Uranium One: Explained by Rep Louie Gohmert's chart

[Felya]

The Red Cross is not a charity one should aspire to be compared to really.

They used to be the charity in US... most people still have them as the go to charity and it’s better than donating to no one, so people rarely start shit about it.

[Allybeboba]

They used to be the charity in US... most people still have them as the go to charity and it’s better than donating to no one, so people rarely start shit about it.

Like with many things, they got too bloated.

[Mormolyce]

The noose is starting to tighten around Hillary's neck and her shady Clinton Foundation. She will probably be in jail soon and should be there.

@Shadee

When exactly are you saying will Hillary be in jail? I'd like to place my money.

[Orbitus]

@Shadee

When exactly are you saying will Hillary be in jail? I'd like to place my money.

Can I get in on that action? I am willing to bet she doesn't make it there either.

[Felya]

Can I get in on that action? I am willing to bet she doesn't make it there either.

A bet on there being an investigation into her specifically, is far more interesting.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

I like how out of all of those lines, the only ones that are dotted (presumably to distinguish the links as tenuous or unproven) are those between Obama's DoJ and his two Attorney Generals.

Also, classy use of the "Russian" font from Command and Conquer.

- - - Updated - - -

We have FBI investigation to that end (that supposedly had proof that Russians transferred money from Russia for Clinton).

Proof we have never seen.

If they'll ever restart it we might know more.

Deny collusion and "Kremlin ties" of Russians contacting them; noone denies contact with Russians in general.

There are still no proof of collusion, just like there are no proof of Russians paying Clinton; only suspicions.

There was enough evidence to indite 3 leading members of the Trump campaign. That means there is evidence.

There's also this:



There is Trump asking a foreign state (Russia) to hack the email servers of a Secretary of State.

[Shalcker]

There was enough evidence to indite 3 leading members of the Trump campaign. That means there is evidence.

Indict for money laundering from 2008 to 2014 for first two, for lying to FBI on third one - who was never "leading member".

Evidence of some possible crimes, sure.

Evidence of collusion with Russians? None so far.

[ati87]

Indict for money laundering from 2008 to 2014 for first two, for lying to FBI on third one - who was never "leading member".

Evidence of some possible crimes, sure.

Evidence of collusion with Russians? None so far.

lets repharse that.

During the investigation by special prosecutor Robbert Muller into the 2016 election and the Russian interference he and his team discovered multiply wrongdoings involving multiply members of the trump campaign.

And let it be coincidence about Muller also investigating the RNC Platform change regarding the Russian invasion into Crimea....Why suddenly the party that was always the strongest (to a unreasonable degree) became a russian lover.

And lol about you're leading member comment, corruption starts from the top and gets it's way to the lower ranks. If the ''coffee boy'' is doing questionable things then you can be god dam sure somebody hire up told him or pushed him.

[Mormolyce]

Indict for money laundering from 2008 to 2014 for first two, for lying to FBI on third one - who was never "leading member".

Evidence of some possible crimes, sure.

Evidence of collusion with Russians? None so far.

There's evidence up the ass, what you of course meant to say is that there are no convictions yet.

[Shalcker]

During the investigation by special prosecutor Robbert Muller into the 2016 election and the Russian interference he and his team discovered multiply wrongdoings involving multiply members of the trump campaign.

Specifically that they lied a lot. And/or routinely forgot various things (we can see that in Page and Sessions testimony too).

And let it be coincidence about Muller also investigating the RNC Platform change regarding the Russian invasion into Crimea....Why suddenly the party that was always the strongest (to a unreasonable degree) became a russian lover.

I remember plenty of articles about why and how as it happened.

It also wasn't change that would make them "Russian-lover"; only that statement would not make them open Russian antagonists.

And lol about you're leading member comment, corruption starts from the top and gets it's way to the lower ranks. If the ''coffee boy'' is doing questionable things then you can be god dam sure somebody hire up told him or pushed him.

Pushed him to brag about his position and connections in UK to fall prey of people who likewise overblown their own connections?

You assumptions expect well-organized campaign where top are actually in control of everything; and Trump's never looked like that one.

[TZucchini]

Evidence of collusion with Russians? None so far.

Don Jr. factually met with individuals he thought were part of the Russian government, to obtain dirt on Hillary, during the campaign. And you think there's no evidence of collusion with Russians? Are you out of your mind?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Indict for money laundering from 2008 to 2014 for first two, for lying to FBI on third one - who was never "leading member".

Evidence of some possible crimes, sure.

Evidence of collusion with Russians? None so far.

Low ranking members of an organisation don't get invited to strategy meetings,and you don't get a plea deal without being useful to the investigation.

[Shalcker]

Don Jr. factually met with individuals he thought were part of the Russian government, to obtain dirt on Hillary, during the campaign. And you think there's no evidence of collusion with Russians? Are you out of your mind?

You need seconds side for collusion, not just Jr's or anyone else's on Trump's campaign willingness to use any means necessary to get Clinton's dirt; and there are still no facts about that.

[Breccia]

There is Trump asking a foreign state (Russia) to hack the email servers of a Secretary of State.

And was that before, or after, the Trump Tower meeting, in which he asked for dirt on Clinton?

"Trump didn't know about the meeting."

Don't be naive.

[TZucchini]

You need seconds side for collusion, not just Jr's or anyone else's on Trump's campaign willingness to use any means necessary to get Clinton's dirt; and there are still no facts about that.

You said there is no evidence of collusion with Russians.

We have documented emails that show intent within the Trump campaign, to work with the Russian government, in order to obtain dirt on Hillary, and thus increase their chances of winning the election.

That's practically proof. So it's most definitely evidence.

[Shalcker]

You said there is no evidence of collusion with Russians.

Yep.

We have documented emails that show intent within the Trump campaign, to work with the Russian government, in order to obtain dirt on Hillary, and thus increase their chances of winning the election.

Yep, intent was there.

They wanted dirt on Clinton from anyone.

That's practically proof. So it's most definitely evidence.

Nope, that isn't "evidence of collusion".
Quite far from "practically proof" - plenty of steps you need to take to conclusion first.

Nothing wrong was planned, performed, or endorsed by Trump's campaign as shown by available information.

[Dontrike]

Nothing wrong was planned, performed, or endorsed by Trump's campaign as shown by available information.

Meetings were indeed planned and the fact that these meetings took place solely with Trump's campaign prove they were plenty endorsed.

[Shalcker]

Meetings were indeed planned and the fact that these meetings took place solely with Trump's campaign prove they were plenty endorsed.

And there are plenty of contrary evidence where meetings were proposed and rejected; or contact was attempted to be made and rejected.

Veselnitskaya managed to get a meeting through Goldstone using her connections, and content of that meeting is well-known - nothing that concerned spying or some even theoretical harm to US was discussed.

[Dontrike]

And there are plenty of contrary evidence where meetings were proposed and rejected; or contact was attempted to be made and rejected.

We know some meetings happened, but because some of them didn't suddenly that means none of them did?

[Shalcker]

We know some meetings happened, but because some of them didn't suddenly that means none of them did?

We know that meetings that we do know happened weren't endorsed by campaign.

There don't seem to be any exceptions.