The Russia Scandal Just Got Much Worse … For Hillary Clinton And Barack Obama

a reply to: rickymouse

Rats get nasty when they're cornered.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: havok

Whatcha got?

Oh this again.

Let me know when they bring charges will ya?

And here she comes for the takedown!
Good to see you grace our presence with your ever-lasting comments!

It was only a matter of time.
Beginning to think you 3 are seriously getting paid to deflect/deny/defend.

The threads are always better when you chime in.

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Can I use this?

Bill Clinton gave a 20 minute speech for which he was paid $500,000.00

That's $416.00 a minute.

Must have been some very powerful words.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969
And when it really gets rough, they have to activate the best weapon that they have in their arsenal of CTR phrases.

Circle jerk activated.

originally posted by: RickinVa
Bill Clinton gave a 20 minute speech for which he was paid $500,000.00

That's $416.00 a minute.

Must have been some very powerful words.

No no no!

That's all a deflection from the real news, like trump feeding fish wrong, and Russian Facebook ads and pokemon!

originally posted by: RickinVa
Bill Clinton gave a 20 minute speech for which he was paid $500,000.00

That's $416.00 a minute.

Must have been some very powerful words.

Words are hard... so he deserved it.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

What are you talking about?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Sillyolme

Oh I saw that I thought he had made a formal statement on it.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes, and we know guistra was advocating for things that were in the interest of the Russian government.

We do? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

And remember, people thought there would be a great chance Hillary would be the next President in 2005.

I guess?

Now tell me why we need investigations into trump or associated financial ties going back to 2006 (in the case of the manafort indictment) well before anyone had a remote idea trump would even run for president, but Hillary getting around 100 million from a person advocating jrussian interests doesn't matter because it was before sh3 was SOS?

So you say, again. This seems to be a lynch pin in your argument here. What's your source for Giustra advocating for Russian interests?

Further more, even with guistra money out of the mix, the Clintons still received millions from people pushing the u1 deal while she was SOS, including a personal 500 thousand dollars to Bill from a Russian bank.

AFAIK, the $500k for the paid speech is the only thing that came from Russians. That was in June of 2010 IIRC so that at least falls in the time frame of the Rosatom acquistion/CFIUS vote.

I don't know that the rest totaled "millions" either. What you're not including in your analysis:

Giustra is a well known philanthropist. He's even known for giving donations in the tens of millions. Giustra met Bill Clinton at a fundraiser for I believe it was Haiti (in 2004 or 2005) and they became fast friends. In fact, Bill Clinton has flown other places with Giustra having nothing to do with business and made use of his plane for other travels.

In 2008, almost a year after the Uranium One purchase of UrAsia (marking the end of Giustra's financial ties to and role in the company), Giustra organized a fundraising event for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. It was that venture that he pledged $100 million to funding.

The post-acquistion donations from Telfer, etc (friends/ acquaintances of Giustra) to the CF, where they earmarked for this initiative? I may be off a bit but not much but as I recall, the totals of Uranium One-connected people were about $2 million and those that occurred in 2010 were a few hundred thousand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

So is the official word from democrats here that millions from Russian interests to the Clintons is no big deal, but a half a million in Facebook adds was a huge deal that shows russia is evil and helped trump steal the election?

What millions from Russian interests? Let's just start with Giustra and the claims you've made there.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Was russia i,retested in the uranium one deal going through?

Were these people giving money also interested in that?

Of course.

With trump, it's any m9net received from any Russian or anyone who has ever worked or lobbied for the Russians as far back as 2006 needs to be investigated and scrutinized.

But with Hillary's team, no such worry apparently.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

The article says that Campbell has proof that russia was pushing to help democrats overcome republican opposition to the deal, and was bribing someone close to the Clintons to get them on board to pass the deal.

Hopefully, Campbell's testimony will shine light on this.

And to think how many even on ats here railed against anyone who had questions about this deal as nuts, and fought against having an investigation.

But for the partisan Hillary supporters only trump connections to russia are serious, so nothing to see here.

And for most Trump supporters, Russian meddling only matters if they think somebody outside of Team Trump could possibly be implicated.

Trump and most of his supporters have railed against any investigation of Russian operations in the U.S. and Trump is the effin President of the United States so I think that's probably a far bigger deal than the perceived double standard.

As for what the article says, here's the relevant bit from the source article at The Hill (John Solomon as teased to Hannity) that the IBD piece paraphrases:

Campbell’s debriefing files also show he regularly mentioned to FBI agents in 2010 a Washington entity with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton that was being paid millions to help expand Tenex’s business in the United States. The entity began increasing its financial support to a Clinton charitable project after it was hired by the Russians, according to the documents.

Campbell engaged in conversations with his Russian colleagues about the efforts of the Washington entity and others to gain influence with the Clintons and the Obama administration. He also listened as visiting Russians used racially tinged insults to boast about how easy they found it to win uranium business under Obama, according to a source familiar with Campbell’s planned testimony to Congress.

My first thought was that this *could* be a reference to Podesta Group doing lobbying for Uranium One but they were only paid $180,000 for that lobbying work and it didn't start until 2012.

It could also be a reference to Kountoupes Denham but they don't appear to have been doing any lobbying for Uranium One until 2011. Prior to that, Uranium One was paying BGR Group, co-founded by Ed Rogers and his former boss, Hayley Barbour (both Republicans and neither close to the Clintons as far as I can tell).

Then again, it might not have anything to do with either. I'm curious why if there's this mountain of evidence in this cache of 5,000 documents that's referenced in several documents, why the only thing that has been produced in either the John Solomon article or Sara Carter's piece, is this stupid email from from Fisk which proves absolutely nothing.

Are they sitting on the "good stuff?" Why?

Specifically, if they have conclusive evidence about this "Washington entity" that they haven't named — why not just come out and name the entity? This makes me immediately question the quality of the "evidence."

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DBCowboy

Is that you Spicey Spicer.

Yes. Yes it is, Mister Podesta.

a reply to: Grambler

You specifically claimed that Giustra advocated for Russian interests. Was that a mistake on your part? I would say yes, Telfer and anyone who held stock in Uranium One as of June 2010 or later, had an interest in the acquisition taking place.

Those interests would therefore be aligned with the Russian interest in the acquisition. I'll track down who gave what in 2010 so we know what were talking about.

If you have something pointing to Giustra advocating for Russian interests, I'd like to see it. As far as I can tell, he didn't stand to benefit at all from the Rosatom deal. And as I pointed out in my initial post, the $133+ million or so that he'd given/pledged/helped raise from 2005-2008 was all well before Rosatom was in the picture and in fact, the biggest chunk of it was after Giustra had sold all his shares for $45 million in 2007 during the Uranium One (South African company) and UrAsia Energy (Canadian company) merger.

So Giustra being motivated in 2008 to pledge $100 million and raise another $16 million from celebs for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative out of some shared business interest with the Russians is a dog that will not hunt.

Now, you've said:

Yes, and we know guistra was advocating for things that were in the interest of the Russian government.

Was this a mistake on your part or do you have some evidence for this?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well as far as you and me, I think we are both in agreement that seeking dirt on the other campaign on either side from the russians, while a bad idea, is not a huge deal.

Now, show me money being given to bribe for postotions favorable to the russians on any side, and I think rants a different matter.

If Mueller turns up that russia have trump money to inlflyence him on policy decisions and he took it, I would be outraged.

Yet with hillary, it seems to be no big deal.

Here is what I think we can both agree on.

The fbi knew mikerin (i think that's his name) was involved with illegal behavior before the u1 deal was signed.

Part of those illegalities ended up being bribery and kickbacks.

Now from there.

Don't you find it interesting that an informant is claiming more people from russia were bribing to get this u1 deal past?

Take guistra out of the equation for a minute.

We still are talking about around ten million dollars or so going to the clintons, including 500 thousand personally to Bill (some of which of them is money was not properly disclosed) from people also pushing this u1 deal.

If the show was on the other foot, and say the Russian lawyer veslinskya and people connected to her had given trump or his companies millions of dollars, and the fbi knew that there was bribery going on from Russians to lift the maginistky act, and yet they said nothing while trumps admin lifted those sanctions, you and others would be screaming treason.

Yet in this situation, it is deemed no big deal, because apparently only Russian money or help going to trumps team matters.

originally posted by: havok

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: havok

Whatcha got?

Oh this again.

Let me know when they bring charges will ya?

And here she comes for the takedown!
Good to see you grace our presence with your ever-lasting comments!

It was only a matter of time.
Beginning to think you 3 are seriously getting paid to deflect/deny/defend.

The threads are always better when you chime in.

Apparently, theantediluvian gets paid by the word, while Sillyolme get paid by the post.

originally posted by: RickinVa
Bill Clinton gave a 20 minute speech for which he was paid $500,000.00

That's $416.00 a minute.

Must have been some very powerful words.

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

Bill Clinton has given at least 13 speeches for which he was paid $500k or more. According to Politifact, he was averaging about $5 million a year from 2001-2012 in foreign speaking fees:

In 2014, before Clinton Cash was in the public eye, the Washington Post analyzed Clinton’s speaking fees and found he made at least $104 million in speaking fees between 2001 through 2012 -- more than half of that income came from speeches in foreign countries (though he gave more speeches within the United States).

Here's all the $500k+ speeches detailed:

2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);

2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);

2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);

2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);

2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);

2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);

2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);

2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);

2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).

Renaissance Capital has an annual investment conference in Moscow. In 2008 the keynote speakers were Tony Blair and Henry Kissinger. Here's a brief list of notable keynote speakers:

Former keynote speakers and guests are globally renown and include the former US President Bill Clinton, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the former US Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, and Colin Powell.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No it's not a mistake.

Giustra had a relationship with the Clintons when he owned the shares in that company.

Just because he wasn't personally enriched by the deal does not mean that he wouldn't want to see his former company profit.

But by the same token, people don't give the trump team that benefit of the doubt. If they met with anyone who was ever connected to russia, it's suspect.

Furthermore, we have no proof that the price he was paid for the sell of those shares dkdnt factor in the u1 deal being in the works.

Are we to really believe that he gave the Clintons over a 100 million dollars and sought nothing in return?

Finally, even if you are right and guistra and his money have nothing to do with the u1 deal, so what?

The other ten million (some of which wasn't disclosed properly) doesn't matter?

That is unbelievable!

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dukeofjive696969
And when it really gets rough, they have to activate the best weapon that they have in their arsenal of CTR phrases.

Circle jerk activated.

Lol, more kool aid as usual, still waiting for you guys to prove obama was not american, why the # would we believe the rest of the propaganda.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Obviously, YOU ASSUME I think Hillary is guilty. If any investigation finds that fine, but I believe in evidence and a trial before guilt. So YOU assume wrong. I do believe there are guilty players on and off Capital Hill, but I'm content to wait for ACTUAL evidence of guilt being ruled on in a legal venue before I assume anything.

You seem to assume they are guilt free, why? Or are YOU biased and think this is a Trump Republican thing?