Trump has now been implicated in a federal crime

[Faun]

It’s a violation because it wasn’t reported.

It wasn't a campaign expenditure, no reason to report it.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election. The hush money was to protect his personal spotless reputation.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

At least he didn't rape any one and tell them to put ice on the lip he just bit a hole in. And you folks LAPPED UP the lawyerese as "unconscionable." on your watch. Is hush money to prevent a loved one from having a broken heart that kind of unconscionable?

<<<<<< G O N G !!!! >>>>>>>

I just don't think so. Your religious right comment is based on your superior attitude, nothing more. The only difference between religious folk and atheists is a matter of belief in forgiveness from a loving Christ just for asking. Nothing more, except ya have to try harder not to screw up.

You talking about Juanita Broaddrick?? The same Juanita Broaddrick who swore...

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family." ​

 

[Faun]

52 U.S. Code § 30104 - Reporting requirements

You’re welcome.

Cohen paid her out of campaign funds?
Link?

Too late bub. Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

The headline on the website Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup,...
"Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World"

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers
and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling
much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president
and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset,
with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of
representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show,
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation
to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention
to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech
from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.



September 2005:

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier,
wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia,
days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.


2006:

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation


February 2007:

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company
and assumes the name Uranium One.
In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.


June 2008:

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One
by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom


2008-2010:

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors
make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal


June 2009:

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ
takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One


2010-2011:

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation


June 2010:

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One,
pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One
or to take the company private.


June 29, 2010:

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock


October 2010:

Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.


January 2013:

Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation

Now...I didn't even mention the millions of dollars
from Russian investors and government agencies,
given to a small, off shore company,
which Podesta sat on the Executive Board

Podesta failed to disclose, not only the money but,
his involvement in this company, which had a stake in the sale

Now...unless you and your ilk
are capable of pulling your heads out of your asses
and admitting whose REALLY guilty of criminal conduct....

THEN FUCK OFF!

COLLUSION... RUSSIA... TREASON... CORRUPTED
*********CLINTONS*********

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000.

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000

Omg...really!?

Giustra, who was already a major CF donor,
and obviously had close ties to the Clinton's...
secured a major Uranium deal in Kazakhstan, for HIS company,
days after visiting the country with Bill

The next year, Guistra donates over 31 million to the CF

COME ON...

Hillary not being SoS, until 2009....
3 years after that 'donation'...means what?

What does, when the donation was made,
have to do with, when Hillary served as SoS,
based on the 'donation' given to the CF
and the circumstances preceding the 'donation'?

Based on those facts alone,
how do you not see a problem?

Based on those facts alone,
THEN factoring in what proceeded,
up until she became SoS, until she left in 2013,
how do you NOT see a problem?

looking outside the box...at the bigger picture,

Hillary had been setting the stage, with Bill's help
as early as 2005, to run for President in '08....
had it not been for Obama, she would have, hands down,
won the nomination and IMHO, won the election.

Do you NOT think, she thought,
there is no way America will elect a black man?

Her ego cost her the first time around,
and not learning from that, cost her the second time.

People wanted change...
that's why Obama won the first time

If white America was so racist,
Obama would have NEVER been elected!
Bottom line...white voters elected Obama

White voters accounted for 74% of all votes cast
Black voters accounted for 13% of all votes cast
Hispanic voters accounted for 9% of all votes cast

People wanted change even more,
that's why Trump won the election....
And, he'll win again because of all the nonsense

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, which is shit
McCain lost the popular vote by 10 million
So, while Trump may have lost the popular vote,
enough voters from every state are thirsty for change....
That's why the electoral decides elections

While you and your ilk are focused on shit,
the overwhelming majority of voters don't care about,
the water continues to boil rapidly, evaporating...
soon, all that will be left is a scorched pot, on a hot burner

As far as the $500,00 Bill received,
being non important in your eyes,
based on him receiving upwards of $700,00 at times....

Stop playing stupid, please...

He received that money from
a Russian government financial institution,
THAT ASSIGNED THE BUYING RATE
FOR URANIUM ONE STOCK

COME ON

If you and your ilk have such a problem with,
the personal ethics of Trump, in his private affairs,
how can you and your ilk not have a problem with,
questionable dealings, that effect our country?

Hush money to hos, from campaign funds,
when, Trump put a great deal of his own money,
into his own campaign and isn't taking a salary...
WHO FUCKING CARES!..NOT I

What about Norman Hsu?
Care to talk about him, as it relates to Hillary?

Why don't you get out of La La Land?
Pack your shit and move to Oz...
Maybe the wizard will give you a brain!

Kazakhstan is not Russia and has nothing to do with Putin or Uranium One’s deal with Rosatom; which is what you were claiming. That all happened after Giustra sold his share of Uranium One. And at the time Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation most of the money he donated, Hillary was a Senator with no influence over any deals like the Rosatom deal years later.

Again, this has been so thoroughly debunked, even by rightwing media, it’s amazing you still bring it up.

 

[Faun]

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You left out an important part, moron.

Endorsing a candidate to the general public
A corporation or labor organization may endorse a candidate and may communicate the endorsement to the general public. The corporation or labor organization may communicate with candidates for the purpose of deciding which, if any, candidate to endorse. For example, the corporation or labor organization may discuss issues with the candidate in determining whether or not to make an endorsement. However, the corporation or labor organization may not coordinate the announcement of its public endorsement with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents without the endorsement resulting in a contribution or expenditure.

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis. (Disbursements are considered de minimis if the press release and notice of press conference are distributed only to the organization’s usual media contacts when issuing non-political press releases or holding press conferences for other purposes.)

Sanders isn't a corporation or a labor organization.

He’s a member of one ... the DNC. Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

 

[Auld Phart]

It wasn't a campaign expenditure, no reason to report it.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election. The hush money was to protect his personal spotless reputation.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

At least he didn't rape any one and tell them to put ice on the lip he just bit a hole in. And you folks LAPPED UP the lawyerese as "unconscionable." on your watch. Is hush money to prevent a loved one from having a broken heart that kind of unconscionable?

<<<<<< G O N G !!!! >>>>>>>

I just don't think so. Your religious right comment is based on your superior attitude, nothing more. The only difference between religious folk and atheists is a matter of belief in forgiveness from a loving Christ just for asking. Nothing more, except ya have to try harder not to screw up.

You talking about Juanita Broaddrick?? The same Juanita Broaddrick who swore...

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family." ​

and in 1999, on national tv, stated he did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You left out an important part, moron.

Endorsing a candidate to the general public
A corporation or labor organization may endorse a candidate and may communicate the endorsement to the general public. The corporation or labor organization may communicate with candidates for the purpose of deciding which, if any, candidate to endorse. For example, the corporation or labor organization may discuss issues with the candidate in determining whether or not to make an endorsement. However, the corporation or labor organization may not coordinate the announcement of its public endorsement with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents without the endorsement resulting in a contribution or expenditure.

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis. (Disbursements are considered de minimis if the press release and notice of press conference are distributed only to the organization’s usual media contacts when issuing non-political press releases or holding press conferences for other purposes.)

Sanders isn't a corporation or a labor organization.

He’s a member of one ... the DNC. Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

You're the one who said a benefit to a campaign is a contribution.
She received a benefit, arguably one worth millions.

 

[Faun]

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election. The hush money was to protect his personal spotless reputation.

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

At least he didn't rape any one and tell them to put ice on the lip he just bit a hole in. And you folks LAPPED UP the lawyerese as "unconscionable." on your watch. Is hush money to prevent a loved one from having a broken heart that kind of unconscionable?

<<<<<< G O N G !!!! >>>>>>>

I just don't think so. Your religious right comment is based on your superior attitude, nothing more. The only difference between religious folk and atheists is a matter of belief in forgiveness from a loving Christ just for asking. Nothing more, except ya have to try harder not to screw up.

You talking about Juanita Broaddrick?? The same Juanita Broaddrick who swore...

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family." ​

and in 1999, on national tv, stated he did.

So? She was lying.

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump wasn't concerned about adulterous affairs swaying the religious right in the election.

Doesn't matter, it wasn't a campaign expense.

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

At least he didn't rape any one and tell them to put ice on the lip he just bit a hole in. And you folks LAPPED UP the lawyerese as "unconscionable." on your watch. Is hush money to prevent a loved one from having a broken heart that kind of unconscionable?

<<<<<< G O N G !!!! >>>>>>>

I just don't think so. Your religious right comment is based on your superior attitude, nothing more. The only difference between religious folk and atheists is a matter of belief in forgiveness from a loving Christ just for asking. Nothing more, except ya have to try harder not to screw up.

You talking about Juanita Broaddrick?? The same Juanita Broaddrick who swore...

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family." ​

and in 1999, on national tv, stated he did.

So? She was lying.

Which time?

 

[Faun]

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

You left out an important part, moron.

Endorsing a candidate to the general public
A corporation or labor organization may endorse a candidate and may communicate the endorsement to the general public. The corporation or labor organization may communicate with candidates for the purpose of deciding which, if any, candidate to endorse. For example, the corporation or labor organization may discuss issues with the candidate in determining whether or not to make an endorsement. However, the corporation or labor organization may not coordinate the announcement of its public endorsement with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents without the endorsement resulting in a contribution or expenditure.

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis. (Disbursements are considered de minimis if the press release and notice of press conference are distributed only to the organization’s usual media contacts when issuing non-political press releases or holding press conferences for other purposes.)

Sanders isn't a corporation or a labor organization.

He’s a member of one ... the DNC. Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

Members of the DNC can certainly endorse fellow members without violating campaign finance laws.

You're the one who said a benefit to a campaign is a contribution.
She received a benefit, arguably one worth millions.

And I showed you where the FEC exempts endorsements. Time for you to realize you made up a stupid excuse in lieu of sound reasoning, lick your wounds and move on.

 

[Faun]

So it was a charitable contribution to help distressed porn stars and prostitutes?

At least he didn't rape any one and tell them to put ice on the lip he just bit a hole in. And you folks LAPPED UP the lawyerese as "unconscionable." on your watch. Is hush money to prevent a loved one from having a broken heart that kind of unconscionable?

<<<<<< G O N G !!!! >>>>>>>

I just don't think so. Your religious right comment is based on your superior attitude, nothing more. The only difference between religious folk and atheists is a matter of belief in forgiveness from a loving Christ just for asking. Nothing more, except ya have to try harder not to screw up.

You talking about Juanita Broaddrick?? The same Juanita Broaddrick who swore...

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family." ​

and in 1999, on national tv, stated he did.

So? She was lying.

Which time?

When she wasn’t swearing under oath and no longer facing perjury for lying.

 

[Auld Phart]

Right, because she wouldn't lie under oath, to get the media etc from bothering her and to protect her family?

But, she WOULD lie on National TV, to millions of people?


"and no longer facing perjury for lying. "

There is a time limit on lying under oath?

 

[Sunsettommy]

It works fine, just tried it, maybe you are afraid to go to the post?

Nope, I clicked on it and it took me to a page which contained no posts by you. In fact, your link took me to page #58 which is posts 571-580.

Are you blind, your post here is number 1255, on page 63.

My post #1243 is on page 58.

You have a problem since I can still reach post 1243 on page 58. I wonder if you are lying to me to avoid reading the filed MEMO that doesn't have the name of Trump anywhere in it.

Here is again straight from the MEMO website itself:

Michael Cohen Sentencing Memo

Ah, ok, I see what the problem here is.... you must be a conservative, i.e., dumb as shit.

In regards to your first link, page 58 for you goes to different posts for me on page 58 because we must have different settings for the number of posts per page.

In regards to your next link, which goes directly to the court filing, you actually (and idiotically) claim it doesn’t mention trump at all. But you’re clearly brain-dead to assert such nonsense. It actually refers to him 23 times. Here’s an example...

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election."

The memo says the "principal purpose" of an agreement with "Woman-1" was to "prevent [her] story from influencing the election."

"After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2."​

Where is the word TRUMP in that paragraph you quoted?

Snicker.

by the way I am Independent, you assumed wrong.

I said “conservative,” not Republican.

And dumbfuck, trump is referred to as “Individual-1” in that document.

Which leads to one of only two possibilities here.

Either 1), you’re as dumb as can be to not know Individual-1 is trump. Shit, even searching your conservative treehouse link for “trump” turns up, “Individual-1” is Trump; or 2)

You’re so dumb, you thought you could dishonestly fool the forum into believing trump isn’t mentioned at all in that document.

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for you.

Wow, you are a nasty person, which means a leftist democrat is what you are.

I didn't realize the word Trump is spelled Individual-1, what grade school did you graduate from?

Meanwhile you have NOT once showed that the MEMO claims Trump did anything illegal, how come that reality zooms over your head?

 

[BWK]

Cohen paid her out of campaign funds?
Link?

Too late bub. Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

Talk to the prosecutors. They are calling it a contribution due to the nature of the payment. IT was hidden and never reported, and Trump said he knew nothing about it, which he lied about. The prosecutors are calling it a felony.

The headline on the website Pravda
trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup,...
"Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World"

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers
and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling
much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president
and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

the sale gave the Russians control of
one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset,
with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of
representatives from a number of United States government agencies.
Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show,
a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.

Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation
to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons,
despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck
with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention
to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech
from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.



September 2005:

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier,
wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia,
days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.


2006:

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation


February 2007:

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company
and assumes the name Uranium One.
In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.


June 2008:

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One
by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom


2008-2010:

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors
make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal


June 2009:

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ
takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One


2010-2011:

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation


June 2010:

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One,
pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment
in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One
or to take the company private.


June 29, 2010:

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow
by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock


October 2010:

Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.


January 2013:

Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation

Now...I didn't even mention the millions of dollars
from Russian investors and government agencies,
given to a small, off shore company,
which Podesta sat on the Executive Board

Podesta failed to disclose, not only the money but,
his involvement in this company, which had a stake in the sale

Now...unless you and your ilk
are capable of pulling your heads out of your asses
and admitting whose REALLY guilty of criminal conduct....

THEN FUCK OFF!

COLLUSION... RUSSIA... TREASON... CORRUPTED
*********CLINTONS*********

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000.

LOLOL

How many times has this narrative been debunked?

Almost all of the donations from Giustra came before Hillary was Secretary of State and Bill collecting $500,000 for speech was in line with how much he was paid for other speeches, which went as high as $700,000

Omg...really!?

Giustra, who was already a major CF donor,
and obviously had close ties to the Clinton's...
secured a major Uranium deal in Kazakhstan, for HIS company,
days after visiting the country with Bill

The next year, Guistra donates over 31 million to the CF

COME ON...

Hillary not being SoS, until 2009....
3 years after that 'donation'...means what?

What does, when the donation was made,
have to do with, when Hillary served as SoS,
based on the 'donation' given to the CF
and the circumstances preceding the 'donation'?

Based on those facts alone,
how do you not see a problem?

Based on those facts alone,
THEN factoring in what proceeded,
up until she became SoS, until she left in 2013,
how do you NOT see a problem?

looking outside the box...at the bigger picture,

Hillary had been setting the stage, with Bill's help
as early as 2005, to run for President in '08....
had it not been for Obama, she would have, hands down,
won the nomination and IMHO, won the election.

Do you NOT think, she thought,
there is no way America will elect a black man?

Her ego cost her the first time around,
and not learning from that, cost her the second time.

People wanted change...
that's why Obama won the first time

If white America was so racist,
Obama would have NEVER been elected!
Bottom line...white voters elected Obama

White voters accounted for 74% of all votes cast
Black voters accounted for 13% of all votes cast
Hispanic voters accounted for 9% of all votes cast

People wanted change even more,
that's why Trump won the election....
And, he'll win again because of all the nonsense

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, which is shit
McCain lost the popular vote by 10 million
So, while Trump may have lost the popular vote,
enough voters from every state are thirsty for change....
That's why the electoral decides elections

While you and your ilk are focused on shit,
the overwhelming majority of voters don't care about,
the water continues to boil rapidly, evaporating...
soon, all that will be left is a scorched pot, on a hot burner

As far as the $500,00 Bill received,
being non important in your eyes,
based on him receiving upwards of $700,00 at times....

Stop playing stupid, please...

He received that money from
a Russian government financial institution,
THAT ASSIGNED THE BUYING RATE
FOR URANIUM ONE STOCK

COME ON

If you and your ilk have such a problem with,
the personal ethics of Trump, in his private affairs,
how can you and your ilk not have a problem with,
questionable dealings, that effect our country?

Hush money to hos, from campaign funds,
when, Trump put a great deal of his own money,
into his own campaign and isn't taking a salary...
WHO FUCKING CARES!..NOT I

What about Norman Hsu?
Care to talk about him, as it relates to Hillary?

Why don't you get out of La La Land?
Pack your shit and move to Oz...
Maybe the wizard will give you a brain!

Kazakhstan is not Russia and has nothing to do with Putin or Uranium One’s deal with Rosatom; which is what you were claiming. That all happened after Giustra sold his share of Uranium One. And at the time Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation most of the money he donated, Hillary was a Senator with no influence over any deals like the Rosatom deal years later.

Again, this has been so thoroughly debunked, even by rightwing media, it’s amazing you still bring it up.

They still bring it up because they are idiots.It's that simple.

 

[BookShaka]

The breaking news is that Trump violated three different campaign finance laws with the assistance of Michael Cohen according to prosecutors for the southern district of New York, and Trump is being implicated as a felon. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Late Friday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a document arguing that Michael Cohen, until last year President Trump’s personal attorney, should receive a substantial prison sentence for violations of federal law to which Cohen admitted guilt in August.


Analysis | The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations

This seems like it’d be HUGE news so why haven’t I heard a thing about it until this post today? I get news alerts on my phone and got ZERO about Trump being a felon. Now why would that be?

LOl! Trump has been a felon for decades. It's just that yesterday that prosecutors constructed their own filings that will make it official in due time. Stay tuned. In the mean time, you can go back into your hole.

Does “go back in your hole” mean for me to stop pointing out inconvenient truths or does it mean log off and remain absent from USMS bc you don’t like it when I point out inconvenient truths?

This should be huge news, yes? So why isn’t it?

Lol! Because it is.You do know that Mueller and his team announced that Cohen was approached by Trump to approach the Russians over business while he was running for president, when Cohen said all that stopped in January, 2016. But it didn't.

This isn't just about campaign finance violations. This is about conspiracy with Russians during an election for quid pro quo by Trump himself. That's an even bigger fish. Prosecutors already have him for the campaign finance violations. The Russian part is separate.

You mean they were looking for other crimes whilst investigating Russian collusion? Well we all know that was the reason for the investigaton in the first place, to find SOMETHING to nail him with, whether Russia-related or not.

 

[BWK]

The breaking news is that Trump violated three different campaign finance laws with the assistance of Michael Cohen according to prosecutors for the southern district of New York, and Trump is being implicated as a felon. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Late Friday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a document arguing that Michael Cohen, until last year President Trump’s personal attorney, should receive a substantial prison sentence for violations of federal law to which Cohen admitted guilt in August.


Analysis | The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations

This seems like it’d be HUGE news so why haven’t I heard a thing about it until this post today? I get news alerts on my phone and got ZERO about Trump being a felon. Now why would that be?

LOl! Trump has been a felon for decades. It's just that yesterday that prosecutors constructed their own filings that will make it official in due time. Stay tuned. In the mean time, you can go back into your hole.

Does “go back in your hole” mean for me to stop pointing out inconvenient truths or does it mean log off and remain absent from USMS bc you don’t like it when I point out inconvenient truths?

This should be huge news, yes? So why isn’t it?

Lol! Because it is.You do know that Mueller and his team announced that Cohen was approached by Trump to approach the Russians over business while he was running for president, when Cohen said all that stopped in January, 2016. But it didn't.

This isn't just about campaign finance violations. This is about conspiracy with Russians during an election for quid pro quo by Trump himself. That's an even bigger fish. Prosecutors already have him for the campaign finance violations. The Russian part is separate.

You mean they were looking for other crimes whilst investigating Russian collusion? Well we all know that was the reason for the investigaton in the first place, to find SOMETHING to nail him with, whether Russia-related or not.

You mean other crimes related to Russia that tie Trump to campaign finance violations? All one has to do is wake up the brain to understand that they are one and the same. It's quite likely, but we will never know, that discovering Trump's affairs while his third wife was pregnant, and right before the election may have changed the minds of millions. But Trump used stolen money to pay off his mistress to hide that information, right before the election.

Donald J. Trump Foundation - Wikipedia

And another thing, Russian conspiracy with the Trump campaign doesn't need to be looked at or proven any longer. It was proven a long time ago by way of the Trump Tower meeting. Later backed up by Cambridge Analytica, Gucifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and the Jerome Corsi email dump.

 

[BWK]

Nope, I clicked on it and it took me to a page which contained no posts by you. In fact, your link took me to page #58 which is posts 571-580.

Are you blind, your post here is number 1255, on page 63.

My post #1243 is on page 58.

You have a problem since I can still reach post 1243 on page 58. I wonder if you are lying to me to avoid reading the filed MEMO that doesn't have the name of Trump anywhere in it.

Here is again straight from the MEMO website itself:

Michael Cohen Sentencing Memo

Ah, ok, I see what the problem here is.... you must be a conservative, i.e., dumb as shit.

In regards to your first link, page 58 for you goes to different posts for me on page 58 because we must have different settings for the number of posts per page.

In regards to your next link, which goes directly to the court filing, you actually (and idiotically) claim it doesn’t mention trump at all. But you’re clearly brain-dead to assert such nonsense. It actually refers to him 23 times. Here’s an example...

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen's actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election."

The memo says the "principal purpose" of an agreement with "Woman-1" was to "prevent [her] story from influencing the election."

"After the election, Cohen sought reimbursement for election-related expenses, including the $130,000 payment he had made to Woman-2."​

Where is the word TRUMP in that paragraph you quoted?

Snicker.

by the way I am Independent, you assumed wrong.

I said “conservative,” not Republican.

And dumbfuck, trump is referred to as “Individual-1” in that document.

Which leads to one of only two possibilities here.

Either 1), you’re as dumb as can be to not know Individual-1 is trump. Shit, even searching your conservative treehouse link for “trump” turns up, “Individual-1” is Trump; or 2)

You’re so dumb, you thought you could dishonestly fool the forum into believing trump isn’t mentioned at all in that document.

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for you.

Wow, you are a nasty person, which means a leftist democrat is what you are.

I didn't realize the word Trump is spelled Individual-1, what grade school did you graduate from?

Meanwhile you have NOT once showed that the MEMO claims Trump did anything illegal, how come that reality zooms over your head?

It looms over your head because you do not understand the difference between legal and illegal. Do you think it is legal to pay a porn star with stolen money to keep her quiet, so you can get elected?

 

[BWK]

Not my opinion, lying under oath is a felony. He should have been removed.

.

They have no problem sending those caught in a perjury trap today for lying under oath to the FBI or congress........but in essence they asked them details from years past and they didn't remember it correctly then they say WE GOT YOU............bingo...........you go to prison unless you say what we want .............

Why everyone of them should have told them to take their questions and shove them up their asses..........but they got lured into these perjury traps..............

Paying a porn star to keep her mouth shut isn't against the law........it's only a FEC violation if paid with campaign funds which Trump has no reason to use to do it.........He's kinda rich...........

Doesn't matter............the Dems will try impeachment because they still have butt hurt that they lost a rigged election.

Wrong again. It does not have to be paid with campaign funds to be a crime. I don’t know where you yahoos get your information from?

Yawn..............this is the great Russia conspiracy............a porn star trying to get him on a FEC violation......He didn't report a Non Disclosure Agreement from a one night stand many years before he even thought about running.

It doesn't matter to you that the whore was trying to make a buck by basically blackmailing him.....LOL

As you ignore all the money spent by the DNC on places like Fusion GPS to dig up dirt that actually used Russian Officials to dig up BS...........used for Wire taps to weaponize our agencies for political reasons and to win an election......LOL

Shit or get off the pot Mr. Mueller.

Well that’s a lie too. There’s no evidence she sought to blackmail him. He heard she was looking to sell her story and paid her not to.

Yawn.........all in your crystal ball.............If you can make assumptions and guesses so can we..........Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know she was trying to profit from a one night stand.................doesn't take much more to think she was using it to blackmail him for profit.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that this is a campaign finance violation by using stolen money to pay porn stars to shut them up during a presidential election, making it an illegal election.

 

[BWK]

The breaking news is that Trump violated three different campaign finance laws with the assistance of Michael Cohen according to prosecutors for the southern district of New York, and Trump is being implicated as a felon. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis

Late Friday, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a document arguing that Michael Cohen, until last year President Trump’s personal attorney, should receive a substantial prison sentence for violations of federal law to which Cohen admitted guilt in August.


Analysis | The government implicates Trump and the Trump campaign in federal campaign finance violations

This seems like it’d be HUGE news so why haven’t I heard a thing about it until this post today? I get news alerts on my phone and got ZERO about Trump being a felon. Now why would that be?

LOl! Trump has been a felon for decades. It's just that yesterday that prosecutors constructed their own filings that will make it official in due time. Stay tuned. In the mean time, you can go back into your hole.

Does “go back in your hole” mean for me to stop pointing out inconvenient truths or does it mean log off and remain absent from USMS bc you don’t like it when I point out inconvenient truths?

This should be huge news, yes? So why isn’t it?

Lol! Because it is.You do know that Mueller and his team announced that Cohen was approached by Trump to approach the Russians over business while he was running for president, when Cohen said all that stopped in January, 2016. But it didn't.

This isn't just about campaign finance violations. This is about conspiracy with Russians during an election for quid pro quo by Trump himself. That's an even bigger fish. Prosecutors already have him for the campaign finance violations. The Russian part is separate.

You mean they were looking for other crimes whilst investigating Russian collusion? Well we all know that was the reason for the investigaton in the first place, to find SOMETHING to nail him with, whether Russia-related or not.

And as I pointed out to you, that the Russian conspiracy has already been proven, along with Cohens admission of having business deals with Russia, just confirms why and how the conspiracies I just laid out to you occured.

 

[BWK]

Again, endorsements aren’t contributions

Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?

The 74-year-old self-described democratic socialist, who has been a thorn in Clinton's side over the last year, pledged to support his former rival through Election Day: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States."

Wow! Sounds pretty valuable.

unless you can show Hillary was working with Bernie to get that endorsement.

Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?​

”Endorsements aren't a benefit to Hillary's campaign? Why not?”

It’s a pity you can’t understand what you read. I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

”Hillary didn't work to get his endorsement?”

I didn’t say that either. I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

Really, you should prolly re-read posts several times until you understand what is actually stated.

I didn’t say endorsements aren’t a benefit. I said they’re not a campaign contribution.

Why are some benefits a contribution while other, larger benefits are not a contribution?
Perhaps you should post the law/regulation that spells out the differentiation?

I said Hillary didn’t work with Bernie to get his endorsement.

How does her "working with" or "not working with" make the slightest difference to the valuable benefit (contribution) she received from Bernie?

Ask the FEC. They define campaign contributions.

You came up with your own definition.
One which Hillary clearly violated when she didn't report the value of Bernie's endorsement.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Maybe the above link will help clear up your confusion?

Holyfuckingshit!

You’re looking at the wrong link. Actually, it’s you who’s making up his own definitions. No worries. As usual, it takes a Liberal to educate a conservative...

Endorsing candidates

Disbursements for endorsements made to the general public are not contributions or expenditures as long as the endorsement is not coordinated with any candidate, candidate committee or its agents; and disbursements for any press release or press conference are de minimis.​

And on top of that, his link is worth teats on a bo hog, because Trump used stolen money from his own charity, which cancels FEC. gov out. The donations were reported by the Trump Foundation as coming from the .... by using charitable funds to pay Trump's personal or business obligations.

Donald J. Trump Foundation - Wikipedia

I noticed these hard line Trump apologists don't want to talk about that, because it throws a giant hole in their defense. This is another reason why it is a felony.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Perjury traps. LOL.

 

[BWK]

This seems like it’d be HUGE news so why haven’t I heard a thing about it until this post today? I get news alerts on my phone and got ZERO about Trump being a felon. Now why would that be?

LOl! Trump has been a felon for decades. It's just that yesterday that prosecutors constructed their own filings that will make it official in due time. Stay tuned. In the mean time, you can go back into your hole.

Does “go back in your hole” mean for me to stop pointing out inconvenient truths or does it mean log off and remain absent from USMS bc you don’t like it when I point out inconvenient truths?

This should be huge news, yes? So why isn’t it?

Lol! Because it is.You do know that Mueller and his team announced that Cohen was approached by Trump to approach the Russians over business while he was running for president, when Cohen said all that stopped in January, 2016. But it didn't.

This isn't just about campaign finance violations. This is about conspiracy with Russians during an election for quid pro quo by Trump himself. That's an even bigger fish. Prosecutors already have him for the campaign finance violations. The Russian part is separate.

You mean they were looking for other crimes whilst investigating Russian collusion? Well we all know that was the reason for the investigaton in the first place, to find SOMETHING to nail him with, whether Russia-related or not.

And as I pointed out to you, that the Russian conspiracy has already been proven, along with Cohens admission of having business deals with Russia, just confirms why and how the conspiracies I just laid out to you occured.

Hiding behind funny faces are for cowards who have no defense. Carry on.