NYT - Mueller Investigating Ukrainian’s $150,000 Payment for a Trump Appearance

a reply to: theantediluvian

It all makes sense now... Though the threat of planting nekid HRC pictures on their devices would have scrapped the memo altogether, one would think. Missed opportunity.

sure seems to be a lot of leaks in Mueller's investigation.

convenient ones at that.

midterms are soon, so I expect 'bombshells'

I'm not sure that Mueller is aware that he contributed a lot of money to Hillary Clinton and that Bill actually visited him years ago. I hope Fox makes an issue of this so that it discredits Mueller. Here is another article about the Clintons. www.newsweek.com...

So where is the investigation into the Clintons and Obama's for all the millions they have made selling speeches?

Let's point put the obvious:

Clintons get million - Nobody cares.

Trump gets 150k - COLLUSION! RUSSIANS! IT WAS RIGGED! FOREIGN INFLUENCE! DDDDDDEEEEEERRRRRRPPPPPP EJROGOEFGBOUEGHOUEHGOUEQHGOUEQNRGOUQENGOUEBVOUEQBRG

Not to mention this is technically outside of his scope of the case at hand...... Who wants to bet money this will go like the rest of the investigation has gone, and simply turn up more evidence of Democrat collusion and law breaking (which no one will bat an eye over)?

Unnamed sources, happened in Sept. 2015 as payment for a speech.

..and............????

It's not a slow news day by any stretch, so what are they deflecting attention from would be my question?

From a legal standpoint Hillary did nothing wrong. Shady? Yes. But illegal? No. Hillary was not running for office between 2009 and 2013. Trump WAS running for office in 2015. That's the key difference that explains why this is an issue for Trump but not Hillary.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Why is Trump making deals with someone who supports the Clinton Foundation? Also, why is this guy paying his supposed political enemy (Trump) to speak at his event? That's the real head-scratcher here.

Because the whole left/right, liberal/conservative, hell even up/down is nonexistent at the upper .01%. They really don't care who is in office as long as whoever it is they can work deal with. This is why you will see them pledge money to both sides at the same time.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

She held an appointed office as Secretary of State. Same problem, so that's meaningless.

I don't think there is anything illegal in either case. It's campaign season all the time now and it's just today's partisan hit piece.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Hillary was technically only part of the Clinton Foundation from between the time she stepped down as Secretary of State to when she announced her candidacy.

Like I said, sketchy but not illegal.