jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (89 posts)

Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion

  1. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago

    This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)

    But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a pretty solid case for the government.

    The indictments were for money laundering and foreign agent activities - mostly prior to his involvement with Pres. Trump's campaign.

    Surprisingly, for once, an actual legal document that was an interesting read. You really should look at these actual charging documents.

    Manafort and Gates Indictment document

    GA

    1. ahorseback profile image79
      ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      More interesting is that the DOJ can't and hasn't seem to be able  "get it up  "when it comes to any of the  other abuses of power , The entire Clinton Mafia , for starters .
      All of the Obama scandals  for another , The IRS or any  DOJ  investigative abuses ,.........?

      But  with the right wing ;   The liberal infested DOJ jumps !

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        ahorseback, you're sounding like a one-trick pony again. Would you care to offer any thoughts on the OP that aren't Clinton or Obama rants?

        GA

        1. ahorseback profile image79
          ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          If ..........The obvious bias and compromise of the  Mueller investigative  force is and has already been  leaking like the Titanic even before charges came out ;  What does that tell you about any possible integrity of Mueller's mission  ?

          Of the DOJ's........ ?

          This entire circus act  is just that ......a media circus act .  And if  the bias , partisan  a one pony trick show is simply what it is , you can't blame that on  me for pointing it out .  Don't wear  horse blinders GA.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Well at least we are getting closer to the topic. That's a start ahorseback.

            I don't know, one way or the other, about whether the Mueller investigation is a circus act. I might venture agreement that it was a democrat and media frenzy that prompted its creation, but beyond that I don't have enough information to form an opinion about it. Mueller may be proceeding with as much honesty and integrity as we could possibly ask for, or, he may be the hidden hand of manipulation. What information, beyond speculation, do you have to hold such a firm opinion as you do?

            Your speculation may turn out to be true. Or, the investigation may also end up focusing on the Clintons too - then what would your opinion of it be? Now, not knowing your general health, I don't want to cause you undo stress, but what if the investigation found collusion in both cases? I am not sure you could stand such mental conflict. ;-)

            Thanks for the warning, but I don't think I have to worry about blinders.

            GA

            1. ahorseback profile image79
              ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Now , You're beginning to get my point .    If we can't investigate AND hold accountable all parties why bother with just Trump's  ?

              Let's face it , it's all a scam .

              1. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
                Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Keep telling yourself that. I remember people saying such things about Nixon.

                1. ahorseback profile image79
                  ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Oh Kathleen , you don't look old enough to remember anything Nixonian.

        2. colorfulone profile image85
          colorfuloneposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          The charges against Manafort and Kelly are from 2012-2015 when he worked with the OBAMA Administration / Clinton.

          The dirty Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta announced that he will be departing.  There is much speculation that he is next in line to be indicted by Mueller.  The Podesta Group, John and Tony may go down.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image82
      Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Wow GA,

      I see you are taking the initiative on this one.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na … ff811f3bf7

      So what I read here, and this by no means was written to exonerate Trump, is that they have this  Papadopoulos on potential money laundering that they charge he did for over a decade, and then this Papadopoulos supposedly tried to make meetings happen with Russians to meet with the Trump campaign BUT FAILED, was told he was talking to a niece of Putin's WHO WASN'T HIS NEICE, and in general that is as close as he (or any of them) supposedly came to linking up the Russians/Putin to Trump.

      It sounds like this Papadopoulos was at least three rungs removed from the actual Trump campaign, sort of like... working for a guy, who works for a guy, who works for the Trump campaign who may have ties to someone really close to Trump.

      Am I reading this right?  Is that what they are going after Trump with?

      This... ahem... tripe???

      When we have more proof showing already that Mueller buried criminal activities for the Clintons, as a significantly important person who should have been slamming her with charges, not covering up her crimes?

      Does anyone else remember the 'Drain the Swamp' part of Trump's campaign?

      Mueller is as much part of that swamp as anyone.

      1. ahorseback profile image79
        ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Good points all ,    and yet all this is being considered a major battle victory , in the media ,  for Trump Collusion  conspiracy theorists ?

        1. Ken Burgess profile image82
          Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Fortunately I don't think anyone gives a cow-dung about what the MSM has to say about it, I'm sure there are LESS people now paying attention to the MSM than ever before... so they can say this means whatever they want to say it means.

          What this shows, from what GA linked as well as well as what I linked, is nothing that links to Trump.

          Now, maybe when they get these guys behind closed doors, and inquisition them until they confess to the crimes they want them to, but where is the direct links, the actual proof?

          For instance with the Clintons you can trace the hundreds of millions in donations from various companies with ties to Russia to the Clinton Campaign, you have Bill making speeches for 500k in Russia, you have meetings between Hillary and Russians, you have a lot that directly links the Clintons, and Podesta, to all combined about 200 million dollars worth of transactions, donations, and speaker fees.

          So, where is all the evidence against Trump?  Where are the hundreds of millions being funneled, where are the meetings between Trump and Putin (or other major Russian players)?  Where is the real evidence, something at least as concrete as what is on Clinton.

          1. ahorseback profile image79
            ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Are you seriously asking for democrats to look at fact, political history , the Clinton /Russian pasts in the search for fair  results? Come on Ken ,    stop right there and quit wasting our time.

          2. colorfulone profile image85
            colorfuloneposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            The Trump Russia Collusion fairy tail was started by bitter lying Crooked Hillary Clinton, she was suppose to win. The fake dossier was intended to be a stake in Trump's heart by Madam President, to crush any future plans of running for Pres.   Its been one big fake 'distraction'. 

            The Russians never hacked the DNC computer.  No evidence. 
            No evidence on Trump. But, lots of evidence on the Clintons.

            I'm not sure what to think of Mueller,  I know his history, but Trump did meet with him before he ever got hired.  And, I know Trump is very smart, brilliant.

            I have heard that there are at least six investigations happening on Clinton and the DNC, and there aren't any leaks coming from them.  I have a feeling things are going to break open with a mighty boom!

            Trump promised to drain the swamp.  I think things will break in 2018 before the elections.  Mueller just might end up being a God send yet.  We know he knows a whole lot.  Manaford is a distraction.   

            Liberal media is a freak show!  Just my thoughts.

            Added:  EXPERT: Bombard's Body Language,  says Hillary is terrified.
            2:55 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8gb1jWpAHI

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Hard to blame Trump for not knowing about Manafort's transgressions years ago.  The US government, with all the resources of Congress, the FBI and the CIA had no clue about them - to expect a private citizen to have uncovered them is a little out of line.

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        No Ken, you didn't 'read it right'. I do understand the simple mix-up of the separate Papodoupolus issue with the Manafort/Gates indictments, but even that wasn't the misread that most matters.

        For starters, the OP was addressed to the Manafort and Gates indictments. As I understand it the George Papodoupolus guilty plea happened earlier, and is a separate issue from the topic of the OP.

        Secondly, I clearly stated these indictments were for money laundering, and foreign agent law violations - not Russian collusion, and also pointed out that the indictment charges were for mostly pre-Trump campaign time periods. The parenthesized "("yet???)" was my hedge for the possibility that Manafort or Gates might yet bring in evidence of true campaign collusion - but that was not a fact or presumption presented.

        So, as to reading inferences; what could your immediate broaching of the Clinton issues, and,  defensive reaction to the OP infer? Surely you can't think that any discussion of any Mueller charges have to automatically be a charge against Pres. Trump?

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image82
          Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Hi GA,

          First, my response to you was not an attack, or in anger, in your response it appears you may think it was.  Sometimes attitude and expression doesn't always transfer to type correctly.  My response was more of 'disbelief'. 

          Why I focused as much as I did on Papadopoulos is because the article I linked to itself seemed to, for example the quote below:

          -- "Papadopoulos’s plea agreement, signed earlier this month and unsealed Monday, described extensive efforts he made to try to broker connections with Russian officials and arrange a meeting between them and the Trump campaign. Emails show his offers were sometimes looked at warily, though more senior campaign officials at least entertained them." --

          But then it states he also had no success in doing so at all.  One has to wonder then, why it is brought up to the extent it is, or at all, if there was no success, there is no proof, and seemingly half of what is spoken of is speculation.

          However I agree with you that more could come, obviously, I tried to state that I recognized such, when they are done inquisitioning these two behind closed doors, making threats and promises, who knows how much they will shake out of them... but again ... I would not accept any statement by anyone under investigation as fact, or truth... I would have to see proof, actual meetings that occurred, emails that stated it, actual evidence... not the confession of someone they put on the rack and tortured until he confessed.

          I think this has become a race, there are two sides, the stronger of the two investigations will be the one against Trump, because the stronger element within D.C. is against him.  The other side (other investigations) should have a far easier job, in theory, because the crimes committed were by Clinton when she was acting SoS, and therefore anything she did is fair game, while in that position a person is held to certain standards and has certain responsibilities that do not apply to a civilian business man.

          One can clearly see with how she handled her server, her emails, and who she shared information with, she cared little for what rules and restrictions applied to the office with which she held, she apparently suffered from a 'the rules don't apply to me' ...

          The vital concept of checks and balances on positions of government power fundamentally shapes the United States Constitution and roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  How much misconduct, corruption, and abuse in our government can be attributed to long tenured politicians who believe the rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to them?

          This is why the crimes that Clinton has been accused of, the hundreds of millions of dollars they channeled thru the Clinton foundation can't be allowed to stand, its why it is critical she be prosecuted, she sold out America's interests, she sold the position of her office, and the prospect of her becoming President, breaking the law over and over again... as exposed in Clinton Cash.  To say nothing of how cavalier she was with classified information, including some information that was classified above Top Secret.  Not taking into consideration anything else done in the Obama Administration, or the abuses of power that went on there.  Clinton's actions alone, that we know of, are as corrosive and corrupt as any political figure I can think of who has held such a high office.

          I really haven't focused a whole lot on this GA, it would agitate me too much to do so.  My reaction to that WPost article was one where I tried to express my incredulity of it... sorry it came out differently.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            No worries Ken, I didn't take your attack personally, nor did I think it was in anger. I completely understand the misinterpretations that the deficiencies of text communications can cause.

            I also understood your confusion concerning the references that it was Papodoupolus that did what Manafort is accused of doing; "... Papadopoulos on potential money laundering that they charge he did for over a decade...".

            But, bluntly put, for the other parts of your comment; I took them as an automatic Trump defense, (when no Trump accusations or insinuations had been made), because of the points you brought into it, ie. your effort to disentangle Papodoupolus from the decision makers of the campaign, and, bringing Clinton into the conversation.

            Yet, from the title of the topic, to the content of the OP, I clearly indicated the topic wasn't about Pres. Trump. It was about the charges against Manafort and Gates.

            So, for clarity, here is why I started the thread;

            I know that Manafort and Gates have been indicted. I know what the indictment charges are, and the government's explanation of why those charges were brought.

            I don't know if the charges are true, or if Manafort or Gates are guilty, or, if there is any connection between the Manafort and Gates indictment and the collusion charges that have been made since the election.

            Which leaves the category of what I think. Of course I am no different than any other human that bases the facts they know, with the experiences of their life history, and mixes in what would seem to be a common sense evaluation of data provided - to come up with a idea of what they think is true.

            To that point... the description of Manafort's activities seems to make sense to me. The details of the government charges implies to me they have the data to back-up the charges. In other words, I think Manafort, and Gates, are going to get nailed.

            But what I don't think is that any of that implies any kind of Trump involvement, or Trump/Russia collusion. And that was the direction I tried to follow with the OP.

            However, as illustrated by my twice mentioned "(as yet???)" qualifier, I am nowhere near considering that there isn't a possibility that a Manafort connection won't lead to a collusion connection. I just wasn't addressing that possibility - yet. ;-)

            ... and no matter the insistence of you and ahorseback, I also wasn't addressing any "Hillary" points in the discussion. Why would that be relevant, if one wrong wasn't trying to justify itself by pointing to another wrong?

            GA

            1. Ken Burgess profile image82
              Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Because I don't believe we can extrapolate the charges or the investigation into Trump's campaign, from the corrupt/collusion/criminal elements in D.C. and potentially inherent in this investigation.

              We have to consider where the Dossier originated, who funded it being created, who presented it to the FBI... without which, how likely would it be that the accusations and charges would have led us down this rabbit hole?

              Nor can we ignore Mueller's past with Comey, the Clintons, the past 8 years in D.C. nor who he hired to aid him in his investigation (a former prosecutor who aided Clinton's defense in past investigations)...

              So while I completely understand one's desire to merely look at the facts presented, and consider them as would any well learned lawyer or judge, it simply cannot be done if you wish to give a fair review, one has to consider as well what biases were integral to us getting here and what biases the individuals conducting the investigation may have.

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Ken, I am struggling to decide if you are being purposely obtuse, or I am missing your point.

                By my thinking, the question of what is so hard to understand about my point being about the Manafort indictment, and the declaration that it isn't intended to imply anything about the Trump collusion charges, is so hard to understand.

                Why are you so insistent in bringing in the points of DC corruption, Mueller's past, Comey, the "dossier," the Clinton's, et al.? Is it not possible for you to address the indictment charges without seeing them as a DC conspiracy against Trump? Do you feel the Special Counsel is so corrupted that nothing it produces can be valid? What if it exonerated Trump? What if the indictments stopped with Manafort and Gates?

                Fearing that I am misunderstanding your point, I still must say that I think I can "... look at the facts..." and issues of the Manafort/Gates indictments, in a " well learned lawyer or judge..." way without being hoodwinked by the biases that you are so determined to say taint any product of the Special Counsel.

                Come on Ken, why such a determined effort to discredit any of the Counsel's product when it isn't even  directed at Trump. However it reflects on my knowledge of 'the powers that be', I just don't see the Special Counsel as the Devil of partisan politics that you do.

                I have read that Pres. Trump approved of Mueller's appointment. And that he had bipartisan support, and a stellar reputation. Has that all changed because he didn't immediately clear Trump? Is he a partisan tool now because he is doing the job he was tasked to do?

                And lastly, why can't you address the OP without bringing in the DC corruption accusations and Clintons justifications that you do? Even if Mueller is corrupt, and Clinton is guilty as you charge, why does that preclude you from addressing the indictment charges as promoted by the OP?

                GA

                1. Ken Burgess profile image82
                  Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Why do we care about these charges?

                  Why does Manafort matter at all, if not for the politics of it?

                  So how can I ignore the reasons behind the charges, the reasons behind the investigation, and the reasons behind why Mueller would be roundly supported by those very politicians within D.C. that are the primary reasons why we as a nation, as a people, have suffered a litany of misfortune?

                  Why does Manafort, and whatever he has done, even matter to any of us, if not in the context of how it ties into Trump, and WHO is trying to tie it to Trump?

                  1. colorfulone profile image85
                    colorfuloneposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "Why do we care about these charges?"

                    Mueller blew the lid off the DC Swamp that lobbies for foreign adversaries for their own enrichment through money laundering.

                    "Why does Manafort matter at all, if not for the politics of it?"

                    It exposes Tony Podesta, who has been a friend of the Clinton's since 1970. John Podesta has worked closely with the Clintons and Obama.

                    "So how can I ignore the reasons behind the charges, the reasons behind the investigation, and the reasons behind why Mueller would be roundly supported by those very politicians within D.C. that are the primary reasons why we as a nation, as a people, have suffered a litany of misfortune?"

                    We should not ignore the corruption. Things are getting a whole lot more interesting.

                    "Why does Manafort, and whatever he has done, even matter to any of us, if not in the context of how it ties into Trump, and WHO is trying to tie it to Trump?"

                    It doesn't tie into Trump, he isn't even mentioned in the indictments. No mention of collusion, which exposes the liberal media narrative as fake news, the DNC and Hillary's lies. (added)  Let's not forget the RINOs.

                    Tucker Carlson -- "If you're looking for a summary of all this, here's the one-sentence Cliff Note to the whole affair: The chairman of one major presidential campaign colluded with the brother of the chairman of the other major presidential campaign to enrich themselves by secretly advancing the interests of a foreign adversary.  That happened. That's the swamp they told you needed to be drained."

                    Podesta's lawyer sent Tucker a threatening letter to shut him up, but that's not going to work. That's what they do to control the media.

                    (obtuse?  Wow, that was unexpected!  I don't get that at all concerning you, Ken.)

                  2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    It should matter to anyone who wants our elections to be untainted by foreign interference. Apparently you aren't in this group, Ken. You're like Horse and Color as you've let your hatred of the Clintons blur your vision as to the Trump investigations.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Ken, to clear the decks - my apology for the "obtuse" comment. Must have been the second martini. Sorry.

                    Now. I see Mueller's investigation as necessary because of the force of the collusion charges. Whether those charges were legitimate or not - in the beginning - they gained the force of a question that demanded answering in the public's mind.

                    I understand the politics of it all, but I also think the public crescendo - again, legitimate or not -  reached a point where the question could not be ignored. I think that if the Special Counsel could be viewed as having any credibility at all, the Republicans should welcome the investigation for the purpose of retiring the question, as much as the anti-Trump folks would hoping for blood.

                    My perspective is that Mueller and his investigation do have credibility, and that indictments such as Manafort's and Gate's are squarely inline with the mandate of a Special Counsel. They were investigating them for one crime, and found another, (or others). In this case, those other crimes include at least a couple very serious ones; the money laundering and tax evasions.

                    I think that is why Manafort matters. Would you feel the same if there had been credible evidence of collusion on Manafort's part? Would that have justified the investigation's focus on him?

                    Maybe I am understanding your point now, and the difference in our perspectives. It seems that your perspective is that there was/is no possibility the collusion charges were true, so any investigation, regardless of who led it, would be illegitimate. For my part, I hadn't seen any evidence of collusion at the time of the Special Counsel's appointment, (nor have I seen any yet), but I think the charges of collusion had built up enough of a circumstantial case to get the public's attention, and mine, so there  was reason for an investigation.

                    Of course, any investigation of Manafort would have been in a context involving Pres. Trump, and once again, that is why Manafort matters.

                    GA

                    .

    3. kenneth avery profile image85
      kenneth averyposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      @ GA: just another day in Paradise.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Nah Kenneth, rather than just another day - this is a good day, because it at least offers details to discuss instead of just partisan speculations.

        Glad to see you chime in. I hope you stay withthe conversation.

        GA

  2. VanessaJanes profile image80
    VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks ago

    Since the investigation is still ongoing, I'm not sure why some of you seem so certain of the conclusions.

  3. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

    "I know Trump is very smart, brilliant."  Ten months in, that is what you know?  And you still think you know that today?

    1. VanessaJanes profile image80
      VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      If Trump is so smart, brilliant, why did he hire a shady character like Paul Manafort, only to accept his resignation a few months later?

      [Her reply to you on this thread is equally smart, brilliant, eh?]

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Ha! See how prescient I am Vanessajanes... I said this would be a "hot one."

        From a simple OP about the charges - to an immediate injection of the Clintons and a "bla, bla, bla..." response. I am gonna get a Coke and some popcorn for this one. ;-)

        GA

      2. wilderness profile image99
        wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Trump, a private citizen, should have known what the government, with all the resources of the FBI, the CIA and Congress to draw upon, did not?  Doesn't seem quite reasonable...

        1. colorfulone profile image85
          colorfuloneposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Manaford only worked for the Trump campaign for two months.  And, he didn't get indicted on anything during that time. He got indicted for what he did while working for the Obama Adm.

          The media headlines are a different narrative of course.

        2. VanessaJanes profile image80
          VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Don't campaigns generally do extensive background checks? Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall the media referring  to Manafort as having questionable character right from the beginning. How did they know that and the Trump campaign did not?

  4. colorfulone profile image85
    colorfuloneposted 3 weeks ago

    Blah Blah Blah!

  5. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 3 weeks ago

    He never worked for the Obama's; he's an exclusively Republican guy.  And he is being charged with being an undeclared foreign operative and laundering the funds he was paid to be one.  So, yeah, there is no positive spin for that.  Most likely these charges are to motivate him to cooperate with the investigation, so stayed tuned for more charges.

    1. colorfulone profile image85
      colorfuloneposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Manaford teamed up with Obama's lawyers and the Podesta Group.  Manaford certainly was not working against Obama and Hillary.

  6. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks ago

    Papadopoulos has been working for the investigators since he admitted lying to the FBI several months ago. He is suspected with wearing a wire while communicating with the other suspected Trump minions.

    The indictments of both Gates and Manafort will pressure them to cooperate with Mueller and the other intel agencies or face prison terms. It's just beginning boys and girls....   yikes

    1. ahorseback profile image79
      ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      "just beginning ......" ?   , As in the same old  'special council' BS. , nothing new , nothing about collusion , nothing about election rigging , nothing about voting machines
      nothing  about connecting Trump to Putin or Russia ..........

      Nada...........

      That kind of "just beginning "? .

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        Apparently you don't know this is the way investigations work, Horse. People start turning over on their superiors and it goes up the ladder. Go back and watch Fox News, you'll feel smarter over there. tongue

      2. VanessaJanes profile image80
        VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

        You know, Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the election. If, during that process,  he uncovers prosecutable criminal behavior of any kind, do you want him to pursue it?

        1. ahorseback profile image79
          ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Sure . But only if it's an all inclusive investigation ; ie.  Put the Clinton's under the microscope for their connections , for once .   

          -Clinton Foundation Fraud
          -Iran Cash  Deal
          -Russian Connections
          -Haitian fiasco
          -Uranium One
          -Chinese Weapons Tech sales
          -Unsolved , un-investigated assorted crimes against humanity

          The Clinton's laid waste the past ,  Trump just entered office .......first things first .

          1. VanessaJanes profile image80
            VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Sounds like you want the investigation to extend far beyond its original scope. I'm not sure that would be lawful.

            But, let's take one item on your list, the Iran cash deal. What is preventing Congress from investigating that issue? What is preventing Trump from directing Sessions to open an  investigation? It seems that with a Republican Congress and president, it would be easy peasy. So, what's stopping them?

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            The ploy of distracting Fox viewers away from the Trump investigations is working well on their viewers, Horse. The HRC uranium deal is old news and has been approved by 8 other Govt agencies besides Hillary in her capacity as Secretary of State. Too bad your hatred of the Clintons clouds your judgement so much as to ignore Mueller's indictments of Donnie's cronies. Oooh, something shiny....

            1. wilderness profile image99
              wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Did the other 8 govt. agencies get millions upon millions of $$ put into their private charity as a result of the Uranium deal?  Or just the one that actually made it happen?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Do you really want to get into private charity orgs, Dan? Let's start with DT's if you insist. lol

                1. wilderness profile image99
                  wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I take it that's a "No", right?  Clinton was the only one profiting personally from it. 

                  But first we'll bring up 8 more agencies in an attempt at diversion, then someone else's charity.  But the question still remains about Clinton's profits, and actions, in that particular deal.

                  1. VanessaJanes profile image80
                    VanessaJanesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Do you know how a nonprofit organization works? Unless the Clintons are paid staff (and they are not), they receive no personal gain. The Clinton Foundation funds charitable activities and reports to the IRS. You can even view their financial filings online.

            2. ahorseback profile image79
              ahorsebackposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

              Too bad !  Too bad that the media inspired and  run justice system and bogus investigation is just that ! Trump supporters and yes , even Fox watchers see right through all of the hog -wash  .Believe me .

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                I cannot believe anyone who believes Fox BS, Horse. You're a prime example why...

  7. ahorseback profile image79
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    Example and result of Mueller /  Russian  Connection Investigation results  ;


    Scenario ; President  Trump arrested after Crime spree;
    -High speed chase resulting in multiple accidents
    -Cocaine , Heroin found in vehicle
    -Minors under the influence found in vehicle
    -Interstate lines crossed in high speed chase
    -Refusal to obey police officers
    -Armed stand off  after car crashes
    -Trump refuses to show up for arraignment
    -Trump refuses to obey bail limitations


    Pays $ 75 .00 fine for plead down charge of unreasonable speed .

    Does anyone here really expect any viable outcome to come from the entire politically motivated investigation ,  These offenses and resulting investigations  never make their way to the top of the chain of leadership .   The entire Clinton history  proved that .  We haven't even touched on the Obama legacy yet .

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

    More fake news?  It sure is piling up, isn't it?

 
working