Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Oh Crap! The lid just blew off my Collusion with Putin

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

No, it wasn’t true, so therefore cannot remain true. No matter how many times Hannity, Rush and the other retards say it.

Yes it was true, try as you might you can't do anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Yes it was true, try as you might you can't do anything about it.

no - it wasn't - as you can see in the data I provided.

20% of production capacity? no

20% of existing stocks? no

20% of future production? no

20% that can be exported? no (US doesn't allow uranium exports)

so 20% of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

no - it wasn't - as you can see in the data I provided.

20% of production capacity? no

20% of existing stocks? no

20% of future production? no

20% that can be exported? no (US doesn't allow uranium exports)

so 20% of what?

20% of uranium reserves....yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

20% of uranium reserves....yes

nope. 20% of US dirt that contains uranium at some set price. But NOT 20% of all uranium containing dirt. AND they cannot export said dirt.

Why do you think it wasn't veto'd?

Not just a big nothing burger, yet another deceptive nothing burger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

nope. 20% of US dirt that contains uranium at some set price. But NOT 20% of all uranium containing dirt. AND they cannot export said dirt.

Why do you think it wasn't veto'd?

Not just a big nothing burger, yet another deceptive nothing burger.

 

Certainly not a reason to donate $145 million to Bill's charity, which has nothing at all to do with Hillary anyway.

Just Russians being generous. Any other spin is just the VRWC again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Certainly not a reason to donate $145 million to Bill's charity, which has nothing at all to do with Hillary anyway.

Just Russians being generous. Any other spin is just the VRWC again.

I have no idea why the russians gave money to the charity. For the possibility of swaying some decision? sure, why not. that's the way the game is played in Russia, and most of the world. 

Yet, there's nothing there that says it was even necessary. 9 cabinet members sit on the board that reviews corporate ownership of national security resources. None objected. And they can't do shit, it has to be stopped by the Prez. Which he didn't do.

And the reason? there was no reason to stop the transaction. Who cares who owns the dirt? the dirt can't be exported, it just sits there until it is needed.  It's dirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

I have no idea why the russians gave money to the charity. For the possibility of swaying some decision? sure, why not. that's the way the game is played in Russia, and most of the world. 

Yet, there's nothing there that says it was even necessary. 9 cabinet members sit on the board that reviews corporate ownership of national security resources. None objected. And they can't do shit, it has to be stopped by the Prez. Which he didn't do.

And the reason? there was no reason to stop the transaction. Who cares who owns the dirt? the dirt can't be exported, it just sits there until it is needed.  It's dirt.

FAIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

nope. 20% of US dirt that contains uranium at some set price. But NOT 20% of all uranium containing dirt. AND they cannot export said dirt.

Why do you think it wasn't veto'd?

Not just a big nothing burger, yet another deceptive nothing burger.

 

20% of uranium. I said nothing about price or dirt or whether they have an export license (reports are that they exported some anyway). You can't make what I did say not true by talking about things things I didn't say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dog said:

20% of uranium. I said nothing about price or dirt or whether they have an export license (reports are that they exported some anyway). You can't make what I did say not true by talking about things things I didn't say.

they don't have 20% of the US's uranium. 

they own 20% of the proven reserves of dirt containing uranium at a certain price point.  Higher price point, less than 20%. given the US doesn't mine much uranium but consumes from overseas, way less than 20% of current consumption.

You lie Dog.  You take a truth and turn it into a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hermetic said:

now you consider charity evaluators to be auditors?

based on an analysis of foundation created documentation?

and you think these evaluator companies look at the clinton foundation more than any other charity?  that makes them the most audited?

you're either reaching hard, or really dumb

The charity evaluaters work pretty hard to sort out the bogus charity foundations which crop up all the time. They caught the DJ Trump Foundation in that entity's practice of using their funds to pay off personal obligations of DJ Trump, fer instance. 

  I gave my reasons for believing a lot of people have dug really hard on the CF. Either you can't comprehend English well enough to grasp that or are being deliberately obtuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A charitable contribution is an act of generosity.

Actually, no. A charitable contribution is "the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need". There is no need for the intent or outcome to be "generous". You might think it generous, but that does not mean that Mark said that.

One of these days you'll surprise everyone and not rely on misrepresenting someone to make a point. I'm not holding my breath.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I have no idea why the russians gave money to the charity. For the possibility of swaying some decision? sure, why not. that's the way the game is played in Russia, and most of the world. 

Yet, there's nothing there that says it was even necessary. 9 cabinet members sit on the board that reviews corporate ownership of national security resources. None objected. And they can't do shit, it has to be stopped by the Prez. Which he didn't do.

And the reason? there was no reason to stop the transaction. Who cares who owns the dirt? the dirt can't be exported, it just sits there until it is needed.  It's dirt.

It can't be for the possibility of swaying decisions. After all, Bill's charity has nothing to do with Hillary and after decades of investigation, everyone knows you can't buy influence from the Clinton's. And, as you say, it was unnecessary to influence Hillary, who had no influence anyway in her lowly position.

Given the lack of any other possible motivation for giving $145 million to Bill's charity, I'm going to go with "charitable motivations." Not sure why that's such a weird thought? Just Russians being friendly, as they are prone to being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It can't be for the possibility of swaying decisions. After all, Bill's charity has nothing to do with Hillary and after decades of investigation, everyone knows you can't buy influence from the Clinton's. And, as you say, it was unnecessary to influence Hillary, who had no influence anyway in her lowly position.

Given the lack of any other possible motivation for giving $145 million to Bill's charity, I'm going to go with "charitable motivations." Not sure why that's such a weird thought? Just Russians being friendly, as they are prone to being.

just some free $peech among friends. Not sure why you have a sudden allergy to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It can't be for the possibility of swaying decisions. After all, Bill's charity has nothing to do with Hillary and after decades of investigation, everyone knows you can't buy influence from the Clinton's. And, as you say, it was unnecessary to influence Hillary, who had no influence anyway in her lowly position.

Given the lack of any other possible motivation for giving $145 million to Bill's charity, I'm going to go with "charitable motivations." Not sure why that's such a weird thought? Just Russians being friendly, as they are prone to being.

Keep talking like that and people will think you want to limit $peech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

Free $peech doesn't belong anywhere near gun grabbers. Even by association of their accursed names for charity.   

Not sure why you'd say that. I already agreed with you that the Russians were just being charitable. Nothing wrong with a little charity and no reason to believe this is anything more than another instance of Russian generosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's starting to look like there really was collusion..... between Hillary and the Obama administration. We have also learned  Hillary and the DNC commissioned the dossier that was at the root of the Trump-Russia collusion claims and subsequent FBI investigation. We have also learned that Manifort represented Russian interests while working for Podesta.

You really can't make this shit up, it's going to make a great movie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-once-planned-to-pay-former-british-spy-who-authored-controversial-trump-dossier/2017/02/28/896ab470-facc-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.a1897d8e6999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mark K said:

The charity evaluaters work pretty hard to sort out the bogus charity foundations which crop up all the time. They caught the DJ Trump Foundation in that entity's practice of using their funds to pay off personal obligations of DJ Trump, fer instance. 

  I gave my reasons for believing a lot of people have dug really hard on the CF. Either you can't comprehend English well enough to grasp that or are being deliberately obtuse. 

a lot of people don't understand what an audit is, so don't feel too bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

It's starting to look like there really was collusion..... between Hillary and the Obama administration. We have also learned  Hillary and the DNC commissioned the dossier that was at the root of the Trump-Russia collusion claims and subsequent FBI investigation. We have also learned that Manifort represented Russian interests while working for Podesta.

You really can't make this shit up, it's going to make a great movie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-once-planned-to-pay-former-british-spy-who-authored-controversial-trump-dossier/2017/02/28/896ab470-facc-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?tid=a_inl-amp&utm_term=.a1897d8e6999

That's news to me "Manafort worked for Podesta?" ... holly crap.  I always suspected Podesta had a mole in the Trump camp. Hmmmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"President Trump just commented on a number of news stories before boarding Marine One to leave the White House. I’ve noted a couple memorable moments below. The really important one is about the Russia scandal and how he now believes he is vindicated in calling the entirety of the matter a hoax. 

To review, the President is arguing that the news about the so-called Steele Dossier is now revealed as a hoax and that the Uranium One conspiracy theory floated by John Solomon in The Hill means it was the Democrats who colluded with Russia. The entirety of this is so nonsensical as to not require or merit any real discussion. Some people are up in arms that Trump needs to be proven wrong otherwise he’ll ‘win’. I’m not terribly worried about this. These probes have a life of their own and I don’t think Trump is convincing anyone that he hasn’t already. 

But that misses what matters. We don’t know for a fact that Trump or his campaign took affirmative steps to collude with Russia in its 2016 election subversion campaign. We have overwhelming evidence that the subversion campaign happened. We now know it was far broader than the theft and distribution of confidential emails that gained so much attention last year. We know that it continued on major social media networks until last month and almost certainly continues on those same networks today. Most importantly, we have every reason to think that the 2018 and 2020 election campaigns will be similarly targeted. 

Most of us likely see Trump’s comments in the context of his endless nonsense and lying. But that’s not the important part. Russia may not be an enemy but it is an adversary state which has defined a strategic priority of destabilizing the US and the European Union. That includes information operations and likely actual vote tally tampering as well. This is all happening. It’s a direct attack on the country. It’s not something we need to overreact about. It’s not something we cannot combat through counter-intelligence operations and societal awareness. But it is a serious and on-going attack. If the President is out there publicly saying it’s not happening, saying it’s a hoax, he is actively and directly assisting the attack. There’s no other way to put it. He is charged by his oath with preserving the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He pledged to defend against all attacks but he’s actively assisting one. That is just as much the case as it would be if he repeatedly denied an adversary power were moving conventional arms into positions which threatened the United States. 

He is actively and directly assisting the attack and the attack is on-going. Why he’s doing that is not really relevant. He’s doing it."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/president-again-actively-assisting-on-going-russian-attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, badlatitude said:

"President Trump just commented on a number of news stories before boarding Marine One to leave the White House. I’ve noted a couple memorable moments below. The really important one is about the Russia scandal and how he now believes he is vindicated in calling the entirety of the matter a hoax. 

To review, the President is arguing that the news about the so-called Steele Dossier is now revealed as a hoax and that the Uranium One conspiracy theory floated by John Solomon in The Hill means it was the Democrats who colluded with Russia. The entirety of this is so nonsensical as to not require or merit any real discussion. Some people are up in arms that Trump needs to be proven wrong otherwise he’ll ‘win’. I’m not terribly worried about this. These probes have a life of their own and I don’t think Trump is convincing anyone that he hasn’t already. 

But that misses what matters. We don’t know for a fact that Trump or his campaign took affirmative steps to collude with Russia in its 2016 election subversion campaign. We have overwhelming evidence that the subversion campaign happened. We now know it was far broader than the theft and distribution of confidential emails that gained so much attention last year. We know that it continued on major social media networks until last month and almost certainly continues on those same networks today. Most importantly, we have every reason to think that the 2018 and 2020 election campaigns will be similarly targeted. 

Most of us likely see Trump’s comments in the context of his endless nonsense and lying. But that’s not the important part. Russia may not be an enemy but it is an adversary state which has defined a strategic priority of destabilizing the US and the European Union. That includes information operations and likely actual vote tally tampering as well. This is all happening. It’s a direct attack on the country. It’s not something we need to overreact about. It’s not something we cannot combat through counter-intelligence operations and societal awareness. But it is a serious and on-going attack. If the President is out there publicly saying it’s not happening, saying it’s a hoax, he is actively and directly assisting the attack. There’s no other way to put it. He is charged by his oath with preserving the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He pledged to defend against all attacks but he’s actively assisting one. That is just as much the case as it would be if he repeatedly denied an adversary power were moving conventional arms into positions which threatened the United States. 

He is actively and directly assisting the attack and the attack is on-going. Why he’s doing that is not really relevant. He’s doing it."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/president-again-actively-assisting-on-going-russian-attacks

Thank you. I know you have my back no matter how evil I become. You are like Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large.  Thanks.

170515131851-the-point-with-chris-cillizza-logo-large-169.png

 
Launch probes! Congressional GOPers try desperately to take focus off Trump
Chris Cillizza

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large Updated 9:13 PM ET, Tue October 24, 2017

But, it is not a coincidence that these two probes were announced on the same day -- and amid Trump's ongoing circular firing squad routine. There are NO coincidences in politics. Just not a thing.


What Congressional Republicans are trying to do is two-fold: 1 ) Change the subject from Trump and Russia, Trump and his fights with his own party, his constant tweeting etc. and b ) do some service for their base.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/republican-investigations-clinton/index.html

Looks like my friend the editor at large needs an editor. What's up with "two-fold: 1 ) and b )"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

"President Trump just commented on a number of news stories before boarding Marine One to leave the White House. I’ve noted a couple memorable moments below. The really important one is about the Russia scandal and how he now believes he is vindicated in calling the entirety of the matter a hoax. 

To review, the President is arguing that the news about the so-called Steele Dossier is now revealed as a hoax and that the Uranium One conspiracy theory floated by John Solomon in The Hill means it was the Democrats who colluded with Russia. The entirety of this is so nonsensical as to not require or merit any real discussion. Some people are up in arms that Trump needs to be proven wrong otherwise he’ll ‘win’. I’m not terribly worried about this. These probes have a life of their own and I don’t think Trump is convincing anyone that he hasn’t already. 

But that misses what matters. We don’t know for a fact that Trump or his campaign took affirmative steps to collude with Russia in its 2016 election subversion campaign. We have overwhelming evidence that the subversion campaign happened. We now know it was far broader than the theft and distribution of confidential emails that gained so much attention last year. We know that it continued on major social media networks until last month and almost certainly continues on those same networks today. Most importantly, we have every reason to think that the 2018 and 2020 election campaigns will be similarly targeted. 

Most of us likely see Trump’s comments in the context of his endless nonsense and lying. But that’s not the important part. Russia may not be an enemy but it is an adversary state which has defined a strategic priority of destabilizing the US and the European Union. That includes information operations and likely actual vote tally tampering as well. This is all happening. It’s a direct attack on the country. It’s not something we need to overreact about. It’s not something we cannot combat through counter-intelligence operations and societal awareness. But it is a serious and on-going attack. If the President is out there publicly saying it’s not happening, saying it’s a hoax, he is actively and directly assisting the attack. There’s no other way to put it. He is charged by his oath with preserving the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He pledged to defend against all attacks but he’s actively assisting one. That is just as much the case as it would be if he repeatedly denied an adversary power were moving conventional arms into positions which threatened the United States. 

He is actively and directly assisting the attack and the attack is on-going. Why he’s doing that is not really relevant. He’s doing it."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/president-again-actively-assisting-on-going-russian-attacks

But the Russians seem like such nice people.

Donating 145 million to Bill's charity just out of the goodness of their hearts. And now you smear these good people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But the Russians seem like such nice people.

Donating 145 million to Bill's charity just out of the goodness of their hearts. And now you smear these good people?

The Russians are nice people, their leaders not so much. $145 million is peanuts to a Russian Oligarch, much like our class of oligarchs which are developing just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine those Russian officials pondering the possibilities when approached to contribute to a Democratically funded dossier on a Republican presidential candidate. If they wanted to fuck with American democracy the perfect vehicle was handed to them on a platter. Provide the fodder and watch the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) run wild. And run wild they did but now it looks like the script has been flipped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

Imagine those Russian officials pondering the possibilities when approached to contribute to a Democratically funded dossier on a Republican presidential candidate. If they wanted to fuck with American democracy the perfect vehicle was handed to them on a platter. Provide the fodder and watch the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) run wild. And run wild they did but now it looks like the script has been flipped.

Slight correction Dog, the Dossier was originally funded by Republicans, the Democrats only picked up the tab when Republicans couldn't handle a primary and all of them washed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor doggie. He thinks lefties will "defend" colluding with Russians.

here's my PoV.  Russia and China can't beat the US in a hot war. BUT they CAN damage our global reach by getting us to fight each other. 

One group in the US actually finds that a great thing. They are in power. And I find myself agreeing with the Russians - I don't WANT to be part of a nation with these hateful people. If that means the US breaks up, so be it.  The world has treated merchant countries pretty well as long as they don't try to impose their will on others.  Keep some basic defensive capabilities and there ya go.

 

Burn the bitch down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Poor doggie. He thinks lefties will "defend" colluding with Russians.

here's my PoV.  Russia and China can't beat the US in a hot war. BUT they CAN damage our global reach by getting us to fight each other. 

One group in the US actually finds that a great thing. They are in power. And I find myself agreeing with the Russians - I don't WANT to be part of a nation with these hateful people. If that means the US breaks up, so be it.  The world has treated merchant countries pretty well as long as they don't try to impose their will on others.  Keep some basic defensive capabilities and there ya go.

 

Burn the bitch down. 

I agree with you. but unfortunately, it won't come at the end of a Gentleman's Agreement. It will be a bloody ending where red states and blue states get divvied up and a lot of people die for pretty much nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I agree with you. but unfortunately, it won't come at the end of a Gentleman's Agreement. It will be a bloody ending where red states and blue states get divvied up and a lot of people die for pretty much nothing.

seems to be what folks like Jeff want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I agree with you. but unfortunately, it won't come at the end of a Gentleman's Agreement. It will be a bloody ending where red states and blue states get divvied up and a lot of people die for pretty much nothing.

That's not the America I live in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Poor doggie. He thinks lefties will "defend" colluding with Russians.

here's my PoV.  Russia and China can't beat the US in a hot war. BUT they CAN damage our global reach by getting us to fight each other

One group in the US actually finds that a great thing. They are in power. And I find myself agreeing with the Russians - I don't WANT to be part of a nation with these hateful people. If that means the US breaks up, so be it.  The world has treated merchant countries pretty well as long as they don't try to impose their will on others.  Keep some basic defensive capabilities and there ya go.

 

Burn the bitch down. 

How does it feel to be Russia's useful idiot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Slight correction Dog, the Dossier was originally funded by Republicans, the Democrats only picked up the tab when Republicans couldn't handle a primary and all of them washed out.

False.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

How does it feel to be Russia's useful idiot?

You are one of the suckers who believes I am the enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

You are one of the suckers who believes I am the enemy. 

No, I'm not. I think you're misguided, which is why you see those who do not agree with you as "hateful people" when they're really not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

False.

No, that's true:

"In 2016, Fusion GPS retained a well-respected former British spy, Christopher Steele, to research any connections between then-candidate Trump and the Russian government. The firm had been hired first by Republicans during Trump’s primary run and later by Democrats to produce opposition research on Trump.

Steele produced an unconfirmed, 35-page dossier full of salacious allegations about Trump and Russia, all of which Trump has vehemently denied. The document — which circulated around Capitol Hill for months before BuzzFeed made the controversial decision to publish it in its entirety in January — has been a focal point for the intrigue surrounding the president’s relationship to Moscow.

The dossier has yet to be independently verified or publicly confirmed by U.S. intelligence officials. Simpson on Tuesday declined to tell Senate investigators who paid for the report. 

Simpson’s attorney, Josh Levy, said Tuesday after the interview that the firm remains “proud” of the dossier and “stands by it.” 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/347858-five-things-to-know-about-fusion-gps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some who say Dog is a closet case Trump lover. I'm not one of them. It's closer to the truth to say there is only one thing Dog hates more than Trump: DemocRATS.

  The strategery the R's are using is crafted for that base of support. That base will believe anything they say which shows Democrats are worse, and of course they are.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There are some who say Dog is a closet case Trump lover. I'm not one of them. It's closer to the truth to say there is only one thing Dog hates more than Trump: DemocRATS.

  The strategery the R's are using is crafted for that base of support. That base will believe anything they say which shows Democrats are worse, and of course they are.  

 

You don't have to be particularly discerning to see in that statement who has contempt for who.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

No, that's true:

"In 2016, Fusion GPS retained a well-respected former British spy, Christopher Steele, to research any connections between then-candidate Trump and the Russian government. The firm had been hired first by Republicans during Trump’s primary run and later by Democrats to produce opposition research on Trump.

Steele produced an unconfirmed, 35-page dossier full of salacious allegations about Trump and Russia, all of which Trump has vehemently denied. The document — which circulated around Capitol Hill for months before BuzzFeed made the controversial decision to publish it in its entirety in January — has been a focal point for the intrigue surrounding the president’s relationship to Moscow.

The dossier has yet to be independently verified or publicly confirmed by U.S. intelligence officials. Simpson on Tuesday declined to tell Senate investigators who paid for the report. 

Simpson’s attorney, Josh Levy, said Tuesday after the interview that the firm remains “proud” of the dossier and “stands by it.” 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/347858-five-things-to-know-about-fusion-gps

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/another-journo-claims-gop-paid-steele-for-dossier/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

You don't have to be particularly discerning to see in that statement who has contempt for who.

Theydoittooism is a common tool of propagandists. In this case it is supposed to make us forget about all the lying The Donald has done about his relations with Russia, such as telling the American public he doesn't know any Russians while his company is actively seeking to build a large building in Moscow, and on you it has worked splendidly. 

  Lies from the Trumps about their associations with Russians are a key component of the probably cause needed for  Mueller's investigations, so keep em' coming.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark K said:

Theydoittooism is a common tool of propagandists. In this case it is supposed to make us forget about all the lying The Donald has done about his relations with Russia, such as telling the American public he doesn't know any Russians while his company is actively seeking to build a large building in Moscow, and on you it has worked splendidly. 

  Lies from the Trumps about their associations with Russians are a key component of the probably cause needed for  Mueller's investigations, so keep em' coming.  

First you wrongly accuse me of hating Democrats and now of being a liar. It's clear who the hater is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I prefer arguments that have substantial facts to back up assertions. At present, everything about this is innuendo and fabrication. Neither side is forthcoming, and neither side is showing any proof.

The DNC and Hillary campaign don't dispute that they paid for and obtained information (be it unsubstantiated) on Trump provided by Russian officials. Do you think those responsible should face the same consequences you advocated for Donald Jr. who failed to do what they accomplished?

You and your ilk filled this forum with pages of outrage when the shoe was on the other foot.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

Oh crap there is a guy at the door with a warrant. 

Time for another sock.  How many do you have left in the drawer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Certainly not a reason to donate $145 million to Bill's charity, which has nothing at all to do with Hillary anyway.

Just Russians being generous. Any other spin is just the VRWC again.

Perhaps the $145 million paved the way for Bill to give a talk for only a $500,000 speaker fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

The DNC and Hillary campaign don't dispute that they paid for and obtained information (be it unsubstantiated) on Trump provided by Russian officials. Do you think those responsible should face the same consequences you advocated for Donald Jr. who failed to do what they accomplished?

You and your ilk filled this forum with pages of outrage when the shoe was on the other foot.

not quite there doggie. It's been reported that the DNC paid for Opposition Research to a former British Agent.

Oppo research is slimy for sure. They all do it, and we can all say it's nasty. But the above is not the same as paying the russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

not quite there doggie. It's been reported that the DNC paid for Opposition Research to a former British Agent.

Oppo research is slimy for sure. They all do it, and we can all say it's nasty. But the above is not the same as paying the russians.

Why was what Don Jr. attempted not "opposition research"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

not quite there doggie. It's been reported that the DNC paid for Opposition Research to a former British Agent.

Oppo research is slimy for sure. They all do it, and we can all say it's nasty. But the above is not the same as paying the russians.

Actually under the law it is identical. However, in this case I'm going to assert that no law is broken considering it's my neck in the block. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hillary said:

Actually under the law it is identical. However, in this case I'm going to assert that no law is broken considering it's my neck in the block. 

Colluding  with a foreign power is the same as hiring an independent agent? Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

First you wrongly accuse me of hating Democrats and now of being a liar. It's clear who the hater is.

 

So which do you hate more Dog, DJ Trump or Democrats? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Perhaps the $145 million paved the way for Bill to give a talk for only a $500,000 speaker fee.

 The Clinton Foundation is clearly designed to shake down some of the world's obscenely wealthy for charity, but in the nicest way possible. Most of the world functions on baksheesh. There's some pretty solid research which shows being rich can make people stupid.

 I welcome an argument that says what Trump does with things like Trump U and his own foundation is superior. 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

 The Clinton Foundation is clearly designed to shake down some of the world's obscenely wealthy for charity, but in the nicest way possible. Most of the world functions on baksheesh. There's some pretty solid research which shows being rich can make people stupid.

 I welcome an argument that says what Trump does with things like Trump U and his own foundation is superior. 

  

 

Trump U was established ro shake down foriegn foriegn dignitaries and politician? Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Paul Singer initially funded the Trump opposition research -

Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, was the first to hire the firm that conducted opposition research on Donald J. Trump — including a salacious dossier describing ties between Mr. Trump and the Russian government — website representatives told the House Intelligence Committee on Friday.

According to people briefed on the conversation, the website hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in October 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

In April 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee also retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia. Working for them, Fusion GPS retained a respected former British spy named Christopher Steele.

snip......

The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, according to an associate of Mr. Singer. The associate said Mr. Singer, a leading Republican donor, was not aware of the dossier or Mr. Steele’s involvement until January, when BuzzFeed published the dossier.

...

Mr. Singer initially supported Senator Marco Rubio’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But after Mr. Rubio dropped out of the race, Mr. Singer spearheaded an effort to block Mr. Trump from winning the presidential nomination, drawing Mr. Trump’s ire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, warbird said:

Trump U was established ro shake down foriegn foriegn dignitaries and politician? Who knew?

No, Trump U was established to shake down poor people. Do you believe that superior? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Paul Singer initially funded the Trump opposition research -

Conservative Website First Funded Anti-Trump Research by Firm That Later Produced Dossier

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, was the first to hire the firm that conducted opposition research on Donald J. Trump — including a salacious dossier describing ties between Mr. Trump and the Russian government — website representatives told the House Intelligence Committee on Friday.

According to people briefed on the conversation, the website hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in October 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

In April 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee also retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia. Working for them, Fusion GPS retained a respected former British spy named Christopher Steele.

snip......

The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, according to an associate of Mr. Singer. The associate said Mr. Singer, a leading Republican donor, was not aware of the dossier or Mr. Steele’s involvement until January, when BuzzFeed published the dossier.

...

Mr. Singer initially supported Senator Marco Rubio’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. But after Mr. Rubio dropped out of the race, Mr. Singer spearheaded an effort to block Mr. Trump from winning the presidential nomination, drawing Mr. Trump’s ire.

Interesting that the NYT’s is printing a misrepresentation of what FREE BEACON actually said

 All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had co All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Interesting that the NYT’s is printing a misrepresentation of what FREE BEACON actually said

 All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had co All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Are you saying the New York Times purposely mislead the Committee?     So Singer has a reputation of doing opposition research and his statement doesn't deny that, just that he had nothing to do with Steele or the dossier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Interesting that the NYT’s is printing a misrepresentation of what FREE BEACON actually said

 All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had co All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Read agaîn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, no information beyond this, but it is certainly interesting that Trump is now part and parcel of the story.

"Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page met last year with one of Russia’s Deputy Prime Ministers, who sat on Rosatom’s board of directors and was active in their acquisition of a controlling stake in Uranium One.

Carter Page is an energy consultant, Rosatom is the state-run Russian nuclear energy monopoly, and Arkady Dvorkavich served on its Board of Directors in 2010 and from at least 2009, until his departure in 2012.

The Democratic Coalition’s Scott Dworkin discovered photographic proof of the New Economic School’s graduation ceremony in Moscow earlier this year.

Dvorkovich is considered one of Putin’s closest aides in the Kremlin today.

Carter Page obtained Trump campaign permission to travel to Moscow during the height of the 2016 election campaign

That’s where Page met and spoke with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich."

https://thesternfacts.com/carter-page-met-russian-politician-behind-uranium-one-deal-during-trump-campaign-10cdfa078642

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Duh. She was never a target of this investigation.

...but she is wrapped tight in it....

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warbird said:

...but she is wrapped tight in it....

You guys need to give it up. More than 25 years and $100 million in investigation have given us nothing on either Clinton. That is not going to change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats have circled the wagons and received their talking points which are that their efforts to tap Russian officials for dirt on Trump constitute "opposition research".  So what is different about what Donald Trump Jr. did that got him on the cover of Time accused of treason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Steele is a Russian official now?

OFGS...Steele is the former head of the MI6 Russia desk. He was hired by Democrats to tap his Russian sources. If that's "opposition research" how is what Donald Jr did treason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

OFGS...Steele is the former head of the MI6 Russia desk. He was hired by Democrats to tap his Russian sources. If that's "opposition research" how is what Donald Jr did treason?

So you're trying to Doggy-style up an equivalence between tapping an ex-agent of an ally's intelligence agency with tapping officials from Russia.

Shit, that's pretty weak even for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

So you're trying to Doggy-style up an equivalence between tapping an ex-agent of an ally's intelligence agency with tapping officials from Russia.

Shit, that's pretty weak even for you.

Speaking of weak. Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

OFGS...Steele is the former head of the MI6 Russia desk. He was hired by Democrats to tap his Russian sources. If that's "opposition research" how is what Donald Jr did treason?

It’s not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites