News & Current Events
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-12-01T15:28:14-05:00 — #1
Lots of talk about "Russiagate" ... Isn't it rather strange and most likely an indication of the tremendous corruption found in certain circles in USA elites that a fake scandal for which no evidence at all has been produced is being investigated by "a special" investigator (former FBI chief), when on the other hand the very real scandal of Hillary Clinton's sale of uranium to Russia for which rather voluminous evidence exists even in plain view is neither investigated nor brought up in the big media ???
Have a look at the following article for more information: Hillary Clinton and the real Russian collusion
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-01T16:18:38-05:00 — #2
Yes, it is a bit ridiculous isn't it?
bill_coley — 2017-12-02T02:12:29-05:00 — #3
Curious timing, Wolfgang, your posting a link to a vacuous bit of nothingness on the same day that Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's foreign policy adviser during the campaign and national security adviser before he was fired back in February, pleaded guilty to lying...about his contacts with a Russian.
From the Flynn plea bargain's accompanying paperwork we learned that the second confessed felon in Trump's orbit took directions to make contact with that Russian from what he calls "senior" and "very senior" officials in Trumpland. Well that certainly rules out the possibility that anyone other than Flynn knew he was in contact with Russians!
The way these plea bargains work, as you probably know, is that prosecutors pressure smaller fish with as many potential charges as they can prove in hopes of turning those smaller fish into witnesses against bigger fish. Michael Flynn has turned Fed's evidence, which means the special counsel's investigation has now entered the White House - make that the Oval Office of the White House - and all indications are that he's just getting started. In a recent post, I told David Taylor that...
Friday's action was not an indictment (one's not needed when the criminal confesses) but I it's close enough to improve my weekend, and a harbinger of things to come.
As for your alleged Clinton scandal, your brew trouble for yourself in your introduction to the link when you refer to the "very real scandal of Hillary Clinton's sale of Uranium to Russia." That depiction is factually incorrect. Hillary Clinton didn't sell uranium to the Russians; she was one of nine authorities on a board that reviewed a majority share of a uranium processing company. Interestingly, none of the nine members of the board had the authority to stop the sale; only the president can veto a sale. And the evidence is Clinton didn't even participate in the board's consideration of the Uranium One sale.
The article to which you link reminds me of a high school student's first draft of a persuasion-style paper for his or her writing class. Few facts. Much speculation. Sentences that say little, but at least use a lot of words to do so. And a magnifying glass directed at unimportant details. For example, consider this bit of meaninglessness:
"According to most law firms that deal in such matters, CIFIUS reviews involving sensitive national security matters can take up to 120 days. The Rosatom deal took fewer than 90 days."
What did those two sentences tell us? Reviews of that type CAN take up to 120 days, but the one for Uranium One didn't. Gee. It CAN take me 20 minutes to drive home from church; but tonight it didn't. Nobody tell that to my church board!
If you want facts, not speculation, about this alleged scandal, review THIS FACTCHECK.ORG summary. But be prepared to be disappointed if you're out for Clinton's blood. FactCheck traffics is provable facts, not partisan speculation. For example, the article points out that Trumpkins can't even say the deal sold rights to 20% of the U.S.'s uranium production anymore (it has about 10% of mining capacity and even less - 5.9% - of actual production, according to the latest official reports)
gao_lu — 2017-12-02T03:23:12-05:00 — #4
Time will tell, but in your own words, I suspect this is all "a vacuous bit of nothingness."
There is a certain kind of person who will believe a source like this to be inerrant and infallible, but not the Word of God. Curious, isn't it. We each choose our object of faith which informs our worldview. Thanks for sharing yours.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-02T12:14:59-05:00 — #5
After the campaign was over, obviously not collusion to elect Donald Trump....
Once again AFTER the election.
bill_coley — 2017-12-02T12:42:30-05:00 — #6
Quite right, of course. There is no evidence that Michael Flynn sat in on the June 9 meeting - five months before the election - set up largely in response to an email Donald Trump Jr received which offered documents that “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to (his) father,” documents which the email described as “obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” documents the prospect of his receipt of which Don Jr. replied, "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer."
Neither of the two guilty pleas from or the indictments against people in Trump's orbit have dealt with the June 9 meeting or the email chain that prompted it; you're quite right, David. In fact, none of those court actions has dealt with Don Jr's direct messages with Wikileaks, an organ Trump administration CIA director Mike Pompeo earlier this year described as "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia."
So I agree with your observation about the time frame covered by the Flynn guilty plea, but also remind you that we're not done yet. AND, I ask the rather obvious question that to my awareness no Trumpkin has yet answered: If there was nothing inappropriate about or surrounding his contacts with the Russian Ambassador, why did Flynn choose to lie about them?
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-02T12:44:32-05:00 — #7
Notice they are not Russian....
Flynn has to answer those questions. That was his decision.
bill_coley — 2017-12-02T17:48:35-05:00 — #8
Wikileaks doesn't have to be Russian in order to participate in Russian activities. As CIA director Pompeo said, WIkileaks is "a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia."
And though Wikileaks isn't Russian, the lawyer Trump Jr met last June, Natalia Veselnitskaya, as well as two other meeting participants, Rinat Akhmetshin and Anatoli Samochornov, are.
Come on, David! In other threads you've offered your conclusion that I'm...
and that when it comes to being dishonest, I am...
If you're willing call a fellow CD poster "routinely dishonest" knowing that poster will read your accusation, SURELY you can muster the gumption to speculate about the motivations to lie of Michael Flynn, a man who will never see read your posts.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-02T23:34:01-05:00 — #9
But that is not collusion with Russia. That is my point. That is what the investigation is about. Whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, which of course is not a crime even if they did.
I'm not understanding your point here...
bill_coley — 2017-12-03T01:18:02-05:00 — #10
Sections (b), (c), and (d) of Rod Rosenstein's letter authorizing Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel in this matter read this way...
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.
If Russian operatives, acting as part of, or at the behest of the Russian government, distributed emails stolen from the DNC's and John Podesta's accounts through Wikileaks, then Wikileaks is certainly part of the investigation's charter. And notice that Mueller's mandate is to investigate both coordination AND other matters that arise (making false statement to the FBI, for example), as well as matters within the scope of the special counsel statute. If the probe discovers crimes, Mueller and team may prosecute, but whether crimes have been committed or not, Mueller has a mandate to investigate what happened. That's why we know he will write a report detailing what his team found.
Bottom line: According to his mandate from Rod Rosenstein, Mueller is both investigator and prosecutor in this case.
You chose not to grant my request for your guess as to why Michael Flynn lied about his contacts with the Russian ambassador if there wasn't anything wrong with the way those contacts unfolded. My point was to question your refusal to grant my request since you've so openly asserted that I am "routinely dishonest" in my posts. If you can tell me I'm dishonest, surely you can speculate why Michael Flynn was!
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-04T10:58:48-05:00 — #11
Um, what in the world are you talking about. You did not ask me if I thought Flynn lied, you asked me WHY he lied.
bill_coley — 2017-12-04T12:21:29-05:00 — #12
Exactly. Given that you've been brazen enough to call me - a fellow CD poster - a liar, it shouldn't be too much of a lift for you to hazard a guess as to why Michael Flynn lied.
David, in the last year or two you've offered opinions about anything and everything Clinton. You've posted all manner of judgments about HER actions and motivations. For example, this recent post...
So we KNOW that you're willing to judge the actions and motivations of public figures. For a single post, direct your willingness to judge public figures away from Clinton and toward Michael Flynn so as to guess why he lied about his contacts with Russians if there was nothing wrong with those contacts.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-12-04T14:16:26-05:00 — #13
That doesn't make any sense Bill.
I don't read the minds of these officials. For Hillary it was obvious why she was lying for much of it. Flynn not so much. Kinda has me scratching my head.