@Pricknick
And in my opinion, he has for a long time now.

you're expected to fall in line.
Cenk fell in line.

@Pricknick

whose fame derives from their ohsocool, "lefter" wing pronouncements, but who begged people to support Hillary once Bernie fell back (or was pushed back) in the primaries. Hartmann, Chomsky and Cenk, whomever.

you're expected to fall in line.
Cenk fell in line.

@MrWebster don't force me to defend rachel maddow. As execrable as she has become, rachel is actually quite bright. That's what makes her so dangerous and reprehensible. Cenk is not bright at all. in fact, he's pretty dumb and an intellectual coward. This is why he blusters so much but says so little. IMO, none of TYT (at least the main panel) are bright. They are oh so convinced they are bright, but they push trite arguments and facile reasoning. Kasparian is among the worst offenders. They seem to think condescension and sanctimony trump logic and reason.

I have seen TYT taken Russiagate with a fervor not even matched by Maddow or Twitter heroes of the Russian resistance. Secular Talk Kyle had a debate with Cenk and Cenk was simply mouthing every MSM drive charge. Cenk believes that Trump is a Putin puppet because the cruise missile attack didn't apparently kill any Russians or cause enough damage.

In one segment Cenk went off to 2-3 minute rank about how Trump is Putin's bitch basically using slurs that were homophobic.

So yah, given how over the last year, Dore has become more sure and outspoken about the bullshit of Russiagate, it was evitable that he would part with some of his leftie buddies--as "Russiagate leftists" have become emotionally invested to the point of hysteria. The democratic party is going to tear itself apart when differences get reduced to calling each other Putin puppets.

@Bollox Ref I don't follow Cenk enough--which is a good thing. but to deny the Aremenia holocaust? Fucking shit. A Jewish buddy once said the Aremian holocust laid the ground work in some ways for Jewish genocide. He said at a meeting of Hitlers staff the issue of Jewish genocide came up as bad world PR against the Naxi regime. Hitler infamosly asked: who remembers the Aremeians.

This Cenk chap is an Armenian Genocide denier.

So, following a party line seems to be his thing.

I've watched many of Dore's youtube 'clips'. Sometimes, I wish he wasn't quite so relentless with his point(s), and give more time to Miserable Liberal/Stef Zamorano and Ron Placone, just to mix up things a little.

(Edited)

@Bollox Ref Has he done this on video?
I would be interested in seeing or reading his denial.
Please do not think for a split second I am putting you on the spot to support what you say. I am just interested, basically curious about what he has said about it.
I remember when I watched him on MSNBC.
Just WOW.

This Cenk chap is an Armenian Genocide denier.

So, following a party line seems to be his thing.

I've watched many of Dore's youtube 'clips'. Sometimes, I wish he wasn't quite so relentless with his point(s), and give more time to Miserable Liberal/Stef Zamorano and Ron Placone, just to mix up things a little.

(Edited)

just got tired of the bull$h!t.
@Amanda Matthews
Frustration caught up with him.
When you know people smarter than
you should know what you know, but don't...
it eventually reaches a boiling point. Besides, he's dead nuts right. Lefties who keep pointing fingers at RussiaGate hoping it leads to a smackdown of Trump (or maybe even righting the "wrong" of 2016 and planting Hillary in Her rightful place upon Her thrown in the Oval Office), are very likely to get their ass bitten. Or worse. I don't blame Jimmy for his head exploding. Mine would too. There's a war on. And way too many "Lefties" are on the wrong side.

@Ellen North

Going to add this after all; the writer certainly doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the scenario itself and stretches to soft-pedal the implications, but the article's pretty much overall fair enough otherwise, considering. (Edit: see any Russian donations [re-edit: to the Clinton Fundation] mentioned here?)

http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clin...

The truth about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal'
The Washington Post

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post

Apr. 28, 2015, 8:53 AM

...The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.

A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).

In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.

What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took. ...

... Schweitzer was pressed on that point yesterday by both Chris Wallace and George Stephanopoulos, and he gave essentially the same answer both times. Here's what he said on Fox News Sunday:

Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal. So, what's interesting about this, of all those nine agencies, who was the most hawkish on these types of issues? Hillary Clinton.

So the alleged wrongdoing isn't that Clinton helped the people who gave donations to the foundation, it's that she failed to oppose them, something that the secretaries of defense, treasury, and all the other agencies also failed to do, with or without donations to foundations controlled by members of their families. Schweitzer repeatedly compared Clinton to former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, who was convicted of corruption, and Sen. Bob Menendez, who is currently under indictment, arguing that in those cases there also wasn't direct evidence of a quid pro quo. But in those cases there were specific acts that the officials took in support of the person who had lavished gifts on them. In this case, Schweizer's criticism of Clinton rests on the fact that she failed to intervene in the sale, and came to the same conclusion about it as the heads of eight other agencies did.

But isn't it possible that people were trying to win influence with her by donating to the Clinton Foundation? It's certainly possible, and it wouldn't be surprising at all. Nor would it be surprising if Bill Clinton didn't go out of his way to disabuse potential donors of the impression that a seven- or eight-figure donation to the foundation for disaster relief, global health, or whatever he was advocating at a particular time, wouldn't hurt them in whatever business they might have before the U.S. government. But it's hard to know what they were thinking, and it doesn't really matter; what matters is what Hillary Clinton did or didn't do.

Is there anything else problematic relating to the foundation that we've recently learned? When Clinton became secretary of state, she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donors, but donations from the chairman of Uranium One were not disclosed. We don't yet know whose fault that was, but it certainly means that someone didn't do what they should have. ...

Too tired to try more digging and my computer's been acting up, but 'problematic' was specified in various articles I saw in the past regarding various people's concerns that 'Mrs Clinton might not approve' certain deals but that dealing with/through Bill tended to convince her - and that sizeable donations to the Clinton Foundation were a good idea. And that people having had approval denied by Hillary on previous deals found that following this pattern seemed to work in getting that approval, where straightforward applications without either of these steps previously hadn't and had been vetoed specifically by Secretary of State Clinton, who hadn't 'liked' them.

Even with Hillary out of public office for years, it seems that some people are still terrified or wary of crossing her, and the Clinton faction seems to have remained in control of the State Department until Trump chucked them out.

I won't believe the 'Wicked Witch is dead' until I see the puddled remains and I suspect that this holds true for many others. The billionaires/corporate interests whose power the Clinton's borrowed would still be around anyway - until they get either chucked out of politics and policy or complete the destruction of planetary life for the profits they'll never have enough of and which they'll find good until the last drop of life-blood has been drained. Getting there rather rapidly...

When the Uranium 1 scheme broke, there was no mention of Russia paying 140 million to the Clintons, such donations at the time being traced to their own (non-Russian) investors, with an article I have not yet been able to track down again about Giustra's public promise of a total of, as I recall, 140 million to the Clinton Foundation, although I have found some mention in other places of a promised over 130 million, so this obviously could be my memory at fault.

Now even Jimmy Dore is talking of what I suspect may be that in the rounded off area of 140 million as coming from the Russian government, with no mention of the Canadian and other investors who are actually known to have donated more than this 'in the hope of/out of gratitude' for getting the OK for the foreign sale of essential strategic resources - which America was said to be already short of, for power generation - from someone known to require such financial 'gratitude' in such situations for the use of the powers of a public office she held?

I have yet to hear any indications of proof regarding this Russian government bribery - where known instances of bribery over this same deal from other foreign interests go unmentioned - or any of the other Russiagate claims - or been given any reason to trust Russiagate claimants. Quite the reverse. Sounds like more redirecting spin from the warmongering money-laundry section to me.

This needs to be pointed out while any of the evidence remains accessible on the internet.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-don...

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

By WILSON ANDREWS APRIL 22, 2015

Uranium investors’ efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved with approving the Russian bid.

September 2005

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

2006

Uranium

One

Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

FebRuary 2007

UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

June 2008

Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Rosatom

2008-2010

Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.

June 2009

Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One.

17%

Stake

2010-2011

Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

June 2010

Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.

Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29, 2010

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.

October 2010

Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

51%

Stake

January 2013

Rosatom takes full control of Uranium One and takes it private.

It was previously only Canadian and other investors pouring the money into a corrupt and pathetically venal Secretary of State's/ex-President's Foundation and 'speech fees', apart from the mention of Bill's requisite half-million-dollar 'money talks' speech from a Russian bank.

Please, read and spread this information while it's still accessible.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4?op=1

The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits

Colin Campbell and Pamela Engel

Apr. 23, 2015, 9

... "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation," The Times reports.

Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.

• Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.

• Uranium One's mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it's considered a strategic asset to the US.

• Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.

• The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.

• Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia's government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.

• In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.

• Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation's contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.

"Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million," The Times reports. "Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." ...

... Here are some key points from the Times report:

According to The Times, Uranium One's involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev's bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.
Soon after, Giustra's company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan's state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton's foundation. ...

... "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown," The Times concluded. "But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."

Now that Hillary Clinton formally announced a presidential run, her foundation has come under increasing scrutiny.

Her family's charities are refiling at least five tax returns after Reuters found errors in how the foundations reported donations from governments, the news wire reported this week.

Michael B. Kelley contributed to this report.

A lot of the remaining articles found on search speak of the investors bribing the Clintons on the search page quotes, but when you get there, suddenly it's all Russian officials!!! in the article. Just as articles once about Hillary and the Dominionists infesting Washington now all seem to refer to 'Calvinists' instead... If we don't get on this now, the evidence will all be 'Corrected'. By psychopathic warmongers with nukes and related delusions of personal immortality and the ability to exist forever even in a dead and airless world.

(So, how does this 140 million gifted the Clinton Foundations by Canadian and other, non-Russian investors, start becoming attributed to 'the RUSSIAN!!!'? The same way that the Clinton faction refers to themselves as 'liberals' or 'the left'? And asset-stripping of the public to further enrich/empower those already having most becomes labeled as 'reform'? Emphasis mine.)

https://www.westernjournal.com/shep-smith-tries-defending-hillarys-handl...

Shep Smith’s Defense of Hillary’s Uranium Deal Ends Poorly for Him

By Martin Walsh
November 15, 2017 at 8:14am

On Tuesday, Smith used a portion of his show to describe Clinton’s role in the controversial nuclear deal that resulted in U.S. uranium being sold to Russia.

“Here’s the accusation: nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million,” Smith said, according to BizPac Review.

“In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians — a quid pro quo,” he added.

“The accusation, first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart, in his 2015 book, ‘Clinton Cash,’” Smith said. “The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.” ...

...According to The Hill, the partial sale, which was approved by Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, resulted in Rosatom reportedly receiving 20 percent of the United States’ uranium.

Prior to the sale, the Clinton Foundation — which is run by Bill and Hillary Clinton — reportedly received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from Russian investors associated with the nuclear deal.

In 2015, The New York Times published a piece reporting that the Clinton Foundation received a massive donation while the deal was in the process of being approved.

As reported by the New York Daily News, former President Bill Clinton was given $500,000 from a bank with ties to the Kremlin for giving a single speech in Moscow around the time of the deal. ...

(Emphasis mine)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-cli...

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company

By Amy Davidson Sorkin

April 24, 2015

... The Times sums it up this way:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million … Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

The Times says that the donations were not properly disclosed—the paper confirmed them by looking at Canadian tax records. Complicating matters, Uranium One’s corporate forebear had acquired the Kazakh interests after its major shareholder, Frank Giustra, travelled with Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan in 2005 and met with the country’s leader. Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, according to the Times, and so was not involved in the ARMZ dealings. But Giustra has put tens of millions of dollars into the foundation’s work; the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which bears his name, is a formal component of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. And Ian Telfer, the Uranium One chairman, whose family foundation donated the $2.35 million dollars, said that it had done so because he wanted to support that coöperation: “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he’d pledged the money in 2008, before the sale was on the table. Telfer also said that he’d never talked about uranium with Hillary Clinton. After the story came out, Giustra issued an angry statement, calling it baseless speculation and “an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign.” He added a note of Canadian admonishment: “You are a great country. Don’t ruin it by letting those with political agendas take over your newspapers and your airwaves.” ...

... 2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me:

the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.

Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) ...

... Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. ...

...But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.” ...

Dodge over to ex-Vice President Biden's home stomping ground for a moment.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-us-tax-hav...

Forget Panama: it's easier to hide your money in the US than almost anywhere

The term tax haven may evoke images of exotic locales, but Panama actually ranks as the 13th most attractive spot for hiding assets, while the US lies third

Jana Kasperkevic in New York

Wed 6 Apr 2016 12.00 BST
Last modified on Fri 14 Jul 2017 20.39 BST

One of the surprises about the Panama Papers – the largest leak from an offshore tax adviser in history – is how few Americans have so far been exposed. The reason? It may be because creating a shell company in the US is easier than obtaining a library card. ...

... “You don’t really have to go to Panama or other tax havens. They are not the only ones making it possible for corrupt officials and other criminals to launder their money. You can do it in every state in the US,” explained Shah.

“In every state in the US, you can incorporate an LLC – [a limited liability company] – or another legal entity and you don’t have to disclose who the beneficiary on it is. In fact, Delaware is so synonymous with anonymous companies and ghost corporations that it was named in Transparency International’s Unmask the Corrupt campaign as one of the most symbolic cases of corruption.” ...

... There is nothing illegal about setting up a shell company. US states are proud of their business-friendly policies. Delaware, for example, prides itself on being the incorporation capital of the US. “More than 1,000,000 business entities have made Delaware their legal home,” claimed the state’s Division of Corporations website. “More than 50% of all publicly-traded companies in the US including 64% of the Fortune 500 have chosen Delaware as their legal home.” ...

... Shell companies have their uses; they can be used to buy land anonymously, for example, without tipping off the competition. To create an entity to protect future business rights, or a holding company for various businesses. They can also be used to, legally, make political contributions anonymously. ...

Almost as hard to keep track of corporate ownership, big money and what the powerful do with it in the US as it is to keep up with the propaganda, but I still want to know why Canadian and other non-Russian UrAsia/Uranium One investors known to have sunk hundreds of millions into the Clinton Foundation at that time aren't mentioned, while the Russian government is said to have what - tried to bribe the pristine and only incidentally responsive Clintons into abusing the power of their public office with the same huge amounts of money previously identified as passing to them via such as the hands of their Clinton Foundation partner-in-slime Frank Giustra?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/04/24/nyt-wsj-editorial-boa...

NYT, WSJ Editorial Boards Hit Clinton Over Foundation Dealings

Matt Vespa
Posted: Apr 24, 2015 6:15 PM

...Oh, and here’s the New York Post:

Thursday was a banner day in the unfolding scandal of the Clinton Foundation.

We learned that a Russian government-controlled company has taken control of one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the US by acquiring a Canadian firm whose chairman, Frank Giustra, has pledged over $130 million to the foundation.

Bill Clinton also got $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian bank that had been promoting the Canadian firm’s stock. And Hillary’s State Department signed off on the acquisition, which has serious national-security implications.

Giustra also reaped huge profits when Hillary reversed her earlier “clear and firm” opposition to a trade deal with Colombia.

Her ex-president hubby, meanwhile, actively promoted the agreement the same month he accepted $800,000 for speeches, delivered after flying on Giustra’s private jet, to a pro-agreement group.

Bill also hosted a meeting in his home to introduce Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to Giustra, then eyeing Colombian oil contracts.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation is now hurriedly re-filing five years worth of tax returns that somehow failed to list any of the millions it received in foreign donations. And Bill and Hillary’s family charity only acted after journalists uncovered the discrepancy.

The Clinton camp is trying to frame this as a right-wing hit job, while their supporters have seemingly begun to smear the author of the upcoming book on the Clinton Foundation’s dealings–Peter Schweizer–on the airwaves. The problem: it’s not going to work. Mainstream news outlets have begun investigating the claims made in Schweizer’s book, and it’s a fact that these news outlets– Reuters, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Politico, and The Washington Post– are not part of this “right wing” conspiracy against the Clintons. To say otherwise, is desperate and a bit nutty.

The link to the cited article:

https://nypost.com/2015/04/23/the-clinton-foundation-is-bill-and-hillary...

The Clinton Foundation is Bill and Hillary’s NY-style racket

By Post Editorial Board

April 23, 2015 | 7:54pm

... Thursday was a banner day in the unfolding scandal of the Clinton Foundation.

We learned that a Russian government-controlled company has taken control of one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the US by acquiring a Canadian firm whose chairman, Frank Giustra, has pledged over $130 million to the foundation.

Bill Clinton also got $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian bank that had been promoting the Canadian firm’s stock. And Hillary’s State Department signed off on the acquisition, which has serious national-security implications.

Giustra also reaped huge profits when Hillary reversed her earlier “clear and firm” opposition to a trade deal with Colombia.

Her ex-president hubby, meanwhile, actively promoted the agreement the same month he accepted $800,000 for speeches, delivered after flying on Giustra’s private jet, to a pro-agreement group.

Bill also hosted a meeting in his home to introduce Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to Giustra, then eyeing Colombian oil contracts.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation is now hurriedly re-filing five years worth of tax returns that somehow failed to list any of the millions it received in foreign donations. And Bill and Hillary’s family charity only acted after journalists uncovered the discrepancy. ...

Edit: have been trying to view this to start sorting out the mess, but the computer was acting up and refusing to preview in full and must have hit 'post' by accident.

Added in missing block-quotes and figured the idea's there so I'm leaving it there.

Having kind of a domestic disaster walk/move in today, all day and for however long hereafter, which could be months, but wanted to bring up this reminder of a situation which many here must have seen at the time to ensure that we obtain some indication of proof rather than accepting the 'Russian bribery' claim, especially since somehow the 'bribees' - Hillary (with Bill as intermediary and travel-host) - don't seem to be getting mentioned anymore either and there's still no talk of investigating them or the rampant government corruption generally, just nuking RUSSIA!!!