In 2009 per Hildabeast's order, FBI Dir. Mueller delivered highly-enriched uranium to Putie. Not
kidding.
Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta
Replies to: In 2009 per Hildabeast's order, FBI Dir. Mueller delivered highly-enriched uranium to Putie. Not
Shall we get Megyn to pantse you too Cole ?
(no message)
Whatever that means if it's coming from Megyn absolutely.
(no message)
It's obvious the dude sucks cock...
to each his own, I guess...huh Lancey?
The far right certainly seems to be afraid of Mueller.
Perhaps the pee pee tape cometh.
Which means you can't.
(no message)
You idiots really should stop reading "zero hedge"
It is a 98% bullshit website. It's where Fredyo gets his conspiracy ideas.
There might be some truth to that article. 10 grams is a tiny amount of HEU, and it is possible that it was shared with the Russians as part of a nuclear forensics investigation. Once we had analyzed it, of course, and determined it was of Russian origin.
10g is meaningless to a country that has thousands of tons of the stuff, and can make lots more.
This is what this website does - takes a story with grains of truth and interprets it it cockamamie ways.
We should just believe the "anonymous sources" like you do.
(no message)
Just the ones that turn out to be right.
(no message)
I don't recall Wikileaks being wrong...
(no message)
Again, the facts may or may not be right here, but the analysis is asinine
(no message)
Of course the same geniuses who find that sinister believe that Flynn and Jared were pure as the
driven snow in actually proposing to the chief Russian spy and ambassador that they use the embassy communications channels to talk to the Kremlin that just helped elect Orangetan.
Funny how most people that love Wikileaks now still hate Chelsea Manning.
(no message)
Bradley Manning is a traitorous scumbag...
(no message)
but Wikileaks (which published all his info) is legit/trustworthy. Thanks for proving my point.
(no message)
Easy there Pa. Don't blow a gasket. If you are goat, you must be heading to senility as
they would be much better in their day.
I don't think it's Goat.
Not nearly unbearable enough.
It could be Raghib bearding for him. Either way it's childish and moronic.
(no message)
raghib1988 (is that who you are referring to) never used capital letters or punctuation.
So I doubt it is him.
Forgot about that guy
A charming mix of hostility and stupidity.
Either goat or he would be enough of a Trump toady.
(no message)
Is this another board you got kicked out of?
(no message)
I have never been kicked off a board. In fact one of the others wanted me back.
Of course not. The soul of honesty and propriety. Idiot.
(no message)
TDS.
(no message)
Is there a mouse in the room?
(no message)
You want the MSM to tell us what the news is.
It don't work that way anymore.
Yeah, you're real discerning. An inspiration of independent thought.
(no message)
He's a trump toady.
(no message)
As opposed to a Hillary Clinton corruption lover like yourself
(no message)
Small fishy on the line. Or should I say a TT.
(no message)
TDS.
(no message)
TT Goat.
(no message)
Very credible source. You are a complete bot toady.
(no message)
It's an ostensibly authentic communication obtained by Wikileaks. Do you doubt it?
Here are my instructions to you: read first, post second. Don't reverse that order.
An "ostensibly authentic communication", WTF does that mean? If the source is zero hedge then yes
it is doubtful.
You can read the State Dept communication on Wikileaks. Try it.
(no message)
Have you read it there or are you relying on zero hedge. When you get a reputable source let me know
Is it authentic or "ostensibly authentic"? Bot.
Triggered.
(no message)
To laugh at you trying to use big words? Ostensibly authentic.......say what Cletus?
(no message)
TDS.
(no message)
Got anything else to say Goat?
(no message)
Special prosecutor should be appointed. HRC's ties to the Russians are pretty notorious.
(no message)
Trump should declassify every State Dept communication between 2009-16.
Leak bigly.
No doubt.
(no message)
Post some credible none hedge zero sources and how it's criminal.
(no message)
Ha! I'll remember that one. ... credible sources...heh heh.
(no message)
Which means you can't?
(no message)
Which means that you have set the standard, and strong sources are not required.
You can't rely on proven incorrect media outlets quoting anonymous sources, and then require a higher standard of your opponents.
And, by the way, I don't care enough to quote you sources. If you are unaware of HRC's notorious ties to Russia, I have no desire to expend energy to educate you at this point. If you care, look it up. If you don't, just declare your internet victory, and move on. I don't mind in the slightest.
Which means you can't.
(no message)
Excellent job. You decided to claim your internet victory!
(no message)
Which means you can't.
(no message)
Are you double dog daring me?
(no message)
Uhm triple.
(no message)