FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

a reply to: Grambler

we will no doubt them see Obama come out in the coming days and be irrate at this, and demand an investigation into Mueller and hillary.

That is what one would expect, anyway.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: butcherguy

Yea, I noticed a few of the "regulars" are active on other threads, but scared #less to come into this one. I suppose when you realize a good bit of the charges spit out over the years are actually, true, it kind of takes the wind out of your sails. It reminds me of the thread the other day asking why the conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. This may prove to blow that away in an instant.

Maybe they just have not got here yet? the circle jerk is really really strong with the trump sycophants here today. Almost like this a distortion of the facts to get something on Mueller investigation.

Great, well you are here.

So explain why this story isn't a big deal or how it's being distorted.

It has already been done by a few people now. So feel free to go back through the thread some.

Hahaha! Sure they have!

Thanks for your great contribution to the thread!

Hey be nice, it's not like they have to have their own opinion on things, that's not allowed. There is NO indication of any wrong doing except for the FBI report of bribery and extortion. Everyone does those so it's ok. Right?

WHY did this come out now?
Mueller & Comey ran out the 5 year clock on Federal statutes...so they and Clinton cannot be prosecuted.

Hillary has just weeks left on the clock, before she is unable to ever be prosecuted for misuse of classified emails as secretary of state.

The statute of limitations for federal crimes is five years. The new revelations about Mueller, the Clinton’s, Russia and uranium kickbacks stem from 2010.

It is now 2017, or two years past the statute of limitations.

Likewise, Hillary’s last misuse of classified emails as secretary of state is likewise approaching the expiration of federal statutes as well with mere weeks remaining on the clock. On paper, she can still be indicted.

However, it takes months for the Justice Department to put on and prep a case. Therefore, the statute will likely expire on straight email-linked crimes.

Mueller and Comey ran out the clocks on potential Clinton prosecutions.

truepundit.com...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: loam

The FBI seems to have a severe aversion to letting out information that effects the executive branch or potentially effects an election.

Regardless of whether my interpretation is right or wrong we need to get Russia out regardless if it's one side or both. It appears to be both.

....or it appears anything that puts the FBI in a bad light. Who investigates the FBI?

Why didn't this info get to the proper channels and people? If it did, why was the info not acted on. There's a paper trail somewhere that needs to be followed, don't you agree?

a reply to: Grambler

This would mean Mueller and the fbi had evidence of wrongdoing from the very people Obama was about to sell uranium to, but intentionally said nothing to him.

And Mueller delivered the uranium sample to Russia.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: loam

The FBI seems to have a severe aversion to letting out information that effects the executive branch or potentially effects an election.

Regardless of whether my interpretation is right or wrong we need to get Russia out regardless if it's one side or both. It appears to be both.

Gee Mueller must really get holding on to something big with Trump eh

a reply to: Grambler

1. The fbi knew from an informant an intercepted documents in 2009 that mikerin was doing illegal activities, yet Obama and hillary signed off on the deal.

Obama actually wouldn't have signed off on anything. CFIUS approved the deal in October of 2010 and as we all know, Clinton was one of the CFIUS votes. As I was saying to Butcherguy, the informant, CS-1, appears to have approached the FBI in mid-late 2009. How far had the investigation progressed by October of 2010? What evidence of what crimes did they have?

Were the crimes and evidence of them serious enough to warrant apprising the FBI director, let alone members of the cabinet and the POTUS?

2. There is NO WAY Obama was unaware of this. But if that's the argument, the fact that Mueller was in charge and 2009 and apparently said nothing as Obama sold uranium knowing they had eveidence of illegality shows he is incompetent, or criminal, and should not be trusted with an investigation into russia.

You're rushing to judgment on multiple fronts here because you want to believe. Let's set the stage here: Uranium One was HQ'd in Vancouver. It had acquired rights to about 20% of US uranium reserves. Rosatom didn't have anything to do with it until 2009, when they purchased a 17% stake. They didn't announce their intention to acquire a 51% share until June of 2010.

It's almost like you're assuming that everyone involved was omniscient.

From the affidavits, it sounds like this started out fairly mundane. You've got Mikerin contracting CS-1 to do lobbying/PR for TENEX. After the contract was executed, Mikerin demanded that CS-1 kickback 1/3 of what he was to be paid to Mikerin or he'd tank the contract. That hardly comes across as an investigation the FBI Director would be immediately apprised of, let alone the POTUS. Do you disagree?

So CS-1 wires money as ordered to a company called Wiser Trading, to an account at Alpha Bank in Cyprus. Do you think Alpha Bank of Cyprus was forthcoming with information? The FBI apparently didn't even know about TLI until 2011 when they got a warrant and searched Mikerin's offices. From the affidavit:

Records obtained from warranted searches of MIKERIN's office and email accounts show that MIKERIN directed officers of Fulton, Maryland-based Transport Logistics International ("TLI") and oanother U.S. business to make such payments to offshore accounts held in the name of WISER, LEILA, and Ollins Development Ltd. ("OLLINS")...

That's of course WAY after the CFIUS vote. Which kinda knocks the legs right out from under this story.

3. The article cites that groups close to the Clintons were getting millions in bribes. I am not sure the timeframe, but this is far more damning than any trump russia collusion because apparently there is actual proof of money being transferred, and hillary doing something to greatly benefit russia. Yet crickets from the dems and their msm cohorts.

Actually, it's just rehashing what was reported by NYT and others. I just finished reading the Grassley briefing to Jack Lew and his singular source? NYT (look for yourself)

That's kinda funny considering a) what you just said and b) that you have blasted NYT repeatedly and specifically. I'll skip the other two points as they're premised largely on the first three imo.

I don't think you've taken the time to process the information and you're off to the races because you think it implicates everyone from Mueller to Clinton to Obama based on dubious assumptions.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Grambler

And Mueller delivered the uranium sample to Russia.

Speaking of which, why did it have to be Mueller?

They even rescheduled the delivery because HE had a schedule conflict.

ALERTING GOR OF DELIVERY OF SEIZED HEU DURING SEPTEMBER 21 FBI DIRECTOR'S TRIP TO MOSCOW

a reply to: butcherguy

You mean Mueller turned over a sample of uranium seized in Georgia for the Russians to analyze. And? What exactly do you think that demonstrates? It's exactly what should have happened and would happen today in the same circumstance. What about it do you feel was inappropriate?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: butcherguy

You mean Mueller turned over a sample of uranium seized in Georgia for the Russians to analyze. And? What exactly do you think that demonstrates? It's exactly what should have happened and would happen today in the same circumstance. What about it do you feel was inappropriate?

I'd agree, it's not any sort of smoking gun just proof of black market Nuclear smuggling. I haven't seen anything to the contrary.

a reply to: Grambler

Again, it's ridiculous to assume that Obama would not have been in the loop about this.

I think it's ridiculous to assume that he would have been in the loop about it. Perhaps you could start by offering your opinion as to when POTUS should have been made personally aware of the investigation?

a reply to: pavil

It only makes sense that the sample would be given to the Russians for analysis so they could determine from isotope ratios or whatever, where it had originated, etc.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Again, it's ridiculous to assume that Obama would not have been in the loop about this.

I think it's ridiculous to assume that he would have been in the loop about it. Perhaps you could start by offering your opinion as to when POTUS should have been made personally aware of the investigation?

I think that if the fbi is investigating a person or entity for bribery, or extortion or any other similar crime, and they know that this entity is about to be sold a huge amount of uranium, it would be there duty to inform the president.

You disagree with this?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Obama was never aware of almost anything until he heard about it "on the news like everyone else"

At least the scandalous things with unavoidable bad "optics"

Am I right?

So the FBI is rotten too. What a surprise.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Point 13 of the affidavit on the link shows that an informant in 2009 approached the fbi about the kickback schemes. He then worked with the fbi in 2009 to show that.

I would think that anyone involved in illegal activity such as this should not be sold uranium without the president being informed.

My fears seemed to be justified considering the further criminal activity that was found.

At the very least, I am sure that you would agree this warrants an investigation into all inolved considering the current Russian investigation, and the fact that uranium was sold.

As far as money received by hillary from russians, I will have to read more on the source.

But I assume you agree that if it is proven she did receive money, this is very troubling.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: butcherguy

You mean Mueller turned over a sample of uranium seized in Georgia for the Russians to analyze. And? What exactly do you think that demonstrates? It's exactly what should have happened and would happen today in the same circumstance. What about it do you feel was inappropriate?

Sounds like a good cover though.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Grambler

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions

The 2-faced hypocrisy is both awkward as well as amazing to behold when one reflects on this information above verses the full-retard meltdown of the US media & media personalities regarding the Trump-Russia nothingburger.

It really is a complete mindfu#@.... but what's more so is the inability of so many to see it.

Nah, the mindf*** isn't those who can't see it, they have trust in power, they have been trained to feel that all their lives.

The real mindf*** is those people who actually see it and actively ignore it or steer people's attention away from it through deflection, deception and lies.

Those people exist, and are everywhere.

Agreed! I think, in the end, it just boils down to fear.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian
But I assume you agree that if it is proven she did receive money, this is very troubling.

If by she you mean the Clinton Foundation, no one disputes that.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian
But I assume you agree that if it is proven she did receive money, this is very troubling.

If by she you mean the Clinton Foundation, no one disputes that.

Apparently ante disputes that saying only the nyt has reported it.

I read in in the clinton cash book but do not have the ability to link it.