• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flynn was Trying to Cash In on Russian Sanctions Relief

SonOfDaedalus said:
We're not talking about Hillary Clinton. Your accusations have been disproven. But even if Hillary were guilty, how does that help Trump? I wouldn't vote for Hillary if what you claim is true. But I know what you claim is not true. The Clinton Foundation is a charity. The Clintons don't take a salary. There is no explanation as to how they personally profit.

And Uranium One is a discredited conspiracy theory. We import more Uranium from Russia than anywhere else. And Uranium One doesn't have a license to export. Finally, Hillary Clinton could not unilaterally approve the deal. She would have to strongarm 8 other agencies. That's ridiculous.

Now back to the president....

It looks like Flynn was cashing in on removing Russian sanctions. Everyone has been puzzled about why Trump was so eager to make peace with Russia. Now we see the money and it all makes sense.

Trump was trying to build a tower in Russia and Flynn was trying to help a company he was associated with build nuclear reactors in the Middle East with Russian help. They were trying to make money.

Trump was sent to drain the swamp. He was sent to get rid of special interests cashing in. But here we see his guy Flynn cashing in.

We see Flynn basing decisions regarding a foreign adversary on money. Now the question is, was Trump helping Russia for money too? Because that sure would explain all the lying surrounding a completely legal meeting.
Click to expand...

Which accusations have been disproven?
 
apdst said:
The political class is upset because none of them were cut in on the deal. It all makes sense, now.

He should have cut Clinton in. He would have been bullet proof.
Click to expand...

You have to be a real sleaze to sell your country out for money and that seems to be the case here. Nothing the Clinton's have done has resulted in indictments and guilty pleas either.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Fox News anchor Shep Smith annihilates his network's favorite Hillary Clinton 'scandal,' the Uranium One deal
Click to expand...

Oops.

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment

"In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote."
"Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. "
 
iguanaman said:
Nothing the Clinton's have done has resulted in indictments and guilty pleas either.
Click to expand...

Due to the now revealed clinton fan club conducting said investigation...agreed.
 
iguanaman said:
You have to be a real sleaze to sell your country out for money and that seems to be the case here. Nothing the Clinton's have done has resulted in indictments and guilty pleas either.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton did it. You don't seem to have a problem with that.
 
iguanaman said:
You have to be a real sleaze to sell your country out for money and that seems to be the case here. Nothing the Clinton's have done has resulted in indictments and guilty pleas either.
Click to expand...

The investigation was rigged.
 
akyron said:
Oops.

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment

"In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote."
"Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. "
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about this Uranium One nonsense start another thread where your nonsense can be completely destroyed by facts. But we're talking about the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.

Nothing that past administrations have done changes what Trump has done. All you're trying to say is it's OK for Trump to lie about his meetings with Russians. Now we find out that Flynn was trying to make himself rich from the sanctions removal. How can you continue to claim the lying and hiding is OK?

This is so pathetic.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...whistle-blower-account-of-flynn-business-deal


So, Flynn's motivation was not better relationship with Russia. It was money. And Flynn was directed to meet the Russian ambassador by Trump.

Now all the pieces are falling together. Was Trump also motivated by money? Why would Mueller set Flynn free unless he had a very juicy story to tell about Trump? The "we want to be friends with Russia" nonsense story is quickly falling apart.

What did Trump have to gain for helping Russia?
Click to expand...

Unbelievable isn't it--while Flynn was doing this on the campaign trail.



191566_600.jpg
 
akyron said:
Actually you asserted something and I corrected you.. Thats all.
Click to expand...

All you did was another "But Hillary..." distraction attempt. Hillary is not in office and neither is Obama. Trying to argue that it's OK for Trump to lie and direct people to lie and fire people to cover up lies because "but Hillary" is ridiculous.

Face it, Trump didn't come to drain the swamp. He came to get richer. He wanted to drop sanctions to make himself and his crooked friends rich.

Like Flynn said,
That this was the “best day” of his life, and that the project would “make a lot of very wealthy people”
Click to expand...

Everyone was scratching their heads trying to figure out why Trump was so friendly with Russia. Why did he go to such politically damaging lengths to remove sanctions? Why all the secret meetings? Why is everyone lying and covering up meetings with Russians?

The answer is now all too clear: MONEY. GREED. CORRUPTION.

194811_600.jpg
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
All you did was another "But Hillary..." distraction attempt.
Click to expand...

Which you brought up by proferring a failed attempt by shep smith to debunk the case by blatantly ignoring the facts.

I helped you out and corrected the record. You are welcome. The horse doesnt have to drink the water. All you can do is get him there in an attempt to save him. It does not always work.

Your argument falls flat on its face. Trump needs no more money and is notoriously generous with donations. Takes no salary and allows the reporters to donate his salary as they see fit.

Why he would expose his own family to the unwarranted slings and arrows of imbeciles for free does have an answer. I would not expect some to understand the reason however since they have no understanding beyond their own self interest. As a fan of history, It is facinating to witness this basic breakdown of sanity that has startling parallels to the coming of age of italy in the 1920s and Germany in the 1930s. Not accepting the results of a lawful election is how destabilization normally starts. Even more ironic is the DEMAND that was laid on Trump before the election that he accept the results.. So much projection and transference on display. It must be exhausting.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
Which you brought up by proferring a failed attempt by shep smith to debunk the case by blatantly ignoring the facts.

I helped you out and corrected the record. You are welcome. The horse doesnt have to drink the water. All you can do is get him there in an attempt to save him. It does not always work.
Click to expand...

Start a thread and I'll be happy to expose your conspiracy theory.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Start a thread and I'll be happy to expose your conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

You already presented your shep smith argument and it sank due to being incorrect. Largely by ignoring evidence.

Also...The haitians still want their clinton money back as well.



They still call it the Invasion of Bill Clinton. Lots of women use the same frame of reference for other Bill Clinton activities.
 
apdst said:
The investigation was rigged.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of rigging going on but it isn't the investigation. This whole administration is looking guilty as sin. Even if it is only about lies and stone walling now, you still have to wonder what they did that is so damning that they had to lie so much about it. You also have to wonder what Flynn had and on who that moved Mueller to virtually let him off the hook. Every month we have a new chapter,. Finally... the reality show that Trump deserves.

Emails show Trump Tower meeting follow-up - CNNPolitics
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
There is a lot of rigging going on but it isn't the investigation. This whole administration is looking guilty as sin. Even if it is only about lies and stone walling now, you still have to wonder what they did that is so damning that they had to lie so much about it. You also have to wonder what Flynn had and on who that moved Mueller to virtually let him off the hook. Every month we have a new chapter,. Finally... the reality show that Trump deserves.

Emails show Trump Tower meeting follow-up - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

It's obvious now that Trump wanted to lift sanctions on a hostile foreign power because it would make him and Flynn money. When you look back at it, isn't it ridiculous to think that the combative Donald Trump wanted peace with Russia and was willing to ignore everything the Russians were doing? If Trump wanted to prove that collusion allegations were false, all he had to do was get tough on Russia. But he couldn't because that would ruin his and Flynn's plans to cash in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom