There are 186 comments.

1. Member
   Hoyacon

   @Hoyacon

   6:29 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 22, 2018

   Jager (View Comment):

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Ugh. Again with the Uranium One crap.

    

   The Natioal Review and New York Times have both had stories about this. It is not some crack pot conspiracy theory.

   Putin is smart enough to meddle pointlessly in an election but not smart enough to bribe his way to more control of the Uranium market?

   And then there’s Clinton Cash.  I’m willing to listen to a counter-argument, but let’s start with some actual refutation of Schweitzer’s book.

    

2. Member
   Ed G.

   @EdG

   

   6:38 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 22, 2018

   Justin Hertog (View Comment):

   Does anyone here agree that if

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Justin Hertog (View Comment):
   Honestly? A lot longer. Like, forever. It’s called opposition research and a “nothing burger” when Democrats do it.

   You’re right, of course.

   I mean, everybody just glossed over when Chelsea Clinton and Robby Mook met with that Russian lawyer on the promise of getting dirt from the Russian government about Trump.

   Oh, right. That never happened.

   Funny how the people rationalizing it for Trump would be the ones [defecating] bricks in it had though.

   Thanks, Fred. Bill Clinton had meetings with Russian bankers during the campaign. And got paid handsomely, too. I heard that there were meetings with Putin as well. You can read about it here. Or here:

   “The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.”

   The 500K was just for a speech, right? Maybe. And maybe it’s also true that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch only discussed grandkids and golf on the tarmac.

   In fairness the 500k could really have been for a speech. I have some first hand knowledge of speakers fees for conferences and the fees here are within the range of plausible for sure.

3. Inactive
   Justin Hertog

   @RooseveltGuck

   6:45 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 22, 2018

   Ed G. (View Comment):

   Justin Hertog (View Comment):

   Does anyone here agree that if

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Justin Hertog (View Comment):
   Honestly? A lot longer. Like, forever. It’s called opposition research and a “nothing burger” when Democrats do it.

   You’re right, of course.

   I mean, everybody just glossed over when Chelsea Clinton and Robby Mook met with that Russian lawyer on the promise of getting dirt from the Russian government about Trump.

   Oh, right. That never happened.

   Funny how the people rationalizing it for Trump would be the ones [defecating] bricks in it had though.

   Thanks, Fred. Bill Clinton had meetings with Russian bankers during the campaign. And got paid handsomely, too. I heard that there were meetings with Putin as well. You can read about it here. Or here:

   “The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.”

   The 500K was just for a speech, right? Maybe. And maybe it’s also true that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch only discussed grandkids and golf on the tarmac.

   In fairness the 500k could really have been for a speech. I have some first hand knowledge of speakers fees for conferences and the fees here are within the range of plausible for sure.

   Well. Let me just say that if we are going to agree that all of this is plausible, then let us use the same standard with the other campaign. Because if we don’t, it’s just a bunch of partisan bull-crap.

4. Member
   Gary Robbins

   @GaryRobbins

   9:39 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 22, 2018

   In 2016 we had the two biggest Grifters of each party running against each other.  

   It sure would be nice to have non-Grifters run in 2020.

5. Inactive
   Fred Cole

   @FredCole

   3:56 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 23, 2018

   Jager (View Comment):

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Ugh. Again with the Uranium One crap.

    

   The Natioal Review and New York Times have both had stories about this. It is not some crack pot conspiracy theory.

   Putin is smart enough to meddle pointlessly in an election but not smart enough to bribe his way to more control of the Uranium market?

   I can break every link in the chain (and have) of the Uranium One thing.  Yet people insist on believing it.

   Uranium One is a very useful filtering mechanism for me.  Because as soon as people mention it, I know they have no idea what they’re talking about.

6. Member
   EDISONPARKS

   @user_54742

   

   5:16 AM EDT ⋅ Aug 23, 2018

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Jager (View Comment):

   Fred Cole (View Comment):

   Ugh. Again with the Uranium One crap.

    

   The Natioal Review and New York Times have both had stories about this. It is not some crack pot conspiracy theory.

   Putin is smart enough to meddle pointlessly in an election but not smart enough to bribe his way to more control of the Uranium market?

   I can break every link in the chain (and have) of the Uranium One thing. Yet people insist on believing it.

   Uranium One is a very useful filtering mechanism for me. Because as soon as people mention it, I know they have no idea what they’re talking about.

   Right back at you with the Trump Tower meeting proves Russian collusion.  

   Yet I don’t believe you don’t know what you’re talking about, I believe it’s the only evidence you have so you attempt to inflate it into something which supports your Trump colluded with Russians and should to be impeached narrative and thereby overlook that the Trump Tower meeting proves Don Jr. stupidly took a meeting with a Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting dirt on HRC and got nada from the Russian lawyer client of Fusion GPS (….with the Glen Simpson waiting outside very said Trump Tower meeting  …. that’s weird?).

   I don’t believe anything implicating HRC can be proven about Uranium One so I don’t go there.  The theory that HRCs’ destroyed e-mails may contain Clinton Foundation/Clinton Speaking Fee/Uranium One “COLLUSION” info is only a theory, so until Vlad and Donald agree to release the HRC e-mails I guess we’ll never know.