James Comey himself said Hillary broke the law, but Hillary was TOO BIG TO FAIL. She is a two time failed Presidential candidate and a horrible person. She has been in the spotlight for almost 3 decades and there is a reason she lost the election.;
I can see why you would cite the official explanation not knowing anything beyond that and because that is what being a dem bootlicker requires. Now let's examine it a bit more shall we? The official story is that eight other agencies approved it. What gets left out of that out of that little explanation is that mueller and rosenthal had an active bribery investigation going involving the uranium one actors. Did the FBI communicate that to the people who were actually reviewing the application or was it withheld? I think we know the answer. Uranium One's Chairman donated 2.5 million to the Cinton Crime Foundation right while the application was being reviewed. And, a major Russian Bank promoting Uranium One Stock and with ties to the Kremlin paid Bill Clinton 500K for ONE speech in Moscow right while the review was in process. See any problems there? No, didn't think so. Did Hillary recuse or disclose any of this while she was approving the Uranium Sale? Let the viewers decide. Other agencies approved but the State Department would have been the lead agency and if the State Department was ok with it, that would carry weight with many of the others. Clinton 101. Now let's examine your ridiculous statement that "Russia has plenty of uranium and does not need ours." Really? And so they are bribing people and jumping through massive hoops in DC to get approval to acquire American uranium via Uranium One for what reason? - because they have too much time on their hands and money to burn? You have no idea about what Russia's long terms strategies are. They do have lots of uranium and their goal is to keep it that way, so that they have lots of uranium and they also control who else does and does not. Hence:Uranium One acquisition. 500k for one speech bubba. way to gooo. good work if you can get it.
...and Avenatti's collar is getting snug. https://www.nationalreview.com/news...eatens-sue-reporters-digging-into-background/
Avenatti is a side show distraction compared to the fireworks going on in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia. Manafort and Cohen getting indicted for money laundering and tax evasion is going to look ridiculous if the Russian Troll Farming case gets dismissed or Mueller loses it outright. If you will recall, Judge T.S. Ellis III smoked Mueller's ass last week about his lack of transparency, questionable tactics and motives. Mueller tried to get discovery limited - fail. Mueller tried to postpone the trial - fail. Very important developments and a new motion filed today. At the next hearing Judge Ellis will have to hear a fresh round of transparency and conflict issues to be piled on top the list of Mueller's ongoing indictment woes. Mueller may have a conflict — and it leads directly to a Russian oligarch http://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...t-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch The Russians Try to Call Mueller’s Bluff, File Request to View Secret Grand Jury Info https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...equest-to-view-secret-grand-jury-instruction/
You don't know that. Depends on the jurisdiction where the suit is brought. Fewer than half of the american states treat defamation as a crime rather than a civil matter, and federal law does not. Also, Avanetti's constant appearances in media and high profile nature establish that he is a public figure. Under American case law it is extremely difficult to get a judgement against someone for defaming a public figure. It can be done but it must be more than just calling them a crook and saying nasty things about them. You have to be alleging that you have personal knowledge of something which you know to be a lie and are maliciously and openly using it. In this case investigative journalists are just point toward a whole pile of suspcious activities and unsavory background factors. That's just too bad for him and the investigative journalists will just laugh him off as they should and be all the more motivated.
And freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is where Avenatti appearing on hundreds of television segments and having his name published tens of thousands of times since February is the saw that cuts both ways - he is now a 'public figure'. The legal hurdle for a public figure to successfully prove malice against the press is a pretty steep one. So, the entire world currently watches Avenatti. And Avenatti publicly threatening to sue a very modest media outlet for looking at public records about his past is only going to invite more media scrutiny. The mainstream media can tear him down just as fast as it built him up - it sells advertising.