk a bribery charge, and ending her political career, for a donation to their foundation. This is not money they can use for themselves or for campaigns, or even super-PACS. This entire idiotic theory is something that Bernie supporters ripped right off the pages of Breitbart. You want to believe whatever conservative media has to say about the Clintons? Go right ahead. The rest of us are focused on defeating Trump.
I'm not talking about the Uranium deal as if Hillary had a scheme going on. I'm talking about the legal aspect of what constitutes pay-to-play. For example, SA gave the foundation a lot of money and then stopped around the time she became Sec of State. But the distinction between past donations and future ones seems a bit blurred. I know the Clintons are smart enough to go by the bounds of the law. But it doesn't mean anything isn't shady because of it. I find it funny, for example, that somehow Menendez did something "wrong", yet according to Citizens United and McCutcheon they've legalized bribery?
I'm not talking about the Uranium deal as if Hillary had a scheme going on. I'm talking about the legal aspect of what constitutes pay-to-play. For example, SA gave the foundation a lot of money and then stopped around the time she became Sec of State. But the distinction between past donations and future ones seems a bit blurred. I know the Clintons are smart enough to go by the bounds of the law. But it doesn't mean anything isn't shady because of it. I find it funny, for example, that somehow Menendez did something "wrong", yet according to Citizens United and McCutcheon they've legalized bribery?
Are you joking? You can use the search function on here to find it but right about the time it dawned on Bernie supporters that he had lost the primary they suddenly started repeating attacks on Clinton from right wing media.
He made blanket statements about bernie supporters with no evidence to back them up.
I think he is confusing Bernie supporters with right wingers who pretend to like Bernie in order to divide us.
edit: (Us meaning liberals and to some extent moderates)
Bernie supporters do not believe the lies spread by right wing propaganda.