EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9063
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2017 11:40 GreenHorizons wrote: While I understand the point you're making, suggesting Hillary Clinton is just "one of nine" is kind of disingenuous to the influence/relationship she (and her supporters) clearly had on/with the other 8 and the president. I think it's pretty fair to say they had a LOT of mutual interests. EDIT: Just for fun imagine for a moment if they did want to prevent Hillary from pressuring a no if for no other reason than spite for Putin's interests. How would they have done it? But the plan is to reset relations with Russia with the deal. Why would they bribe people to approve an olive branch? No one else voted no. I would see this if Clinton proposed the deal in the first place, but it wasn't her idea. On October 26 2017 11:46 Slaughter wrote: So Clinton is now corrupt to help the russians and she also is too war hawkish on escalating tensions with Russia. Time is a flat circle. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23241 Posts
On October 26 2017 11:49 Plansix wrote: But the plan is to reset relations with Russia with the deal. Why would they bribe people to approve an olive branch? No one else voted no. I would see this if Clinton proposed the deal in the first place, but it wasn't her idea. Time is a flat circle. Clinton's corruption stems from self-interest, like Trump's, and lots of corruption. There's not a conflict for her there. Where things get complicated The Clintons' involvement A 2015 story by the New York Times' Jo Becker and Mike McIntire revealed that leaders of the Canadian mining industry that built, financed, and eventually made the sale of what would become Uranium One to Russia have been major donors to the Clinton Foundation. And since uranium is considered a "strategic asset with implications for national security," the deal needed approval from several U.S. government agencies. Becker and McIntire note that the State Department, then run by Hillary Clinton, was among the agencies that signed off on the sale. Canadian records show that as Moscow gradually took over Uranium One from 2009-2013, Uranium One's chairman, among others with ties to the company, used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite Hillary Clinton being under a White House agreement to publicly identify all donors. In June 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow, the same month the Rosatom deal went through. The money came from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin. The Clintons' defense: Brian Fallon, then a spokesman for Hillary's Clinton's initial presidential campaign, said there was no evidence supporting the theory that she, as secretary of state, helped support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation. He also noted that multiple U.S. agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the uranium deal. The Obama administration's involvement A report last week by The Hill's John Solomon and Alison Spann says the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russia had used bribery, kickbacks, and extortion to get a stake in the U.S. atomic energy industry — but the Obama administration allowed the deal to move forward anyway. The Justice Department kept investigating for four more years. Why it matters: "The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions," a person who worked on the case told The Hill. It's true that there's not necessarily a lot of "new" here, but it's enough to continue to undermine the "this all a big coincidence that you can't prove in a court of law so it's not shady and obviously the Clinton's are the only politicians completely unaffected by millions of dollars flowing into their control" stuff that dominated 2016. It's not untrue that neither Trump or Clinton are likely to see the inside of a cell regardless of what they do, but it's naive to think that means they didn't do anything wrong. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23241 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:13 Plansix wrote: I completely agree that people are going to see exactly what they want to see in this. People known for bribing people to get a deal done, provide piles of money for person with influence on those deciding on the deal, they make a decision favoring known bribers. Obviously nothing to see there. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote: People known for bribing people to get a deal done, provide piles of money for person with influence on those deciding on the deal, they make a decision favoring known bribers. Obviously nothing to see there. I'd be finding this all a fair bit more convincing if money were being given to the Clintons rather than the Clinton Foundation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23241 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:24 Aquanim wrote: I'd be finding this all a fair bit more convincing if money were being given to the Clintons rather than the Clinton Foundation. Some of it was. On October 26 2017 12:28 Plansix wrote: The foundation is not my favorite thing and obviously some people paid money to try to influence the Clintons. But it's doesn't rise to bribery. I know, the Clinton's are the political miracle that can take millions of dollars and remain completely unaffected. It's merely coincidence or providence when they make decisions benefiting questionable actors that gave them large sums of money. Same thing with the whole UBS decision. Totally unaffected by the millions of dollars funneled to the Clinton's and their ambitions. People on "the left" having the inability to confront corruption on their own side (doesn't matter if it's "not as bad as Trump") is one of the biggest impediments to moving forward. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
1. We wait for the investigation to run its course and let it be. 2. We round up all the people who look kinda guiltyish, arrange them into groups of three and have them play Russian Roulette. The non-losers get to go home and are acquitted. Definitely amusing to see that thing resurface though. Thought it would have been forgotten with the presidential loser. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Can I get a source? edit: On October 26 2017 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:... People on "the left" having the inability to confront corruption on their own side (doesn't matter if it's "not as bad as Trump") is one of the biggest impediments to moving forward. This might be true, I don't know enough about your country's politics, but I don't think anything you've said about the Clintons has been sufficent to demonstrate it. "Look at this, how can this be a coincidence" is not a very convincing argument without rigorous analysis of how likely the coincidence actually is. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23241 Posts
The first part is one reason you should be more skeptical about money going to the foundation Canadian records show that as Moscow gradually took over Uranium One from 2009-2013, Uranium One's chairman, among others with ties to the company, used his family foundation to make a series of donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite Hillary Clinton being under a White House agreement to publicly identify all donors. But this is what you're asking for. In June 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Moscow, the same month the Rosatom deal went through. The money came from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin. Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: GH, you that this thing that you demand everyone hate the Clintons as much as you. I've said the foundation is shady. It's just not bribery the crime. I'm really sorry I can't say things that are simply not true to be equally outraged about these new revelations. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23241 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:39 Plansix wrote: So they bought our bill Clinton for the prize of a 2 bedroom in the Boston suburbs? After rereading this do you see how asinine your comment is? Edit: GH, you that this thing that you demand everyone hate the Clintons as much as you. I've said the foundation is shady. It's just not bribery the crime. I'm really sorry I can't say things that are simply not true to be equally outraged about these new revelations. I suppose that's a "sort of"? You (and others) want to call it hate, I don't hate them, I simply see them for what they are and you want to minimize for political expediency. Just stop and you'll be surprised by the burden lifted from your shoulders. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote: After rereading this do you see how asinine this comment is? Really. I don't get what is so hard to understand or accept about the idea that the Clinton Foundation was a massive influence peddling machine. Direct payments to Bill Clinton for giving a speech are almost besides the point. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:39 xDaunt wrote: I also read somewhere that the $500k speaking fee was twice what Clinton was usually earning at the time. I think he pulled in like 750k max at one point. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote: The first part is one reason you should be more skeptical about money going to the foundation But this is what you're asking for. Source I think this is missing some context. For instance, when I chased down that source it said things along the lines of "the Clinton Foundation did not acknowledge money donated to it from a Canadian charity which got it from some Russians, which had something to do with the Canadian charity being unable to reveal it for legal reasons". On October 26 2017 12:42 xDaunt wrote: Really. I don't get what is so hard to understand or accept about the idea that the Clinton Foundation was a massive influence peddling machine. Direct payments to Bill Clinton for giving a speech are almost besides the point. Probably the part where a significant fraction of the evidence to support it is "political opponents of the Clintons wishing really really hard that it were so". EDIT: To be clear, I am not super comfortable with the existence of the Clinton Foundation. If I see something directly incriminating I would be on board with this notion. I am yet to see the directly incriminating thing. | ||
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
On October 26 2017 10:41 xDaunt wrote: The working theory is that the Russia/Trump collusion narrative was manufactured out of whole cloth to cover for some actual impropriety that the Clintons and others engaged in with the Uranium One deal (and potentially others). I really have no idea whether any of that is true, but just a cursory review of the news stories that have broken over the past week on this stuff suggests to me that 1) someone who is not friendly to the Clintons knows something and is feeding information to the media, and 2) there's a lot more juice to this theory than I initially gave it credit for. Just look at how this stuff is being reported and by whom (and look at who is silent). Something is up. I'm just going to munch on popcorn and watch it unfold -- whatever it is. But a) Uranium One/Clinton is a fantasy and not even a part of this shit about uranium bribery that was in the news a few days ago b) Russian support for Trump is an established fact at this point | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2017 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote: After rereading this do you see how asinine your comment is? I suppose that's a "sort of"? You (and others) want to call it hate, I don't hate them, I simply see them for what they are and you want to minimize for what you deem political expediency. Just stop and you'll be surprised by the burden lifted from your shoulders. I call it like I see it. The Clintons suck, but so do a lot of people. I think the Clinton foundation sucks. Congress should have written laws preventing its existence while the Clinton was a senator. But no one did. Because the Republicans love the foundation and passing laws limiting it and future foundations would take away the golden goose. And limit people like Mercer or the Kosk brothers. This new outrage will be the next thing they do to prove Clinton was dirty too. But after the dust settles, no laws will change. Just like after the email investigation. No recommendations or new rules. There is no end game with this. They will never being charges or write a law based on what they find. I try to only get worked up over things that will result in change. This won't result in anything. The FBI didn't sit on bribery evidence for 7 years. | ||
| ||
