| 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. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 29 2017 06:33 Nevuk wrote: When even LL thinks a negative story about Hillary is a nonstarter you've lost the plot but it's negative about Hillary and Russia at the same time. So that kind of balances out right there not that I think anything is to be found there either. I just wanted to get that dig in | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23427 Posts
Rather than deal with her and her allies being obstinate for the sake of spiting Putin it was easier to add her/Bill to the "people we're giving money that totally aren't bribes". I guess Republicans need some "uranium" angle for it to be a big deal/make sense, but for me it just looks like standard influence peddling, the "favor" is Hillary not vindictively undermining the deal which she knows someone she hates wants. If 2016 taught us anything about Hillary, refusing to give people she's mad at what they want is kinda her kink. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote: The U1 is just run of the mill "greasing the wheels" imo. Putin knows Clinton hates his guts, but wanted the investment and knew she had significant influence over the deal. Rather than deal with her and her allies being obstinate for the sake of spiting Putin it was easier to add her/Bill to the "people we're giving money that totally aren't bribes". I guess Republicans need some "uranium" angle for it to be a big deal/make sense, but for me it just looks like standard influence peddling, the "favor" is Hillary not vindictively undermining the deal which she knows someone she hates wants. If 2016 taught us anything about Hillary, refusing to give people she's mad at what they want is kinda her kink. So are you saying because Hillary hates Putin she made him essentially pay extra for a deal that probably would have been made anyway? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote: The U1 is just run of the mill "greasing the wheels" imo. Putin knows Clinton hates his guts, but wanted the investment and knew she had significant influence over the deal. Rather than deal with her and her allies being obstinate for the sake of spiting Putin it was easier to add her/Bill to the "people we're giving money that totally aren't bribes". I guess Republicans need some "uranium" angle for it to be a big deal/make sense, but for me it just looks like standard influence peddling, the "favor" is Hillary not vindictively undermining the deal which she knows someone she hates wants. If 2016 taught us anything about Hillary, refusing to give people she's mad at what they want is kinda her kink. Standard influence peddling and corruption makes sense and was kind of her schtick anyways. All the national security stuff appears to be of secondary importance—relegated to lack of oversight and future investigations of perjury/leaks. The Fusion GPS/dossier funding stuff is polluting the other story a ton at the moment. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Roger Stone's Twitter has been suspended after tweets like these against CNN and some of its employees | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21915 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:43 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/RogerJStoneJr/status/924122224864432133 Roger Stone's Twitter has been suspended after tweets like these against CNN and some of its employees Because it is suspended you can't actually see the tweet ^^ | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
Elias agreed, deciding Fusion GPS had more capacity than the campaign’s in-house operation to do sophisticated research, according to the Perkins Coie spokesperson. Elias drew from funds that both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying Perkins Coie, The Post reported this week. It is unclear who else was familiar with the arrangement, or who knew that Fusion GPS hired a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier. Clinton has not responded to requests for comment. A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), who was DNC chairwoman at the time Perkins Coie contracted with Fusion GPS, said the former chair was “not aware” of the law firm’s arrangement with Fusion. [Former Clinton, DNC aides largely silent on funding of Trump-Russia dossier] Elias himself did not receive the dossier but was briefed on some of the information in it, according to his firm’s spokesperson. The dossier was published by BuzzFeed after the election. Clinton campaign officials who said they were not aware of Elias’s arrangement with the firm defended his decision to tap its resources. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-lawyer-kept-russian-dossier-project-closely-held/2017/10/27/e7935276-ba68-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.33f98698b5c0 | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23427 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: So are you saying because Hillary hates Putin she made him essentially pay extra for a deal that probably would have been made anyway? Well it's a confluence of stuff, but that's the simple version. She probably didn't even have to say anything, Putin and other global leaders know how this stuff works. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:08 GreenHorizons wrote: The U1 is just run of the mill "greasing the wheels" imo. Putin knows Clinton hates his guts, but wanted the investment and knew she had significant influence over the deal. Rather than deal with her and her allies being obstinate for the sake of spiting Putin it was easier to add her/Bill to the "people we're giving money that totally aren't bribes". I guess Republicans need some "uranium" angle for it to be a big deal/make sense, but for me it just looks like standard influence peddling, the "favor" is Hillary not vindictively undermining the deal which she knows someone she hates wants. If 2016 taught us anything about Hillary, refusing to give people she's mad at what they want is kinda her kink. Hillary hates Putin, not the other way around, eh? JfC, dude, you really lost it in 2016. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23427 Posts
On October 29 2017 08:14 Leporello wrote: Hillary hates Putin, not the other way around, eh? JfC, dude, you really lost it in 2016. lol. Of course Putin hates Hillary. Chill out bro. | ||
KwarK
United States43167 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: So are you saying because Hillary hates Putin she made him essentially pay extra for a deal that probably would have been made anyway? Even that narrative doesn't make sense. The Uranium One narrative just doesn't work. Bill Clinton helped his Russian+ Show Spoiler + actually a Canadian by which I mean Kazakhstan again, the mines are in Kazakhstan note, different company to Uranium One, this is the owner of UrAsia, UrAsia would later be acquired by Uranium One but the guy in question had no stake in Uranium One, he got bought out when he sold UrAsia donated money to his friend's humanitarian foundation Bill Clinton Condaleeze Rice was Secretary of State the donation happened in 2006, the sale was conceived in 2009 Hillary Clinton pushed the sale through+ Show Spoiler + it wasn't up to her, there were nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investments, all with a veto power, none of whom were Hillary Clinton Kazakh received two years previously when he actually sold UrAsia to Uranium One Canadian different company, not Uranium One The Russian control of the American+ Show Spoiler + Kazakh Australian importer Australian into expressly denied With control over the American+ Show Spoiler + Kazakh in 1949 So, the major players, their motivations, and what they got out of it. Player Frank Giustra. Owner of UrAsia until 2007. Donated to former president Bill Clinton's foundation in 2006. Not connected to Uranium One, or Russia. Motivation Ensuring that if Russia ever wanted to buy a company he wasn't linked to in a hypothetical future deal, it would go through. Reason Hates America (possibly) Method Making a donation to the humanitarian fund of a former president and hoping that the former first lady would become Secretary of State three years later, thus putting her in a position directly adjacent to the people making the decision. What he got out of it unclear Player Hillary Clinton Motivation Getting as many donations to her husband's humanitarian fund as possible Reason Unaware that she can't use the foundation for personal expenses Method Solicit bribes from people unaware that the Clinton presidency has ended. Then make a failed presidential bid, before becoming Secretary of State. Use that position to ask other people to meet the obligations agreed to when accepting bribes. What she got out of it unclear | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23427 Posts
On October 29 2017 08:21 KwarK wrote: Even that narrative doesn't make sense. The Uranium One narrative just doesn't work. Bill Clinton helped his Russian+ Show Spoiler + actually a Canadian by which I mean Kazakhstan again, the mines are in Kazakhstan note, different company to Uranium One, this is the owner of UrAsia, UrAsia would later be acquired by Uranium One but the guy in question had no stake in Uranium One, he got bought out when he sold UrAsia donated money to his friend's humanitarian foundation Bill Clinton Condaleeze Rice was Secretary of State the donation happened in 2005, the sale was conceived in 2009 Hillary Clinton pushed the sale through+ Show Spoiler + it wasn't up to her, there were nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investments, all with a veto power, none of whom were Hillary Clinton Kazakh received two years previously when he actually sold UrAsia to Uranium One Canadian different company, not Uranium One The Russian control of the American+ Show Spoiler + Kazakh Australian importer Australian into expressly denied With control over the American+ Show Spoiler + Kazakh in 1949 Fluid just had a spoilgasm. I'm curious if you have one of these for the UBS one? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9712 Posts
The reason this isn't seen as an outlandish conspiracy theory is that Trumpism has made all conspiracy theories fair game. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3229 Posts
On October 29 2017 04:58 Nevuk wrote: Okay, so let me get this straight. A firm called Fusion GPS did oppo research on Trump (they claim they were originally hired by Republicans, then Democrats started paying the bills after the primaries were over. Others claim it was Democrats paying all along, but whatever). That oppo research resulted in the now-well-known Steele dossier, consisting of a wide range of claims about Trump and his campaign, some of which are merely unverified, others of which are provably false. Neither Steele nor Buzzfeed nor Fusion GPS ever claimed otherwise, and clearly acknowledged the possibility that a lot of it was false information intentionally fed by Russians who knew this was being investigated (a common counterintelligence measure). Let's put aside the bullshit political speak like "flipping the script" for a moment, so someone can clarify for me: what, exactly, is the crime that Hillary, Podesta, the DNC, the FBI, Fusion GPS, or anyone else is accused of here? Apparently Hillary and Podesta say they weren't aware of the dossier, and their lawyer Marc Elias never told them. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't, but even if they had been aware the whole time, what would have been the problem? Are they not allowed to collect oppo research? Are they not allowed to give that research to the FBI if they find evidence of anything apparently illegal, to allow the FBI to follow up and verify whether or not something illegal took place? Danglars, xDaunt, somebody – what is the actual problem? Because I get why conservatives would like to say the words "Hillary and the DNC colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election," but the set of facts we have here look like they make that claim absolute bullshit. To borrow from xDaunt, this entire controversy looks like it's manufactured whole cloth. The entire story boils down to "the Democrats paid for some oppo research, some of which turned out to be misleading/not true." Is there even evidence that they used this oppo during the election? That anybody in the media reported something untrue? Hell, is it even proven the whole dossier is BS? Maybe the right-wing pundits will succeed in "flipping the script" with this, but if so they'll only do it by lying out their ass and people believing them. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43167 Posts
On October 29 2017 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Fluid just had a spoilgasm. I'm curious if you have one of these for the UBS one? Haven't looked into it enough to comment. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: So are you saying because Hillary hates Putin she made him essentially pay extra for a deal that probably would have been made anyway? I'll go even further, 1/15 of possible influence that we have no evidence was used somehow counts as "significant" in some people's eyes. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23427 Posts
On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote: I'll go even further, 1/15 of possible influence that we have no evidence was used somehow counts as "significant" in some people's eyes. TIL Hillary had little to no influence over the Democratic political apparatus. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On October 29 2017 04:58 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/924288651378520066 Looks like they are determined to make this narrative work. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations. It is probably a smart strategy on the part of Sputnik, RT, Fox, Breitbart, the Trump admin, and the Kremlin (who are all aligned only by coincidence). | ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
How come Biden doesn't seem that much involved in politics anymore? Clinton and Obama are out selling books and giving speeches but Joe just kinda disappeared. He seems to be the most level headed person the left has right now so why isn't he out and about? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 29 2017 09:55 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: In hindsight, Joe Biden's looks like a fortune teller judging by his speech last year at the Oscars. An ironic foreshadowing of what was to come. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58waj61p-kM How come Biden doesn't seem that much involved in politics anymore? Clinton and Obama are out selling books and giving speeches but Joe just kinda disappeared. He seems to be the most level headed person the left has right now so why isn't he out and about? he is pretty old, probably he decided to retire out of politics. Bush jr also went real quiet after he was out of office. He also may still be upset about his son. found an article with a quick google (didnt' read it, but it seems highly on point to your question): http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/news/a9555/what-joe-biden-is-doing-now/ | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
