|
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. |
On October 29 2017 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote:On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: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.
TIL "influence" is the same as absolute control.
There's still like a couple dozen steps between "Hillary hates Putin" and "Hillary has political influence" and "Hillary was the driving force behind the Uranium One deal", and I think quite a few people in this thread are waiting for those steps to be filled in by the people who keep treating this topic seriously.
|
On October 29 2017 10:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote:On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: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. TIL "influence" is the same as absolute control. There's still like a couple dozen steps between "Hillary hates Putin" and "Hillary has political influence" and "Hillary was the driving force behind the Uranium One deal", and I think quite a few people in this thread are waiting for those steps to be filled in by the people who keep treating this topic seriously.
Well I'm not one of the "Hillary was a driving force behind the deal" folks so not much I can do for them I suppose.
|
The point is that even if she was the driving force behind the deal somehow theres still no way for it to , in reality world, be bad in any way for her to have done it.
|
On October 29 2017 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 10:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2017 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote:On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: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. TIL "influence" is the same as absolute control. There's still like a couple dozen steps between "Hillary hates Putin" and "Hillary has political influence" and "Hillary was the driving force behind the Uranium One deal", and I think quite a few people in this thread are waiting for those steps to be filled in by the people who keep treating this topic seriously. Well I'm not one of the "Hillary was a driving force behind the deal" folks so not much I can do for them I suppose.
Well, apparently no one in this thread is. So I don't know why this discussion keeps going.
|
On October 29 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:
The point is that even if she was the driving force behind the deal somehow theres still no way for it to , in reality world, be bad in any way for her to have done it.
Which I'm not arguing against in the first place (regarding signing off). I'm just saying it looks similar (though less direct/egregious) than other instances of international wheel greasing like the UBS thing for example.
Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.
The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.
“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”
Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”
Source
But that's just me.
|
United States43536 Posts
On October 29 2017 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:
The point is that even if she was the driving force behind the deal somehow theres still no way for it to , in reality world, be bad in any way for her to have done it. Which I'm not arguing against in the first place (regarding signing off). I'm just saying it looks similar (though less direct/egregious) than other instances of international wheel greasing like the UBS thing for example. Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.
The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.
“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”
Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.” SourceBut that's just me. Speaking fees from people you had to deal with in your professional capacity as an employee is basically as conflict of interesty as you can get. If you did that shit in the private sector you'd get fired but somehow when your employer is the population of the United States you don't.
But I really don't get why the Clinton Foundation gets dragged into this, especially when CF money can't be used by the Clintons for their own purposes and given the bank in this case didn't even give the CF any money. That's just "throw in buzzwords the reader may have heard of" journalism.
Also Swiss banks don't give the US (or any other government) shit, the fact the IRS only got a fraction doesn't mean that Hillary deliberately went easy on them. Not cooperating with foreign governments is basically the Swiss bank business model. It's what they're for.
|
On October 29 2017 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote:On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: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.
Her department has a votejust like the other departments did. Nobody has shown anything resembling evidence she got involved in this decision outside of the person who isn't her reviewing it and okaying it since not every job is handled by the CEO.
Now we not only are assuming that to be true (it's a small leap but not a huge to assume it) we are also going to assume, with no evidence that she went to 14 other departments to lobby a yes vote with no one saying a word or any proof if this leaking several years later just to get the rights to a thing that i assume makes them money in the future, but they both don't need to make nukes and can't use for it anyway.
|
|
|
Its important to note that nate silver credits the medias reaction to the comey letter as the decisive moment in the election and not the letter itself.
|
|
|
You can imagine how badly Trump wants to fire Mueller.
|
Which is why Mueller's name keeps getting mentioned in regards to this latest 'but Hillary'. If by some miracle it stuck it could have been used to call his impartiality into question.
On October 29 2017 10:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 10:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 10:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2017 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 09:13 Adreme wrote:On October 29 2017 07:25 Slaughter wrote: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. TIL "influence" is the same as absolute control. There's still like a couple dozen steps between "Hillary hates Putin" and "Hillary has political influence" and "Hillary was the driving force behind the Uranium One deal", and I think quite a few people in this thread are waiting for those steps to be filled in by the people who keep treating this topic seriously. Well I'm not one of the "Hillary was a driving force behind the deal" folks so not much I can do for them I suppose. Well, apparently no one in this thread is. So I don't know why this discussion keeps going.
xDaunt and Danglers are, they just aren't willing to come out and say it because they will get roasted for it. They hand wave it instead and run every time they get called out on a lack of evidence.
|
On October 29 2017 11:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2017 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2017 10:32 Sermokala wrote:
The point is that even if she was the driving force behind the deal somehow theres still no way for it to , in reality world, be bad in any way for her to have done it. Which I'm not arguing against in the first place (regarding signing off). I'm just saying it looks similar (though less direct/egregious) than other instances of international wheel greasing like the UBS thing for example. Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.
The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.
“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”
Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.” SourceBut that's just me. Speaking fees from people you had to deal with in your professional capacity as an employee is basically as conflict of interesty as you can get. If you did that shit in the private sector you'd get fired but somehow when your employer is the population of the United States you don't.
Yes
Also I hope the Mueller fans are ready for a ball full of disappointment..
|
|
|
It's Sunday. I guess we should've known the "but Hillary" would be at its strongest today.
|
|
|
On October 30 2017 01:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It's Sunday. I guess we should've known the "but Hillary" would be at its strongest today.
Oh come now, we haven't seen Monday yet
|
Wow. Someone clearly important is getting arrest by Mueller apparently.
|
The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though.
|
For trump to be this crazy, almost makes me think Kushner. Big question is what to Rs do when Trump goes full Nixon and fires Mueller to protect his beloved son in law.
If Republicans are going to cover for Trump as he upends the rule of law to protect himself and family members, then I would not regard this government as legitimate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
