Then you can't think.

The correct statement would be:

"And it only took ONE person OF THE 9 HIGH LEVEL MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION voting no to quash the deal."

Again. Nobody is claiming that Hillary is the only corrupt person in the Obama Admin.

But here is a good exercise for you.... Perhaps it will strengthen your 'Thinking Muscles'.

Name any American (not named Clinton) that benefited from the transfer of control of 20% of America's Uranium to Russia ............. Well? ........ Well? ........................ There's a reason why you're having trouble with that. The reason is that the only beneficiaries (known so far) are the Clintons and Russia.

The book, Clinton Cash looked into donations to the Clinton Foundation; an April 2015 New York Times article also documented the connections.

In 2007, Frank Giustra, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, sold his company, UrAsia, to another company, Uranium One, and unloaded his personal stake in it. The combined company kept Uranium One as its name but Toronto as its base. Under the terms of the deal, the shareholders of UrAsia retained a 60 percent stake in the new company.

In 2009, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, bought a 17 percent share of Uranium One. In 2010, Rosatom sought to secure enough shares to give it a 51 percent stake.

Is this the connection you're referring to? These transitions happened before she was secretary of state.

Russia doesn’t have a license to export uranium outside the United States, so, as Oilprice.com noted, "it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases."

That said, the possibility that a foreign entity would take a majority stake in the uranium operation meant that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, had to approve the deal. So did the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Utah’s nuclear regulator.

The membership of CFIUS includes the State Department, meaning that the Secretary of State(Hillary Clinton) would have had a voice. The panel also includes the attorney general and the secretaries of the Treasury (who chairs the committee), Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

As far as Bill Clinton getting paid for a speech that is a separate issue from Hillary. Russian "investment" banks having links to the Kremlin I don't see as unusual, probably commonplace. Bill Clinton is a philanthropist and entrepreneur in his own right. The authors comment stating " a total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatom." is unclear, what is that based on, or is it simply his word, where are the journaled and recorded facts on those numbers, the breakdown. This is an opinion piece without much merit to back it up, just more accusations.

Donald Trump -- who was running against Clinton for president -- that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

I didn't know the Clintons had their own state department at that time?

Even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.

Second, while we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, "at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state" and three years before the Russian deal.

We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.

read full article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/

Then you can't think.

The correct statement would be:

"And it only took ONE person OF THE 9 HIGH LEVEL MEMBERS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION voting no to quash the deal."

Again. Nobody is claiming that Hillary is the only corrupt person in the Obama Admin.

But here is a good exercise for you.... Perhaps it will strengthen your 'Thinking Muscles'.

Name any American (not named Clinton) that benefited from the transfer of control of 20% of America's Uranium to Russia ............. Well? ........ Well? ........................ There's a reason why you're having trouble with that. The reason is that the only beneficiaries (known so far) are the Clintons and Russia.

No he hasn't, he just hasn't been proven guilty ...yet. BIG difference. OJ was proved not guilty also, do you believe that too? There isn't any case of collusion, it would have to be under conspiracy. What would it serve to make the case now when the party in Congress will allow him anything... party before country.

What has been proven is that our counties voting process and integrity has been compromised by a foreign power and just by sheer coincidence it has been done with the first president who was "friendly" with this power...beforehand. Hmmm? if it walks like a duck... Your scenario that half the country is insane doesn't quite fly either.

The Supreme Court, which has been stacked with Trump nominees, has declared that it is unconstitutional to include a question about citizenship status on next year’s federal census.
Donald Trump and William Barre have said that they’re going through with the question anyway perhaps through an executive order. Regardless how, this is the first time in our history that a sitting president, or an Attorney General has defied a ruling from the Supreme Court. We all know that this will make it possible for Congressional redistricting- gerrymandering- and this riggs all elections in favor of the wealthy. But what is just as important is that this will give the government a list of everyone they deem as “undesirable” and make it easy to harass, deport, indenture, encamp, and even exterminate.
It’s true that there is no way in our current government that the last three could be done. But our laws, values, and constitution change rapidly. Two years ago it was unthinkable that the government would take children from their families at the border. In 2002 it was unthinkable that our government would use violent torture and justify it by holding the prisoners off shore. In 2001 it was unthinkable that prisoners could be held without charge or representation. In 2000 it was unthinkable that the government would illegally tap our phones and collect and store our texts and e-mails.
But those things are all true today.
We cannot say that in two years our government won’t be selecting people with questionable status and then offering them a choice: either pay the fines accrued and be exiled, or be taken to a work camp to pay off their debt through servitude. As for interest rates? It’s the government so there’s no glass ceiling there.
Every single step that is taken to undo freedoms is very dangerous. Many people don’t care because it affects “Them” not “Us”. (Drop needle on Pink Floyd here) But once it’s established for “Them” it’s a precedent and it’s remarkably easy to go after “Us”.
History tells us that they will.

The Supreme Court, which has been stacked with Trump nominees, has declared that it is unconstitutional to include a question about citizenship status on next year’s federal census.
Donald Trump and William Barre have said that they’re going through with the question anyway perhaps through an executive order. Regardless how, this is the first time in our history that a sitting president, or an Attorney General has defied a ruling from the Supreme Court. We all know that this will make it possible for Congressional redistricting- gerrymandering- and this riggs all elections in favor of the wealthy. But what is just as important is that this will give the government a list of everyone they deem as “undesirable” and make it easy to harass, deport, indenture, encamp, and even exterminate.
It’s true that there is no way in our current government that the last three could be done. But our laws, values, and constitution change rapidly. Two years ago it was unthinkable that the government would take children from their families at the border. In 2002 it was unthinkable that our government would use violent torture and justify it by holding the prisoners off shore. In 2001 it was unthinkable that prisoners could be held without charge or representation. In 2000 it was unthinkable that the government would illegally tap our phones and collect and store our texts and e-mails.
But those things are all true today.
We cannot say that in two years our government won’t be selecting people with questionable status and then offering them a choice: either pay the fines accrued and be exiled, or be taken to a work camp to pay off their debt through servitude. As for interest rates? It’s the government so there’s no glass ceiling there.
Every single step that is taken to undo freedoms is very dangerous. Many people don’t care because it affects “Them” not “Us”. (Drop needle on Pink Floyd here) But once it’s established for “Them” it’s a precedent and it’s remarkably easy to go after “Us”.
History tells us that they will.

===============
I'll be consistent. Here is my answer to you.
Requiring citizenship question is essential and legal procedure that protects our country and citizens from the following problems.
1. Illegal voting could disenfranchise the citizens voting rights. A clear violation of the XV Amendment.
It has been proven over and over that illegal votes are prevalent in most states, cities, or counties all over. Facts: In 2016, and earlier years, cities, counties, have more votes counted than registered voters. How did that happen? One was proven due to illegal votes. I have explained and provided proofs earlier about this. So, I won't repeat posting those.

In 2016, there were more than 3 million votes counted for illegals all over the country. They think that is minimal and they ignored it. However when the difference between the two candidates are so small those illegal votes could decide the winner. Therefore, all those 63 million or more votes of the citizens are DISENFRANCHISED by the illegal votes who decide the victory of the election.

2.Another problem here. Currently we are revising redistricting many states according to the number of population. If we don't know the number of legal citizens on the particular states, decision to providing more district could be erroneous if the majority of the population are not legal voters. Therefore due to higher population of a State, they add more districts when in fact, most of them are illegals representing that district. Again this will DISENFRANCISE the legal voters because the district added were due to more illegals living on that State.

If this is not corrected, the Socialist-Democrats will always win the election. There is no chance a Republican could be elected.

We are the taxpayers supposed to be represented and served by the people we elect. That is what we call in the Constitution, the consent of the governed.

3. Read the Declaration of Independence: Here is an Excerpt.
Thomas Jefferson wrote this: Pronounced July 4,1776.
Illegal aliens are not included here.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

President Trump must include CITIZENSHIP question. It is most important in our Constitutional rights. If citizenship question is is eliminated, the Socialist-Democrats will always win the election. And that will be forever.

Any question Socialist DEMS? Bring it to SCOTUS? Alright, I'll be there.