Re: Shep Smith 'Destroys' The Uranium One Scandal. Except There's More To The Story.

12 views
Skip to first unread message

AlleyCat

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:20:57 PM11/15/17
to

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...

>
> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> It was debunked long ago.

STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
dollars. Does THAT seem like an appropriate amount from someone, even
while being philanthropic?

Uh... nope.

THAT'S kickback money.

--

Wanna make a Conservative mad? Tell him a lie.
Wanna make a Liberal mad? Tell him the truth.

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:25:39 PM11/15/17
to
On 2017-11-15 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>> It was debunked long ago.
>
> STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
> dollars. Does THAT seem like an appropriate amount from someone, even
> while being philanthropic?
>
> Uh... nope.
>
> THAT'S kickback money.
>
>

Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
had for 5 years when he made the donation.

And he's worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.

Rudy Canoza

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:26:00 PM11/15/17
to
On 11/15/2017 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>> It was debunked long ago.
>
> STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
> dollars.

No, they didn't, cocksucker. Their foundation - a legitimate charity -
received it.

Greg Carr

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:43:59 PM11/15/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>http://www.avg.com

Let the special prosecutor figure it out. I'm surprised Trump's base
let him wait this long but their stocks are up as are wages and
employment numbers and Trump attended Chelsea's wedding and used to
donate to the Democrats.

Greg Carr

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:47:07 PM11/15/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:26:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>http://www.avg.com
A legitimate charity that all the Clinton's hold leadership roles in
and allow them to continue to play a major role on the international
stage even though out of power. Special prosecuter needed the honest
Democrats have nothing to fear.

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 8:47:56 PM11/15/17
to
So what if they have leadership roles?

Seriously: so what?

Rudy Canoza

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 9:12:57 PM11/15/17
to
On 11/15/2017 5:47 PM, Greg Carr wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:26:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2017 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was debunked long ago.
>>>
>>> STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
>>> dollars.
>>
>> No, they didn't, cocksucker. Their foundation - a legitimate charity -
>> received it.
>>
> A legitimate charity that all the Clinton's [sic] hold leadership roles in

No.

*Clintons*, not "Clinton's", you fucking cocksucker. You don't form a
plural by using an apostrophe followed by an 's'.

Fuck, you're stupid.

Greg Carr

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 9:49:03 PM11/15/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:47:55 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
So what? That could lead to mor einfluence for them, more fame, more
salary. HRC said they were broke when they left the White House.

In any case who cares. We are Canadians here in can.politics you
argumentative person.

M.I.Wakefield

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 9:49:24 PM11/15/17
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message news:ouipei$pqm$1...@news.datemas.de...
The "scandal" only makes sense if the Clintons have a time machine, in which
case the scandal is "Why aren't the Clintons sharing their time machine
technology?"

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 9:51:08 PM11/15/17
to
I didn't start the argument here...

...and you contributed yourself, didn't you?

M.I.Wakefield

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 9:53:40 PM11/15/17
to
"Greg Carr" wrote in message
news:q7rp0d95fu039pvke...@4ax.com...

> Let the special prosecutor figure it out.

No need for a special prosecutor - the FBI and Justice department are
perfectly capable of carrying out an investigation. A special prosecutor is
only needed when there is a risk of outside interference in the
investigation, like when the administration is being investigated.

AlleyCat

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 11:02:33 PM11/15/17
to

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker says...

> Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
> had for 5 years when he made the donation.

So you admit... he DID have an interest?

Lemme fiss it fo you.

"Except he (Giustra) HADN'T had an interest in Uranium One for 5 years
when he made the donation."

Better?

So fucking WHAT? Does THAT matter? Fuck no. Back scratching is back
scratching. It doesn't MATTER that this particular back hadn't itched in 5
years... these "people" do each other "favors" for each other all the
time.

THIS was posted by THE NEW YORK TIMES in 2015 and has since NOT been
retracted. If all the money given to the Clinton Foundation, in the wake
of the Uranium One deal, has nothing to DO with it, then WHY would The New
York Times keep THIS article up for all to see?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-
as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

For the moment, we'll forget Giustra.

=====

"Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations
totaling $2.35 million."

Uhhh... WHY would he donate the the Clinton Foundation... out of the
goodness of his heart? How much is HE worth?

> And he's (Giustra) worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.

OK... a drop in the bucket, huh? How often do YOU give 10% of your TOTAL
worth to anything? 10% of net worth? That's almost NEVER done, so why THIS
guy? You think it's just a coincidence that THIS guy gave 10% of his
wealth to the Clintons, AFTER this deal. Will having $900 million make up
for that %100 million some day? Nope. He got something in return... you
KNOW it.

"Giustra has since (2005) committed more than $100 million to the work of
the Clinton Foundation, becoming one of the largest individual donors to
the family's charities. Clinton has also gained regular transportation,
borrowing Giustra's plane 26 times..." - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-clintons-a-luxury-jet-and-
their-100-million-donor/2015/05/03/688051d0-ecef-11e4-8abc-
d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?utm_term=.a3855e7ac628























Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 11:16:25 PM11/15/17
to
On 2017-11-15 8:02 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker says...
>
>> Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
>> had for 5 years when he made the donation.
>
> So you admit... he DID have an interest?

HAD: past tense.

>
> Lemme fiss it fo you.
>
> "Except he (Giustra) HADN'T had an interest in Uranium One for 5 years
> when he made the donation."
>
> Better?
>
> So fucking WHAT? Does THAT matter? Fuck no. Back scratching is back
> scratching. It doesn't MATTER that this particular back hadn't itched in 5
> years... these "people" do each other "favors" for each other all the
> time.

Except you can't show why he would have a motivation for it.

>
> THIS was posted by THE NEW YORK TIMES in 2015 and has since NOT been
> retracted. If all the money given to the Clinton Foundation, in the wake
> of the Uranium One deal, has nothing to DO with it, then WHY would The New
> York Times keep THIS article up for all to see?
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-
> as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
>
> For the moment, we'll forget Giustra.
>
> =====
>
> "Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations
> totaling $2.35 million."
>
> Uhhh... WHY would he donate the the Clinton Foundation... out of the
> goodness of his heart? How much is HE worth?

That would be YOUR job to show...

And what dates were those donations made?

>
>> And he's (Giustra) worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.
>
> OK... a drop in the bucket, huh? How often do YOU give 10% of your TOTAL
> worth to anything? 10% of net worth? That's almost NEVER done, so why THIS
> guy? You think it's just a coincidence that THIS guy gave 10% of his
> wealth to the Clintons, AFTER this deal. Will having $900 million make up
> for that %100 million some day? Nope. He got something in return... you
> KNOW it.

I don't have a 1.1 billion dollars, but if I did, yeah: I might just
donate 10% of it.

>
> "Giustra has since (2005) committed more than $100 million to the work of
> the Clinton Foundation, becoming one of the largest individual donors to
> the family's charities. Clinton has also gained regular transportation,
> borrowing Giustra's plane 26 times..." - The Washington Post

Yup. So?

>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-clintons-a-luxury-jet-and-
> their-100-million-donor/2015/05/03/688051d0-ecef-11e4-8abc-
> d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?utm_term=.a3855e7ac628


You conveniently left this out:

'In a rare interview, Giustra told The Washington Post recently that his
friendship with Bill Clinton has grown entirely out of their shared
interest in philanthropy — not business.

“I have one very specific reason I have a relationship with Bill
Clinton: I admire what he does, and I want to be part of it,” Giustra
said. “But I’ve never asked him for a damn thing.”'

And you've still not dealt with the ironclad fact that Clinton didn't
authorize this deal by herself.

MattB

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 11:19:31 PM11/15/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:43:57 -0800, Greg Carr <greg...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2017-11-15 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was debunked long ago.
>>>
>>> STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
>>> dollars. Does THAT seem like an appropriate amount from someone, even
>>> while being philanthropic?
>>>
>>> Uh... nope.
>>>
>>> THAT'S kickback money.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
>>had for 5 years when he made the donation.
>>
>>And he's worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.
>>
>>---
>>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>http://www.avg.com
>
>Let the special prosecutor figure it out. I'm surprised Trump's base
>let him wait this long but their stocks are up as are wages and
>employment numbers and Trump attended Chelsea's wedding and used to
>donate to the Democrats.

Trump used to be a Democrat. Now he is all about ego.

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 15, 2017, 11:59:54 PM11/15/17
to
On 11/15/2017 7:53 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "Greg Carr"  wrote in message
> news:q7rp0d95fu039pvke...@4ax.com...
>
>> Let the special prosecutor figure it out.
>
> No need for a special prosecutor -


It's bad enough you are hopelessly ADDICTED to US politics, but your
propensity to outright LIE about them is sinful!

Grow a life, at least pretend to act like a patriotic Canucklehead (if
there is such a thing).

You ignore your own simple dull nation, absorb your mind into ours.

Literally you dismiss your own walk-in beer cooler of a country as
insignificant to the point you refuse to even engage in commentary or
analysis of your own politics.

You evince the classic Canuck "widdle brudda" mentality, always chasing
after the USA in a desperate attempt to coattail on OUR national affairs.

You demonstrate how bereft Canucks are of any national pride and how
desperately you need to use the USA as a whipping post to excuse
yourselves from your own national blunders and dearth of presence on the
global stage.

It must SUCK to be a Canuck, for sure!

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 10:29:23 AM11/16/17
to
On 11/15/2017 7:49 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "Alan Baker"  wrote in message news:ouipei$pqm$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> On 2017-11-15 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
>> > THAT'S kickback money.
>
>> Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
>> had for 5 years when he made the donation.
>>
>> And he's worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.
>
> The "scandal" only makes sense

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 10:30:37 AM11/16/17
to
On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.

Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!

She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 10:31:28 AM11/16/17
to
A witless compound statement.

He has been "all about ego" from his childhood.

Grow up, fool.

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 12:23:50 PM11/16/17
to
On 2017-11-16 7:30 AM, wulfenite wrote:
> On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.
>
> Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!

Nope. That's a FACT. CFIUS unanimously approved the deal; 9 different US
government agencies of which State was only one, and according to the
deputy secretary, Clinton wasn't even involved in the case.

>
> She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!

Nope.

Leo Sgouros

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 12:35:53 PM11/16/17
to
On Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 11:23:50 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-11-16 7:30 AM, wulfenite wrote:
> > On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.
> >
> > Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!
>
> Nope. That's a FACT. CFIUS unanimously approved the deal; 9 different US
> government agencies of which State was only one, and according to the
> deputy secretary, Clinton wasn't even involved in the case.
>

If a bunch of people do something idiotic,how does it become a brilliant idea.

The United States imports most of the uranium it uses as fuel
Owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased the equivalent of 50.6 million pounds of uranium in 2016. About 11% of the uranium delivered to U.S. reactors in 2016 was produced in the United States and 89% came from other countries.

Sources and shares of purchases of uranium produced in foreign countries in 2016:

Canada–25%
Kazakhstan–24%
Australia–20%
Russia–14%
Uzbekistan–4%
Malawi, Namibia, Niger, and South Africa–10%
Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Germany, and Ukraine–2%

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 3:28:22 PM11/16/17
to
On 11/16/2017 10:24 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-11-16 7:30 AM, wulfenite wrote:
>> On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.
>>
>> Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!
>
> Nope. That's a FACT. CFIUS unanimously approved the deal; 9 different US
> government agencies

BULLSHIT partisan BUREAUCRACY is NO excuse!

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium

Q: Did the US government approve the Rosatom purchase?

Due to the sensitivity of Rosatom’s investment in Uranium One, the deal
had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States. This body consists of nine senior US officials, including the
secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce,
and Energy, the attorney general, and two White House representatives.
They unanimously OK’d the transaction in 2010.

Under the Treasury Department regulations that established the Committee
on Foreign Investments, it can either approve a deal or recommend that
it be blocked. The power to actually stop a sale rests in the Oval
Office, according to the regulations. Only the president – in this case,
President Obama – has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered
transaction.


>>
>> She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!
>
> Nope.

Yep:

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of 20 percent of US
uranium supplies to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company.

The sale was greased by $145 million in contributions to the Clinton
Foundation from Canadian executives who benefited from the sale,
according to these allegations.

In 2010, Rosatom, a state-controlled agency that runs all aspects of
Russian nuclear power, purchased a controlling interest in a Canadian
mining company named Uranium One. This firm then owned, and still owns,
uranium mining rights in the United States.

At the time, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted that amount of
American uranium involved equaled about 20 percent of the “in-situ
recovery production capacity” in the country. Since then, the opening of
new capacity by other firms has reduced that figure to about 10 percent,
according to a lengthy investigation of Uranium One assets by The
Washington Post. And the US is far from the Saudi Arabia of uranium – in
2016, the US accounted for about 2 percent of world uranium extraction.

Q: Where do contributions to the Clinton Foundation come in?

The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations
from original investors in Uranium One, prior to its sale to Rosatom.
Furthermore, these donations were not disclosed at the time they were
made, according to a 2015 story in the New York Times. (The Times story
was based in part on research by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a
conservative think tank and author of the controversial 2015 book
“Clinton Cash.”)

Former President Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for speaking at a
Moscow conference organized by a Russian investment bank after the
Rosatom-Uranium One deal was announced, but before it passed muster with
the US Committee on Foreign Investments, according to the Times story.

Most of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations came from one
person, a major Uranium One investor named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra
has said that he sold all his shares in Uranium One about 1-1/2 years
before Mrs. Clinton became secretary of State – and three years before
Rosatom and its Russian cash came calling.


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

Connections between Clinton Foundation donors and Uranium One were first
published in 2015 by The New York Times, which based its reporting in
part on the book “Clinton Cash,” by Breitbart News senior
editor-at-large Peter Schweizer.

The allegations resurfaced last October, when The Hill reported that the
FBI was investigating Kremlin “bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States.”

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors

Donation Amount
Greater than $25,000,000

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 records.
Donor name
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)
Fred Eychaner and Alphawood Foundation
Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation
Nationale Postcode Loterij
The Children's Investment Fund Foundation
UNITAID

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 3:38:00 PM11/16/17
to
On 2017-11-16 12:28 PM, wulfenite wrote:
> On 11/16/2017 10:24 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2017-11-16 7:30 AM, wulfenite wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.
>>>
>>> Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!
>>
>> Nope. That's a FACT. CFIUS unanimously approved the deal; 9 different
>> US government agencies
>
> BULLSHIT partisan BUREAUCRACY  is NO excuse!

Sorry, but it proves that Clinton couldn't have made this deal pass no
matter how much money her foundation received.

>
> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>
>
> Q: Did the US government approve the Rosatom purchase?
>
> Due to the sensitivity of Rosatom’s investment in Uranium One, the deal
> had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
> States. This body consists of nine senior US officials, including the
> secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce,
> and Energy, the attorney general, and two White House representatives.
> They unanimously OK’d the transaction in 2010.
>
> Under the Treasury Department regulations that established the Committee
> on Foreign Investments, it can either approve a deal or recommend that
> it be blocked. The power to actually stop a sale rests in the Oval
> Office, according to the regulations. Only the president – in this case,
> President Obama – has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered
> transaction.

Right.

So you've just confirmed what I said.

>
>
>>>
>>> She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yep:
>
> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>
>
> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of 20 percent of US
> uranium supplies to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company.

Factually incorrect.

The approval wasn't hers to make: it was the CFIUS committee that
unanimously voted to approve the sale.

The sale wasn't "20 percent of US uranium supplies: it was the sale of a
controlling interest in a company that controlled 20% of the PRODUCTION
capacity. And any export of uranium was specifically prohibited.

>
> The sale was greased by $145 million in contributions to the Clinton
> Foundation from Canadian executives who benefited from the sale,
> according to these allegations.

Factually incorrect: the vast majority of the contributions were made by
an individual who benefited not at all from the sale, and made the the
contributions 18 months before Clinton became SoS.

>
> In 2010, Rosatom, a state-controlled agency that runs all aspects of
> Russian nuclear power, purchased a controlling interest in a Canadian
> mining company named Uranium One. This firm then owned, and still owns,
> uranium mining rights in the United States.

That is correct... ...except for getting the date wrong.

>
> At the time, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted that amount of
> American uranium involved equaled about 20 percent of the “in-situ
> recovery production capacity” in the country. Since then, the opening of
> new capacity by other firms has reduced that figure to about 10 percent,
> according to a lengthy investigation of Uranium One assets by The
> Washington Post. And the US is far from the Saudi Arabia of uranium – in
> 2016, the US accounted for about 2 percent of world uranium extraction.

Disproving the earlier statement about "uranium supplies".

>
> Q: Where do contributions to the Clinton Foundation come in?
>
> The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations
> from original investors in Uranium One, prior to its sale to Rosatom.
> Furthermore, these donations were not disclosed at the time they were
> made, according to a 2015 story in the New York Times. (The Times story
> was based in part on research by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a
> conservative think tank and author of the controversial 2015 book
> “Clinton Cash.”)

Neglecting to mention that most of it came from someone who had no stake
in Uranium One when he made the donation.

>
> Former President Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for speaking at a
> Moscow conference organized by a Russian investment bank after the
> Rosatom-Uranium One deal was announced, but before it passed muster with
> the US Committee on Foreign Investments, according to the Times story.

Which is moot (look it up) because the decision wasn't Hillary Clinton's
to make.

>
> Most of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations came from one
> person, a major Uranium One investor named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra
> has said that he sold all his shares in Uranium One about 1-1/2 years
> before Mrs. Clinton became secretary of State – and three years before
> Rosatom and its Russian cash came calling.

Exactly.

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 4:34:54 PM11/16/17
to
On 11/16/2017 1:37 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-11-16 12:28 PM, wulfenite wrote:
>> On 11/16/2017 10:24 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> On 2017-11-16 7:30 AM, wulfenite wrote:
>>>> On 11/15/2017 9:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> Clinton didn't authorize this deal by herself.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, contortions all to protect a corrupt dumpling!
>>>
>>> Nope. That's a FACT. CFIUS unanimously approved the deal; 9 different
>>> US government agencies
>>
>> BULLSHIT partisan BUREAUCRACY  is NO excuse!
>
> Sorry, but it proves that Clinton couldn't have made this deal pass no
> matter how much money her foundation received.

Nope.


‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

>>
>> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>>
>>
>> Q: Did the US government approve the Rosatom purchase?
>>
>> Due to the sensitivity of Rosatom’s investment in Uranium One, the
>> deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the
>> United States. This body consists of nine senior US officials,
>> including the secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland
>> Security, Commerce, and Energy, the attorney general, and two White
>> House representatives. They unanimously OK’d the transaction in 2010.
>>
>> Under the Treasury Department regulations that established the
>> Committee on Foreign Investments, it can either approve a deal or
>> recommend that it be blocked. The power to actually stop a sale rests
>> in the Oval Office, according to the regulations. Only the president –
>> in this case, President Obama – has the authority to suspend or
>> prohibit a covered transaction.
>
> Right.

Yes, another Obummer dagger in the heart of America.

>
> So you've just confirmed what I said.

Oh, are you an Obummer hater too?

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yep:
>>
>> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>>
>>
>> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of 20 percent of
>> US uranium supplies to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company.
>
> Factually incorrect.
>
> The approval wasn't hers to make: it was the CFIUS committee that
> unanimously voted to approve the sale.

Again:

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

> The sale wasn't "20 percent of US uranium supplies: it was the sale of a
> controlling interest in a company that controlled 20% of the PRODUCTION
> capacity. And any export of uranium was specifically prohibited.
>
>>
>> The sale was greased by $145 million in contributions to the Clinton
>> Foundation from Canadian executives who benefited from the sale,
>> according to these allegations.
>
> Factually incorrect: the vast majority of the contributions were made by
> an individual who benefited not at all from the sale, and made the the
> contributions 18 months before Clinton became SoS.

Wrong:

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

>>
>> In 2010, Rosatom, a state-controlled agency that runs all aspects of
>> Russian nuclear power, purchased a controlling interest in a Canadian
>> mining company named Uranium One. This firm then owned, and still
>> owns, uranium mining rights in the United States.
>
> That is correct... ...except for getting the date wrong.

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

>>
>> At the time, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted that amount of
>> American uranium involved equaled about 20 percent of the “in-situ
>> recovery production capacity” in the country. Since then, the opening
>> of new capacity by other firms has reduced that figure to about 10
>> percent, according to a lengthy investigation of Uranium One assets by
>> The Washington Post. And the US is far from the Saudi Arabia of
>> uranium – in 2016, the US accounted for about 2 percent of world
>> uranium extraction.
>
> Disproving the earlier statement about "uranium supplies".

Semantic gish gallop.

>>
>> Q: Where do contributions to the Clinton Foundation come in?
>>
>> The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations
>> from original investors in Uranium One, prior to its sale to Rosatom.
>> Furthermore, these donations were not disclosed at the time they were
>> made, according to a 2015 story in the New York Times. (The Times
>> story was based in part on research by Peter Schweizer, a former
>> fellow at a conservative think tank and author of the controversial
>> 2015 book “Clinton Cash.”)
>
> Neglecting to mention that most of it came from someone who had no stake
> in Uranium One when he made the donation.

Wrong.

Rosatom announced its acquisition plans on June 8, 2010. While Hillary
weighed this deal, Bill scored $500,000 for his address that June 29 to
Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-tied bank that endorsed Rosatom’s move.
Before, during, and after CFIUS’s deliberations, nine Uranium One
investors gave the Clinton Foundation some $145 million. Ultimately,
CFIUS approved the Kremlin’s transaction, on October 23, 2010. Moscow’s
funny money spanned continents, according to Circa.com’s Sara Carter. As
she reported: The bribery schemes included delivering thousands of
dollars in yellow envelopes, laundering tens of thousands of dollars in
briefcases or wiring thousands of dollars through shell companies
through the Seychelles Islands, Latvia, Cyprus, and Switzerland, to name
a few. Even worse, despite lacking an export license, Uranium One
reportedly shipped uranium out of America. Destination: Unknown.

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

>>
>> Former President Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for speaking at a
>> Moscow conference organized by a Russian investment bank after the
>> Rosatom-Uranium One deal was announced, but before it passed muster
>> with the US Committee on Foreign Investments, according to the Times
>> story.
>
> Which is moot (look it up) because the decision wasn't Hillary Clinton's
> to make.

You LIE again!

Again:

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

>>
>> Most of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations came from one
>> person, a major Uranium One investor named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra
>> has said that he sold all his shares in Uranium One about 1-1/2 years
>> before Mrs. Clinton became secretary of State – and three years before
>> Rosatom and its Russian cash came calling.
>
> Exactly.

Again:

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning
>
>>
>>
>> https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895
>>
>>
>> Connections between Clinton Foundation donors and Uranium One were
>> first published in 2015 by The New York Times, which based its
>> reporting in part on the book “Clinton Cash,” by Breitbart News senior
>> editor-at-large Peter Schweizer.
>>
>> The allegations resurfaced last October, when The Hill reported that
>> the FBI was investigating Kremlin “bribery, kickbacks, extortion and
>> money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy
>> business inside the United States.”
>>
>> https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
>>
>> Donation Amount
>> Greater than $25,000,000
>>
>> Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 records.
>> Donor name
>> Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
>> Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)
>> Fred Eychaner and Alphawood Foundation
>> Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation
>> Nationale Postcode Loterij
>> The Children's Investment Fund Foundation
>> UNITAID
>

Again:

‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
decision to Moscow.”

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning


Even worse, despite lacking an export license, Uranium One reportedly
shipped uranium out of America. Destination: Unknown. Remember: Uranium
is a main ingredient in atomic bombs. Why would the Obama-Clinton
administration let Russia have even a firecracker’s worth of American
uranium? This is the $145 million question.

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

Alan Baker

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 6:08:11 PM11/16/17
to
None of which changes the fact that Clinton lacked the power to approve
the deal and that the 8 other agencies involved in CFIUS approved it as
well.

>
>
>>>
>>> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>>>
>>>
>>> Q: Did the US government approve the Rosatom purchase?
>>>
>>> Due to the sensitivity of Rosatom’s investment in Uranium One, the
>>> deal had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in
>>> the United States. This body consists of nine senior US officials,
>>> including the secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland
>>> Security, Commerce, and Energy, the attorney general, and two White
>>> House representatives. They unanimously OK’d the transaction in 2010.
>>>
>>> Under the Treasury Department regulations that established the
>>> Committee on Foreign Investments, it can either approve a deal or
>>> recommend that it be blocked. The power to actually stop a sale rests
>>> in the Oval Office, according to the regulations. Only the president
>>> – in this case, President Obama – has the authority to suspend or
>>> prohibit a covered transaction.
>>
>> Right.
>
> Yes, another Obummer dagger in the heart of America.
>
>>
>> So you've just confirmed what I said.
>
> Oh, are you an Obummer hater too?

You've revealed your intellectual level.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> She PROFITED handsomely from it, you abject MORON!
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep:
>>>
>>> https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>>>
>>>
>>> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton approved the sale of 20 percent of
>>> US uranium supplies to Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear company.
>>
>> Factually incorrect.
>>
>> The approval wasn't hers to make: it was the CFIUS committee that
>> unanimously voted to approve the sale.
>
> Again:
>
> ‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
> officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
> laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
> inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
> report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
> indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
> millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
> Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
> decision to Moscow.”
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

None of which makes Clinton able to have approved this deal.

>
>
>> The sale wasn't "20 percent of US uranium supplies: it was the sale of
>> a controlling interest in a company that controlled 20% of the
>> PRODUCTION capacity. And any export of uranium was specifically
>> prohibited.
>>
>>>
>>> The sale was greased by $145 million in contributions to the Clinton
>>> Foundation from Canadian executives who benefited from the sale,
>>> according to these allegations.
>>
>> Factually incorrect: the vast majority of the contributions were made
>> by an individual who benefited not at all from the sale, and made the
>> the contributions 18 months before Clinton became SoS.
>
> Wrong:
>
> ‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
> officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
> laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
> inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
> report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
> indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
> millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
> Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
> decision to Moscow.”
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

Absolutely not wrong. Frank Giustra gave something like $131 million of
that...

...and he donated it 18 months before Clinton was SoS...

...and long after he had no pecuniary interest in Uranium One's sale.

Sorry.

>
>
>>>
>>> In 2010, Rosatom, a state-controlled agency that runs all aspects of
>>> Russian nuclear power, purchased a controlling interest in a Canadian
>>> mining company named Uranium One. This firm then owned, and still
>>> owns, uranium mining rights in the United States.
>>
>> That is correct... ...except for getting the date wrong.
>
> ‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
> officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
> laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
> inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
> report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
> indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
> millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
> Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
> decision to Moscow.”
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

Non-responsive...

>
>
>>>
>>> At the time, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted that amount
>>> of American uranium involved equaled about 20 percent of the “in-situ
>>> recovery production capacity” in the country. Since then, the opening
>>> of new capacity by other firms has reduced that figure to about 10
>>> percent, according to a lengthy investigation of Uranium One assets
>>> by The Washington Post. And the US is far from the Saudi Arabia of
>>> uranium – in 2016, the US accounted for about 2 percent of world
>>> uranium extraction.
>>
>> Disproving the earlier statement about "uranium supplies".
>
> Semantic gish gallop.

Nope.

>
>>>
>>> Q: Where do contributions to the Clinton Foundation come in?
>>>
>>> The Clinton Foundation received $145 million in pledges and donations
>>> from original investors in Uranium One, prior to its sale to Rosatom.
>>> Furthermore, these donations were not disclosed at the time they were
>>> made, according to a 2015 story in the New York Times. (The Times
>>> story was based in part on research by Peter Schweizer, a former
>>> fellow at a conservative think tank and author of the controversial
>>> 2015 book “Clinton Cash.”)
>>
>> Neglecting to mention that most of it came from someone who had no
>> stake in Uranium One when he made the donation.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Rosatom announced its acquisition plans on June 8, 2010. While Hillary
> weighed this deal, Bill scored $500,000 for his address that June 29 to
> Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-tied bank that endorsed Rosatom’s move.
> Before, during, and after CFIUS’s deliberations, nine Uranium One
> investors gave the Clinton Foundation some $145 million. Ultimately,
> CFIUS approved the Kremlin’s transaction, on October 23, 2010. Moscow’s
> funny money spanned continents, according to Circa.com’s Sara Carter. As
> she reported: The bribery schemes included delivering thousands of
> dollars in yellow envelopes, laundering tens of thousands of dollars in
> briefcases or wiring thousands of dollars through shell companies
> through the Seychelles Islands, Latvia, Cyprus, and Switzerland, to name
> a few. Even worse, despite lacking an export license, Uranium One
> reportedly shipped uranium out of America. Destination: Unknown.

Which doesn't refute the fact that most of the money came from someone
with no pecuniary interest in the deal getting done.

>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning
>
>
>>>
>>> Former President Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for speaking at
>>> a Moscow conference organized by a Russian investment bank after the
>>> Rosatom-Uranium One deal was announced, but before it passed muster
>>> with the US Committee on Foreign Investments, according to the Times
>>> story.
>>
>> Which is moot (look it up) because the decision wasn't Hillary
>> Clinton's to make.
>
> You LIE again!
>

No. I do not.

> Again:
>
> ‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
> officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
> laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
> inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
> report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
> indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
> millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
> Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
> decision to Moscow.”
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning
>

Sorry, but none of that changes that Clinton did not have the power to
approve this deal. Or that 8 other agencies all approved it.

>
>>>
>>> Most of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations came from
>>> one person, a major Uranium One investor named Frank Giustra. Mr.
>>> Giustra has said that he sold all his shares in Uranium One about
>>> 1-1/2 years before Mrs. Clinton became secretary of State – and three
>>> years before Rosatom and its Russian cash came calling.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Again:
>
> ‘The FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry
> officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money
> laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business
> inside the United States,” The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann
> report. They add that an eyewitness, with corroborating documents,
> indicates that, starting in 2009, “Russian nuclear officials had routed
> millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President
> Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State
> Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable
> decision to Moscow.”
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

Again: non-responsive.
Again: non-responsive.

>
>
>
> Even worse, despite lacking an export license, Uranium One reportedly
> shipped uranium out of America. Destination: Unknown. Remember: Uranium
> is a main ingredient in atomic bombs. Why would the Obama-Clinton
> administration let Russia have even a firecracker’s worth of American
> uranium? This is the $145 million question.
>
> Read more at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/clinton-foundation-russian-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

Remember: Russia has huge reserves of uranium in Russia...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves>

Note Russia's reserves are nearly 3 times the US figure.

AlleyCat

unread,
Nov 16, 2017, 7:06:31 PM11/16/17
to

On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:16:23 -0800, Alan Baker says...

>
> On 2017-11-15 8:02 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker says...
> >
> >> Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
> >> had for 5 years when he made the donation.
> >
> > So you admit... he DID have an interest?
>
> HAD: past tense.

So? After what he and Clinton did together, you think he's ONLY in it for
philanthropic reasons? Uh, no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

Again... a New York Times article NOT retracted in any way.

=====

"In addition to his initial contribution of $100 million Giustra pledged
to contribute half of his future earnings from mining to the
initiative." - wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One#History

So... you think Giustra was TOTALLY divested of Uranium One and it's
stock? I'm a gonna say, a no.

> > So fucking WHAT? Does THAT matter? Fuck no. Back scratching is back
> > scratching. It doesn't MATTER that this particular back hadn't itched in 5
> > years... these "people" do each other "favors" for each other all the
> > time.
>
> Except you can't show why he would have a motivation for it.

LOL... really? You think Giustra's and Clinton's "relationship" ended
after the donation? Hardly. See above.

Besides, it's not *MY* job to show anything, doofus... that's for the
investigators.

> >
> > THIS was posted by THE NEW YORK TIMES in 2015 and has since NOT been
> > retracted. If all the money given to the Clinton Foundation, in the wake
> > of the Uranium One deal, has nothing to DO with it, then WHY would The New
> > York Times keep THIS article up for all to see?
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-
> > as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Stunned disbelief noted.

> > For the moment, we'll forget Giustra.
> >
> > =====
> >
> > "Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations
> > totaling $2.35 million."
> >
> > Uhhh... WHY would he donate the the Clinton Foundation... out of the
> > goodness of his heart? How much is HE worth?
>
> That would be YOUR job to show...

Again, no. *I* know his intentions, YOU know his intentions... but you
have that well-known disease... liberalism, which renders you totally
incapable of believing the truth about anything that makes a Democrat look
like the crooks they are.

> And what dates were those donations made?

LOL... seriously? I'm not doing the legwork for you, you lazy Democrat.
Are you on welfare, like so many of your fellow liberals?

Use a fucking search engine, dumb ass. It's plastered on about 2 MILLION
and 40 THOUSAND different websites and articles.

https://i.imgur.com/AU2ag0F.jpg

> >
> >> And he's (Giustra) worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.
> >
> > OK... a drop in the bucket, huh? How often do YOU give 10% of your TOTAL
> > worth to anything? 10% of net worth? That's almost NEVER done, so why THIS
> > guy? You think it's just a coincidence that THIS guy gave 10% of his
> > wealth to the Clintons, AFTER this deal. Will having $900 million make up
> > for that %100 million some day? Nope. He got something in return... you
> > KNOW it.
>
> I don't have a 1.1 billion dollars, but if I did, yeah: I might just
> donate 10% of it.

No, you wouldn't... you're fucking rationalizing.

> >
> > "Giustra has since (2005) committed more than $100 million to the work of
> > the Clinton Foundation, becoming one of the largest individual donors to
> > the family's charities. Clinton has also gained regular transportation,
> > borrowing Giustra's plane 26 times..." - The Washington Post
>
> Yup. So?

You wanted dates... there's your fucking dates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One#History

> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-clintons-a-luxury-jet-and-
> > their-100-million-donor/2015/05/03/688051d0-ecef-11e4-8abc-
> > d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?utm_term=.a3855e7ac628
>
>
> You conveniently left this out:
>
> 'In a rare interview, Giustra told The Washington Post recently that his
> friendship with Bill Clinton has grown entirely out of their shared
> interest in philanthropy ? not business.

LOL... and no one EVER lies to cover their asses. Are you REALLY that
naive?

> ?I have one very specific reason I have a relationship with Bill
> Clinton: I admire what he does, and I want to be part of it,? Giustra
> said. ?But I?ve never asked him for a damn thing.?'

> And you've still not dealt with the ironclad fact that Clinton didn't
> authorize this deal by herself.

Ummm... that has NOT been written about in this thread, so quit acting
like a liberal and introducing "facts" not yet in evidence.

No, she probably didn't have her signature on the "authorization" papers,
but I'll guarantee you, she had her mittens and fingerprints all over the
deal.

You don't HAVE to be the "signer"... just an abler.

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 9:53:09 PM11/19/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 19:20:47 -0600, AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

>
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>> It was debunked long ago.
>
>STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
>dollars. Does THAT seem like an appropriate amount from someone, even
>while being philanthropic?
>
>Uh... nope.

This top ton list from Wikipedia is interesting. The *smallest*
spending philanthropist gave away a billion dollars.

Bill Gates alone donated $35B to charity.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists#Greatest_philanthropists_by_amount_of_USD>

One of the more interesting entries: Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal gave
away $3.5B

As I recall, some years ago, Ted Turner gave away several hundred
million dollars.

How's that crow taste, asshole?

Swill
--
DNC issues are presented as equivalent to criminal allegations
against Donny and friends. The problem is nothing in the Democrat
kertuffle is alleged to be illegal. However unsavoury it
sounds, it's Democrats fighting with Democrats and doesn't
involve the general public. The allegations against Donny
and friends do involve crimes against the people of the
republic. - Siri Cruise

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 9:55:57 PM11/19/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:53:38 -0500, "M.I.Wakefield" wrote:

>"Greg Carr" wrote
>> Let the special prosecutor figure it out.
>
>No need for a special prosecutor - the FBI and Justice department are
>perfectly capable of carrying out an investigation. A special prosecutor is
>only needed when there is a risk of outside interference in the
>investigation, like when the administration is being investigated.

Or when the individual being investigated engages in obstruction. Like
firing the chief investigator.

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 10:00:04 PM11/19/17
to
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 09:24:17 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:
Didn't get a dime. The Clintons don't take salaries from the
foundation. Its money is spent supporting charitable endeavors world
wide. The Clintons made their money selling books and speaking for
whoever will pay their fees.

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 10:01:09 PM11/19/17
to
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13:28:20 -0700, wulfenite <b...@tva.ee> wrote:

>https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1114/What-s-the-real-story-behind-Hillary-Clinton-Russia-and-uranium
>
>Q: Did the US government approve the Rosatom purchase?
>
>Due to the sensitivity of Rosatom’s investment in Uranium One, the deal
>had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
>States. This body consists of nine senior US officials, including the
>secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce,
>and Energy, the attorney general, and two White House representatives.
>They unanimously OK’d the transaction in 2010.
>
>Under the Treasury Department regulations that established the Committee
>on Foreign Investments, it can either approve a deal or recommend that
>it be blocked. The power to actually stop a sale rests in the Oval
>Office, according to the regulations. Only the president – in this case,
>President Obama – has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered
>transaction.

And what did that approval get them? The rights to mine uranium in
the US for domestic consumption.

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 11:08:41 PM11/19/17
to
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:06:21 -0600, AlleyCat <a...@aohell.com> wrote:

>
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 20:16:23 -0800, Alan Baker says...
>
>>
>> On 2017-11-15 8:02 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:25:37 -0800, Alan Baker says...
>> >
>> >> Except he (Giustra) didn't have an interest in Uranium One and hadn't
>> >> had for 5 years when he made the donation.
>> >
>> > So you admit... he DID have an interest?
>>
>> HAD: past tense.
>
>So? After what he and Clinton did together, you think he's ONLY in it for
>philanthropic reasons? Uh, no.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html
>
>Again... a New York Times article NOT retracted in any way.

The only mention of Russia in this article has to do with a Russian
expat working out of London. He, apparently, was helpful in getting
some Kazakh connections for UrAsia, a Canadian uranium mining company
interested in expanding into Kazakhstan.

>=====
>
>"In addition to his initial contribution of $100 million Giustra pledged
>to contribute half of his future earnings from mining to the
>initiative." - wiki
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One#History

You should have read your cite more carefully. It specifically states
that Giustra never owned any interest in Uranium One. It notes only
that in 2007, Giustra sold his interest in another Canadian mining
company, UrAsia to Uranium One.

"In 2007 Uranium One acquired a controlling interest in UrAsia
Energy,[4] a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver, from Frank
Giustra.[5]"

(take note: this means that Uranium One bought UrAsia FROM Giustra
two years before Clinton became Sec State)

UrAsia Energy has interests in rich uranium operations in
Kazakhstan.[6]"

Were you able to follow that? Frank Giustra (the guy who donated
$130M to the Clinton foundation over several years) sold his uranium
mining interests (UrAsia) *to* Uranium One, another Canadian mining
company. Giustra did not own any of Uranium One and in fact had
divested himself of his mining interests in 2007 long before Clinton
became Sec State.

>
>So... you think Giustra was TOTALLY divested of Uranium One and it's
>stock? I'm a gonna say, a no.

Yet the article you cited as evidence of this clearly states that
Giustra didn't own any of Uranium One, that he owned an interest in
*another* mining company and sold that interest to Uranium One in
2007.

>> > So fucking WHAT? Does THAT matter? Fuck no. Back scratching is back
>> > scratching. It doesn't MATTER that this particular back hadn't itched in 5
>> > years... these "people" do each other "favors" for each other all the
>> > time.
>>
>> Except you can't show why he would have a motivation for it.
>
>LOL... really? You think Giustra's and Clinton's "relationship" ended
>after the donation? Hardly. See above.
>
>Besides, it's not *MY* job to show anything, doofus... that's for the
>investigators.
>
>> >
>> > THIS was posted by THE NEW YORK TIMES in 2015 and has since NOT been
>> > retracted. If all the money given to the Clinton Foundation, in the wake
>> > of the Uranium One deal, has nothing to DO with it, then WHY would The New
>> > York Times keep THIS article up for all to see?
>> >
>> > https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-
>> > as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

As evidence that Uranium One bore no relation to the Clintons or their
foundation. In fact, "Russia" is mentioned only once in the entire
piece.

"For Cameco, it took five years to “build the right connections” in
Kazakhstan, Mr. Grandey said. UrAsia did not have that luxury.
Profitability depended on striking before the price of uranium soared.

“Timing was everything,” said Sergey Kurzin, a Russian-born
businessman whose London-based company was brought into the deal by
UrAsia because of his connections in Kazakhstan. Even with those
connections, Mr. Kurzin said, it took four months to arrange a meeting
with Kazatomprom."

Iow, Uranium One had nothing to do with Giustra, Russia or even
Kazakhstan.

Again, no connection to the Clintons, Uranium One or Russia.

>Stunned disbelief noted.
>
>> > For the moment, we'll forget Giustra.
>> >
>> > =====
>> >
>> > "Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations
>> > totaling $2.35 million."
>> >
>> > Uhhh... WHY would he donate the the Clinton Foundation... out of the
>> > goodness of his heart?

Certainly. That's what philanthropy is. The Clinton Foundation
supports charitable operations around the world and attracts
philanthropists from all over the world because they're very efficient
at distributing that money to charity.

> How much is HE worth?

Since you pretend to know everything else, why don't you tell us?

>> That would be YOUR job to show...
>
>Again, no. *I* know his intentions,

Oh, I see. You have some special insight into his brain that lets you
know what he's thinking at any given moment? You're absolutely sure
that nobody, no matter how rich, ever gives money to charity freely
and without strings?

This is why Clinton Cash falls apart during even the most cursory
inspection. It's based on such tissue thin assumptions as yours
above.

Bill Gates gave away $35 BILLION.
Andrew Carnegie, who died in 1919 gave away almost $10 billion at the
turn of the 20th century.
Ted Turner (Superstation TBS) gave the UN a billion dollars.
The Woodruff family of Atlanta (one brother owned Coca Cola, the
other, Trust Company Bank) gave away tens of millions over the years
including financing a new, modern annex to Atlanta's High Museum.
https://www.woodruffcenter.org/

A short list of philanthropists who gave over a billion to charity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists#Greatest_philanthropists_by_amount_of_USD

So yes, rich people do just 'give away their money' to charity.

>YOU know his intentions... but you
>have that well-known disease... liberalism, which renders you totally
>incapable of believing the truth about anything that makes a Democrat look
>like the crooks they are.
>
>> And what dates were those donations made?
>
>LOL... seriously? I'm not doing the legwork for you, you lazy Democrat.
>Are you on welfare, like so many of your fellow liberals?

Since you're making the accusations, it's up to you to prove them. As
they say, "innocent until proven guilty" and you have not proven
anything.

>Use a fucking search engine, dumb ass. It's plastered on about 2 MILLION
>and 40 THOUSAND different websites and articles.
>
>https://i.imgur.com/AU2ag0F.jpg

I've disproven the fundamental accusations you've made using *your own
links*.

>> >> And he's (Giustra) worth (AFTER the donation) $1 BILLION.
>> >
>> > OK... a drop in the bucket, huh? How often do YOU give 10% of your TOTAL
>> > worth to anything? 10% of net worth? That's almost NEVER done, so why THIS
>> > guy? You think it's just a coincidence that THIS guy gave 10% of his
>> > wealth to the Clintons, AFTER this deal. Will having $900 million make up
>> > for that %100 million some day? Nope. He got something in return... you
>> > KNOW it.

Repeating: It's very common actually. From Bill Gates $35B to Andrew
Carnegie's $10B and more besides. Donations in excess of $100 million
are not that unusual among the super rich. And anybody who's worth a
billion *after* giving away nine figures is clearly 'super rich'.

>> I don't have a 1.1 billion dollars, but if I did, yeah: I might just
>> donate 10% of it.
>
>No, you wouldn't... you're fucking rationalizing.

Why would you say that? What could you buy with a billion that you
couldn't buy with $900M? Are you so selfish and greedy that you
couldn't part with 10% of a billion dollar fortune to a worthy cause?

>> > "Giustra has since (2005) committed more than $100 million to the work of
>> > the Clinton Foundation, becoming one of the largest individual donors to
>> > the family's charities. Clinton has also gained regular transportation,
>> > borrowing Giustra's plane 26 times..." - The Washington Post
>>
>> Yup. So?
>
>You wanted dates... there's your fucking dates.

You give one year date that marks the start of his donations to the
Foundation. Note that date is 2005, years before Hillary became Sec
State, a year in which she was nothing more than a former First Lady
making a living off of speaking fees.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One#History
>
>> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-clintons-a-luxury-jet-and-
>> > their-100-million-donor/2015/05/03/688051d0-ecef-11e4-8abc-
>> > d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?utm_term=.a3855e7ac628
>>
>>
>> You conveniently left this out:
>>
>> 'In a rare interview, Giustra told The Washington Post recently that his
>> friendship with Bill Clinton has grown entirely out of their shared
>> interest in philanthropy ? not business.
>
>LOL... and no one EVER lies to cover their asses. Are you REALLY that
>naive?

Um, earlier in the thread that WAPO report was cited for evidence of
"Clinton Cash". And now you want to discredit it? Make up your mind.

>> ?I have one very specific reason I have a relationship with Bill
>> Clinton: I admire what he does, and I want to be part of it,? Giustra
>> said. ?But I?ve never asked him for a damn thing.?'
>
>> And you've still not dealt with the ironclad fact that Clinton didn't
>> authorize this deal by herself.
>
>Ummm... that has NOT been written about in this thread, so quit acting
>like a liberal and introducing "facts" not yet in evidence.

Um, that is what the thread is about! The continued claim that
Clinton got in her Time machine and went back two years to get a big
donation from somebody in exchange for helping a company that somebody
had no interest in in the first place.

>No, she probably didn't have her signature on the "authorization" papers,
>but I'll guarantee you, she had her mittens and fingerprints all over the
>deal.
>
>You don't HAVE to be the "signer"... just an abler.

Clinton Cash is nothing more than a game of "Six Degrees of Kevin
Bacon". You can connect *anybody* to *anything* eventually. And are
you really surprised that world leaders and the super rich hob nob all
over the globe? Are you that naive?

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 11:13:35 PM11/19/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:47:05 -0800, Greg Carr <greg...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 17:26:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
>wrote:
>
>>On 11/15/2017 5:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:26:57 -0800 (PST), Brent Hasselback says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-6, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It was debunked long ago.
>>>
>>> STILL doesn't fucking matter, shut-in. The Clintons received $145 MILLION
>>> dollars.
>>
>>No, they didn't, cocksucker. Their foundation - a legitimate charity -
>>received it.
>>
>>---
>>This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>http://www.avg.com
> A legitimate charity that all the Clinton's hold leadership roles in
>and allow them to continue to play a major role on the international
>stage even though out of power. Special prosecuter needed the honest
>Democrats have nothing to fear.

And why is that a problem? Some retirees play shuffleboard, some grow
oranges, still others restore boats or houses or rotate visits to
children and grandchildren and some just spend their days fishing. You
have an issue with someone devoting their retiree years to a charity
hobby?

Oh, one more thing. The Clintons don't take salaries from the
Foundation. Seeing as how they make a good living out of writing
books and speaking for fees, they *donate* their time.

Governor Swill

unread,
Nov 19, 2017, 11:15:32 PM11/19/17
to
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:49:01 -0800, Greg Carr <greg...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

>>> A legitimate charity that all the Clinton's hold leadership roles in
>>> and allow them to continue to play a major role on the international
>>> stage even though out of power. Special prosecuter needed the honest
>>> Democrats have nothing to fear.
>>>
>>
>>So what if they have leadership roles?
>>
>>Seriously: so what?
>
>So what? That could lead to mor einfluence for them, more fame, more
>salary. HRC said they were broke when they left the White House.

So what? They found something to occupy their time in retirement. And
they don't take salaries from the Foundation, they make their money
from books and speaking fees.

>In any case who cares. We are Canadians here in can.politics you
>argumentative person.

Then what difference can the Clintons retirement hobbies possibly make
to you?

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:47:31 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 9:15 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> what difference can the Clintons retirement hobbies possibly make
> to you?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/opinion/sunday/what-if-ken-starr-was-right.html?src=twr


In the longstanding liberal narrative about Bill Clinton and his
scandals, the one pushed by Clinton courtiers and ratified in media
coverage of his post-presidency, our 42nd president was only guilty of
being a horndog, his affairs were nobody’s business but his family’s,
and oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was a small thing that should never
have put his presidency in peril.

That narrative could not survive the current wave of outrage over male
sexual misconduct.

So now a new one may be forming for the age of Harvey Weinstein and
Donald Trump. In this story, Kenneth Starr and the Republicans are still
dismissed as partisan witch hunters. But liberals might be willing to
concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear
abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been
pressured to resign.

This new narrative lines up with what’s often been my own assessment of
the Clinton scandals. I have never been a Clinton hater; indeed, I’ve
always been a little mystified by the scale of Republican dislike for
the most centrist of recent Democratic leaders. So I’ve generally held
what I’ve considered a sensible middle-ground position on his sins —
that he should have stepped down when the Lewinsky affair came to light,
but that the Republican effort to impeach him was a hopeless attempt to
legislate against dishonor.

But a moment of reassessment is a good time to reassess things for
yourself, so I spent this week reading about the lost world of the
1990s. I skimmed the Starr Report. I leafed through books by George
Stephanopoulos and Joe Klein and Michael Isikoff. I dug into Troopergate
and Whitewater and other first-term scandals. I reacquainted myself with
Gennifer Flowers and Webb Hubbell, James Riady and Marc Rich.


After doing all this reading, I’m not sure my reasonable middle ground
is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s
were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really
deserved to be impeached.


Yes, the Republicans were too partisan, the Starr Report was too
prurient and Clinton’s haters generated various absurd conspiracy theories.

But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid, in ways that
should be thrown into particular relief by the absence of similar
scandals in the Obama administration, which had perfervid enemies and
circling investigators as well.

The sexual misconduct was the heart of things, but everything connected
to Clinton’s priapism was bad: the use of the perks of office to procure
women, willing and unwilling; the frequent use of that same power to buy
silence and bully victims; and yes, the brazen public lies and perjury.

Something like Troopergate, for instance, in which Arkansas state
troopers claimed to have served as Clinton’s panderers and been offered
jobs to buy their silence, is often recalled as just a right-wing hit
job. But if you read The Los Angeles Times’s reporting on the
allegations (which included phone records confirming the troopers’
account of a mistress Clinton was seeing during his presidential
transition) and Stephanopoulos’s portrayal of Clinton’s behavior in the
White House when the story broke, the story seems like it was probably
mostly true.

I have less confidence about what was real in the miasma of Whitewater.
But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A
president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a
mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then
committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought
forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the
president had raped her.

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a
question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of
power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual
harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially
when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend
to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity
to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?

There is a common liberal argument that our present polarization is the
result of constant partisan escalations on the right — the rise of Newt
Gingrich, the steady Hannitization of right-wing media.

Some of this is true. But returning to the impeachment imbroglio made me
think that in that case the most important escalators were the
Democrats. They had an opportunity, with Al Gore waiting in the wings,
to show a predator the door and establish some moral common ground for a
polarizing country.

And what they did instead — turning their party into an accessory to
Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing
victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser, all because
Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all
just Sexual McCarthyism — feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a
great act of partisan deformation.

For which, it’s safe to say, we have all been amply punished since.

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:47:51 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 9:13 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> Oh, one more thing. The Clintons don't take salaries

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:48:20 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 9:08 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> You give one year date that marks the start of his donations to the
> Foundation. Note that date is 2005


wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:49:23 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 8:01 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> And what did that approval get them?

wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:49:36 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 8:00 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> Didn't get a dime. The Clintons don't take salaries


wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:49:57 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 7:55 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> Like
> firing the chief investigator.
>
> Swill


wulfenite

unread,
Nov 20, 2017, 1:50:12 PM11/20/17
to
On 11/19/2017 7:53 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> How's that crow taste, asshole?


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages