What will be said after Donald Trump passes away

[dblack]

Pass the mustard.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Trump has been the best President in my life time and I was born when Harry Truman was in office.

That is saying a lot since the runner up was Reagan.

The world has passed you by and Trump will not help you

 

[McRocket]

'It's about fucking time'.

Also, his eldest daughter can finally stop worrying at night that he will try and get into bed with her when Jared is away.

You've hit a new low, McSuckit!

That's even lower than me wanting to crap on Hillary's grave after she deep sixes.

Go ahead...I am no fan of the woman.


And if you thought this was bad...wait until you read the next post from me on this.

You probably won't like that much either.

Oh...I do love it so.


BTW - McSuckIt? Why do most Trumpbot posts revolve around sucking male dicks? I think the answer is obvious.


Have a nice day.

 

[g5000]

What will be said after Donald Trump passes away

"Dear Leader is up in Heaven now, grabbing the virgin Mary's pussy and 'dating' his daughter..."

 

[g5000]

What will be said after Donald Trump passes away

"Who knew that guy on Fifth Avenue had a gun, too? Thank God for the Second Amendment!"

 

[g5000]

What will be said after Donald Trump passes away

"Choked on Putin's cock. What a way to go!"

 

[playtime]

i think a lot of people will throw a going away party. he deserves no respect for disrespecting the office like he has. & if it s proven that he is a russian asset, doing the bidding of putin - then i hope to spit on his grave.

His administration oversaw the transfer of 20% of America's uranium to the Rooskies ?

Leftards are traitors as well as being commies.

yawn........... that.... again?

hillary was part of 9 agencies that signed off on that, jr.

Nine? Link please.

that's what i said..... not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... but 9.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

you're welcome.

You are welcome.....


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

^^^ April 23, 2015 ^^^



November 14, 2017

Because the State Department was one of nine United States government agencies that signed off on the deal, questions have been raised about whether there were any connections between deal’s approval and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Some ties between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were disclosed in a book by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and frequent collaborator on films and books with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and the former White House chief strategist. Mr. Schweizer provided some of his information from his book, “Clinton Cash,” to The New York Times, which conducted its own reporting.
What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?

February 20, 2019

It is remarkable that the Times casually mentioned the Uranium One deal as a “debunked” scandal, noted Nick Merrill, a former State Department official and adviser to Hillary Clinton, because it was the Times that promoted that story in the first place:


The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)


And yet despite the fact that all of this is discredited, points out Merrill, the Times article, which originally gave it credence, breathlessly ran it even though it had the stink of GOP opposition research from the get-go:


One of the saddest parts of the story, notes Merrill, is that all of this drove donor funding away from the Clinton Foundation, as it tried to do life-saving work distributing medications and funding global development.


The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage in the 2016 election. For example, a review of the paper’s coverage found that they “ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The “Clinton Cash” saga is a major chapter in how the Times‘ editorial process fell short — and it arguably deserves more attention than a passing reference buried in an article on Trump.
Former Hillary Clinton aide slams New York Times for "admitting" its Uranium One story was "a sham"

YOU are welcome.

 

[Dale Smith]

His administration oversaw the transfer of 20% of America's uranium to the Rooskies ?

Leftards are traitors as well as being commies.

yawn........... that.... again?

hillary was part of 9 agencies that signed off on that, jr.

Nine? Link please.

that's what i said..... not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... but 9.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

you're welcome.

You are welcome.....


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

^^^ April 23, 2015 ^^^



November 14, 2017

Because the State Department was one of nine United States government agencies that signed off on the deal, questions have been raised about whether there were any connections between deal’s approval and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Some ties between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were disclosed in a book by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and frequent collaborator on films and books with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and the former White House chief strategist. Mr. Schweizer provided some of his information from his book, “Clinton Cash,” to The New York Times, which conducted its own reporting.
What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?

February 20, 2019

It is remarkable that the Times casually mentioned the Uranium One deal as a “debunked” scandal, noted Nick Merrill, a former State Department official and adviser to Hillary Clinton, because it was the Times that promoted that story in the first place:


The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)


And yet despite the fact that all of this is discredited, points out Merrill, the Times article, which originally gave it credence, breathlessly ran it even though it had the stink of GOP opposition research from the get-go:


One of the saddest parts of the story, notes Merrill, is that all of this drove donor funding away from the Clinton Foundation, as it tried to do life-saving work distributing medications and funding global development.


The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage in the 2016 election. For example, a review of the paper’s coverage found that they “ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The “Clinton Cash” saga is a major chapter in how the Times‘ editorial process fell short — and it arguably deserves more attention than a passing reference buried in an article on Trump.
Former Hillary Clinton aide slams New York Times for "admitting" its Uranium One story was "a sham"

YOU are welcome.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! "The Hildebeast is innocent I tells ya!!! Do you hear me do you!?!?"

Go peddle your bullshit to someone else, punkinpuss.

 

[playtime]

yawn........... that.... again?

hillary was part of 9 agencies that signed off on that, jr.

Nine? Link please.

that's what i said..... not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... but 9.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

you're welcome.

You are welcome.....


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

^^^ April 23, 2015 ^^^



November 14, 2017

Because the State Department was one of nine United States government agencies that signed off on the deal, questions have been raised about whether there were any connections between deal’s approval and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Some ties between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were disclosed in a book by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and frequent collaborator on films and books with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and the former White House chief strategist. Mr. Schweizer provided some of his information from his book, “Clinton Cash,” to The New York Times, which conducted its own reporting.
What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?

February 20, 2019

It is remarkable that the Times casually mentioned the Uranium One deal as a “debunked” scandal, noted Nick Merrill, a former State Department official and adviser to Hillary Clinton, because it was the Times that promoted that story in the first place:


The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)


And yet despite the fact that all of this is discredited, points out Merrill, the Times article, which originally gave it credence, breathlessly ran it even though it had the stink of GOP opposition research from the get-go:


One of the saddest parts of the story, notes Merrill, is that all of this drove donor funding away from the Clinton Foundation, as it tried to do life-saving work distributing medications and funding global development.


The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage in the 2016 election. For example, a review of the paper’s coverage found that they “ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The “Clinton Cash” saga is a major chapter in how the Times‘ editorial process fell short — and it arguably deserves more attention than a passing reference buried in an article on Trump.
Former Hillary Clinton aide slams New York Times for "admitting" its Uranium One story was "a sham"

YOU are welcome.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! "The Hildebeast is innocent I tells ya!!! Do you hear me do you!?!?"

Go peddle your bullshit to someone else, punkinpuss.

you say sandy hook is a hoax & i'm the one peddlin' bullshit? ha! wow wow wow............

 

[Dale Smith]

Nine? Link please.

that's what i said..... not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... but 9.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

you're welcome.

You are welcome.....


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

^^^ April 23, 2015 ^^^



November 14, 2017

Because the State Department was one of nine United States government agencies that signed off on the deal, questions have been raised about whether there were any connections between deal’s approval and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Some ties between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were disclosed in a book by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and frequent collaborator on films and books with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and the former White House chief strategist. Mr. Schweizer provided some of his information from his book, “Clinton Cash,” to The New York Times, which conducted its own reporting.
What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?

February 20, 2019

It is remarkable that the Times casually mentioned the Uranium One deal as a “debunked” scandal, noted Nick Merrill, a former State Department official and adviser to Hillary Clinton, because it was the Times that promoted that story in the first place:


The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)


And yet despite the fact that all of this is discredited, points out Merrill, the Times article, which originally gave it credence, breathlessly ran it even though it had the stink of GOP opposition research from the get-go:


One of the saddest parts of the story, notes Merrill, is that all of this drove donor funding away from the Clinton Foundation, as it tried to do life-saving work distributing medications and funding global development.


The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage in the 2016 election. For example, a review of the paper’s coverage found that they “ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The “Clinton Cash” saga is a major chapter in how the Times‘ editorial process fell short — and it arguably deserves more attention than a passing reference buried in an article on Trump.
Former Hillary Clinton aide slams New York Times for "admitting" its Uranium One story was "a sham"

YOU are welcome.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! "The Hildebeast is innocent I tells ya!!! Do you hear me do you!?!?"

Go peddle your bullshit to someone else, punkinpuss.

you say sandy hook is a hoax & i'm the one peddlin' bullshit? ha! wow wow wow............

Yeah, Sandy Hoax was a poorly executed DHS mass casualty drill that was portrayed as a real time event. Debate me on it, punkinpuss. Your "evidence" that it actually happened was that you saw coverage on TV thus it MUST be true. I have over 60 anomalies that poke enough holes in the official story to drive a brigade of tanks through. The New Zealand shooting was faked, so was the Boston bombing, the Pulse niteclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, Charleston church shooting and the Charleston nazis versus commies showdown........on and on it goes.

Leftards like yourself are easily fooled.

(snicker)

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Is this Alex Jones? What a retarded post

 

[playtime]

that's what i said..... not 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... but 9.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Facts on Uranium One - FactCheck.org

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intragovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

you're welcome.

You are welcome.....


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

^^^ April 23, 2015 ^^^



November 14, 2017

Because the State Department was one of nine United States government agencies that signed off on the deal, questions have been raised about whether there were any connections between deal’s approval and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Some ties between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were disclosed in a book by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and frequent collaborator on films and books with Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News and the former White House chief strategist. Mr. Schweizer provided some of his information from his book, “Clinton Cash,” to The New York Times, which conducted its own reporting.
What Is the Uranium One Deal and Why Does the Trump Administration Care So Much?

February 20, 2019

It is remarkable that the Times casually mentioned the Uranium One deal as a “debunked” scandal, noted Nick Merrill, a former State Department official and adviser to Hillary Clinton, because it was the Times that promoted that story in the first place:


The Uranium One story alleged that Clinton helped approve the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia just as its stakeholders donated to the Clintons’ charitable foundation, seemingly creating the picture of a conflict of interest. But every part of the story was misleading. The donor who owned most of the stake in Uranium One sold it years before the deal; Clinton was part of a committee that reviewed the deal but didn’t actually have the power to vote it up or down; and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clintons benefited financially from the deal or from their own foundation. This, however, formed the source of right-wing claims that Clinton “sold 20% of our uranium to Russia” (the deal didn’t involve an export of uranium, so this is even more wrong.)


And yet despite the fact that all of this is discredited, points out Merrill, the Times article, which originally gave it credence, breathlessly ran it even though it had the stink of GOP opposition research from the get-go:


One of the saddest parts of the story, notes Merrill, is that all of this drove donor funding away from the Clinton Foundation, as it tried to do life-saving work distributing medications and funding global development.


The New York Times has faced criticism for its coverage in the 2016 election. For example, a review of the paper’s coverage found that they “ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.” The “Clinton Cash” saga is a major chapter in how the Times‘ editorial process fell short — and it arguably deserves more attention than a passing reference buried in an article on Trump.
Former Hillary Clinton aide slams New York Times for "admitting" its Uranium One story was "a sham"

YOU are welcome.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! "The Hildebeast is innocent I tells ya!!! Do you hear me do you!?!?"

Go peddle your bullshit to someone else, punkinpuss.

you say sandy hook is a hoax & i'm the one peddlin' bullshit? ha! wow wow wow............

Yeah, Sandy Hoax was a poorly executed DHS mass casualty drill that was portrayed as a real time event. Debate me on it, punkinpuss. Your "evidence" that it actually happened was that you saw coverage on TV thus it MUST be true. I have over 60 anomalies that poke enough holes in the official story to drive a brigade of tanks through. The New Zealand shooting was faked, so was the Boston bombing, the Pulse niteclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, Charleston church shooting and the Charleston nazis versus commies showdown........on and on it goes.

Leftards like yourself are easily fooled.

(snicker)