quote:
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Or this one:

quote:
The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said

And definitely not this one:

quote:
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.

Man. I can’t decide which of those is my favorite non-shady paragraph.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by BeefDawg

Atlanta

Member since Sep 2012

4747 posts

Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:00 pm to HTDawg

quote:
You were ready to jail Clinton over emails, only to find out many politicians were using private emails, including Republicans.

You're talking out your arse. If Republicans used a server in a closet to subvert having their email system abide by government classification rules, then sent and received SAP level classified emails through it, we'd all say prosecute them to the fullest extent possible.

quote:
ou were ready to jail her over Uranium One, which was completely debunked as conspiracy theory bullsh*t.

Where are you getting this trash from? Debunked by whom? This shite is still ongoing and was only swept under the rug.

The woman approved 20% of our Uranium supply be sold to Russians who were literally in the process of being prosecuted for serious crimes.

WTF is there to debunk? How was this even considered okay? We are already in dispirit supply of Uranium as a country. Why in the blue frick would we then sell the rights to part of our supply to the Russians?

Forget the notion that some bribery might have been involved, just answer that question. If Russia is this terrible entity that you phaggots have been crying about for 18 months, why in god's name is it okay for Hillary to have approved this deal?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by McChowder

Hammond

Member since Dec 2006

5236 posts

Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:24 pm to mmmmmbeeer

quote:
It's not a "strawman". It's a legit conversation to have and question to ask.

It is a straw man because your "analogy" isn't comparable.

If your argument weighs heavily on witness testimony and you have evidence that investigators strong-armed witnesses using spoliated evidence and threats to their family to secure said testimony, no judge worth a damn would allow that.

Imagine any other criminal case proceeding under those conditions where you have law enforcement tampering with evidence lol. Even if you generated legit leads and evidence from that testimony, it is still inadmissible in a court of law. You couldn't use it to corroborate anything anyway because it is fruit from the poisonous tree.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Champagne

Already Conquered USA.

Member since Oct 2007

48396 posts

Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:27 pm to HTDawg

quote:
You idiots are a laugh riot

You're wrong about all of it, Idiot.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by McChowder

Hammond

Member since Dec 2006

5236 posts

Posted on 2/20/18 at 5:46 pm to mmmmmbeeer

Let me ask you this...

If a police officer is caught planting a pound of uncut Columbian coke in the trunk of your car, and the resulting search warrant of your home conducted by that same officer yields a pound of meth.......should the court accept the findings of the home search warrant or does the unacceptable and criminal actions of LE cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire investigation?

Page 1 2 3 4