RE: Real russian colusion
October 20, 2017 at 11:11 am
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2017 at 11:14 am by henryp.)
(October 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:wallym Wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clint...ump-688592
The conflict of interest is pretty undeniable. Drich overstates it as partisan people are wont to do, which is silly, because the actual truth is pretty egregious.
What do you think she did in this case that was different from what she did in every other committee decision (i.e., nothing)? And did I mention that the committee does not approve or deny such sales, they just present their findings to the president? And that the Russians didn't get any uranium?
You're arguing against Drich's point. Not mine. I'm saying it's a blatant conflict of interest to give millions to the Clintons just as this is coming up for review. It's shady as fuck, and the Clintons did it all the time. Taking large sums of foreign money from people who have a vested interest in Hillary's decisions as secretary of state, and presumably as the future 45th president. We'll never know what the donors got or thought they got from the money. That's the beauty of the system for the politicians raking in the cash.
To Drich: You're guessing at what influence the donations bought, if any. That's what you're overstating. But where I'm with you, and Bernie said this during the primaries, corporations aren't cutting huge checks to politicians out of kindness.
