Manafort's house raided by the FBI

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Greenflag

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

Did you read the last paragraph?

[grean]

Originally Posted by bambino

Which begs the question, why didn't the FBI raid Clinton's house? Bubba made a speech in Russia for 750,000. Their foundation received 145 million donation after the Uranium One deal. Answer that one.

Maybe because they investigated them. Closed it. Investigated them again and closed it and then reopened the very same case only to close it again.


The FBI investigators simply do not care about political bullshit. They are career agents who do not want their professionalism taken into question. If thy see something, they investigate. If they don't, we never hear about it.


Comey is far far from J.E Hoover, who did pull stunts like that.

[Greenflag]

Originally Posted by bambino

Did you read the last paragraph?

I read it and I can tell you this. Every President makes a ton of money off of speaking fees. But this lie that is circulating on the internet is bullshit. I did read the last paragraph. Hillary was on a board with 9 members, she was not even the Chairman. She had no veto power only the President could veto it. The Uranium never left the country and could never leave the country. It was a foreign country that bought a stake in it.

Read these paragraphs.

The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

[Gotyour6]

Trump will drop out of the race any time now.

Hilary has this wrapped up

[Greenflag]

This is the right wing nut job writer that wrote this garbage.

He makes shit up and does not have any hard evidence on anything but the fake news gets circulated and everyone believes it.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/...on-crimes.html

[Greenflag]

Originally Posted by grean

Maybe because they investigated them. Closed it. Investigated them again and closed it and then reopened the very same case only to close it again.


The FBI investigators simply do not care about political bullshit. They are career agents who do not want their professionalism taken into question. If thy see something, they investigate. If they don't, we never hear about it.


Comey is far far from J.E Hoover, who did pull stunts like that.

It was all a lie. Read below.

[Greenflag]

BTW, Hillary and the Clinton Foundation received most of this money before and during her Presidential run in 2008. She was not even secretary of state when they were giving the donations. Also, the US only produces about 2% of its Uranium ,the rest is imported. This is just another made up scandal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...inton-got-pai/

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Greenflag

It was all a lie.

The end of this bullshitter is in sight! You'll feel better!

[Greenflag]

Lexus Lover, You just like made up shit right? You want to create your own reality. Disprove anything I say.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Greenflag

I read it and I can tell you this. Every President makes a ton of money off of speaking fees. But this lie that is circulating on the internet is bullshit. I did read the last paragraph. Hillary was on a board with 9 members, she was not even the Chairman. She had no veto power only the President could veto it. The Uranium never left the country and could never leave the country. It was a foreign country that bought a stake in it.

Read these paragraphs.

The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

hildebeest was on the board of her foundation too, greenfag; hence, she 100% could have rejected the donations from agents of foreign countries just like she *promised* she would do while serving as Secretary of State, you cretin POS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Greenflag

Lexus Lover, You just like made up shit right? You want to create your own reality. Disprove anything I say.

Sorry, Junior, you got it all backwards. You have to prove the truth of what you have to say. Just the fact you say it, obviously doesn't make it so..... now does it? You actually know that down deep. You just try to bluff and fluff your little way through life.

You don't make the rules up as you go. They're already etched. You're a minnow in the shallows. A "junior birdman" on the internet.

[Greenflag]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sorry, Junior, you got it all backwards. You have to prove the truth of what you have to say. Just the fact you say it, obviously doesn't make it so..... now does it?

You don't make the rules up as you go. They're already etched. You're a minnow in the shallows. A "junior birdman" on the internet.

Right, You just talk trash with nothing to back it up with because you are not smart enough.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Greenflag

Right, You just talk trash with nothing to back it up with because you are not smart enough.

Nice self-analysis, Junior.

[Greenflag]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nice self-analysis, Junior.

I gave you 3 articles and an analysis of facts behind the lie that the right keeps sharing on the internet on selling uranium but you don't have the mental capacity to disprove anything.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

Which begs the question, why didn't the FBI raid Clinton's house?

Because... hildebeest is ABOVE THE LAW. She was a QUEEN and the FBI treated her like one.

Read this interesting analysis from last Fall comparing the hildebeest investigation with the prosecution of GOP Governor Bob McConnell of Virginia.

I wonder if the authors (two prominent DC attorneys) will do us a favor when everything is said and done and compare how Bob Mueller treats the Russian "collusion" investigation with how the FBI treated hildebeest.

Already there are 2 big differences - 1) grand jury, and 2) dawn raids to seize evidence. Hildebeest and her staff minions didn't have to contend with either!

Originally Posted by lustylad

The FBI Treated Clinton With Kid Gloves

Investigators went after Gov. Bob McDonnell with every tool they had. The double standard is obvious.

By Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham
Oct. 5, 2016 7:16 p.m. ET

Tim Kaine repeatedly defended Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate. “The FBI did an investigation,” he said at one point, “and they concluded that there was no reasonable prosecutor who would take it further.” But such a statement is credible only if it follows a real criminal investigation—that is, the sort of investigation that the FBI and the Justice Department conduct when they actually care about a case and want convictions.

We know all too well what that kind of investigation looks like, as two of the lawyers who defended a recent target: former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. That story had a happy ending for the governor and his wife. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in their favor this summer and all charges were dropped in September. But their victory certainly wasn’t due to lack of investigatory zeal on the part of the FBI and Justice Department.

Below are only a few of the heavy-handed tactics federal investigators used to build their case against the McDonnells. See how they compare to how Mrs. Clinton was treated.

Conduct ambush interviews. The first contact between law enforcement and the McDonnells was an ambush interview of the governor’s wife. The agents lied to her about the topic of the meeting, forbade Gov. McDonnell’s staff from attending, and then grilled her on their suspicions about potential public corruption. Statements from that interview later took center stage in the trial of her and her husband.

In Mrs. Clinton’s case, no ambush interviews were conducted, and witnesses were generously accommodated. The FBI and Justice Department even allowed a fact witness and potential target— Cheryl Mills, formerly the State Department’s chief of staff—to simultaneously represent Mrs. Clinton as her counsel.

Immunize only witnesses who can help deliver convictions. One person in Gov. McDonnell’s case got immunity: Jonnie Williams, the prosecution’s star witness. For his testimony, Mr. Williams earned a wealth of blanket immunity—not simply from potential bribery prosecution but also from unrelated crimes he might have committed (including securities and tax fraud). Reluctant witnesses—Gov. McDonnell’s children and friends—were called before a grand jury and forced to testify.

Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton’s case. Much of her staff was immunized in exchange for simply meeting with investigators. None of them appear to have been pressed for information, or given any incentive whatsoever to spill on the boss.

Investigate and charge all potential crimes. Prosecutors in Gov. McDonnell’s case collected more than five million pages of documents and filed charges for every potential crime they could. In addition to the corruption charges, the governor and his wife were accused of lying to banks and obstructing justice. The jury acquitted the McDonnells of the former, and the trial judge ruled there was insufficient evidence of the latter. But the prosecutors pursued these charges vigorously, despite their lack of merit.

For Mrs. Clinton, there appears to have been no investigation into crimes beyond the mishandling of classified information. In particular, the FBI seems to have readily accepted Ms. Mills’s claim that she did not learn about Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after both of them had left the government. This is implausible on its face, since the two were in regular email contact while working at the State Department. It is also contradicted by a witness who administered the server, as well as by Ms. Mills’s own emails. These sorts of inconsistencies were enough to get Mrs. McDonnell, Scooter Libby—former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff—and others indicted for allegedly covering up crimes. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, they weren’t even investigated.

Construe “corruption” broadly. Investigators of Gov. McDonnell took the most expansive possible reading of the law. They argued to the Supreme Court this spring that it was a felony for the governor to arrange meetings between a benefactor and other government officials, even without trying to sway the ultimate decision.

Yet the FBI appears to have done no investigation into how Secretary Clinton’s conduct while in office was affected by massive donations to the Clinton Foundation or large payments for speeches given by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Journalists have unearthed extensive evidence of special treatment: The Associated Press reported that during the first half of her tenure, Mrs. Clinton had meetings or phone calls scheduled with 154 private interests; 85 were Clinton Foundation donors, who in total had pledged or given as much as $156 million.

Claim that concealment proves consciousness of guilt. In Gov. McDonnell’s case, there was no evidence—none—that he ever suspected his conduct could be criminal. Prosecutors tried to show criminal intent by arguing that he “hid” gifts by declining to list them on annual disclosure forms. But Gov. McDonnell complied with Virginia’s disclosure requirements in virtually all respects. The law simply did not require much information to be disclosed. Further, many of his family and staff knew about the gifts. Still, prosecutors claimed that failure to tell the public sufficed to prove a guilty mind.

FBI Director James Comey said that in Mrs. Clinton’s case there was no evidence of criminal intent. Yet she set up a private email server in her basement and permanently deleted thousands of the emails it contained. A plausible motive would be shielding her activities from public scrutiny. The Comey standard—that direct evidence of knowing criminality is needed to prosecute—is certainly not the one that his agency and the Justice Department applied to Gov. McDonnell for more than three years.

To be clear, we aren’t endorsing these heavy-handed tactics, many of which are befitting Inspector Javert of “Les Misérables.” But these are the sorts of things investigators do when they are serious about bringing criminal charges. In deciding whether the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was a real one—as opposed to a grand, expensive spectacle of law-enforcement theater—Gov. McDonnell’s treatment is instructive.

Messrs. Francisco and Burnham practice law at Jones Day in Washington, D.C.