Crooked Hillary strikes again

Crooked Hillary strikes again | ACCUSES TRUMP OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION AFTER SHE GOT 400 MILLION DOLLARS IN A CAMPAIGN DONATION FROM RUSSIA | image tagged in memes,roll safe think about it,hillary clinton,russia,collusion | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
3,994 views, 57 upvotes, Made by SydneyB 5 months ago memesroll safe think about ithillary clintonrussiacollusion
Roll Safe Think About It memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
The Most Interesting Man In The World Meme | THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD POINT! IF IT WASN'T ENTIRELY MADE UP | image tagged in memes,the most interesting man in the world | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups
Leonardo Dicaprio Wolf Of Wall Street Meme | ME? I JUST WANTED TO ACT LIKE A LIBERAL AND JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS OVER UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS | image tagged in memes,leonardo dicaprio wolf of wall street | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
:^)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
You're right, the the donation to the Clinton foundation by the Russian company that bought Uranium One didn't happen (internet sarcasm).
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Please cite your source for this conspiracy theory.
reply
2 ups
It's common knowledge that the Clinton foundation received money from multiple sources with connections to Rosatam (the Russian company) during and leading up to the purchase of Uranium One. The only thing up for debate is how much she received in total that was connected to the deal. Left leaning researchers say it's as low as 2 million. Right leaning researchers say it's as high as 200 million.

I suppose if you wanted the two most credible sources you could look at the original NY Times article from the leftists point of view which was a response to Peter Schwiezer's book "Clinton Cash" from the right's perspective.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
, | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
1 up
Good points.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Ummmm there was a huge investigation going on as to if it was happening and who was doing it. They didn't come out about it because they didn't want to influence the results of the election themselves.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Is that why Obama instructed intelligence officials to 'stand down'? So, really, they just let it happen, because they thought Hillary was an automatic win?... I believe, that IF Hillary DID win, we'd be hearing/seeing next to nothing about 'Russia, Russia, Russia'... Why? Because that would influence her ability to govern and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election (which is the exact reason the exact opposite thing is happening right now: they WANT to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election -- even though Rosenstein specifically stated, more than a few times, that there is no evidence that any Russian activity had any effect on the election results).... Nope, sorry, this is ALL about marginalizing the President.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
Obama didn't instruct intelligence officials to stand down. That was directed at Russia. Also, if Hillary had won, there would still be investigations about Russian meddling. The investigation was already long underway by the time of the election. She would also probably be investigated, seen as she would be the president and her presidency could have been influency by Russians. But she isnt. It's TRUMP who's the president. There IS evidence that he was involved, from the Don Jr meeting in Trump Tower, to the multiple Trump officials who've stepped down or pleaded guilty to conspiring with Russians. I'm not saying that Trump was most definately helping the Russians with meddling, but there's too many problessings within the campaign and in the administration for our intelligence community to NOT look into him.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
Oh, I agree there would still be some sort of espionage investigation involving Russia (as there always has been, and will be, at least), BUT you would not be hearing endlessly ad nauseum about it 24/7 on MSNBCNN, NYT, WaPo, etc... There is also quite a bit of evidence supporting that former and current 'intelligence' and DOJ/FBI people were actively trying to thwart -- and likely 'frame-up' -- the Trump Admin... However, I feel there have surely been 'moles' in the Admin... After all, the illegal 'leaks' most likely don't come from Admin 'friendly' 'sources'.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The politicians are pissed a free man is president and will do anything to destroy him.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well, yes, MANY of the politicians and the 'career' govt people harbor strong resentment... Example: let's say you're John McCain, been in politics for like 45-50 yrs, ran several times for President -- and then some guy who never even been elected to anything, wins the Presidency... you would be, naturally, envious and critical... But, the more the DeepStaters go after Trump, the more I realize that he was the best thing to happen -- regardless if I agree with everything he does or not... He IS the resistance to THEM.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
First, Deep State is a GOP bogeyman society. There is no deep state. There are people who have committed their lives to the service of this country, among them veterans like John McCain. If the resistance is to things like our democracy and Constitution, there is a very large problem with your arguments (or is that just trolling?).
reply
0 ups
John McCain? Who, eight years ago they were all calling a racist old white man -- but now somehow you're rising him above that because he's suiting a useful purpose? AND, YOU'd be damn sure calling him one now too, if he had been elected Prez in 2016... Look at these links of what they thought and said about him (I mean at least look at the titles, and see if they look 'familiar' -- you can isolate a search to 2008 to find many many more):... https://www.amazon.com/Gook-John-McCains-Racism-Matters/dp/0967943345 .... https://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/John_Lewis_invoking_George_Wallace_says_McCain_and_Palin_playing_with_fire.html .... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/14/mccain-palin-obama-racism .... https://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-uptake/gook-john-mccains-racism_b_114401.html
reply
0 ups
"Frame up" = a couple of snarky lovers texting each other, who were also equal opportunity snarking on all of the candidates. GOP narrative=seize on any crumb that suits your story, ignore everything else.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I don't think that anyone in the FBI was trying to thwart the Trump. That's not impossible, but there isn't any evidence. As for the endless coverage of it, I don't like that either. It should certainly be reported on generously, but nowhere near the degree that it is.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Isn't any evidence? Have you heard of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok?... And there have been quite a few other actions/events in the FBI/DOJ that are highly suspicious... I mean, just the very carefully timed announcements alone are fishy.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
They have to time announcements carefully, or else they may give away critical information on the case that could be meddled with. As for Lisa Paige and Peter Strzok, we saw Strzok testify that his political opinions DIDN'T influence his work on the case. If he really wanted to sabotage the Trump campaign, he would've come out about the case before the election. They came out about the Clinton campaign's email investigation directly before the election, and it might have just cost her the votes. You should be THANKING Strzok for not ruining the Trump campaign.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Apparently Strzok re-wrote memo for the 'exoneration' for Hillary -- well before she even met with anyone (and of course when she met, there was no oath, and no transcript) -- Strzok said he couldn't recall that... Thank Strzok? Where are you getting some of this nonsense?..... And, it was the 're-opening' of Hillary case and subsequent quick 2ND exoneration that came out just before the Election -- which, HAS been sort of an enigma of why it was done at that time -- but clearly at least part of the point of that was to 'clear the slate' for Hillary, AND give her a 2nd exoneration (which came back with a few days as designed).... Btw, it's not really just 'Hillary's' emails -- they were emails (including classifieds) belonging to the State Dept... in addition to the misfeasance of having a private offsite server, and then purposefully destroying information, while it already had been subpoena... ALL of this Comey, Mueller, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, et al stuff stinks to high heaven.... It may be only a matter of time before what's really going on is found out --- or it may never be revealed... But I've got no time to continue to post things that you clearly are unwilling to even consider, nevermind believe.... You're free to continue to believe what you want, of course... Cheers
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I'd like to know where you got that. Could I review your source myself? I'm curious as to what exactly it says.
1 up
Sure, but I don't know which part you're referring to, so maybe you could clarify the question (it would take some time to get references to everything)...There are a couple links regarding Stzrok at the end (I assume that's what you meant)... But I'm not sure if you are questioning whether there were 2 exonerations of Hillary: but remember there was the initial one, where Comey said 'extremely careless' etc, and the case was presumed 'closed' (that one was in July 2016 I believe); then, since it was discovered (and leaked) that Anthony Weiner and Huma had many of Hillary's (State Dept's) emails Comey announced the re-opening of investigation in late October 2016, with the 2nd exoneration taking place several days later https://realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/cnn_fbi_agent_strzok_changed_comeys_clinton_language_from_grossly_negligent_to_extremely_careless.html https://realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/04/cnn_fbi_agent_strzok_changed_comeys_clinton_language_from_grossly_negligent_to_extremely_careless.html
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Vomiting the propaganda you see on TV or read from CNN politics doesn't fly here.

If you want to defend Hillary or the DNC you're better off typing "racist" or "Nazi" in all caps at the people you disagree with.

You're pretty naive if you believe what you wrote.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
I don't watch CNN, and rarely do I watch MSNBC or any biased telivision. I get most of my news from NPR, who's legally requnited to be non-biased.

"One basic notion that is false is the idea the Obama administration took no action — it did."

"Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work."

"Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia's attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York."

NPR News

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016
reply
0 ups
It's not that Obama took no action, but that the action was AFTER the Election, not before it (except for maybe telling Putin to 'cut it out')... Yes, he expelled Russian diplomats after the Election; Ironically Trump expelled even more than Obama did... Again, if all was the same, but Hillary had won Election, we would be seeing/hearing/reading very little about Russian election meddling... It was only AFTER the Election, that all of a sudden massive interest in all things 'Russia' began... NPR, although claiming to be unbiased, is 'overwhelmingly' Democrat ... meddlinghttp://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/397212-president-trump-is-tougher-on-russia-in-18-months-than-obama-in-eight https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/03/15/npr-boardmembers-and-fundraisers-give-overwhelmingly-to-democrats https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/ https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/npr-political-donations-raise-questions
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
NPR, is the most biased source. It is government ran news.
reply
0 ups
It is legally required to be non-biased.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Propaganda.
Here's a better question:
Why didn't Obama stop FBI election interference?

Obama had no authority over what Russia does, and what they did was advertise for the DNC's opponents. Other countries lobby for all sorts of American election activities. It's hypocritical and only being brought up because the DNC had their plans ripped out from under them.

Obama did have authority over the FBI. The FBI definitely interfered with the election. Why didn't he stop that? Maybe because he wanted it to happen?

Maybe you should do research instead of reading and listening to "news".
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Propaganda? NPR is one of the most reliable news sources out there. If you can't trust them, you can't really trust any news, can you? NEWS IS PART OF RESEARCH!!! What research do YOU do that doesn't come from news. Really, I'd like you to give me ONE credible source. Not Fox News, nor CNN or MSNBC, because they're not always totally accurate. Not BreitBart or Alex Jones, or some random conspiracy forum on Reddit. One actual, credible source.

The FBI didn't interfere with the election. That's stupid and ignorant. The closest thing to "interfering" was announcing the re-opening of the Clinton email case before the election. That probably cost her the election.

Also, no, the president does NOT have control over the FBI's functions and investigations. He or she may only fire and hire people, so that kinda debunks every point you made.
reply
1 up, 4 replies
"You can't really trust any news" - That.

News is there to tell a story and push someone's agenda. 90% of the topics on the news are bs designed to keep you from looking at the real story. Did you know Lisa Page was already interviewed? The media was too busy talking about Trump visiting with Putin.

Why did Trump visit with Putin? Media was too busy asking about Russian collusion. I don't think I've seen or read a single "news" that actually mentions what they discussed in any detail.

Research is hard for some people. You have to know what questions to ask yourself.

You called me Alex Jones when I told you what was really going on. Here's a few questions you should find the answer to:

Who owns the federal reserve? How do they make money?

What is the TPP and TISA? Who supports them? Who profits from their success?

Why did you respond here instead of the reply I gave you that quoted Strzok's testimony?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why don't you take a look at the comment you posted and at my reply? Also, if you can't trust news, where do you get your research? What are your sources? Don't diss NPR because they reported on actual facts. If you can't find any news that doesn't report on worthwhile subjects, then you're not looking very hard.

Yes, I know about the Lisa Paige testimony -- it was done in confidentiality.

Trump visited Putin on the basis of a national security conference.

The Federal Reserve is an independent entity and is not "owned" by anyone. They don't make the money, they oversee the production of money by The Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

The Trade in Services Agreement is a trade agreement similar in nature to the TPP, which I already described in the other comment.

None of this has anything to do with anything we're talking about. Stop distracting and get to the facts.
0 ups
I'm done with you, fool.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I win. If you can't do anything else with the last comment but try and insult me and call me a dog, then you've proven that I'm right. Thanks for the good time, I'm leaving this alone, unless you've got actual evidence to present.

I've tried to be civil. I've tried to be fair. But you've insulted me, harassed me, and you've gotten nowhere. Thanks for the wonderful talk, I had nothing but fun and a good laugh. Seems a good laugh is all you're useful for.

I've flagged the "good boy" comment, as it's in violation of the Terms of Agreement where it says under the section, Conduct, "In any content that you create or modify while using this website, do not discriminate against any sect, commit or condone illegal acts, advertise, HARASS OTHERS, or otherwise make it less fun for other people."

I might have said you are misguided and compared you to Alex Jones (perhaps an extreme comparison), but I haven't done anything to harass you. You've taken it too low just because I was able to prove my point better than you.
1 up
Rofl!!!! You told on me?? Hahahahahaha

You're so smart and tough and knowledgeable. Someone scolds you for being worse than stupid and you report them.

If you ever wake up, think of this moment. Think of how proud you felt.
0 ups
Look at you making it less fun for others.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I'm done with you too, thanks for the talk.
0 ups
Thank you for your response, that's very kind of you to take the time.
0 ups
Rofl!!! I said it first! You can't say it if I said it first!!

Yeh dude. You're a real winner. Keep fighting the good fight. Keep them eyes shut the hardest. I already told you you're just spitting propaganda at me. Your "research" was just more propaganda. I'm not going to play with stupid.
reply
0 ups
Citation please.
reply
0 ups
Citation please.
reply
1 up
"Obama's cybersecurity coordinator confirms Susan Rice ordered him to 'stand down' on Russian meddling".... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obamas-cybersecurity-coordinator-confirms-susan-rice-ordered-stand-down-russian-meddling-2016-election
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It just keeps getting better...
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
We don't know all their motivations, and all we know is what they've said on the issue. My guess is that they didn't come out about the investigation because they didn't have all the facts on the issue, and didn't want to influence voters by potentially giving false information on an open case
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I'm not gonna talk with you if you're not going to be reasonable. Maybe it's hard for you, but try not to be petty and childish, and actually try to have a civil discussion. Nothing gets done when you do nothing but call names. If you'd like to tell me what you think is retarded about what I said, please do. Otherwise, leave me alone.
reply
1 up
I agree, you deserve to have civility... I hope I have been civil to you, and I'm glad that you are civil... My memes are intended as comical and satire... (btw, I think we should all get back to making funny memes again -- even if political satire... this is not really the place to hijack solely into discussion)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The motives are obvious. The FBI is working for the DNC who wanted to shut down Trump because he's the greatest threat to career politicians this country has ever had. He's specifically an enemy to the DNC because he shut down the TPP as soon as he stepped in office, ruining the DNC's masters plans of global domination through banking and healthcare.

Your guess was fed to you by propaganda through the liberal media which you keep paraphrasing. That's mindless zombie stuff so I called you retarded.

You're not ready to play in the political playground here on imgflip if you can't handle a little humorous insult. At least I made it funny. People that share your opinions usually just call people assholes, traitors, racists, etc. without any humor attached. Grow a pair and defend your misguided opinions.

Or.. when in doubt, cop out.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh, I didn't realize I was talking to Alex Jones himself. Nice to meet you, Mr Jones.

Seriously, there's no evidence of the FBI working for the DNC, that's nothing but a conspray theory. Please, use facts only. Provide some if you'd like to be take seriously.

As for humor, I have plenty. Trust me, I was laughing while I read everything you said. I can handle humor. I don't care that you called me a retard. All I said is that I don't want to deal with someone whose just gonna insult me without presenting a case of any kind.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Did you watch Strzok's Testimony? I did. That duetche is working on behalf of the DNC without any doubt. Just because someone says the sky is green under oath doesn't make it true.

The FBI interfered with the election and the DNC still lost. "Don't worry we'll stop him (from getting elected)". Strzok went on to say that there are many others in the FBI that feel exactly as he does and will continue to work to the same ends. His removal means nothing.

The FBI was working to impeach Trump before any investigation had even begun. "You and I both know the odds (of impeachment) are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big (chance of impeachment) there." They proceeded to start an investigation with the purpose of impeachment: the Russian collusion. It's been scientifically proven that if people hear a lie enough they will believe it. That's why the magic words "Russian Collusion" are repeated daily on every news channel.

This has been a major violation of democracy. That's not a conspiracy. That has verified evidence. Go do some real research.

Also, is that as far as you got? No mention of the TPP? Do you even know what it is? What its mission is? Who supports it?

I love it when people infer I'm being crazy. It shows how ignorant and fragile their minds are.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You can say the sky is green under oath, and everyone will know you're a liar or crazy. Nothing that he said can be proven right or wrong because we can't know what his intentions behind texts were. Although we can infer, we can't know for sure.

Also, Russian Collusion did happen. That's also a fact. Putin himself said that he wanted Trump to win. Whether or not Trump was involved with the hacking, we don't know. But we do know this: IT DID HAPPEN.

The idea of the FBI interfering in the election has no proof. They aren't trying to impeach Trump, they're doing their jobs and trying to get the facts. The "We will stop him" text (which you so kindly added to) was Strzok talking about how he believes the American people (we) would stop him from becoming president. Although that one is easier to misinterprete, so I understand that. The investigation was going on since the summer of 2016, before the election. How could they know if he was going to win until the election results came out? Are you suggesting that they might've purposefully put Trump as president for the sole purpose of impeaching him? That's the only way I see that that theory of yours could work. Just because they didn't come out about the investigation until after the election, doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

Also, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a defunct economic partnership between countries in and around the Pacific, including the USA (shocking) that was created with the purpose of encouraging trade, but ultimately, was never put into place. Now, believe it or not, it has nothing to with anything you were talking about. I don't know if you were trying to trap me, but yeah, I'm not stupid, ignorant, or fragile. I apologize if my comments made you believe I thought you were stupid. But let's not forget, however that YOU decided to call ME retarded, although it was a joke, (or at least, mildly amusing rather than a "joke"). Telling you that youre stupid was never my intention. However, I'm certain you are misguided in several ways, and all I've done is point to facts to disprove any conspiracy theories youve thrown at me. I've double checked and cross-referenced all my facts, and your best response is to regurgitate conspiracy theories and assumptions.
0 ups
You are retarded. You are a mindless zombie sheeple.

You're just spitting propaganda at me. "They're doing their jobs" I've heard that one repeated during Strzok's interview! "The TPP encourages trade" ROFL So much no...

I bet you're real proud of your response. You should be. You're a good dog, barking exactly what you're told to bark. Good boy.

"Just because you can speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui Gon Jinn
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Its way worse than collusion. Why do you people defend such an obvious spineless freak that cant even defend our own ambassador?
reply
1 up
reply
2 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/2e6bha.jpg (click to show)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
i.imgflip.com/2eanyp.jpg (click to show)
actually it's not Russia who donated. It's illegal investment money that was made in Russia and donated by hedge-fond-manager Bill Browder.
imgflip.com/i/2e6bha
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
I can totally appreciate why you say that.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well I can tell you that I have more respect for you having that opinion, than I do for some of the outrageous, and hysterical nonsense posted elsewhere here... It really is astounding people are being led around in a constant state of hissy-fit like this.... I mean, why don't they get a relaxing hobby or something, and come down off the incessant 'end of the World' ladder they sound like they're standing on.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I've never seen the media trying it's best to whip people into a frenzy like this before. Now you risk assault if you go out and people recognize you're a Trump supporter. And they think they have the moral high ground to justify harrassing those they disagree with. And yet they call us the fascists.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I think many people (except for maybe the terminally addicted MSNBCNN crowd) are at least now realizing the astounding level of hysterical (and usually hypocritical) hype. I met a very nice guy, a Democrat, who doesn't like Trump of course, but he came right out and willingly said the 'Media' DOES hate Trump... On the other hand, others are still playing that sorta 'pro-wrestling-is-real' type taboo, of pretending that the 'Media' doesn't hate Trump (and that they're just 'objectively doing their jobs').... You'd have to be a 'special kind of stupid', or be putting on a facade, not to clearly sense the 'Media's' hatred for Trump.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Exactly. I think the problem is that fewer and fewer companies are owning more % of the media. But I always get a chuckle thinking about how after lefties like Obama and Seth Myers taunted Trump into running, the media gave Trump millions of dollars of free publicity, pushed some people on the fence to vote for him due to their bias and convinced lazy libs to assume Hilldog would win a landslide so they laid around in bed, eating tidepods and fighting their various hangovers instead of voting. Hahaha Thank you, media!
reply
0 ups
Well, with all those people who had promoted Trump to run -- 'as a joke' like many of them had said (and with so much of the 'Media' and polling world very wrong, purposefully or not) -- it should be totally understadable why part of the reason for the 'Russian collusion' crusade IS to cover their embarrassment, and more importantly, to avert people (rightfully) losing confidence in them... Don't forget also, that Trump actually increased ratings for just about all of the media -- and they ARE businesses based on ratings: more ratings equals more money from advertisers (curiously also: notice that the advertisers on either FOX, CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, etc, are all pretty much the same advertisers!)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
People are saying that it was really 400 trillion dollars. Huge people. I might be wrong, but that doesn't matter anymore.
reply
1 up
I get your point but it was Putin's claim.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Except that Politifact called that claim Pants on Fire
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
Hahaha Yeah, it might well be but Hillary seems to be pretty shady about who donates to her. Time will tell though, hopefully.
reply
2 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Grats on the mil!
reply
1 up
Haha. Thank man
reply
0 ups
Source please.
Flip Settings
Roll Safe Think About It memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
ACCUSES TRUMP OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION; AFTER SHE GOT 400 MILLION DOLLARS IN A CAMPAIGN DONATION FROM RUSSIA
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback