Back to Uranium One again.... That one was even debunked by Fox news Ted!
Ted, old colonel, et all, pointing out the ills of the past does not justify the ills of the current times. That is nothing more than a "what about this, what about that" approach to argument that just avoids the merits of the issue at hand.
Frankly it only achieves a perception that you are incapable of defending you actions and choices to be disloyal to your country. Cowardly as well.
BTW, Old Colonel, those democrats you pointed out all became republicans in the 70's and 80's and stayed that way. And the Times article is spot on but I don't think your delusional to keep at the lie that the Clinton's started the dossie.
Its more revealing of an effort on your part to deny the reality that you are what I say you are. Because it suits your ideology and selfish needs, for which you put in front of the good of the country, you condone the assistance of a foreign adversary to influence our elections in your favor as well as condoning the steps taken to conceal the fact from the american people.
People who died for this country are rolling in their graves...
That would presume that the uranium 1 contributions were the only ones to the Clinton Foundation, while she was Secretary of State. I assure you, that was not the case. What would the founding fathers have though about ANY contributions to a foundation run by presidential appointee? How much were B Clinton’s speaking fees prior to and after his wife being appointed to Secretary of State, and how much did Bill receive from the Russians after that event took place?
Let’s start at the beginning of the story, shall we?
All the allegations you mention, occurred BEFORE DJ Trump took office, under the watchful eyes of the BH Obama administration, who were warned by Devin Nunez that it, election tampering, that is, would occur back in 2014. It is worth noting that the administration of BH Obama did nothing, save to say “Cut it out”
So, we hold the occupant of the White House responsible for the errors and malfeasance of the unqualified former occupant?
Try again.
Best.
Ted
