Russian Nuclear Bribery investigation reveals millions routed to the Clintons

Well apparently, (so far anyways) Robert Mueller doesn't agree with your assertion.

What you believe (or what I believe for that matter) is irrelevant.

 

The Clinton Foundation isn't a front, pays no money at all to the Clintons, and is one of the better available charities out there.

The investigations into Trump have turned up damning evidence that we know about, and we don't know what else is out there that Mueller's investigation has turned up thus far.

I'm all for exposing corruption if the Clintons were involved or if anyone else for either party is involved. That being said, nothing in this article lessens all that we already know about Trump's campaign and their collusion or at least attempted collusion with the Russians.

 

Nor does this constitute proof that Hillary Clinton accepted a bribe. The article doesn't connect the activities of Russian agents to Clinton - but show an attempt by the to influence the Clintons.

The big question is whether or not the FBI informed the committed making the decision regarding uranium sales to Russian companies. Thus far there is no evidence that they did, and I am sure if the FBI had notified the committee the committee would have protested the sale would they not? Someone would for sure.

If Clinton did know about it and still approved the deal, then she is rightfully in big trouble.

 

Lol.... Mueller has a team of white collar prosecutors following the money. "Led to nothing" is a confusing statement to make in light of the investigation picking up.

What's your opinion of the Trump Foundation as front?

What have you? Or just slink away...

 

Lol... another thread you'll deflect and ignore evidence in?

"A million of other Trump threads.." you learn that at Trump University. You speak like your boy.

 

How would you even know?

 

Link?

 

Because as I said SO FAR he hasn't said anything?

 

You know it would be like me saying ... Mueller has not publicly stated that Trump is not a mass murderer, so we all can assume the very worst (or in your case the very best).

 

Are you channeling your inner Mueller?

 

John Solomon has an interesting history...
_____

After leaving The Washington Times, Solomon became chief creative officer for Circa News. Circa is a mobile news application founded in 2011 that streams updates on big news events to users. In June 2015 it shut down, but its relaunch was announced after its acquisition by Sinclair Broadcast Group.[2]

As chief of Circa he wrote and published a number of political articles, often defending the Trump administration[13] and Michael Flynn. [14] He left in July 2017 to become executive vice president, digital video, for The Hill.[1]

http://thehill.com/homenews/324589-news-outlet-rising-on-the-right-for-russia-coverage

Circa News, a millennial-focused media outlet that launched only eight months ago, has been embraced by Republicans for aggressive reporting on Russian meddling in the 2016 election that runs counter to reporting in more mainstream outlets.

Circa’s Chief Operating Officer John Solomon and national security reporter Sara Carter have appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” almost every night for the past week, giving the outlet a valuable primetime perch on one of conservative media’s most-watched cable news shows.

Sean Hannity — one of Trump’s biggest boosters in the media — has repeatedly lauded Circa as the gold standard, while blasting its counterparts in the mainstream media as “lazy,” “overpaid” and “dishonest.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-sean-hannitys-juiciest-blockbusters-come-from-circa-news

 

Timed by wikileaks. It's no secret Assange hates Clinton.

nothing has been shown that it came from Russian hackers. There much more creed that it was a leak from within than a hack.

 

Wow you really are a kid

 

How do you know what Robert Mueller believes?

 

I don't. That's why I said "APPARENTLY". In that APPARENTLY Mueller hasn't come to the conclusion of collusion so far as he has yet to speak on it....

Why aren't you asking @No Worries why he's convinced otherwise?

 

I don't blame him.

 

source

JS: Would you have published in the same manner RNC emails in the race between Hillary and Trump?

JA: Of course. When does WikiLeaks get a great scoop and not publish it?

JS: No, no, I know. I’m asking because I’m responding to some of the idiocy in the U.S. press.

JA: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it’s — to some degree, WikiLeaks is — we’re a hostage to fortune because we do specialize on encouraging whistleblowers and other sources to step forward, and then analyzing what we get from them. And we specialize on really big scoops. You can’t go, oh, look, we have this massive scoop about corruption in the DNC. Now we need to balance this with a massive scoop about corruption in the RNC. These things come along once every few years. I mean, you can’t, you can’t go, “oh, now we’re going to balance.” Like, put it another way — did any other media organization publish a massive leak about what was in the RNC? The combined forces of the U.S. media, which, apart from Fox, was pretty solidly in the Hillary camp, and the European media, which was much the same, were not able to find any massive scoop on Donald Trump, apart from the sex tape. The New York Times got hold of one small tax extract for one year, which is not a massive scoop —and none of the other — none of the other years and none of the other papers. We asked for those. You know, we encouraged people to step forward.

So, I think part of what is going on is it’s kind of flattering that there’s a view that WikiLeaks is omnipotent in its ability to get hold of massive scoops whenever it wants. That’s nice. It’s good for the institution’s reputation. But it’s not true. Massive scoops are hard to come by. They’re hard to come by, and they come at their own time, not when you think, oh, we need to — we need to, you know, engage in a bit of balancing operation, so, you know, people stop falsely saying that we’re Republican-aligned.