Started By
Message

re: Uranium1 Informant Atty: Clintons Can Attack All They Want, But My Client has the Truth

Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:22 am to
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:22 am to
quote:

*The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations from original investors in Uranium One

The $145 million was from somebody no longer connected to Uranium One. Got any more Fox bullshite?

quote:

*Roughly 85 percent of the foundation’s spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to individuals for travel, salaries and benefits.

That's a lie. 89% of the Foundation's receipts are spent directly on medical professionals and supplies, as attested to by the country's two most reputable charity watch organizations plus the country's largest and most respected independent auditing firm. Got any more Fox bullshite?


Posted by LSUTIGER in TEXAS
Member since Jan 2008
13604 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:23 am to
quote:

- So, an FBI agent is informing against Hillary Clinton? I thought the FBI was in the bag FOR Hillary Clinton.

- There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.

- A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence. Hillary Clinton had a very small voice in the matter, and there was nothing wrong with the sale in the first place.
so despite abundant evidence, Clinton is clean. And despite no evidence, trump colluded with the Russians.

The mental gymnastics is astounding....
Posted by reggierayreb
Germantown
Member since Nov 2012
16952 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:27 am to
quote:

There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.


I laughed out loud at work


quote:

A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence. Hillary Clinton had a very small voice in the matter, and there was nothing wrong with the sale in the first place.


I laughed even louder


Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:27 am to
quote:

so despite abundant evidence, Clinton is clean.

Abundant lies, of the type ex-Popcorn just spewed.
quote:

And despite no evidence, trump colluded with the Russians.

Yeah... we just MADE UP that Trump Tower meeting.
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73424 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:28 am to
Lies and lying liars every where air humper.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146570 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:28 am to
quote:

FBI informant gathered years of evidence on Russian push for US nuclear fuel deals, including Uranium One, memos show

TheHill.com

While he was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office failed to interview the undercover informant in the FBI’s Russian nuclear bribery case before it filed criminal charges in the case in 2014, officials told The Hill.

And the prosecutors did not let a grand jury hear from the paid informant before it handed up an indictment portraying him as a “victim” of the Russian corruption scheme or fully review his extensive trove of documents until months later, the officials confirmed.

The decisions backfired after prosecutors conducted more extensive debriefings of William Campbell in 2015, learning much more about the extent of his undercover activities and the transactions he engaged in while under the FBI’s direction, the officials said.

The debriefings forced prosecutors to recast their entire criminal case against former Russian uranium industry executive Vadim Mikerinn — removing the informant as a star witness and main victim for the prosecution, the officials added.

Justice Department officials began briefing Congress last week, divulging missteps in a case that nonetheless proved the Russian state-owned Rosatom was engaged in criminal activity through its top American executive beginning in 2009, well before the Obama administration made a series of favorable decisions benefitting Moscow’s nuclear giant.

Multiple House and Senate committees already are investigating whether the FBI alerted President Obama or his top aides to the Russian criminal activity and plan to interview the undercover informant soon.

The new revelations, however, could tip some scrutiny toward federal prosecutors’ own conduct in the case, a sensitive topic since Rosenstein is now Justice’s No. 2 official and the supervisor of the special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz said it was troubling that prosecutors would ever bring a case without talking first to a person they portrayed in court as a victim, especially when that person was an FBI informant available to them.

“I’ve never heard of such a case unless the victim is dead.
I’ve never heard of prosecutors making a major case and not talking to the victim before you made it, especially when he was available to them through the FBI,” Dershowitz said.

“It is negligence, and I’m sure there will be internal issues with the Justice Department and U.S. attorney for making such an obvious mistake,” he said.

Officials told The Hill that prosecutors working for Rosenstein first interviewed Campbell, the informant, after they had already filed a sealed criminal complaint against Mikerin in July 2014.

Campbell got one debriefing after the criminal charges were filed, but was never brought before the grand jury that indicted the Russian figure in November 2014 even though the informer was portrayed as “Victim One” in that indictment, the officials confirmed

When prosecutors finally interviewed Campbell more extensively in early 2015 and reviewed all of the records he had gathered for the FBI, they learned new information about the sequence of transactions he conducted while under the FBI’s supervision, as well as the extensive nature of his counterintelligence work for the U.S. government that went far beyond the Mikerin case and dated to at least 2006, the officials said.

“Based on what was learned, we decided to change the theory of the case. … A plea deal became our goal so we wouldn’t have to litigate or make an issue of some of the stuff he had done for [counterintelligence] purposes,” a source directly familiar with the case said.

Campbell’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing, confirmed the Justice officials’ account. “The first time Mr. Campbell was interviewed by the U.S. Attorney’s office was after the criminal complaint was filed, and he was never brought before the grand jury before the indictment,” she told The Hill.

Justice officials said they knew when they first brought the case that Campbell had been part of a controlled, FBI-authorized bribery scheme, meaning he had permission to make payments to the Russians as kickbacks to further the investigation.

They declined to say why, with that knowledge, they initially portrayed Campbell in the indictment as a “victim” of an extortion scheme that began in November 2009 when the FBI had authorized him to make regular kickback payments of $50,000 in order to keep his consulting work for the Russians.

They said, however, they decided to pivot the case from extortion to money laundering after the more extensive 2015 debriefings revealed other transactions that pre-dated the extortion charges.

One source familiar with the case said extortion felt like a weaker charge when Campbell was acting with the FBI’s blessing and that the evidence of money laundering that Campbell documented through secret accounts in Latvia and Cyprus was irrefutable.

Campbell, who now has leukemia, also suffered an earlier bout with cancer in the middle of the case when a lesion was detected on his brain. He survived, all the while working undercover, but he developed some memory issues after treatment, sources said.

To compensate, he developed a system of extensive note taking and documentation with his FBI handlers through email to ensure facts were captured before his memory became hazy. A lot of those notes did not get reviewed by prosecutors until 2015, well after charges were filed, the sources said.

Rosenstein has some splainin to do. I would not doubt that he has flipped or he would be toast by now.
This post was edited on 2/13/18 at 10:30 am
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146570 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:35 am to
quote:

A few points:

- So, an FBI agent is informing against Hillary Clinton? I thought the FBI was in the bag FOR Hillary Clinton.

- There's nothing particularly wrong with taking $3 million from Russians to give to charity. There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.

- A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence. Hillary Clinton had a very small voice in the matter, and there was nothing wrong with the sale in the first place.

- Victoria Toensing is, always has been, and always will be a Republican hack.

- Adding all that up, your post is a pathetic waste of time.
your troll level is off the charts and no longer believable when you say the money Obama and HRC got from U1 was for charity...

Posted by LSUTIGER in TEXAS
Member since Jan 2008
13604 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:42 am to
So 1 meeting that was a setup is worse than $145M in donations to money laundering nonprofits?


Tell me this, would it be ok if Russian oligarchs connected to Putin donated money to trumps personal nonprofit?

Posted by CamdenTiger
Member since Aug 2009
62383 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:43 am to
Yeah... we just MADE UP that Trump Tower meeting.

Was that the female Russian that was meeting with Fusion, just before she met with Trump jr?
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:44 am to
One meeting? LOL. There were several meetings.

And, like I said, the $145 million didn't come from Uranium One investors.

Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
146570 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:51 am to
are you proud that you shook hands with such a POS that gave terrorists pallets of money and race baited and spied on everyone and their madre'?

Posted by Ex-Popcorn
Member since Nov 2005
2127 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:53 am to
quote:

That's a lie. 89% of the Foundation's receipts are spent directly on medical professionals and supplies, as attested to by the country's two most reputable charity watch organizations plus the country's largest and most respected independent auditing firm. Got any more Fox bullshite?


Completely false...the troubling part is that I think you believe it to be true. The issue you have is that you believe people spinning the Clinton "charity" annual reporting. Of course, those annual reports lump together SEVERAL entities, including the Clinton Foundation and others (health initiative, global initiative, etc.).

The articles you rely upon actually found their mistake and cannot explain the "gap" when it was pointed out:

"The annual report lumps together numerous distinct non-profit entities, whereas the tax filings were related to a single tax-exempt entity, the Clinton Foundation, also referred to as the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“I didn’t re-run your calculations, but I entirely agree that the 990s paint a different picture than what the foundation says (such as in its annual report),” Jacobson told me in his initial e-mail to me. “It’s such a yawning gap that there has to be some sort of explanation, and that’s what I’m looking for.”'

LINK
Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 10:56 am to
quote:

- Adding all that up, your post is a pathetic waste of time


Yet you took the time to respond to a pathetic waste of time.
Posted by Ex-Popcorn
Member since Nov 2005
2127 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:02 am to
quote:

And, like I said, the $145 million didn't come from Uranium One investors.


Again, another blatant lie. How do you sleep at night? Do you not research this stuff? You are either incredibly gullible or incredibly disingenuous. Either way, you are a hack.

Giustra and the Clintons have a LONG and checkered past that reveals the pay for play started in 2005 and continued well beyond the 20% uranium transfer.

LINK
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:05 am to
quote:

Completely false...

You're lying. It's as simple as that.

The Clinton Foundation would not have been rated A+ by both major charity monitoring organizations if their receipt to charity experience was as dismal as you assert.

On the other hand, I HAVE actually read their financial statements. I DO understand them because I have an accounting degree and a CPA. So does Deloitte, who issued them unqualified opinions on their fair representations every year that I examined.

Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:06 am to
quote:

Giustra and the Clintons have a LONG and checkered past

Again you're lying. Giustra divested himself of any interest in Uranium One THREE YEARS before the sale you are so desperate to disparage.
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73424 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 11:11 am to
I see lying people everywhere!
Posted by the LSUSaint
Member since Nov 2009
15444 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:02 pm to
quote:

There's never been any evidence that the Clintons personally benefited from Uranium One.



Her brother is the owner of the company that directly benefited from the tra sections also. If family members are exempt, then why is there an issue with Don Jr and the meeting when Trump was still only a citizen, and not oresident
Posted by the LSUSaint
Member since Nov 2009
15444 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:04 pm to
quote:

That's a lie. 89% of the Foundation's receipts are spent directly on medical professionals and supplies, as attested to by the country's two most reputable charity watch organizations plus the country's largest and most respected independent auditing firm. Got any more Fox bullshite


Link?
Posted by dietcoke7
LA
Member since Aug 2007
1033 posts
Posted on 2/13/18 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

- A Russian "expectation" of influence doesn't necessary equate to actual influence


So even when you bribe the Clintons you have no reasonable expectation that they stay bribed.

You can not make up delusion like the left can.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram