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.
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.
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?
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.
If you can stomach spoilers on the Dossier story, turns out Marc Elias kept the doc/contract close to his chest and told almost no one about it. Elias even kept copies of the dossier out of his emails and only got briefs on it. RIP conspiracy narratives. EDIT: TLDR: Elias is a DC ultra lawyer and wisely kept all information about Steele compartmentalized. Any efforts at cobbling together some kind of conspiracy here is going to be hard stopped by Elias's discretion.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
lol. Of course Putin hates Hillary. Chill out bro.
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?
friend buy some uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
by which I mean Kazakhstan
. In 2009 Russia wanted to buy these uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
again, the mines are in Kazakhstan
but wasn't allowed to. So the owner of the company+ Show Spoiler +
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
uranium supply Russia was able to unlock the secrets of the atomic bomb+ Show Spoiler +
in 1949
, ending a period of American nuclear supremacy.
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
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?
friend buy some uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
by which I mean Kazakhstan
. In 2009 Russia wanted to buy these uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
again, the mines are in Kazakhstan
but wasn't allowed to. So the owner of the company+ Show Spoiler +
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
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.
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?
friend buy some uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
by which I mean Kazakhstan
. In 2009 Russia wanted to buy these uranium mines in the United States+ Show Spoiler +
again, the mines are in Kazakhstan
but wasn't allowed to. So the owner of the company+ Show Spoiler +
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.