Not really an important question. The real question would be what did they get or expect to get in return for that money?
Would be funnier if it weren't so true...although it did seem (only saw the bottom ticker at airport) that CNN was discussing it. Will be interesting to see if 'Russia, Russia, Russia still applies there, and elsewhere.
Trump campaign analytics company contacted WikiLeaks about Clinton emails http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/polit...n-assange-wikileaks-clinton-emails/index.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ian-nuclear-bribery-cleared-to-testify-before FBI informant in Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery cleared to testify before Congress The Justice Department on Wednesday night released a former FBI informant from a confidentiality agreement, allowing him to testify before Congress about what he witnessed while undercover about the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favorable decisions during the Obama administration. Multiple congressional committees have been seeking to interview the informant, whose name has not been released publicly, because he stayed undercover for nearly five years providing agents information on Russia’s aggressive efforts to grow its atomic energy business in America. His work helped the Justice Department secure convictions against Russia’s top commercial nuclear executive in the United States, a Russian financier in New Jersey, and the head of a U.S. uranium trucking company in what prosecutors said was a long-running racketeering scheme involving bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. 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 Obama administration said they saw no national security reasons to block the deals, one of which gave Russian President Vladimir Putin control of 20 percent of America’s uranium stockpile. But last week a series of stories published in The Hill disclosed that before those decisions were made, the FBI had gathered extensive evidence that Mikerin, Tenex’s chief executive inside the United States, was directing a massive bribery scheme, compromising an American trucking company that shipped uranium for Russia. The evidence was first gathered in 2009, but charges weren’t brought until 2014. Mikerin pleaded guilty a year later to a money laundering charge and is currently in prison. But key members of Congress said they weren’t alerted to the case at the time and are now deeply concerned the Obama administration had a good security reason not to approve the deals given that corruption was uncovered.
Not just conservatives, and many thought this even before the 1980's called. Real question is: why do Obama supporters not view Russia as hostile, even after everything that has transpired?
Is this what Sean Hannity thinks? A better question is Why does Trump and his supporters not view Russia as enemy of the state? Note that Trump wanted to lift Russian sanctions at the start of his Presidency. Also note that Trump has not publicly stated how the US is addressing the Russian election meddling going forward. Maybe Trump is holding out hope that Russia will meddle again in 2020 to his benefit?
Uhh... okay. Liberals DO have issues either way but putting context into the discussion is being misrepresented by you as "finding no issues with collusion" or whatever..... A. When Russia/Putin in 2010 is much different than Russia/Putin after 2014. The context and the timeline matter.... which is before Putin seized power, shot down a commercial plane, backed Assad, invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, hacked our election, etc. etc. etc. Nobody is saying it would have still been okay then but the context & timeline matter. B. What Liberal said that it would have been okay for Hillary and Bill to do a quid pro quo deal with ANY foreign power at the expense of the USA? C. Why is it mocked to even bring up the fact that this conspiracy- 1, Has been debunked several times over the course of a few years 2. Is being regurgitated at a very conspicuous time. That would be like me bringing up the Trump Dossier as a factual guideline without mentioning the facts about it like parts of it are uncorroborated, and that it was partially funded by the DNC. You can't be dumb enough to not know that you are being diverted to your favorite target Hillary Clinton for political purposes. Please tell me you aren't that dumb? And if you want to have a serious, objective discussion, these are basic things you also need to bring to the table of discussion. And if you know you are being played, but say "lets just get the facts through another investigation ala Benghazi, etc, and lets be fair and investigate Trump too" than that's fine, but you cannot be so dumb to not see the obvious attempt at a political investigation started from the top down to divert attention away from the other side being investigated. At least meet us at that mutual place of understanding.
Where has any liberal said that? It's pretty amazing how you can find hypocrisy when there doesn't seem to be anyone even saying what you claim, yet you don't see hypocrisy in people on the right who constantly try to downplay any Russian ties to Trump while at the same time trying to tie Hillary to Russia. Anyone with shady/illegal ties to the Russian government should be investigated and handled accordingly, regardless of political party.
Lol... you’ve already been absolutely demolished with this topic. Please stop, it’s embarrassing to keep reminding you that Russian’s aggression greatly increased after the 2012 election... when they invaded a country and started messing with Western Democracies.... Ignorance isn’t flattering...
Dark money has really infiltrated politics. Both sides see Russian at their convenience. Both sides’ media are guilty of the same thing. Both Trump and Clinton have lots of questions about their ties to Russia.
How about the Obama Justice dept? They seemed pretty intent on shutting up this witness who was set to testify before congress about the corruption he witnessed in relation to the Uranium 1 deal. Is that liberal enough? https://pjmedia.com/trending/lawyer-obama-doj-blocked-fbi-informant-talking-uranium-one-deal/
