Deep State: Exposed

[WillyNilly]

No, simply pointing out that the timing does not dismiss the matter. 1.5 years advanced planning seems perfectly reasonable. Is that the only counter-argument. Lol. Kinda weak.

Of course timing is important. You're suggesting a quid pro quo scenario where the H. Clinton approved the Uranium One deal - which she didn't - and then a former Uranium One owner "paid" the Clinton's by donating to the Clinton foundation, right?. But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the donor had sold his entire stake in Uranium One 3 years before the Uranium One deal. So, where is the quid pro quo? How did the former Uranium One owner/donor benefit from the Uranium One deal?

 

[WillyNilly]

Oh, wait the sycophanticly corrupt FBI (under J Comey) investigated and surprise surprise found nothing.

There was no FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal - nothing to investigate. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Move on.

 

[moose eater]

Of course timing is important. You're suggesting a quid pro quo scenario where the H. Clinton approved the Uranium One deal - which she didn't - and then a former Uranium One owner "paid" the Clinton's by donating to the Clinton foundation, right?. But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the donor had sold his entire stake in Uranium One 3 years before the Uranium One deal. So, where is the quid pro quo? How did the former Uranium One owner/donor benefit from the Uranium One deal?

Perhaps, but ~3 years before the 2016 primaries, Hillary signed off on numerous arms deals (I believe 17 of them, including the Saudis) and this was, among other sources, reported in Time Magazine.

Most or all of those recipient countries contributed to the Clinton Foundation, and when queried about this, Hillary denied having anything to do with Administration at the Foundation during that time period,. but the leaked e-mails said differently.

Mainstream R, mainstream D, you say tomato, I say tomaaato, in most heavy-weight issues, whether oil, DoD, arms contractors, etc.

There were numerous times Hillary and Obama chose to over-look illegal arms trafficking, including by the Ruskies. Also leaked by WikiLeaks LONG before the primaries.

At the national level, not withstanding a small number of wild cards and independents, by the time we're offered a menu that's been set up by high-dollar interests for the primaries, we're offered a choice between cyanide and arsenic. I don't want EITHER of the scumbags.

They've all mostly sold us out, and have us arguing amongst ourselves as to whose team jersey is most colorful.

And NO ONE at the DNC has been prosecuted, or even charged with the money laundering that PROVABLY went on during the 2016 primaries. A friend attended the State Dems Exec. Committee meeting, while the '16 primaries were still a thing, Bernie was still in the race, and ahead at that time (in Alaska, Bernie caucused at 82%), and the State Director referenced the fund as 'The Hillary Fund' openly in the State Exec Committee meeting that got a vote of 'yay' for what was blatant money laundering and avoidance of campaign finance limits from all but one person on the executive committee.

"Burn down the mission, if you're gonna' stay alive." (Elton john)

 

[moose eater]

BTW, the FEC's investigative criminal enforcement arm is alleged to be stymied by partisan divides, making them nearly useless many times, much like many of the political discussions on these forums. However, the alleged money laundering, easily proven by bank records, meetings minutes and attendees who are -not- necessarily sold out or blinded to partisan-fueled lack of integrity, -are- available.

And it's my stance that once you enter into the realm of high-dollar laundering AND conspiracy, both of which are applicable terms in what is described, there's at least a small chance the FBI's Public Integrity Division's interest might be piqued, and if that day arrives, I will order pizza and beer for the hood, and might run flat-out naked through the local streets here, no matter how unattractive that image might be.

I'm told there's a 5-year statute of limitations on such felonies as those committed.

Re. the prosecution of the quid pro quo issues with arms deals, having witnessed Alaska putting away about 9 of our legislators on quid pro quo corruption charges (mostly oil patch related), circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it. There HAS to be a smoking gun in such cases. Maybe one day someone will fuck up sufficiently to drop one, from either side of this mayhem, and again, there'll be a HUGE party at my home..

 

[Badfishy1]

BTW, the FEC's investigative criminal enforcement arm is alleged to be stymied by partisan divides, making them nearly useless many times, much like many of the political discussions on these forums. However, the alleged money laundering, easily proven by bank records, meetings minutes and attendees who are -not- necessarily sold out or blinded to partisan-fueled lack of integrity, -are- available.

And it's my stance that once you enter into the realm of high-dollar laundering AND conspiracy, both of which are applicable terms in what is described, there's at least a small chance the FBI's Public Integrity Division's interest might be piqued, and if that day arrives, I will order pizza and beer for the hood, and might run flat-out naked through the local streets here, no matter how unattractive that image might be.

I'm told there's a 5-year statute of limitations on such felonies as those committed.

Re. the prosecution of the quid pro quo issues with arms deals, having witnessed Alaska putting away about 9 of our legislators on quid pro quo corruption charges (mostly oil patch related), circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it. There HAS to be a smoking gun in such cases. Maybe one day someone will fuck up sufficiently to drop one, from either side of this mayhem, and again, there'll be a HUGE party at my home..

Send an invite in my Christmas card please! Hope all is well sir

 

[moose eater]

All are invited, fishy. Everyone.

To be clear, I haven't and won't choose a side with the current options.

In my opinion, we have devolved to the extent that our options all consist of corporatist Oligarchy hand-puppets, -all- of whom are criminals.

But as a long-time criminal myself, and I would hope I don't take this stance strictly as a matter of personal absolution, I differentiate between Eric Garland, who sometimes sold cigarettes by the single at the subway to get by, but wasn't doing so when he was choked out, and I differentiate between those who sell some weed or some coke, or run an after-hours card house, or sell some uninspected milk or packaged barn-yard beef to get by.

No, the criminals I primarily loathe are those who steal life, who shit all over things that were supposed to be sacred, who fail to balance on the side of universal morality, versus Darth Vader-esque immorality, where it affects the processes that a free nation is supposed to rely on, who kill out of opportunism, wrapping it in the flag, but fail to send their own kids, asking us to send ours, who use their public servants' offices to enrich themselves and their families, who twist in ways that tilt the balance of the world, who kick others when they're down, and more actions of that magnitude. Those are the ones I loathe, and judge; they come with both Ds and Rs attached.. And I find them filling the ranks of the mainstream partisans every day, including those who pretend not to be mainstream, but are, even if only fringe mainstream...

I have no allegiance to them or their ilk, as they are not what I envision when I conjure images of the salt of the earth who make this place what it once might've been, and they have taken over our country, at the request and influence of globalists, for whom the entire world is merely their own personal five-and-dime store, blind to the fact that their actions will destroy us and this world, and they seem oblivious.. or just don't care.

I hate them for the dreams they kill, and the principles they soil, and the futures they take from our kids. And the fact that they do all of this while seemingly coated in Teflon.

I hold WAY too much bitterness toward these people for my own health's sake.

 

[Microbeman]

I hate them for the dreams they kill, and the principles they soil, and the futures they take from our kids

Kids and life itself.

 

[med4u]

do you hate them for rooting out and killing ISIS scum?

 

[Microbeman]

do you hate them for rooting out and killing ISIS scum?

Now that makes all kinds of sense doesn't it? Stop and think for a while about that statement.

 

[St. Phatty]

do you hate them for rooting out and killing ISIS scum?

That sort of sounds like what free range pigs do.

They snuffle around and eat roots as far as I can tell.

 

[moose eater]

I like truffles...

 

[Badfishy1]

do you hate them for rooting out and killing ISIS scum?

Can’t speak for others, but our ‘greatest ally’ in the ME is big mad we took out their asset instead of bombing Iran to oblivion. Not really sure why they are acting all gun shy about blasting Iran themselves, they had no problem blowing the USS liberty out of the water even knowing it was a US ship.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DanielEstrin/status/1188467012848291841

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Of course timing is important. You're suggesting a quid pro quo scenario where the H. Clinton approved the Uranium One deal - which she didn't - and then a former Uranium One owner "paid" the Clinton's by donating to the Clinton foundation, right?. But you're conveniently ignoring the fact that the donor had sold his entire stake in Uranium One 3 years before the Uranium One deal. So, where is the quid pro quo? How did the former Uranium One owner/donor benefit from the Uranium One deal?

I don't characterize it that way (quid pro quo) at all. It was more of a standard BCCI style money laundering strategic arms sale with a conflict of interest component.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

There was no FBI investigation into the Uranium One deal - nothing to investigate. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Move on.

It was lightly investigated by the FBI as part of the Clinton email scandal in 2016

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

Another week...where is the Horowitz FISA report?

minds_I

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Hello all,

Another week...where is the Horowitz FISA report?

minds_I

Patience, my friend.

 

[minds_I]

^^^^ yup, any day now, it will all boomerang and then avalanche

on a side note...just watching conald give a rally in Mississippi...looking at the crowd, looks like angry old white men pissed about their lot in life. It is hard to see from the camo gear though...just an observation.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

With many things in life, timing is important.

 

[White Beard]

No, simply pointing out that the timing does not dismiss the matter. 1.5 years advanced planning seems perfectly reasonable. Is that the only counter-argument. Lol. Kinda weak.

The timeline makes your ‘Biden conspiracy’ impossible.

Ukraine oil co investigated after the CEO ran away to Moscow with Yanukovych. Investigation closed, Biden jr not of interest.

Years later, NATO and others, called for the removal of a prosecutor who was letting current corruption go unchecked (Slotkin?), which was diverting aid to Ukraine. AFAIK, *he* is now in Moscow.

Not just completely unrelated, the two events would REQUIRE that the timelines overlap to support even a theoretical connection. Then there’s the absence of any factual basis. If you want to see a FISHING expedition, investigating Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine for political dirt on his dad would be just exactly that.

 

[White Beard]

With many things in life, timing is important.

Listening to you, one would believe you believe otherwise