https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/30/donald-trump-paul-manafort-ukraine-russia-putin-ties And platform planks calling for the arming of anti-Russian Ukrainian forces were removed from the Party Platform. A move Republican leaders found "disturbing" and "unusual".
Keep pushing this lefties, this is one of those obvious layups for the GOP that they will capitalize on in the debates and numerous attack ads. I can see the "truth v fiction" ads comparing Clinton's real problems to maybe some clips from the Rocky movie with Dolph Lundgren as the Great Russian Hope...or old Boris Badunov cartoons from Rocky and Bullwinkle, someone mentioned "moose and squirrel" here the other day. This Trump-Russia hoax is going to be counterproductive for the Democrats.
Dude...you're talking about a sale that had to be approved by nine separate agencies and in which the uranium STILL can't leave the country That's a huge false equivalency and a HUGE fail
The only fail is yours in setting up a red herring. The parties in question paid the Clinton Foundation several million dollars and Hillary Clinton a $500,000 speaking fee to get the deal through. What you posted above, "Dude," is utterly irrelevant to that crime of selling US interests for Clinton Cash, something the Clintons have done over and over to the tune of $120+ million in speaking fees since 2001. There is simply no way to rationalize that massive graft. They tried not to declare the Russian contribution to the Clinton Foundation, but got caught. Be honest with yourself, if not us, for once. Are you comfortable with a President who has a history of accepting tens of millions of dollars, enriching herself far far beyond the 1% in the US or even the .01%, from banks and other financial companies, special interests, countries we have conflicts with, etc.? If you can answer yes to that, I'd say your moral compass needs examining. Why not drop the tit for tat Trump Russia nonsense as exactly what it is a calculated projection and deflection. Is your own self-interest, whatever it may be, so unbridled that you would turn this country over to shakedown artists, incompetent ones at that?
I thought it was you, couldn't remember for sure, very funny and apropos of the "comic book" nature of these obvious red herrings the LW is peddling 100 times a day on Trump/Russia.
Just couldn't resist it. The PSM's act just like the dastardly cartoon characters and the GOP acts like Bull Winkle and Rocky. No one really gets anywhere....
We need better and more cooperative relation's with Russia. Russians aren't screaming Allahu Akbar and murdering American on our streets. Russians are red anymore and Trump is getting a surprising amount of support from the Pink. ~ New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker is alarmed by polls that suggest GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is seeing a rise in support from the gay community. Thats terrifying, Booker told the Washington Examiner after the Democratic National Convention. Donald Trump probably picked one of the most anti-gay vice presidential candidates weve had in a long time. Booker said Gov. Mike Pence, R-Ind., has been at the forefront of leading efforts he said unfairly discriminate against members of the LGBT community. The New Jersey senator went on to argue why he believes the Democratic Party is best for the gay community. Clearly we are the party of civil rights, workers rights, womens rights and definitely gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights, Booker said. ~ His bold assertions aside, it doesn't appear that what he says is true at all. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...g-gay-community-is-terrifying/article/2598161
Any sense of decency is long past. Democrats loved secret-stealing Russians when they called themselves Communists. http://spectator.org/wikileaks-crashes-the-party/
Hillary Clinton and the global elitists who control her want the Cold War back. It was extremely profitable.
Why would we arm Ukraine? Is that insane or what? Wkraine is NOT in NATO. The neocon elites absolutely want the Cold War back and so does Hillary Clinton. I don't. Do you?
The plank was to provide lethal arms to the legitimate government of Ukraine who are defending their country from Russian invasions into the pro-Russian traitor controlled regions. The legitimate Ukrainian forces are anti-Russian because there are pro-Russian traitors armed by Russia who are trying to destroy Ukrsine. Paul Maniforth the POS Trump,s campaign manager spent six months I Ukraine a couple three years ago consulting with the the SOB Pro-Russuan president of Ukraine v. Yankovich who thrown out of office for betraying Ukraine. The scum turd Yanukovich in now living in Russia where he is not respected because Russians will use traitors but not respect them. Rene very that Donald Beneduct Arnold Trump when you betray your country in favor of Russia they will use you but then spit at you since they have no respect for traitors- no one does.
You should ask your GOP because THAT was going to be part of their policy until Trump forced the change.' And of course "being nice" to Russia like that sure had the feel of payback for all the attacks on Dems the Russians have made via cyber and media. - - - Updated - - - I suppose you have no problem when Russia invades the Crimea right? trump won't say squat
Proof please! NO kook blogs please stick to recognized news outlets. The fail isn't on my part, Hillary ran her unsecure server eMailing numerous agencies including the White House and no one stopped her why would any of those 9 agencies want to say no to Hillary?
Hillary had her own nefarious tie with Russia while Secretary of State. Just like White House rooms were rented out during their stay in the White House, she also used her position as Secretary of State to fill her personal coffers with money in exchange for favors. The New York Times had a scathing article on her Uranium One deal with Putin. She prostituted the State department while she was there. Here is part of it: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIREAPRIL 23, 2015 The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the worlds largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain. But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one. At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clintons wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium Ones chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well. And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock. Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse Getty Images At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the companys assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show. The New York Timess examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book Clinton Cash. Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting. Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundations donors. In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clintons presidential campaign, said no one has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation. He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. governments review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless, he added. American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russias, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state. Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium Ones, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States. When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from todays. The Obama administration was seeking to reset strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatoms chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves, Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin. Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clintons office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States. Now, after Russias annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world. Should we be concerned? Absolutely, said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we dont. We dont want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.
