THE ERA OF TRUMP

[The Conservative]

Yeah, right... that's such a big deal...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/c ... mpany.html

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 One’s 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.

So the standard answer is "But Hillary!!!"?

Yeah, Hillary lost because she was just that, a part of the establishment where basically bribery has been made legal. Yet how does that make everything OK with Trump then I don't know. Seems that everything is just partisan and right and wrong is just relative. As long as it's my party's crooks in power, everything is OK.

No, the answer is that we are being told Trump did something, but we have no proof of it, yet for Clinton, we have proof and did nothing about it.

I'm not only calling a double standard but general BS about how things have been treated. We have "undisclosed sources" against Trump, but we have people showing timelines and proof against Clinton, yet Trump is the Russian backed Patsy... really?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't think the Russians cared who won. Their main goal is to disrupt our system, and it's working flawlessly.

[The Conservative]

I don't think the Russians cared who won. Their main goal is to disrupt our system, and it's working flawlessly.

It was in many ways, but the thing is that I think what they did with Hillary makes people accusing Trump of "Doing bad things with Putin" seem like fools at best.

[ssu]

No, the answer is that we are being told Trump did something, but we have no proof of it, yet for Clinton, we have proof and did nothing about it.

I'm not only calling a double standard but general BS about how things have been treated. We have "undisclosed sources" against Trump, but we have people showing timelines and proof against Clinton, yet Trump is the Russian backed Patsy... really?

Things Trump & family have said and acknowledged aren't "undisclosed sources" for starters in this drama.

The media coverage is yes, biased, but one can easily find what BS and what is just biased reporting. There's a notable difference in the "Pay & Play" scandal and some "Pizzagate" when it comes to Clinton, but of course there's a lot we don't know. But that's why I'm waiting to hear what actually the investigations will show in the end.

And lastly, naturally one has to put "Russiagate" into context: what actually has Trump done now as President. This is the one thing totally lacking in the coverage as it basically shows that there is no real change in Russia policy from the Obama administration:

- the sanctions are still in place
- The position towards NATO hasn't changed
- the US hasn't changed it position on the annexation of Crimea.

In fact, in my view it is simply Trump himself that keeps making this worse and worse for him. First he had to openly ask Russia to hack to find the missing e-mails, which simply focused media attention to the issue. Then he went and fired Comey and directly say that he fired Comey because of the investigation, even if his administration had made a great spin that it wasn't the case. What did that do? Yep, got Mueller to be signed as an independent investigator to the issue.

If Trump is so clueless that he will think that the issue will go away if he gets Mueller sacked, he simply is delusional. And I do think that Trump simply didn't understand that in the bareknuckle politics of winning elections interacting with foreigners is a simple no-no, if they do what is called an intelligence operation in the US... which the FBI has to investigate.

Yep, it's worth to note that the "dodgy-dossier" was made by a British ex-spy (if there are ex-spies), yet I don't recall the other GOP candidates or the DNC having meetings with the British Embassador. Or have I missed something from Breitbart & Alex Jones?

[Ex-California]

Matt Goering predicts Mooch?

[ssu]

The Mooch?

I guess Trump loves how the Mooch uses his hands. 100% accurate handjob.



And the Mooch knows he's communicating to one person only.

[TheReal_ND]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07 ... -flee-u-s/

lol he ran. Michael Berry called it last night. This could get ugly.

Wasserman-Schultz is going to jail

[Fife]

Don't be mizzled.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/2 ... est-240960

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/343723 ... ud-charges

The cock-a-roaches are about to start running away from the sunlight and the bleach, Senor Jefe.

[ssu]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07 ... -flee-u-s/

lol he ran. Michael Berry called it last night. This could get ugly.

Wasserman-Schultz is going to jail

Wasn't it supposed to be Seth Rich?

[TheReal_ND]

The IT guy for the DNC? Yeah one of them I guess. Awan was there for over a decade as well apparently.