An observation.
Randy Withers

Pretty much everything he is talking about is known fact at this point, and let’s remember that the millions of stories we have seen splattered all over the mainstream media claiming Trump colluded with Russia have zero evidence supporting them but that zero evidence does not stop them from making the claims against Trump.

So what facts do you not know about?

  1. Hilary took over $140 million dollars from Russians involved in the Uranium deal right after she gave her approval to that deal?
  2. That Bill Clinton was paid twice his usual speaking fee to give a speech to Russians at the same time?
  3. That the FBI had indeed conducted several investigations involving Russian payoffs and such before the deal was made but was never made public and did not stop the Uranium deal?
  4. That other loyalists of the Clintons were involved in the deal?
  5. That the final “Dossier” was paid for by Hillary Clinton and involved Russians in the creation?
  6. That the finished “Dossier” was handed to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer?
  7. That everyone on the Left involved with this stuff has all lied about it?
  8. That Hillary lied about her email sever and deleted tens of thousands of emails we now know at least some that were deleted were in fact work related?
  9. That the group who was paid by Democrats to produce the “Dossier” all pled the 5th and refused to cooperate with the investigation and are hiding who all was involved in producing it?
  10. That Mueller and Comey were both involved in the investigations involving Russians and the Uranium deal and had to be involved in covering it up? The timelines prove that much, lol.

Anyway, all of this is already established, and at the very least looks very bad, especially all the money dumped into the Clinton’s pockets. For the media to completely refuse to cover this extensively when we have all this actual evidence but they spam millions of stories claiming Trump colluded with Russia during the election with not the first piece of actual evidence proves the corruption to the core of the media.

You can't claim to not have heard about any of this before, it is all true, how to process or look at these facts may be up for debate to a certain degree, but to pretend as if these facts do not exist requires a great deal of intentional avoiding of reality.

If you are really completely clueless and uninformed on any of this as you claim (I have a hard time believing that) then you can easily remedy your lack of information with some simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I will gladly get you started but I can’t do all your research and education for you, you have to at some point take the initiative to educate yourself.

So to get you started I will give you this NYT’s piece that covers a great deal of the basic framework of the long and detailed connections between the Clinton’s and Russians and the Uranium deal:

An important passage:

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

This should get you started, but the rest is up to you and some basic research, but the real questions is why is the media mostly ignoring this series of stories when at least there is “SOME” evidence to support it but they do millions of stories about Trump when there is zero evidence to support it?