No 5 year old could understand the connection. It’s a Rube Goldberg conspiracy theory if I’ve ever seen one.

Meaning it requires far fetched mental gymnastics, or that she orchestrated it well enough to downplay her involvement?

Yes. Conspiracies are like money laundering, intentionally confusing.

A conspiracy is literally a plan by at least 2 people to commit some form or crime.

How does that confuse you?

This is why you want to stay out of /r/politics friend, it is decreasing your IQ

Actually no.

That is literally the definition.

Well, the dictionary definition of yogurt isn’t something you shove up your ass, either but in practical terms... life is a little different.

So, There absolutely CAN and probably have been 2-person conspiracies but it’s easier for 2 people to be quiet and the HRC conspiracies are not 2 person conspiracies.

I think I made it clear this was an especially complex situation and in another comment said “conspiracies that never get solved” are intentionally complex or something... is this a test?!

I’m not here to try to learn y’all about conspiracy theories. I was pointing out a fact about most conspiracies. I am ever regretful I was too broad in my comment to you.

I bow to your Supreme Intelligence.

There absolutely CAN and probably have been 2-person conspiracies

Obviously, I said at least two, not exactly two.

Glad I could educate you on the matter.

Read this far. Good on you for sticking to it

Delightful, all around.

12: Enigmas Have No Solution

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Lose interest

But yes, this is why money laundering and good conspiracies are never unraveled. It makes the average reader feel stupid so they think “no one could figure this out, I can’t figure it out” tho that might not be what they hear in their head, they feel it so if there is any bias towards the candidate or the accused, they will cling to that. White collar criminals rely on it, the public’s implicit bias towards Order. They managed to get US tax-payers to pay the effing banks for losing all of our own money essentially gambling and then the banks turn around and foreclose on those same tax-payers homes.

The average person’s fear of disorder.

I agree with what you're saying, except this was pretty cut and dry. Rosatom gave money to Uranium One, who then gave the money to the Clinton Foundation. The Office of the Secretary of State, under Hillary's leadership, arranged a deal with Russia to allow them to mine uranium inside the US.

The Foundation is the root of the laundering.

But that is not true.

When did I state a date, and how far from that stated date did the event occur?

You stated “this then that” in the wrong order. Sorry for understanding it as linear thinking...

the donations AND speaking fee were in 2010 before Clinton was Sec. Of State. The donations and fee were from Renaissance Capital who were one of the *investors” in but not actually someone at Uranium One. Again, tenuous but not improbable.

Just very, very, very hard to prove.

All bailout money has been repaid to the government with interest. And people getting foreclosed on made poor decisions and took on debt they couldn't pay.

The banks and financial advisors encouraged customers to get those loans. The professionals, who knew exactly what the numbers said...

It’s really disingenuous and heartbreaking to say that the average American should not have put their trust in them. Obviously now we know we are not the country we once were but at the time I think a lot of the country was still under the impression that banks and financial advisors worked for the customer and had some sense of decency. And honestly I’d like it if we could actually be that country. Financial advisors should not be allowed to lie to their customers forchissakes.

Before you even ask, no I did not lose a thing. I have never trusted anybody because I grew up dirt poor with shitty parents but I guess not everyone is that lucky

The "average american" has their own responsibility to research financial agreements they might be a part of. If you've gone into a deal with a bank expecting to not get screwed if the bank deems it worthy to screw you at any point that banks have existed, you are an idiot.

Well, then the same should go for financial institutions, don’t ya think?

They KNEW what they were doing when they leveraged and lost all that money.

Why would the “average American” (your disdain is palpable and pitiable) be held to an impossibly higher standard than the people who are educated in finance and engineered the bubble, not to mention spent years getting rich off it.

Interesting. My "palpable disdain" must be self directed, since I'm part of the demographic "targeted" by those practices. But sure. I have nothing but contempt for people who eagerly bought the pie in the sky idiocy being shoveled by the lenders in that time period. I loathe people who can't accept responsibility for their own actions, from every social class.

Banks are partially responsible as well. But here's the thing. Banks can't do shit without customers. They have a huge incentive to pull underhanded schemes. This is widely known, and has been associated with usury since the beginning of the profession. It is the customer's job to do their own due dilligence in entering a business contract with a bank. Period. You can't just take on debt that you can't manage, and then cry victim when it goes south on you and pretend you have no responsibility for your situation.

Maybe you’re a lot younger than me but i do not agree that it was not “widely known” then that banks would lend money to anyone and everyone because it had never ever been done before.

It wasn’t until the deregulation of banks that they were allowed to loan money to people who had a “subprime” rating. That led to the bundling of mortgages, credit default swaps and a shit ton of people with their fingers in the pot that would never have been imagined 5-10 years prior, even the government agency meant to regulate them didn’t understand the intricacies of what the banks were doing with the swaps and bundling, especially.

I haven’t meant to insult you, I apologize truly if I have.

All you had to look at was the details of a subprime loan, and you'd realize how badly you'd get fucked. It is absolutely not the bank's job to limit your risk. It's yours. If you agreed to sign for one, and you got fucked, I direct you to something relevant

I do know that story. I’m an Arab in the Deep South so... I’ve heard that.

Anyway. Here is something else relevant which is a great short article about the actual rules changes which allowed for banks to over-leverage to the point that at the time of the bubble burst the banks were owed more money than was in circulation... on Earth among other ridiculous behaviors

Like I said, banks are responsible too. But they couldn't have reached that point without customers unwilling to live within their means. The narrative that the banks were solely responsible is a fantasy, written to absolve the american people of complicity and responsibility for their actions.

No 5 year old coUldale understand the connection? Thats how things usually work, young children are very developed so don't understand most things. Your comment is retarded. You would use a child as an example when something ispecial very simple to do. " It's so easy a 5 year old could do I ". See how this works? You can't even understand simple English lol. What a moron.

Fuck Hillary and fuck the press, both mainstream and fringe, debunking anything.

You can easily debunk this yourself if you just look at the facts of the situation. Wasn't selling uranium, wasn't being operated or overseen by the state department. A Russian company wanted to take a controlling share in a company that was responsible for mining uranium. The Russian government tried to push for this deal to go through, as they are supposed to do. One guy was investigated and arrested for doing dirty business.

Of course, all of what I just said will be said at the conclusion of the Congressional investigation, but I doubt anyone here will believe it when that happens either.

Here is the chart Louie Gohmert brought in to Congress the other day to help explain it... https://m.imgur.com/gallery/MawkJyo

Hillary Clinton is an absolute disgusting shitcunt, a literal proven criminal and needs to be locked up till she dies.

That is the best I could do.

I don’t think thats yogurt you’ve been eating.

I don't eat yogurt, I stuff it up my asshole for the friendly bacteria fam

Oh, cool. Yeah, that’s yogurt. Move along.

Good luck with your butteria!

But seriously I read a great book called a Follow Your Gut by Rob Knight that was really informative and more precise about gut bacteria. He also wrote Dirt is Good and I think he’s done some TED talks but TED talks make me feel like a horrible sci-fi future has occurred where everyone’s arms are just long enough to pat themselves on the back all day long. And everyone talks in an NPR whisper voice. shiver

Theres a 9 member board that evaluates deals like uranium one for national security purposes. The SoS is one of the members so thats ostensively her involvement. The problem is that it was her deputy SoS who did that one and we don't have evidence she intervened in any way, and also the board does not have power to veto or approve the deal, she could only say no, which would advise the president before signing off on it, not stop it. So a potential bribe would only be changing her no vote that she wouldn'tve made anyway. It needs more evidence like that she convinced the other members to vote yes on it(even though they would have anyway)

Here

The key event that the myth is based on is Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a controlling stake in the Toronto-based energy company in 2010. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on. But PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claimlast year when Trump tried to make it into a scandal on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:

• The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.

• The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.

• President Barack Obama, not Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.

• Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium from the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.

• Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump has suggested, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”

The Republican focus on Clinton and Uranium One are really in service of a broader political goal: to distract from and push back against the growing investigations into the Trump administration’s possible collusion with Moscow.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/31/16581234/sessions-special-counsel-clinton-uranium-one-russia

lol Vox

lol facts that have been reported everywhere vox was simply the top result.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

What press said it’s been debunked? As far as I know the original NYTimes Article and New Yorker Article on the subject are still fully online with no retractions.

Yes. Conspiracies are like money laundering, intentionally confusing.

There absolutely CAN and probably have been 2-person conspiracies

Obviously, I said at least two, not exactly two.

Glad I could educate you on the matter.