Loki Loc: Georgia

Unsubstantiated. Unnamed. Allegations. Not verified. Is there some reason you even bothered to post this chickenshit drivel?

PeterS

Where there's smoke there if fire. I always had my suspicions that Trump wouldn't make it 4 years but I didn't think his troubles would start before he even took the oath. Sharp denials indeed...

rebob14

The "national dialog" has degenerated into 320 million sixth grade boys screaming at each other in the school yard: OH YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!??????????YEAH!!!!!!!????????OH YEAH!!!!!!!????????YEAH!!!!!!!!!

PeterS

Yeah, it was presented in a PDB so someone thinks there is something to this. You guys hitched your wagon to the wrong horse Loki and it looks like the poor fella is going to have trouble making it to the starting gate--much less the finish line...

PeterS

Well, when Trump is impeached just think how loud the screaming is going to be...

Loki Loc: Georgia

Once more...; unsubstantiated, alleged, unproven. Where there's smoke there's fire? Maybe so, but it's coming out of your bong. Guess you didn't notice.

Loki Loc: Georgia

As loud as when Bill Clinton GOT impeached? Trump will not be impeached. Go do some more mushrooms.

Loki Loc: Georgia

They do say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the other 940 odd:

PeterS

I don't have a bong Loki. I gave it up when I sold my motorcycle--use to strap it on the back going around the country. But you watch, your man is going to be toast...

PeterS

It wasn't a question of whether you give a shit. It's a question of how many in congress give a shit and if he was colluding with the Russians he won't make it through the year...

PeterS

The senate let Clinton off. That won't happen this time...

Loki Loc: Georgia

Not for four years, sweetpea. No matter how much you hold your breath till you turn blue. BTW, who were you? SLEAZY RIDER? Do you think he is going to be toast because you figured out how to look up a section of the US code that only applies to hostile belligerants? Tell me, has Congress authorized any sanctions or military action against Russia? (I don't mean your boy Obama's temper tantrum that will be voided in a few days.) Were there any in place when these alleged actions supposedly took place? I believe that is a no. You have no idea what you are talking about. I think I like you better when you were just ignorant, instead of ignorant and clueless both. It's not an improvement.

Randy131 Loc: Florida

Accusations, accusations, and more accusations, but never ever an ounce of proof. Our judicial system was founded on the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty, but not for the liberals, progressives, and Democrats, synonymous with socialists, communists, and fascists, for they insist anyone is guilty that can't prove themselves innocent of mere accusations, the Democratic way to distribute justice.

There is no law that states Trump must make his tax returns public, for all Americans, they are their own private matter, and it is against the law for even the federal government to release them to anyone without the permission of the one whose tax returns they are. But those same liberals, progressives, and Democrats don't care, they only care that they are allowed to force anyone into giving up their privacy, and they do this all the time.

Trump released his official 'Financial Statement', which has much more information about his finances than does his tax returns, but the problem with them is that they weren't forced to be released, so the liberals, progressives, and Democrats don't want what gives them a lot more information of Trump's finances, than would his tax returns.

If this so called proof of these accusations are in the custody of these news outlets, than they are not, or no longer, considered confidential or secret intelligence, so why not show the public what is being used to make accusations, unless it is such poor proof of the accusations, that it would make the releaser of the information a laughing stock?

The liberals, progressives, and Democrats want to destroy Trump's Presidency, before it even is allowed to start, because they have a terrifically great fear that Trump may be successful, and make America great again, and the American people will see him as they once did Ronald Reagan, and re-elect him with an even bigger landslide victory in the next Presidential election. So they condemn him now, before he proves them, as they have been for the last 8 years, wrong about everything, and causing great suffering to the American people, with the lowest 'US Workforce' participation rate in the last 40 years, despite a supposedly economic recovery of 7 years and 6 months straight. They more than doubled the national debt in just 8 years, that it took all our previous Presidents 232 years to acquire, while averaging $1.34 trillion deficits for each of the last 8 years, when no other President in US history ever came close to having a single year of a trillion dollar deficit.

The American people know all this and didn't give a damn about Trump releasing his tax returns, but instead didn't want another 4 years of Obama's failed policies and agendas, as Hillary Clinton actually promised them if she were elected President, and the main reason the American people chose Donald Trump as their next President. Be a man and at least allow Trump to show what type of President he will be, before you condemn him with just accusations, because of your fear that he may be successful, and become an American hero and icon.

Loki Loc: Georgia

A Democrat controlled Senate let Clinton off. What makes you think that a Republican controlled House would impeach? Or that a Republican controlled Senate would convict? For that matter, Trump has done nothing impeachable, you twit. You have to commit a crime while holding public office. Trump has not. Do you think he doesn't have an army of lawyers who have already sorted this out? Do you actually believe you are more knowledgeable than them because you managed to Google a section of the United States Code?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

If this is true, then what do you think of the Russian connection to killary.... where there is direct and proved connection is between killary and Russia. Do you recall last year when her connections and that of the WH was questioned? "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….

The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom's [the Russian atomic energy agency's] chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves," Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra's private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev.

[S]everal months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton's foundation….

Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton's influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

The Times sums matters up:

[T]he episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."

So... is that just smoke or was there fire? Interesting that all of this is now an issue for Trump, and all they have to say is they "suspect" or the information can not be verified.... they speculate there was a Russian hacking, they had a third party, who is unidentified, making claims that can not be verified.... So, where is the guilty party? Keep in mind, before the elections the FBI investigated all connections that our new president and his employees possible connections with Russia and found nothing.