Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elf Grinder 3000

Banned
Elf Grinder 3000
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
1,608
Apparently the hedge fund backing a uranium mine gave 145 Million dollars to Hillary Clinton. This was a Russian company who wanted to get a deal done and donated to the Clinton machine.

This uranium company was able to get a favorable deal under Hillary Clinton's state department.

This was uncovered and now Hillary is restating her tax returns.

What POS gets 145 Million dollars from a foreign company? How stupid is Hillary? How corrupt and above the law must this moron feel? She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...who-benefited-from-hillarys-state-department/

On Thursday, the New York Times verified and confirmed facts presented in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash which reveals that in October 2010, then-Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved the Russian government’s takeover of a company named Uranium One—a decision that gave away half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government, resulted in the deal’s investors giving the Clinton Foundation $145 million, and occurred while Bill Clinton made hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees paid for by Kremlin-connected businesses.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited to comply with Rule 4: Do not quote articles in their entirety.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't U1 still have had to buy the mine? Which mine?

Anyhow, Can I be the first to claim "I told you so, B&H are dirty"?
 
And there's this:

[Schweizer] is now the president of the Government Accountability Institute, a conservative research organization based in Florida that, during the 2012 campaign, issued a report accusing the Obama Administration of illegally soliciting foreign donations. On the other side of the ledger, he has written two books about money and politics that criticized politicians from both parties, including Dennis Hastert, the former Republican Speaker of the House. One of them, published in 2011, was titled “Throw Them All Out.”

But most of Schweizer’s writing appears to have been directed at Democrats, and he is clearly a man of the right. In 2011, the Times reported that he was advising Sarah Palin on foreign policy. Brock, during his appearance on MSNBC, claimed that the Government Accountability Institute has received funding from entities affiliated with the Koch brothers, adding, “It’s subsidized by Hillary Clinton’s enemies.”
Click to expand...

Oh, this book is bound to be scrupulously fair and unbiased. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Leaving aside the house extremely dubious source, I would have thought conservatives would applaud Hillary's behaving like an ultra-capitalist.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, bribery is legal in the US. You just need to separate the quid from the quo. Put a cheesy mustache on the pro and its all good.
 
It might be too early to call, but this one looks like it might stick to the teflon Clintons.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
It was the New York Times.
Click to expand...


No, you're mistaken. The link you posted in the OP, and the article you quoted from in the OP is Breitbart. Here's the link.

If you'd like to quote from the New York Times, that's fine. Go to the New York Times item the Breitbart piece is quoting from, read it, and quote from it. But until and unless you do, your source is Breitbart rather than the Times.

Media Matters has numerous pieces up exposing flaws in Schweizer's work (past and present). They too cite sources in their pieces such as the New York Times and ABC News. But if someone cites a Media Matters piece in which Media Matters quotes from the New York Times, I assume you'd be able to see the source being relied on is Media Matters. Same standard applies to people relying on Breitbart.
 
What was that book that was going to "finish Obama" back in 08?
 
marplots said:
It might be too early to call, but this one looks like it might stick to the teflon Clintons.
Click to expand...

American politicians only go down for sex scandals, never for financial ones. Remember the "Keating Five"? At the time it was the biggest politician finance scandal ever. Whatever happened to those guys? Oh yeah. One of them ran for president and even the opposition didn't bother bringing it up. Most people don't understand financial stuff, and thus let it slide on by. The Clintons can roll around in dirty money from sunrise to sunset; as long as they don't roll around in it with interns it won't hurt them a bit.
 
Well, if being played by Emma Thompson, a known British person, doesn't destroy an American candidate, I don't know what could. I mean for pity's sake, that movie had John Travolta in it!
 
She's not done. She will be the next POTUS and Republicans will whine so much that there won't be enough cheese to offset it.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Apparently the hedge fund backing a uranium mine gave 145 Million dollars to Hillary Clinton. This was a Russian company who wanted to get a deal done and donated to the Clinton machine.

This uranium company was able to get a favorable deal under Hillary Clinton's state department.

This was uncovered and now Hillary is restating her tax returns.

What POS gets 145 Million dollars from a foreign company? How stupid is Hillary? How corrupt and above the law must this moron feel? She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...who-benefited-from-hillarys-state-department/


Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited to comply with Rule 4: Do not quote articles in their entirety.
Click to expand...

THe company donated 145 Million to the Clintons

According to the Times and Schweizer’s book, former President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation mega donor and Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 and met with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbeyev. Giustra wanted lucrative uranium mining concessions, and within 48 hours of Clinton and Giustra’s trip, Giustra’s company, then-named UrAsia Energy, signed memos of understanding outlining the transfer of uranium mining assets.

Months after the trip, Giustra transferred $31.1 million to the Clinton Foundation and announced a multi-year commitment to donate $100 million to the Clinton’s family foundation, as well as half of his future profits.

“All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” said Giustra. “He can do things and ask for things no one else can.”
Click to expand...
 
TragicMonkey said:
American politicians only go down for sex scandals, never for financial ones. Remember the "Keating Five"? At the time it was the biggest politician finance scandal ever. Whatever happened to those guys? Oh yeah. One of them ran for president and even the opposition didn't bother bringing it up. Most people don't understand financial stuff, and thus let it slide on by. The Clintons can roll around in dirty money from sunrise to sunset; as long as they don't roll around in it with interns it won't hurt them a bit.
Click to expand...

well Nixon is sexier than Hillary so you might have a point...
 
TragicMonkey said:
American politicians only go down for sex scandals, never for financial ones. Remember the "Keating Five"? At the time it was the biggest politician finance scandal ever. Whatever happened to those guys? Oh yeah. One of them ran for president and even the opposition didn't bother bringing it up. Most people don't understand financial stuff, and thus let it slide on by. The Clintons can roll around in dirty money from sunrise to sunset; as long as they don't roll around in it with interns it won't hurt them a bit.
Click to expand...

It's not just the money though, it's the foreigners buying influence. Not as Tru-Merican as just money. Sex scandals are for Republicans anyhow. It's the corporate interest peddling and money that might tweak the Democrat base.

Maybe I'm being misled by the words "Pulitzer Prize Winner" and "New York Times." I guess we'll know in a month or two.

Maybe Hillary is immune to anything short of eating live puppies on television. This is just the first one I think might have a chance.
 
lionking said:
Not a hope. I look forward to her election just to see thousands of conservatives heads explode
Click to expand...

As a liberal myself, I often think the last genuinely good thing accomplished by the Republican party was revealing the Clintons for the political and moral chimeras that they are.

About the only thing that could convince me to vote for her are the current Republican candidates.
 
Republicus said:
As a liberal myself, I often think the last genuinely good thing accomplished by the Republican party was revealing the Clintons for the political and moral chimeras that they are.

About the only thing that could convince me to vote for her are the current Republican candidates.
Click to expand...

That is why I hope O'Malley will run.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Can you read?
Click to expand...


Yes, I can. That's how I can tell that the link in your OP is to a Breitbart article (not to the New York Times) and that the text you quote in your OP is from a Breitbart article.

The Breitbart article quotes from and refers to a New York Times article. That does not make it a New York Times article.

Until you go to the New York Times article and read it, the New York Times is not your source. It is Breitbart's source, not yours. Your source is Breitbart.

I am puzzled why you don't want to go to the Times article for yourself. There will likely be material there supportive of the points you are trying to make. (Probably not as supportive as the spin Breitbart puts on the bits it extracts, but supportive nonetheless.)

If you take the time to go to the Times article, read it, and extract the parts you feel are relevant, then I (and likely others) will be more inclined to spend some time looking into what you've posted. If, on the other hand, you feel it's not worth your time to read the Times article, I'll take that as a recommendation that it's not worth my time either.
 
The New York Times article is pretty damning. You really should read it. I only clicked on the Breitbart article to see his sources, but so you don't have to give them traffic here's the link (again).
 
Not sure this story means she's "done".

I did read the Times article yesterday, minus the Breitbart spin. This was money given to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization, and not the Clintons themselves. Nevertheless, such donations could still tend to make the Clintons more sympathetic to the person giving the donation, even though the money doesn't go directly into their pockets. That seems like human nature. But does that mean her decisions were any different than they otherwise would be? It's another gray issue, not really a black-and-white one for a lot of people I would imagine. And the money supposedly goes to a good, charitable cause. So make of it what you will.
 
Republicus said:
The New York Times article is pretty damning. You really should read it. I only clicked on the Breitbart article to see his sources, but so you don't have to give them traffic here's the link (again).
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem all that Damning to me........

Disclaimer: I am hopelessly sexually attracted to Hillary Clinton
 
By the way, here's another article from the Washington Post:

For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data.

The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth.

The Clintons’ relationships with major funders present an unusual political challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that have supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years.
Click to expand...

So if $26 million is one quarter of Bill Clinton's overall speaking income, that would mean he's earned about $100 million dollars giving speeches since leaving the presidency. Nice work if you can get it I say.

One wonders what the people who pay a six-figure fee to hear Bill Clinton give a speech are really buying. Are the words themselves actually that valuable? Or is what they are really hoping to buy political influence?
 
marplots said:
It's not just the money though, it's the foreigners buying influence. Not as Tru-Merican as just money. Sex scandals are for Republicans anyhow. It's the corporate interest peddling and money that might tweak the Democrat base.
Click to expand...
Since that cuts both ways, neither side can flog the issue. For example, we are now in what has been called the Adelson (sp?) Primary. The one in which potential candidates line up to kiss Sheldon's patootie in hopes of getting the ~$100 he plans to spend on the 2016 election. Remember it was Sheldon alone that kept the Gingrich bandwagon going for as long as it did.

Both sides suck up to Big Money so that as a corruption issue just doesn't have legs.

PS: I'm going to try to remember this thread and rub EG3K's nose in it come November, 2016.
 
Puppycow said:
One wonders what the people who pay a six-figure fee to hear Bill Clinton give a speech are really buying. Are the words themselves actually that valuable? Or is what they are really hoping to buy political influence?
Click to expand...

Oh I think the networking opportunities help drive the price up as well.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Consider the source.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/abc-news-finds-more-errors-in-schweizers-clinto/203390

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
Click to expand...

jhunter1163 said:
And there's this:



Oh, this book is bound to be scrupulously fair and unbiased. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Indeed, consider the source. Media Matters is David Brock's media massaging machine. He sold out body and soul to the Clintons long ago, who knows why. He was a sleazy muckraker for the Right once, he's still a sleazy muckraker but now works for the Left--and especially the Clintons.

His being involved is more suggestive there might be something to this. Here's another article on Schweizer's book, and the book he's writing now about Jeb Bush which might have some of the same sorts of revelations....
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Apparently the hedge fund backing a uranium mine gave 145 Million dollars to Hillary Clinton. This was a Russian company who wanted to get a deal done and donated to the Clinton machine.
Click to expand...

I think if you ask the MODS nicely, then they will change the title at your request; if you add the date into the title, then as months roll by everyone will know that you were the first to call the time of death on Hillary Clinton's political campaign.

Unfortunately, there's is a rule against all caps in a title. That is a shame because this thread needs an all caps title.

Of course, even though there is a rule about titles, there is no rule about posts. You could state each post with HILLARY CLINTON IS DONE! I would put it in bold type and use center tags, but that is just me. Go ahead EG3000, shout it from the mountain tops.
 
Last edited:
Hillary Clinton is Done
Click to expand...

As Ladewig says, this is now permanently on the forum, and of course will never, ever be quoted back at you once she is President. Your visceral hate for anyone and anything left of Ghengis Khan is obvious. Your wisdom in making yourself a hostage to fortune.....not so much.
 
If the OP turns out being correct and Hillary drops out.....my vote is for Elizabeth Warren!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom