I said definitely receiving inappropriate campaign donations
Who received campaign donations?
and potentially crimes related to collusion, because I personally do not have evidence that the latter crimes happened.
Okay. Why did trump jr meet with a russian lawyer if manafort was already colluding with russia?
There were something like nine regulatory agencies at the time approving that sale. None of them seemed to think it was a problem! Probably because the uranium doesn't get shipped to Russia.
Okay. Do you honestly think that quid pro quo is okay as long as the person taking the bribe is not the primary decision maker? Now you need to explain to me why it was a GOOD idea to sell the kremlin 20% of our uranium reserve. Who benefits?
I don't really care why they'd buy it if it can't make it back.
Well according to you they made a huge mistake because the uranium is "garbage" right? This is what you're going with?
If I had to guess, I would say the FBI and Obama administration didn't see an impending threat to national security, or they would have stopped it.
Oh. Do you think this was a GOOD idea? You know, considering a few comments ago you said that "aiding" our "enemy" is treasonous? Again, how did WE benefit from this?
You misunderstand what I said. I said that neither the NYT or the Hill article said that there was evidence Hillary Clinton approved a Uranium One sale in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation.
So your explanation for this is that they gave millions to the clinton foundation and $500k to Bill out of the kindness of their hearts? They never expected anything in return?
Hmmm, I wonder what the FBI's undercover informant who was placed under a gag order by the FBI and threatened away from a lawsuit byt he DOJ is going to say when he testifies?
But the informant was unable to provide answers to lawmakers’ recent inquiries because he had signed a nondisclosure agreement with the bureau. He also was forced by the Justice Department in 2016 to withdraw a lawsuit that threatened to call attention to the case during last year’s presidential election.
The politifact article is about the claim that she did.
You didn't even read it, did you?
"To the best of our knowledge" refers to the company in Canada that refined the uranium that was sent. It sounds like RSB was not involved closely after that point. I don't really care what Western European countries received the uranium. Russia isn't a Western European country.
So you don't care the the Kremlin, and enemy so evil that you think merely providing them aid is treasonous, shipped out our uranium and we have no clue where it went? Really?
If there's no evidence that it was criminal, I don't care. I also don't care how the donations are doing this year.
There's no evidence that what trump jr did was criminal and there sure as hell isn't any evidence that ties trump to ANY of this nonsense let alone something criminal. It's nice that you don't care how donations to the clinton foundation are doing, that doesn't change the fact that people were only donating to it to curry favor with Hillary. If they weren't, then we would see the same level of donations right?
If there's no evidence of a quid pro quo, then I don't care. It's not like there hasn't been a thousand investigations into the Clintons with a severe dearth of convictions.
There's no evidence of any quid pro quo between russia and trump either so I guess you don't care right?
As I said, those two bolded statements were made by spokespeople for different companies, and Russia is also none of those countries anyway.
Okay, now I know you didn't read the article, or at least not very carefully. The first bolded statement; "to the best of our knowledge" was made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, not a "company". The second was made by Uranium One, which is essentially a subsidiary of the Kremlin now thanks to Hillary Clinton and the obama adminstration.