FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal w

[American]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill

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.

Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

 

[RabidAlpaca]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow
FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill
Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

Seeing as how you support Trump's alleged collusion with Russia why are you concerned about this alleged collusion? What's more dangerous, giving the Russians something they already have a lot of or giving them power over the president?

 

[American]

Seeing as how you support Trump's alleged collusion with Russia why are you concerned about this alleged collusion? What's more dangerous, giving the Russians something they already have a lot of or giving them power over the president?

Seems your side got caught in hypocrisy, and now can't wiggle free. But I think it more like outright lying than just hypocrisy.

 

[roughdraft274]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill


Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

Where does it say any democrats were bribed? It goes on to say that the Russians don't operate their businesses in completely ethical ways. That's not news. That's why Trump has done so much business with them over the years and is now lying about it.

There seems to be a very sad attempt here to equate the Trump campaign lying and evading and possibly colluding with a foreign government in an american election and a government official approving/reviewing a transaction as part of their actual job. These are very different things. If you had evidence that Hillary had met with Russians or her assistant met with russians after receiving an email saying that they were going to give Hillary money for her to grease their wheels then I'd get where you're going.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Seems your side got caught in hypocrisy, and now can't wiggle free. But I think it more like outright lying than just hypocrisy.

So you're not hypocritical and condemn all US politicians accused of colluding with Russia?

 

[Lutherf]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill


Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

You see, the reason so many Democrats and Never Trumpers "know" that Trump colluded with the Russians is because that kind of thing was business as usual in the establishment political circles.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Where does it say any democrats were bribed? It goes on to say that the Russians don't operate their businesses in completely ethical ways. That's not news. That's why Trump has done so much business with them over the years and is now lying about it.

There seems to be a very sad attempt here to equate the Trump campaign lying and evading and possibly colluding with a foreign government in an american election and a government official approving/reviewing a transaction as part of their actual job. These are very different things. If you had evidence that Hillary had met with Russians or her assistant met with russians after receiving an email saying that they were going to give Hillary money for her to grease their wheels then I'd get where you're going.

Indeed. It doesn't actually say that.

 

[Redress]

Seems your side got caught in hypocrisy, and now can't wiggle free. But I think it more like outright lying than just hypocrisy.

See, this is one of those painfully ****ing retarded things that sound good until you engage your brain. Here, let me show you how logic works:

1: "Our side"(and why do you feel the need to divide the world into "us and them"?) mostly knew nothing about any alleged bribery till now. 99.999 % of liberals and democrats knew nothing of it.
2: Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense
3: To be hypocrites, "our side" would have to say bribery was wrong, while accepting bribes. And yet almost no one on "our side" accepted or approved of accepting bribes
4: Since "our side" does not fit the definition of hypocrites, there is no hypocrisy.

This is not rocket surgery. You are so desperate to make "our side" look bad, you either shut off your brain while posting that, or you engaged in an intentional dishonest claim. So which is it?

 

[roughdraft274]

See, this is one of those painfully ****ing retarded things that sound good until you engage your brain. Here, let me show you how logic works:

1: "Our side"(and why do you feel the need to divide the world into "us and them"?) mostly knew nothing about any alleged bribery till now. 99.999 % of liberals and democrats knew nothing of it.
2: Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense
3: To be hypocrites, "our side" would have to say bribery was wrong, while accepting bribes. And yet almost no one on "our side" accepted or approved of accepting bribes
4: Since "our side" does not fit the definition of hypocrites, there is no hypocrisy.

This is not rocket surgery. You are so desperate to make "our side" look bad, you either shut off your brain while posting that, or you engaged in an intentional dishonest claim. So which is it?

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

 

[Fenton Lum]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill


Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

America is utterly corrupt, is this news to you?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post

uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources

**Thirty Minutes Later**

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post

you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

This is classic albeit standard Turtle ****.

 

[American]

See, this is one of those painfully ****ing retarded things that sound good until you engage your brain. Here, let me show you how logic works:

1: "Our side"(and why do you feel the need to divide the world into "us and them"?) mostly knew nothing about any alleged bribery till now. 99.999 % of liberals and democrats knew nothing of it.
2: Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense
3: To be hypocrites, "our side" would have to say bribery was wrong, while accepting bribes. And yet almost no one on "our side" accepted or approved of accepting bribes
4: Since "our side" does not fit the definition of hypocrites, there is no hypocrisy.

This is not rocket surgery. You are so desperate to make "our side" look bad, you either shut off your brain while posting that, or you engaged in an intentional dishonest claim. So which is it?

The Uranium One deal was in the news long ago, of course the Left went into denial over it no doubt, I'm not even going to bother to look. Obama is Messiah can never do or say anything wrong, perfect human being. Trump is Russian lover. Okay, so the Left is lying when they say they knew nothing; see above statement. Don't tell me no one knew. MSM never wanted to print a single word that would damage the Obama is perfect narrative. So please, don't tell me no one knew. They knew. Snopes even tried disproving it.

And for the record, your side IS bad. Your side doesn't even try to pretend that corruption is a bad thing. The Clinton's rub it in everyone's face. The most entitled-minded people I've ever seen in my life. If it weren't for the MSM and Lynch, Hillary would have been indicted. I'm so tired of it.

 

[American]

So you're not hypocritical and condemn all US politicians accused of colluding with Russia?

Deny this story and then ganging up on Trump because "There's just on ****ing way he could have won the election without Russia" is both bull**** and hypocrisy.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Deny this story and then ganging up on Trump because "There's just on ****ing way he could have won the election without Russia" is both bull**** and hypocrisy.

I don't understand. You reject the collusion story where a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate Trump, yet immediately embrace an article you just found on the internet implicating Obama. I condemn any collusion, why is it you only condemn it when it's "the other side"? Hypocrite much?

 

[American]

Where does it say any democrats were bribed? It goes on to say that the Russians don't operate their businesses in completely ethical ways. That's not news. That's why Trump has done so much business with them over the years and is now lying about it.

There seems to be a very sad attempt here to equate the Trump campaign lying and evading and possibly colluding with a foreign government in an american election and a government official approving/reviewing a transaction as part of their actual job. These are very different things. If you had evidence that Hillary had met with Russians or her assistant met with russians after receiving an email saying that they were going to give Hillary money for her to grease their wheels then I'd get where you're going.

Clinton foundation, you know them? Pay for play is well known. BTW, I didn't title the article, so don't kill the messenger because that just a diversion tactic.

 

[DamnYankee]

America is utterly corrupt, is this news to you?

False. America is not utterly corrupt. There are millions of decent normal Americans. Globalist Granny however is utterly corrupt and so are those who voted for her corruption.

 

[Redress]

The Uranium One deal was in the news long ago, of course the Left went into denial over it no doubt, I'm not even going to bother to look. Obama is Messiah can never do or say anything wrong, perfect human being. Trump is Russian lover. Okay, so the Left is lying when they say they knew nothing; see above statement. Don't tell me no one knew. MSM never wanted to print a single word that would damage the Obama is perfect narrative. So please, don't tell me no one knew. They knew. Snopes even tried disproving it.

And for the record, your side IS bad. Your side doesn't even try to pretend that corruption is a bad thing. The Clinton's rub it in everyone's face. The most entitled-minded people I've ever seen in my life. If it weren't for the MSM and Lynch, Hillary would have been indicted. I'm so tired of it.

SO all you have are admitted assumptions, misdirection(the deal was in the news, alleged bribery not so much), straw men and ranting. Here is a silly idea: why do you not address what I said instead of having a conniption that some one dares question your false narrative. See the site name, Debate Politics? Why not try some of that instead of hysteria?

 

[holbritter]

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow | TheHill


Wow, the Democrats sure seemed to like the Russians back just a few years ago. :Oopsie

This part says a lot:

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal. But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

 

[holbritter]

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post

uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources

**Thirty Minutes Later**

Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post

you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

This is classic albeit standard Turtle ****.

I think you're in the wrong thread.

 

[roughdraft274]

Clinton foundation, you know them? Pay for play is well known. BTW, I didn't title the article, so don't kill the messenger because that just a diversion tactic.

Yea, It's the charitable foundation that has helped millions around the world and has been applauded by all sides right up until Hillary started running for President. The idea that they bribed the clintons by donating to charity is about the dumbest idea ever. Can you show me where Hillary or Bill ever benefited substantially by any donation to the foundation period?

You didn't title the article. But you seemed to insist some kind of non-existent hypocrisy here. I think that assertion has been well knocked down and you even seem to be retreating from it, so no problem here.

 

[roughdraft274]

SO all you have are admitted assumptions, misdirection(the deal was in the news, alleged bribery not so much), straw men and ranting. Here is a silly idea: why do you not address what I said instead of having a conniption that some one dares question your false narrative. See the site name, Debate Politics? Why not try some of that instead of hysteria?

Not to mention that the author, John Solomon has a long history of conservative propaganda that twists reality. He's known for getting the trash rag Washington Times on it's feet etc.

 

[vesper]

This part says a lot:

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal. But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

That bothered me too. The idea that the FBI in 2009 already had enough evidence yet atty gen Holder asked that the FBI continue their investigation. In the meantime Clinton and Obama went through with the Uranium One deal. Clintons receiving big donations to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton giving speeches for hundreds of thousands of dollars all directly related to players of this deal.
Robert Mueller was in charge of the FBI. When he seen the Uranium One deal going forward October 23, 2010, why didn't he say something because there were several lawmakers that found the deal not to be in the best interest of our country and none of them were privy to the evidence on Vladism Mikerin.
why didn't Mueller blow the whistle on Vladim Mikerin?

 

[holbritter]

Yea, It's the charitable foundation that has helped millions around the world and has been applauded by all sides right up until Hillary started running for President. The idea that they bribed the clintons by donating to charity is about the dumbest idea ever. Can you show me where Hillary or Bill ever benefited substantially by any donation to the foundation period?

You didn't title the article. But you seemed to insist some kind of non-existent hypocrisy here. I think that assertion has been well knocked down and you even seem to be retreating from it, so no problem here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tons-wealth-tied-clinton-foundation/92842822/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/us/politics/bill-hillary-clinton-foundation-wikileaks.html

 

[eohrnberger]

Russian collusion anyone?

Trump Russian collusion? Nada.

Accusing others of what you yourself are doing, is what this looks like.

 

[American]

This part says a lot:

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal. But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

So they suppressed evidence.