- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Uranium One Informant's Testimony Gives No Evidence Clinton Benefited from uranium sale
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:01 pm
quote:
An informant whom House Republicans have said could reveal a link between a 2010 sale of U.S. uranium supplies and donations to the Clinton Foundation provided no evidence of that during a four-hour interview with congressional staff last month.
quote:
The informant, lobbyist William D. Campbell, “provided no evidence of a quid pro quo involving Secretary (Hillary) Clinton or the Clinton Foundation and no evidence that Secretary Clinton was involved in, or improperly influenced” the uranium sale, the Democrats said in a five-page summary of the Feb. 7 interview.
Democrats said they were releasing a summary of the session because majority Republicans, who control the panels involved, refused to approve the preparation of a full transcript.
quote:
Campbell was interviewed by Republican and Democratic staffers from the House Oversight and Intelligence committees and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Reuters
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:02 pm to texridder
quote:
the Democrats said
of course they did
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:02 pm to texridder
you are about to trigger some fools.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:02 pm to texridder
quote:
the Democrats said in a five-page summary of the Feb. 7 interview.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:03 pm to Usafgiles
So now we trust partisan memos?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:05 pm to texridder
quote:
Democrats said they were releasing a summary of the session because majority Republicans, who control the panels involved, refused to approve the preparation of a full transcript.
Muh minority memo.
Getting out in front this time rather than have to figure out a “rebuttal”. Nobody ever accused them of being slow learners.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:07 pm to texridder
quote:
e, the Democrats said in
I don't know who is more pathetic OP or masterbaked.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:08 pm to texridder
I don’t understand why the left feels so obligated to defend Hillary, she’s a private citizen now.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:09 pm to texridder
If no evidence is the standard, why are we pissing away the treasury on muh russians?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:09 pm to texridder
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:10 pm to Damone
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/25/20 at 10:45 am
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:13 pm to Damone
quote:
I don’t understand
Modern American leftism is zealotry....religion.
Clinton is their pope.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
So now we trust partisan memos?
Campbell was a Republican-called witness. Yet, the Republicans majority refused to approve the preparation of a transcript of the hearing.
If Campbell had the evidence his lawyer said he had on Hillary, do you think the Republicans would have released the transcript?
You can bet your Super Bowl tickets on it.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:16 pm to texridder
Of course there was no quid pro quo.
This whole Uranium One "scandal" is nothing more than Sean Hannity's wet dream.
This whole Uranium One "scandal" is nothing more than Sean Hannity's wet dream.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:17 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
His name was Seth Rich.
What did Seth Rich have to do with the Uranium One deal?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:17 pm to Rex
Still with her forever and always - Rex
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News