IT gets worse for Rumps choice for NSA Flynn

anatta said:
Incorrect.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- Trump's erstwhile national security adviser - was not reporting Russian money.
Click to expand...

Flynn lied about taking Russian money and he lied about taking Turkish money when he was vetted for a whitehouse position...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/25/michael-flynn-russia-payment-house-panel-investigation
LOCK HIM UP!
 
I'm hearing the word cover up by the White House for the first time about this issue.
 
Jarod said:
Do you know how easy it is to create a corporate entity and for money to pass through it?

What do you think the penalty should be, the law carries up to a 5 year prison sentence.
Click to expand...

I'm good with a five-year prison sentence combined with a large fine.
 
Darth Omar said:
Back when the Clinton Foundation was involved in a Uranium deal with the Russians.

That's one of the reasons people don't take the left's sudden-onset of McCarthyism seriously. You don't give a crap about Russians---you want to nail Trump with something.

It couldn't be more transparent.
Click to expand...

How long are cons going to spread the lie about the Clinton foundation being in a shady uranium deal with Russia lol?
 
Darth Omar said:
And yet you don't consider selling Uranium to them as treasonous.
Click to expand...

Fact-checking is fundamental lol.

"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 the transaction 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. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters."

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
 
christiefan915 said:
Fact-checking is fundamental lol.

"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 the transaction 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. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters."

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Click to expand...

You seem a little selective about your facts lol.

Here are some more from the NYT:

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.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
_____________

Note the same 'failure to disclose' the left is determined to hang Flynn with---hoping they can get to Trump.

It doesn't matter who checked off on it, what matters is money flowed to the Clinton's over a deal involving a strategic asset. While Hillary was Sec of State[!].

That's what I mean when many people don't take the left's Russian witch hunt seriously. Why should anyone?
 
Milagro said:
That is a good question, probably because it would drag on for years and take up a lot of time better spent on other matters.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Cons didn't care how much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings that dragged on for years.
 
christiefan915 said:
Cons didn't care how much time and money was spent on Benghazi hearings that dragged on for years.
Click to expand...

So the people who died, their lives don't matter? An embassy is attacked and that doesn't matter?

I don't think you're saying that, but your words could be construed that way.

Comparing the two investigation is apples/oranges.
 
Darth Omar said:
You seem a little selective about your facts lol.

Here are some more from the NYT:

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.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
_____________

Note the same 'failure to disclose' the left is determined to hang Flynn with---hoping they can get to Trump.

It doesn't matter who checked off on it, what matters is money flowed to the Clinton's over a deal involving a strategic asset. While Hillary was Sec of State[!].

That's what I mean when many people don't take the left's Russian witch hunt seriously. Why should anyone?
Click to expand...

You said "Back when the Clinton Foundation was involved in a Uranium deal with the Russians." You missed this part: "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 the transaction 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."

If this was any kind of scam the other eight members could have evaluated the transaction with a thumbs-down. But they didn't.

And re: your link, the NYT took that info from Schweizer's book Clinton Cash: "Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting." The authors wrote their article on 4/23 before Clinton Cash was released on 5/5 and then fact-checked and discredited.

The accusations against Flynn aren't based on an anonymous-source book.
 
Yaya said:
So the people who died, their lives don't matter? An embassy is attacked and that doesn't matter?

I don't think you're saying that, but your words could be construed that way.

Comparing the two investigation is apples/oranges.
Click to expand...

You're right, I didn't say the four deaths don't matter. But every one of those Benghazi investigations ended without placing blame on Hillary and making her responsible for the deaths. And they were bipartisan investigations.
 
christiefan915 said:
You're right, I didn't say the four deaths don't matter. But every one of those Benghazi investigations ended without placing blame on Hillary and making her responsible for the deaths. And they were bipartisan investigations.
Click to expand...

you overlook the fact that every single investigation concluded that she lied to the American public when she said that a video was to blame for the attack.....you're right that they were bipartisan investigations......
 
christiefan915 said:
You're right, I didn't say the four deaths don't matter. But every one of those Benghazi investigations ended without placing blame on Hillary and making her responsible for the deaths. And they were bipartisan investigations.
Click to expand...

Okay. I still wouldn't compare the investigations.

At this point, unlike Thingy's (false) claim that 16 intelligence agencies started this, all we have is pure speculation that Trump colluded with Russia while he campaigned. I have no problem with the investigation, but I wonder how long it will go on and if nothing is ever found, will you admit there was no collusion?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
care?.....of course we cared......it was the best money the government spent during the entire Obama administration.......without it the witch might have gotten elected........
Click to expand...

I used to hate all the ongoing criticism of Hillary even after the election was over but now I welcome it. Because it shows me that none of you can say anything positive about trump, and all you have is the "but, Hillary" comeback when anyone criticizes him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top