@parados,
One thing I've always admitted about the Clintons (except for the pretty glaring ridiculous "that depends on what the meaning of
is is), they are schooled, gifted, and practiced liars. Their apologists have learned impressively well from the examples.
They have you pretending that
this doesn't matter:
excerpt from one of the articles a few posts up--
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
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.
Just a coincidence?
a pertinent excerpt from your link---
The book in general and the Times article in particular have stirred up the 2016 presidential campaign. The Clinton Foundation was forced to acknowledge that it “made mistakes” in failing to disclose some of its donations, and Republicans have questioned Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale. Mitt Romney said the money donated to the Clinton Foundation “looks like bribery,” and Sen. Rand Paul called for an investigation.
But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.
The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)
Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal. (Fox News was among the media outlets that received an advance copy of his book.) Schweizer made the counterargument — again without any evidence — that the investors bought her silence by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
_______________________________________________
One member of a jury paid to influence the process is enough to pervert justice.
Of course, you know this. It's a game to people like you. The result is pretty serious to some people.
The Clintons think and act as though they are above the law. You're helping them.
