Oh, man…
The Left AND the Right play the game of “selective outrage” with equal frequency and ferocity.
1 Like
And on 8 other desks as well:
“The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).”
She was paying a Brit–a former member of their version of the CIA.
Let me know when there’s any evidence HRC did the same:
"The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.
For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.
“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the federal guidelines say."
[…]
“We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym.”
It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.
First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC announced it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”
1 Like
Keep carrying that water bud. If the media found out a Republican accepted money from Russian criminals involved in a deal the entire Democrat establiahment would rise as one and call for special prosecutors and never shut up until that Republican was run out of town on a rail.
Facts:
Hillary and Bill accepted money (directly and indirectly) from crooked Russian businessmen involved in the Uranium One deal before it was approved.
Hillary had some authority over whether that deal got done. As the quibbling little followers keep pointing out she did not have sole authority, and she was “hands off” (sure she was) but she had authority.
The DOJ/FBI was investigating the people involved in this deal. That was known to the Obama admin BEFORE the deal was approved. All 8 agencies ignored the investigation into felonies and approved the deal anyway. That is the biggest story in this whole ordeal, but nobody wants to talk about it.
Nobody in private industry or in public life with an “R” by their name would get the benefit of the doubt for taking money from people with a decision in the balance under their athority. That is a prima facie conflict of interest.
1 Like
Nope. HRC received a donation of 150k from Viktor Pinchuk, a very shady individual in exchange for favors and/or services unknown. Interestingly, Pinchuk hedged his bets by giving the Trump campaign… also 150k.
As far as “getting dirt on Trump” it seems the Ukrainians tried to provide unsolicited information through all channels they could think that basically screamed “Manafort works for the Kremlin”
Clinton campaign worked with Ukraine.
And I suppose HRC murdered anyone at those agencies who tried to stop the deal?
Dude, Trump (and his team) are desperately trying to distract you (and everyone else) from his impending Russia conflagration with this (and other) nonsense. Can’t you see that? Why do you think this ancient history is being pushed so hard at this juncture? C’mon, man, you’re smarter than this.
1 Like
Did you read the article or just the headline?
Also, many of the (mostly lukewarm) allegations in the article have been debunked. Also, how does telling everyone that “Manafort works for Russia” constitute an act of sabotage?
1 Like
You’re constantly trying to downplay events due to worse events having happened before. For the umpteenth time, I judge actions independently. The fact that previous events have been worse has no bearing on whether or not Russia fucking with our election should be a big deal.
Russia crosses the line constantly, you just don’t pay attention to people being upset about it.
There was a lot of concern. You simply weren’t paying attention. Not overly surprising, as you openly admit you spend as little time on social media as possible.
I strongly believe HRC would have dominated Trump sans Russia involvement. Without Russian involvement, nearly all of HRCs largest pitfalls this election (leaked emails, DNC, etc) were Russia driven.
Only now? You really don’t pay attention at all, do you?
Cool
Everyone that voted for HRC is disavowed from being outraged about Russia interfering with our election. Gotcha.
2 Likes
We can’t talk about the dems taking money from Russians and their convicted felon associates? That’s a distraction? From what exactly?
Trump’s team is already being investigated. Let them find what they find and file charges if they can. But the outrage is over the top and hypocritical.
If bush inked a deal giving Uranium to China while Condi Rice was taking money from the Chinese, Nancy Pelosi’s head would have rotated with Pea Soup flying out. Bush would have been impeached.
1 Like
I was merely pointing out you’re (not you but the editorial “you”) a hypocrite if you care about one side and not the other.
What’s that a distraction from…Hmm…
Yup its pretty lame… No matter what side yur on u should be anti Russia interference imo… I dont get it… A few yrs ago some rightwingers embraced Putin… Hes strong rides horses shirtless Obama wears mom jeans…ok sure but Russia is shit on human rights and would love nothing more than to crush us… Am I missing something here?
2 Likes
Actually most conservatives hated on Bush for dating Putin and going on long romantic boat rides with him. They also lost their mind with the hot Mic “I will have more flexibility after the election.”
1 Like
Sure, many of them are hypocrites. Not sure if a vote for HRC (which this election could equate to a vote against Trump) constitutes instant hypocrisy.
It would be like saying anyone that voted for a Republican president before Obama didn’t care about equality because they wouldn’t let gays have equal tax status.
1 Like
How you judge things and what you decide is relevant and irrelevant to you, is irrelevant to me.
The error in your thought process is pretending that each isolated event exists in a vacuum, unrelated to anything else.
It’s all connected and history, especially recent history is relevant. Pretending it’s not may serve your purpose, but it’s not reality.
Recent events play into the motive of why Russia would or would not prefer a certain leadership. Considering the increase in Russian influence during the last 8 years is relevant.
Whether or not you care is not relevant.
I’ve never said my views were relevant to your decisions.
I’ve pretended nothing of the sort. I’ve simply laughed at the notion that because a mainstream political party has historically been hypocritical, that people aren’t allowed to be outraged by Russia fucking around in the election. It really is that simple.
Recent history is irrelevant to lower the gravity of this matter. For me, that’s a hardstop. If you’re able to justify and tolerate a higher level of BS because previously other BS occurred, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
The motive also doesn’t matter in this case. While the motive could be used to persuade people to be outraged by it, there’s no possible motive that makes it okay. Do you have a potential motive in mind that makes it alright to fuck with another countries national elections?
1 Like
Here’s what I see, by isolating events you are able to justify the unjustifiable.
For instance, your parents having sex and you being born are to isolated events having no correlation to each other. After all there is a large time gap and one event does not resemble the other.
Why should I consider your parents sexual activity to your birth? The two actons are patently unrelated.
Other than the fact that, that would make you the Messiah in most faiths, the correlational denial is plain factually untenable.
If the Russians preferred one candidate over another, there is a relevant history behind it.
I’ll get to the rest of your posts later.
I will just say that I am uninterested in whether or not you personally consider correlation unimportant or not. History disagrees. It’s not subjective. Though causality in such situations are harder to determine in fact, doesn’t make inferential causation irrelevent. We are dealing with human behavior which has a million-plus ‘x’ factors but past and related events mean something unless one of us is privy to facts the other couldn’t possibly know. I am not in that position, but if you are it would be only fair you let me know you have access to things I couldn’t possibly know. Otherwise, we know the same set of facts.
Patently incorrect. I’m saying the exact opposite, in that past events don’t justify current ones, not that they’re not related to one another.
Because they’re direct inescapable cause and effect. Furthermore, it’s expected and intentional. Would you say the average American both expected and intended for a foreign hostile nuclear superpower to dick around with our elections?
Sure, it’s relevant re: why?. It’s not relevant re: this is a big deal. No explanation or history takes away the fact that it’s a big deal. I’m more than happy to hear your opinion of history and why that makes this a low priority item for you.
Then either stop acting like any past actions make this less of a big deal, or don’t respond. My response of correlation unimportant re: this is as big deal, isn’t going to change.
We know Russia fucked around with our election. It’s been confirmed by Congress and the IC. These are not opinions, these are facts. Your downplaying of what are now facts doesn’t make them less of facts for the rest of us. All we have now is an orange tweeter in chief afraid to actually enact the sactions he signed for fear of pissing off Putin.
1 Like
Because we were laughed at 5 years ago when Romney mentioned this?
Literally ridiculed from high horses everywhere.
5 Likes
Well at least we know the guys from 5 years ago were dropped on their heads prior to the current day ones.
Establishing a timeline is important I suppose.