FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity'

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

I read your links. I saw no examples of how the Clintons used "their positions and organizations for their benefit". I think the key to our disagreement is you don't know what the word "evidence" really means. I didn't see "evidence" you seem to see. Just so you know, this is not evidence: "Warren Buffet donates to the CF, owns Clayton homes who won the bid to build 20 houses the CF bought for Haiti”. It would be very helpful if you could cut and paste what you consider "evidence" and then (this is critical) explain what you think its “evidence” of.

Ever have jury duty?

In brief ... the Clinton's involve themselves in various projects sought by foreign business and government entities, around the globe.
Some of those projects, being with foreign investors, require US Government sign off (sale of uranium deposits on US land, as one example).
Those foreign entities donate a LOT of money to the C.F. and various investors in the projects hire Bill to give speeches at upwards of $500,000 (and sometimes more, actually) per speech.
Hillary, in her role as SofS reviews the deal, as part of her job responsibility is to review such deals for national security implications.
The deal goes through.
Two things to remember are (1) Hillary had a prior record of disallowing such transactions on security grounds and (2) the sale of uranium deposits in the US mentioned above went to a Russian outfit.
There was one set of circumstances that made this deal different than the others ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If a prosecutor presented that and other actions like that to you as a juror, would you consider it evidence?

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

opcorn:

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Ever have jury duty?

In brief ... the Clinton's involve themselves in various projects sought by foreign business and government entities, around the globe.
Some of those projects, being with foreign investors, require US Government sign off (sale of uranium deposits on US land, as one example).
Those foreign entities donate a LOT of money to the C.F. and various investors in the projects hire Bill to give speeches at upwards of $500,000 (and sometimes more, actually) per speech.
Hillary, in her role as SofS reviews the deal, as part of her job responsibility is to review such deals for national security implications.
The deal goes through.
Two things to remember are (1) Hillary had a prior record of disallowing such transactions on security grounds and (2) the sale of uranium deposits in the US mentioned above went to a Russian outfit.
There was one set of circumstances that made this deal different than the others ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If a prosecutor presented that and other actions like that to you as a juror, would you consider it evidence?

Well Bubba, thanks for proving my point that you really don’t know what the word “evidence” means. You were supposed post what you think is evidence and then (this is critical) explain what you think its “evidence” of. you simply repeated your narrative. Let me try to help you understand. Bill Clinton getting paid 500,000 to give a speech is evidence of Bill Clinton getting paid 500,000 to give a speech. You think its "evidence" because you obediently believe Hillary and the CF are corrupt.

“Hillary opposed something in the past but not this time” is also not evidence. I’m going to add what is called “context” to your narrative. The editorials you read leave out what is called “context.” Hillary opposed an arab country from controlling a port. Let the part of your brain that so willingly believed that President Obama was secret muslim Kenyan terrorist run wild with things you think are bad about an arab country controlling a port. Now compare that to a Russian company that already owns uranium mines around the world trying to buy a uranium mine. And they still need permission to export the uranium just like the previous owners.

And Bubba, the deal went through because not because Hillary approved it. It went through because it was approved by the committee that reviews these deals. 8 different agencies could have vetoed the deal. Just so you know, lying and withholding evidence is called prosecutorial misconduct. If I was you, I wouldn’t present your case to a jury.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Well Bubba, thanks for proving my point that you really don’t know what the word “evidence” means. You were supposed post what you think is evidence and then (this is critical) explain what you think its “evidence” of. you simply repeated your narrative. Let me try to help you understand. Bill Clinton getting paid 500,000 to give a speech is evidence of Bill Clinton getting paid 500,000 to give a speech. You think its "evidence" because you obediently believe Hillary and the CF are corrupt.

“Hillary opposed something in the past but not this time” is also not evidence. I’m going to add what is called “context” to your narrative. The editorials you read leave out what is called “context.” Hillary opposed an arab country from controlling a port. Let the part of your brain that so willingly believed that President Obama was secret muslim Kenyan terrorist run wild with things you think are bad about an arab country controlling a port. Now compare that to a Russian company that already owns uranium mines around the world trying to buy a uranium mine. And they still need permission to export the uranium just like the previous owners.

And Bubba, the deal went through because not because Hillary approved it. It went through because it was approved by the committee that reviews these deals. 8 different agencies could have vetoed the deal. Just so you know, lying and withholding evidence is called prosecutorial misconduct. If I was you, I wouldn’t present your case to a jury.

Yes, and if she hadn't approved it, it would have either died or be sent to Obama for his decision.

As for the rest of your comment it shows you don't know what your talking about. It's called a pattern of quid-pro-quo. IOW, evidence.

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Yes, and if she hadn't approved it, it would have either died or be sent to Obama for his decision.

As for the rest of your comment it shows you don't know what your talking about. It's called a pattern of quid-pro-quo. IOW, evidence.

you obediently believing quid pro quo is only evidence of you ability to obediently believe what the conservative media tells you. Again, remember when you obediently believed that President Obama was secret muslim Kenyan terrorist? thats a pattern.

"What’s the evidence in Clinton’s favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS’s work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...clinton-scandal-story/?utm_term=.7b686f2b5d55

adding what is called "context" kinda shreds your narrative. Instead of obediently believing the hazy quid pro quo narrative, explain how a Russian company which already owns uranium mines around the world and still needs permission to export uranium is any kind of a threat.

again, withholding evidence and lying is called prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

you obediently believing quid pro quo is only evidence of you ability to obediently believe what the conservative media tells you. Again, remember when you obediently believed that President Obama was secret muslim Kenyan terrorist? thats a pattern.

"What’s the evidence in Clinton’s favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS’s work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...clinton-scandal-story/?utm_term=.7b686f2b5d55

adding what is called "context" kinda shreds your narrative. Instead of obediently believing the hazy narrative, explain how a Russian company which already owns uranium mines around the world and still needs permission to export uranium is any kind of a threat. You continue to believe the editorials. I simply believe the facts. again, withholding evidence and lying is called prosecutorial misconduct.

First, your link is to an opinion piece in WAPO by Paul Waldman, a Leftist blogger who writes for an admitted Leftist online screed. Helluva support outfit ya got there.

I'm aware of what the CFIUS does and it's role. And I know it's made up of Cabinet offiicials, in this case Obama Cabinet officials.
I'm also aware that, as far as I know, Hillary is the only one of them who took millions from UraniumOne (now owned outright by Russia under the name Rosatom) investors through her husband and also gave mucho dinero to the Clinton Foundation.
If you have evidence others were also bought off you can present it.

Originally Russia told the Government they would only want a little more than half of UraniumOne ... a couple of years later they owned the whole thing.
They originally said they don't anticipate applying for a Uranium export license ... not that they wouldn't.
But, really, what difference would it make given Uranium, like money, is fungible and Russia is the Uranium king.

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

First, your link is to an opinion piece in WAPO by Paul Waldman, a Leftist blogger who writes for an admitted Leftist online screed. Helluva support outfit ya got there.

ah, the classic conservative "librul media!!!" whine as if it proves something. What your whining ignores is that my article simply added context to the editorial you obediently believed. Your editorial had to leave out the make up and role of CFIUS to imply impropriety on Hillary's part. So bubba, what in my link is not true? yea nothing hence your whining.

I'm aware of what the CFIUS does and it's role. And I know it's made up of Cabinet offiicials, in this case Obama Cabinet officials.

Hooray, you know something but bubba, you didn’t learn about it in your link. Your link didn’t mention it took 9 different agencies to agree. You learned that in the link I posted, the one you whined about. Your link is pushing a narrative of corruption and the fact that 9 agencies had to agree kinda poops on their narrative so magic presto it leaves it out.

I'm also aware that, as far as I know, Hillary is the only one of them who took millions from UraniumOne (now owned outright by Russia under the name Rosatom) investors through her husband and also gave mucho dinero to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary didn’t take millions from Uranium One. That’s one of those magic facts that low information voters like you accept as fact. Bubba, you’re not allowed to lie to the jury remember.

If you have evidence others were also bought off you can present it.

Er uh bubba, if you want to pretend Hillary was bought off and it was quid pro quo, you need to show how she influenced the other 8 agencies to agree with her. Its your narrative not mine. You have to back it up. But we both know you cant.

So to sum up, you presented no evidence of corruption. You’ve only proven you don’t know what the word “evidence” means.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

ah, the classic conservative "librul media!!!" whine as if it proves something. What your whining ignores is that my article simply added context to the editorial you obediently believed. Your editorial had to leave out the make up and role of CFIUS to imply impropriety on Hillary's part. So bubba, what in my link is not true? yea nothing hence your whining.


Hooray, you know something but bubba, you didn’t learn about it in your link. Your link didn’t mention it took 9 different agencies to agree. You learned that in the link I posted, the one you whined about. Your link is pushing a narrative of corruption and the fact that 9 agencies had to agree kinda poops on their narrative so magic presto it leaves it out.

Hillary didn’t take millions from Uranium One. That’s one of those magic facts that low information voters like you accept as fact. Bubba, you’re not allowed to lie to the jury remember.



Er uh bubba, if you want to pretend Hillary was bought off and it was quid pro quo, you need to show how she influenced the other 8 agencies to agree with her. Its your narrative not mine. You have to back it up. But we both know you cant.

So to sum up, you presented no evidence of corruption. You’ve only proven you don’t know what the word “evidence” means.

I saw your article when it popped up back in April when someone else tried to pass it off to defend Hillary just like you did. It's an old attempt that no one (almost) had the balls to run up the flagpole any more.
The funny thing is that if the article really wanted to add context it would have added the context about the CFIUS and Hillary's approach to such evaluations that I added when I corrected you.
Context came back to bite you right in the butt, whether I mentioned it or Paul Waldman didn't.
Why didn't he mention it, anyway?

And what does explain the security 180 Hillary took in order to approve the Russian deal?
Did the CFIUS all take the money or just Hillary?
I suspect it was just Hillary because the others were in no position to benefit like she was.

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

I saw your article when it popped up back in April when someone else tried to pass it off to defend Hillary just like you did. It's an old attempt that no one (almost) had the balls to run up the flagpole any more.
The funny thing is that if the article really wanted to add context it would have added the context about the CFIUS and Hillary's approach to such evaluations that I added when I corrected you.
Context came back to bite you right in the butt, whether I mentioned it or Paul Waldman didn't.
Why didn't he mention it, anyway?

And what does explain the security 180 Hillary took in order to approve the Russian deal?
Did the CFIUS all take the money or just Hillary?
I suspect it was just Hillary because the others were in no position to benefit like she was.

er uh Bubba, I have no idea what you're saying. You've not corrected anything, me or the article I've posted. And what proves my point is you have resorted to asking "questions" in a scattershot manner and made no clear point. And you hilariously and obediently believe that Hillary is against all foreign in America. Since its critical to your narrative magic presto, its a fact. Thats just how the brain of low information voters work.

Now bubba, I'm still waiting for you to post evidence. "aha look at this" and "hillary is against all foriegn investment" are just not evidence. What you've posted is only evidence to low information voters like yourself. And the editorial you posted requires you to be a low information voter because it didnt want to "trouble you" with too many details that upset its narrative.

Lets review
Your "quid pro quo" narrative blew up because you would have to show that there is some kind of security risk that a russian company that owns uranium mines around the world shouldn't be allowed to buy a uranium mine in America. And then you have to show Hillary somehow lobbied for it to the other members of CFIUS.

Since that narrative blew up, why not try to explain your "buffet narrative". You wont have to use as many big words for that so it should be easier. To be clear, post what you think is "evidence" and then (this is critical) explain what you think its evidence of. And just to be clear bubba, things you are imagining is not "context" or "evidence".

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

er uh Bubba, I have no idea what you're saying. You've not corrected anything, me or the article I've posted. And what proves my point is you have resorted to asking "questions" in a scattershot manner and made no clear point. And you hilariously and obediently believe that Hillary is against all foreign in America. Since its critical to your narrative magic presto, its a fact. Thats just how the brain of low information voters work.

Now bubba, I'm still waiting for you to post evidence. "aha look at this" and "hillary is against all foriegn investment" are just not evidence. What you've posted is only evidence to low information voters like yourself. And the editorial you posted requires you to be a low information voter because it didnt want to "trouble you" with too many details that upset its narrative.

Lets review
Your "quid pro quo" narrative blew up because you would have to show that there is some kind of security risk that a russian company that owns uranium mines around the world shouldn't be allowed to buy a uranium mine in America. And then you have to show Hillary somehow lobbied for it to the other members of CFIUS.

Since that narrative blew up, why not try to explain your "buffet narrative". You wont have to use as many big words for that so it should be easier. To be clear, post what you think is "evidence" and then (this is critical) explain what you think its evidence of. And just to be clear bubba, things you are imagining is not "context" or "evidence".

Are you that naive in real life or do you just make believe on the internet.
Did investors in the Uranium deals give millions to the Clinton Foundation and pay hundreds of thousands to Bill for speeches just before and after Hillary's approval?
Yes or No.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

There certainly seems to be sufficient amount of sufficiently suspicious activity between The Clinton Foundation and Hilary's State Department to warrant a closer look, i.e. investigation.

Given the Clinton's long history of scandals, long history of pay to play (all the way back to the Lincoln bedroom renting), it's certainly not hard to imagine that Hillary would have engaged in pay to play while SoS.

We'll just have to see what the investigation reveals. My gut says that it'll be yet another excuse of 'intent' required but not found, or similar BS.

Yeah, Lady Justice's blindfold has been ripped off, in the case of the political elites and their misdeeds.

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Are you that naive in real life or do you just make believe on the internet.
Did investors in the Uranium deals give millions to the Clinton Foundation and pay hundreds of thousands to Bill for speeches just before and after Hillary's approval?
Yes or No.

Here’s an idea Bubba, since you continue to ignore the facts as you cling to your delusions, go back and read your own links

“Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared., “

Mmmm, 2007 mmmm. Wait there’s more

“when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.’

31 million??? 2005???? In case your brain is confusing you about the facts to protect your precious narrative , oh who are we kidding, of course your brain is protecting you from reality, let me help you out. In 2007, they started buying uranium assets in 2007 and they donated millions to the CF in 2005. See bubba, your conservative masters rely on you not really grasping the simple facts and you never disappoint them. Its what makes you a low information voter. So again, post what you think is “evidence” and then (this is critical) explain what you think it proves.

so to answer your question, no they didnt give donations to the CR just before Hillary's approval.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Here’s an idea Bubba, since you continue to ignore the facts as you cling to your delusions, go back and read your own links

“Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared., “

Mmmm, 2007 mmmm. Wait there’s more

“when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.’

31 million??? 2005???? In case your brain is confusing you about the facts to protect your precious narrative , oh who are we kidding, of course your brain is protecting you from reality, let me help you out. In 2007, they started buying uranium assets in 2007 and they donated millions to the CF in 2005. See bubba, your conservative masters rely on you not really grasping the simple facts and you never disappoint them. Its what makes you a low information voter. So again, post what you think is “evidence” and then (this is critical) explain what you think it proves.

so to answer your question, no they didnt give donations to the CR just before Hillary's approval.

What's wrong with you?
Giustra was and still is a big Clinton crony and he and Bill were involved in getting that Kazakhstan uranium deal done also.
Bill uses Giustra's jet for globe trotting and helped promote Giustra's ventures that proved lucrative for both.
Giustra is a dirty guy as is a bunch of Clinton Foundation Board members that have floated through that corrupt organization's Board because of their donations.

I don't know what you think you've got but I'm glad you mentioned the Kazakhstan episode because Bill & Hill and their Foundation made a bundle off that too.
Hillary was a Senator during that period and Giustra needed the Khazakhstan Government's approval for the deal.
In 2004 she signed a letter decrying K's bid to lead the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but in 2008 she didn't manage to attend the hearings that discussed the Kazakhstan human rights records.
While Bill endorsed the effort, Hillary stayed silent, and, btw, Biden and other Senators opposed it until human rights improvement could be shown.
One of Khazakhstan's energy offiicials claims the Hillary pressured Kazakhstan to make the Giustra deal.
Meanwhile, the Kazakhstan dictator met with Bill and was featured at one of the Clinton's CGI meetings ... he got his OSCE appointment.
Full court press worked and Kazakhstan approved the deal for Giustra.

btw, the Kazakhstan Uranium deal was with UrAsia and UrAsia merged with UraniumOne which was absorbed by Russia's Rosatom.

And YES, the investors did give donations to the CF and did pay Bill for speeches before and after the UraniumOne deal in the USA.
You just brought up a related precursor to the Russian USA deal, genius ... thanks for bringing it up as an example of how the corruption began under one of Hillary's earlier positions.

Quit now ... the hole is already too deep for you.

 

[Vern]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

What's wrong with you?

er uh bubba, I dont mean to interrupt your babbling rant but you posted repeatedly your "quid pro quo" narrative. and you asked if "Did investors in the Uranium deals give millions to the Clinton Foundation and pay hundreds of thousands to Bill for speeches just before and after Hillary's approval?. Now read this slowly, your own links said they started give millions to the CF in 2005 . Thats why you are posting a babbling rant. Your own links blew up your LIV narrative.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

er uh bubba, I dont mean to interrupt your babbling rant but you posted repeatedly your "quid pro quo" narrative. and you asked if "Did investors in the Uranium deals give millions to the Clinton Foundation and pay hundreds of thousands to Bill for speeches just before and after Hillary's approval?. Now read this slowly, your own links said they started give millions to the CF in 2005 . Thats why you are posting a babbling rant. Your own links blew up your LIV narrative.

Now you're obviously desperate, totally lacking in facts and reading comprehension as usual.

Pay attention here ... I'll summarize for you.

As you yourself noted in my links, Russia began it's move on the Uranium market while Hillary was a Senator with influence over what Kazakhstan wanted for approval and they got it.
Bill & Hill got what they wanted from it ... millions for the C.F. and a bundle for themselves.

After the Kazakhstan deal went through Russia continued their quest for Uranium resources globally by going after a deal that got them UraniumOne (Wyoming mines) while Hillary was SofS with influence over that deal.
Putin, yes, Putin got the deal he wanted with Bill's help and Hillary's OK. Did I mention Bill, Hill, and Putin have quite the relationship.
Bill & Hill got what they wanted from the deal ... what they always want from their deals ... millions for the C.F. and a ****load for themselves.

Get it now? 2 deals, same players, same outcomes.

If you say you finally understand that much now, I can show you more that'll make you scream for mercy ... well, it'll drive you from the thread, at least.