According to people briefed on the conversation, the website hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in October 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.That sounds clear (if cagey): The dossier is traced to the Democrats.
In April 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee also retained Fusion GPS to research any possible connections between Mr. Trump, his businesses, his campaign team and Russia. Working for them, Fusion GPS retained a respected former British spy named Christopher Steele.
He went on to produce a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos, which became known as the “Steele dossier,” also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, as well as real estate deals that were intended as bribes.
The "major donor" is Paul Singer, who is (presumably) the name Trump was talking about yesterday when he said "I think I would know... but let's find out who it was... If I were to guess, I would have one name in mind."
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৭টি মন্তব্য:
237 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Ok so *WHO* was the "major Republican Donor"?
Who the F cares?
Where's our thread re Swift video?
"Ok so *WHO* was the "major Republican Donor"?"
I was adding another paragraph as you were writing that. It's Paul Singer.
What info did the Free Beacon receive? Will they share it with us?
Swamp is an apt description of DC.
Jeb is off the hook.
Doing "oppo" research on a candidate is fair game.
Making up crazy ass shit about Russia is not so hot.
Feeding it to the FBI is not so hot.
Using it as a basis to get FISA warrants granted is not so hot.
Unmasking the names of folks caught under the FISA dragnet is not so hot.
Leaking the unmasking to the NYTimes is not so hot.
Leaking Memos (like Comey did) to get a special prosecutor appointed to investigate "crimes" is not so hot.
Fire Mueller and his entire team, now.
PAUL SINGER is an American hedge fund manager, activist investor, and philanthropist. FROM WIKIPEDIA (take that for what its worth):
Singer's philanthropic activities include financial support for LGBTQ rights And he has written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank AcT.
Singer led a group of major Republican donors to form the American Opportunity Alliance, a group that brings together wealthy Republican donors who share Singer’s support for LGBTQ rights, immigration reform and Israel.[86] During the 2016 Presidential election campaign Singer supported Marco Rubio and donated a million dollars in March to the Our Principles PAC-a PAC attempting to derail Donald Trump's election campaign
IOW, he's your typical liberal republican. Supports wars in the Middle east, open borders, cheap labor, tax cuts for the rich, globalization, and bad trade deals (which help him).
Wonder why he wouldn't like Trump...yeah.....
If you ever wonder why Mitch "the turtle" McConnell does what he does, its because he's been paid off by people like Paul Singer.
"Mitch" doesn't give a shit what the voters want, he's getting paid by Paul Singer.
When it comes to Republicans. Always "Follow the money".
The Dems may be kooks and traitors, but they really believe in something more than $$$,
I don't think the Republicans Pols do.
Well rcocean, its your party now.
Love how "salacious" has become the obligatory adjective for this dossier.
Erin Burnett, “Trump is trying to act as if Hillary colluded with the Russians.”
Act like? Hillary paid Steele to pay the Russians to make up stuff about Trump. They did collude.
Toobin is just as nuts.
CNN is insane. Still looking for that jet.
I'm kinda disappointed that it wasn't Jeb, but I've heard of this Singer character before, and this new information makes sense.
LMAO!
And this changes what?
More funny stuff. Working with Assange to better use the Russian hacked info. Hacking is still illegal last I heard. Everybody is willing to pay big bucks for oppo research, even if it’s stolen property.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-donor-asked-data-firm-if-it-could-better-organize-hacked-emails-1509133587
Trump Donor Asked Data Firm If It Could Better Organize Hacked Emails
August 2016 exchange between Rebekah Mercer and Cambridge Analytica’s CEO shows efforts to leverage Clinton-related messages
Trump donor Rebekah Mercer in August 2016 asked the chief executive of a data-analytics firm working for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign whether the company could better organize the Hillary Clinton-related emails being released by WikiLeaks, according to a person familiar with their email exchange.
Steele was not retained by Fusion until after Free Beacon had pulled out, which confirms that it was Hillary and the Dems who directly funded, through their legal team, collusion with Putin backed Kremlin sources to undermine the Republican candidate.
Yes, the Dems literally colluded with Russians to effect our election and then turned around and falsely accused the Trump campaign of that very thing.
If you read Strassels Wall Street Journal piece on other coming revelations it's only going to worse for the Hollywood Mysoginist backing Dems/left and their "Accidental leftist" LLR allies.
Shorter unknown: Trump campaign guilty of looking at stuff in the public domain!
Lol
Expect much more of these diversions from the left as more of their direct collusion is exposed.
So, Hillary and gang paid Democrat firm to hire a guy who was used as a direct conduit to Putin backed Russian "sources" to create a false "hit" document against Trump.
And that's the stuff that has already been demonstrated, and we are just beginning.
“Steele was not retained by Fusion until after Free Beacon had pulled out, which confirms that it was Hillary and the Dems who directly funded, through their legal team, collusion with Putin backed Kremlin sources to undermine the Republican candidate.
Yes, the Dems literally colluded with Russians to effect our election and then turned around and falsely accused the Trump campaign of that very thing.”
Wishcasting, lol. Maybe Clinton paid for Fusion and Steele’s work, but it wasn’t gotten from Putin backed sources. Putin hates Clinton and it wasn’t “pro Putin sources”, just the opposite. Putin wasn’t going to do anything to make it easier for Clinton to win the election. It doesn’t make any sense that Clinton would’ve been working with Putin on anything. They were/are enemies. Not so with Trump.
How exactly did the Russians collude with Trump? How did the Russians hack the election for Trump?
Clearly Putin wanted Hillary to win. Hillary would have killed American oil and gas. If Hillary would have won, Brent would be at $75 today and back to $100. Twenty five percent of the Russian GDP is based on oil and gas. Follow the money.
“So, Hillary and gang paid Democrat firm to hire a guy who was used as a direct conduit to Putin backed Russian "sources" to create a false "hit" document against Trump.
And that's the stuff that has already been demonstrated, and we are just beginning.”
In Drago’s Head, it’s Opposite Land. Link to where this has been “demonstrated”, or maybe it was demonstrated in your imagination.
“Clearly Putin wanted Hillary to win.”
Such fantasy. Putin wanted Trump to win. It’s in the emails from the Russian source who set up the meeting, to Don Jr. Good grief you people must be desperate to spin these stories.
"It doesn’t make any sense that Clinton would’ve been working with Putin on anything."
The uranium deal was completed so I guess they weren't working on that anymore. You must be right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html
“The Times now has the email to Donald Trump Jr. offering Russian aid to “incriminate Hillary.” His reply: “If it’s what you say I love it.” Read the new article.
WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.”
"The Washington Free Beacon ... initially retained the firm that conducted opposition research on Donald J. Trump — including a salacious dossier..."
Grammar people help me out. What is this saying. It looks like they are saying the website retained the firm for the dossier.
But the article makes clear Clinton and the Dems paid for the dossier.
So they intentionally wrote a headline designed to mislead. I'm I getting it right?
Vesalnitskaya tried to get Don Jr to offer relief on Magnitsky act sanctions in exchange for Russian help with election. That didn't happen.
Unless it happened with the Hillary camp.
Sounds like this Singer story is an attempt to confuse what the Dems hired Fusion to do with another Fusion client who happened to be Republican.
So just why would Putin be so invested in Trump winning, IF he wanted Hillary to win? You people are spinning fantasies.
“Talking Points Brought to Trump Tower Meeting Were Shared With Kremlin”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html
“Natalia V. Veselnitskaya arrived at a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 hoping to interest top Trump campaign officials in the contents of a memo she believed contained information damaging to the Democratic Party and, by extension, Hillary Clinton. The material was the fruit of her research as a private lawyer, she has repeatedly said, and any suggestion that she was acting at the Kremlin’s behest that day is anti-Russia “hysteria.”
But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya had discussed the allegations with one of Russia’s most powerful officials, the prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo she brought with her closely followed a document that Mr. Chaika’s office had given to an American congressman two months earlier, incorporating some paragraphs verbatim.
The "I love it" email was published before Don, Jr. was on the cover of Time, unknown. It's going to be another tough year for you.
There's a significant difference between oppo research and just making things up.
I've got 140 million reasons why Putin wanted Hillary to win. What you got?
I don't recall that Singer was a choice on your list! ;-)
"Well rcocean, its your party now"
Yeah, I wish that was true. Sadly, the Republican party is still *mostly* the party of The Turtle, Paul "i love amnesty" Ryan, and Paul Singer.
If it was MY party, then traitors like Sasse would keep his yap shut and support Trump. Instead, Sasse knows he can attack Trump and run for re-election with Koch and Singer money. And if he loses, Singer or Koch or Zuckerberg or whoever will give him a soft jobe worth $millions, just like they did with Rep. Cantor.
I'm with Unknown. No Presidential candidate should ever be interested in information that would be damaging to their opponent. It would be unethical, and something like collusion maybe, or something.
I see a glimpse of sanity peeking through in Inga's comments.
The fake diversions are nothing,
I suspect Singer is a Never Trumper and the donors all got together, sort of like the cool girls in high school to choose who they liked and Trump wasn't one of them.
These guys have made trillions off Obama's ZIRP. They wanted the party to go on and on.
Putin hates Clinton and it wasn’t “pro Putin sources”, just the opposite.
He gave the Wildebeest $143,000,000.00 just to she how much he hated her. And then he gave Bill a mere $500,000.00 just to show him how much more he hates Mr.Cigar.
I find the timing very suspicious on these releases. Last I heard FusionGPS bank records were under subpoena and Fusion took the 5th to prevent their disclosure.
Now all of a sudden we know who paid for opportunities research. I'm guessing FusionGPS will now say no need to see their bank records.
I'd recommend to Snoozey Sessions he arrange a midnight SWAT raid on FusionGPS, DNC, Hillary, Podesta and the whole lot of them to get these records. Right. Serious allegations require serious response. Ask Manafort.
“It would be unethical, and something like collusion maybe, or something.”
It would be collusion if it was with a foreign adversarial government, that’s on Trump. Oppo reserach is one thing, using hacked emails done by the Russians, given to Wikileaks, to help you win the election is sounds a lot like collusion. Is that what was agreed to in the Don Jr. meeting with the Russians? “You give Wikileaks the hacked DNC emails and I’ll get my dad to lift the Magnitsky Sanctions when he’s President.” Was this the quid pro quo? I read that the Mueller investigation may be coming out with some big info before Thanksgiving.
A profile of Paul Singer, which I just read because I knew so little about him:
http://forward.com/news/332326/paul-singer-the-gops-anti-adelson-makes-his-move/
Inga's despair is delicious.
Lacrimae rerum, baby, lacrimae rerum.
Clinton, Putin, and Obama sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g. In the age of political congruence ("="), that's illegal. Pair off! And no platonic stuff.
Free Beacon says Free Beacon paid Fusion. Singer is Free Beacon's primary financial backer but it's not clear at this time whether or not Singer was directly involved.
Likely, but not acknowledged. Someone should ask him. Maybe a reporter from the Free Beacon.
It's not inconceivable that Putin tried to make a deal with both candidates Re the Magnitsky act or whatever else he could get.
Clearly, he already knew from past experience he could work with Hillary (Uranium One).
We still have no evidence he got anywhere with Trump.
“Lacrimae rerum, baby, lacrimae rerum.”
False bravado and spinning fantasy is desperation.
“We still have no evidence he got anywhere with Trump.”
Wait.
"Wait"
Are offering me your advice because you aren't using it anyway?
False bravado...
You haven't an earthly hint, do you, Inga?
"You give Wikileaks the hacked DNC emails and I’ll get my dad to lift the Magnitsky Sanctions when he’s President.”
Yeah, that's what I heard happened too. I know that there's no evidence of it or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. And I think the Russians offered Don Jr. and Jared some hookers to seal the deal. Of course I'm just guessing on that, but I'm pretty sure about it. I think we got them this time Unknown.
So the original Republican who started this mess was a friend of Marco Rubio? I used to have some respect for Marco.
Inga reminds me of that BDM girl manning the FLAK gun in Der Untergang.
Breaking news, the first criminal charges have been filed in Mueller Russia probe. I wonder who it is. The person/ persons are supposed to be taken into custody by Monday, according to the reporting.
Unknown: "It would be collusion if it was with a foreign adversarial government, that’s on Trump."
Hillary literally colluded with kremlin-based Putin-backed Russians time generate a fake document used by the lefty/LLR in the US Govt to launch improper spying investigations against a domestic political opponent years after covering up the biggest pay for play deal WITH RUSSIANS that gave the Russians 20% of our Uranium.
That's all. And a cool $500,000 right into Hillary's pocket and $145 MILLION into the Clinton Foundation by Board Members of that Russian nuclear firm.
It's no wonder the Dems are in a panic.
And who was around at Justice and the FBI when the Uranium One cover-up happened?
Well, well well: Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein.
It's all just one big coincidence, eh?
I won't be surprised if Mueller rushes out in indictment. Right now he and his investigation is looking really bad.
He'll need to do something to take the heat off Clinton and the Dems.
Mueller might try to arrest someone to try to justify the millions he has blown.
Arrests are theater, He has that, at least, The raid on Manafort's house was theater like the John Doe disgrace in Wisconsin.
I wouldn't put it past him.Remember the disgrace of the Ted Stevens persecution., I heard those leftist lawyers have been readmitted to the bar.
No wonder Trump and cohorts were spinning fake stories to deflect from the first criminal charge in the Russia probe. They knew this indictment was coming.
I like how Unknown, whoever he/she/it is, is reduced to making up hypothetical conversations about meetings that were reported on 3 months ago and died from lack of interest. I also don't understand why he/she/it can't get the picture that Assange said no to the Cambridge guy and that was the end of that. Anything but face the awful fact that "Russian Collusion" is suddenly a Hillary problem. That's okay, I guess, because I think the worst is yet to come.
How could Chuck know so little about Paul Singer?
Mueller has several lawyers in staff who have been sanctioned for their history of improper tactics, indictments and prosecutions that were later thrown out of the court...but only long after.
I fully expect several Tom Delay/Ted Stevens/Scooter Libby prosecution attempts. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already with the Uranium One and Hillary/Russian collusion details leaking out.
“I also don't understand why he/she/it can't get the picture that Assange said no to the Cambridge guy and that was the end of that. “
Assange, a real trustworthy guy.
Unknown: "No wonder Trump and cohorts were spinning fake stories to deflect from the first criminal charge"
These "fake" stories are the ones the Dems have already admmitted to.
Hilarious.
Unknown is calling the Dems liars!
That's normally a sound default position to take!
“I'm surprised it hasn't happened already with the Uranium One and Hillary/Russian collusion details leaking out.”
Keep hope alive.
"I fully expect several Tom Delay/Ted Stevens/Scooter Libby prosecution attempts"
I wonder of he can get a judge to indict anybody, knowing it will quickly be slapped down.
I fully expect arrest theater with charges quietly thrown out later,
My FBI agent daughter will be here this weekend. I'm going to ask her about her FBI.
Except assuage offered up the emails to all comers, like did with the origomal Bradley manning haul, the Stratford breach, Snowdon it al.
"Breaking news, the first criminal charges have been filed in Mueller Russia probe. I wonder who it is."
I'm betting it's Scooter Libby.
pacwest wins the meat raffle!
I am not saying this is the case in Mueller's indictment, but it is a good thing to remember: “As New York Judge Sol Wachtler said in 1985, 'If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.'
Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies. They decide who gets picked, what evidence gets presented, and what gets left out. There’s no judge, no defense attorney, and generally a defendant only testifies in rare circumstances — his story is so air tight that there’s no down side in putting him in. There’s no necessity for unanimity among the 23 or so jurors, and the standard of proof is so low — that probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed — anyone, for the merest hint of an offense, can get indicted."
I am guessing Manafort is about to get his day in the sun. Will he get convicted? Only time will tell.
"I won't be surprised if Mueller rushes out in indictment. Right now he and his investigation is looking really bad."
This.
Except assuage offered up the emails to all comers...
Auto-correct strikes!
Let's not play this game of pretending that Free Beacon and the Clinton crime organization were after the same thing with FusionGPS.
My quote was from "Above the Law" Feb 8, 2016
Grand juries are the prosecutor’s babies.
Another perversion of the Constitution and rule of law. Grand juries exist to protect the accused from prosecutors like Mueller, not to be a sword of the government.
Automistake, he is an information broker. The daily basilisk gets more ridiculous, from a dollar to two bits. They seriously suggest Pokemon was a factor in the election.
"I see a glimpse of sanity peeking through in Inga's comments."
One would need an electron microscope to see even the merest glimpse sanity in Inga's comments. She channels Hillary and Bill's sociopathy. It used to be amusing to speculate how unhinged these leftists are. Now it is just scary.
If so, what info did fusion collect for them. Or were they just circulating every rumor,
The article really seems to be trying to create a lot of false links in people's minds. It's putting all this stuff that's vaguely related and using that to paint a picture that's a bit apart from the reality. To disentangle:
1. The Steele Dossier is entirely a product of the Dems-financed Fusion GPS project.
2. There is no link between Washington Free Beacon or Singer with the Steele Dossier.
3. The Free Beacon hired the firm for research on several candidates, including Trump, for reporting purposes.
4. Singer is a donor to the Free Beacon but doesn't own it, as compared to Carlos Sims to not just bankrolls The NY Times but is the actual owner.
5. The NY Times clearly doesn't like the Washington Free Beacon and is trying to link it to bad stuff the Dems were involved with seemingly to lessen the impact of the Dem involvement.
6. It's The NY Times that's claiming that this was all "one" project, probably repeating what Fusion GPS was telling them. However, that seems to be a silly thing that Fusion GPS made up to confuse matters. Of course it's possible that they consider all oppo research for a particular country and party regardless of client to all belong to the same "project", but that seems to be a strange way to do things.
It's fine to disagree with Singer, or the Washington Free Beacon, though they do have some of the more straight original reporting in Washington. (And they aren't a "Never Trump" organ either.) However, I'd suggest not falling for The NY Times's attempt to link them to the whole Steele Dossier business and paying Russian spooks to manufacture dirt on Trump. That's wholly on the Dems.
I really strain to understand why Singer was even bought into this discussion without any evidence of his involvement in anything.
Probably, however who was singers gobetween, what was the info they dredged up, why spider they terminate services in April. And was their any overlap?
Trump's position that Washington is a swamp of established entitled interests is validated with every revelation. They all know each other, make money off each other, and are not that interested in voters and candidates upsetting that apple cart. No one should be surprised that the DNC, Clinton and GOP establishment hired an outfit specializing in the political dark arts -- they had the same goal . . . keep the gravy train rolling. Trump (and to a large extent Sanders) threatened that gravy train.
The NY Times approach to following the money seems to be:
1. Ignore and downplay even direct links if it's Dem issues or Dem politicos and donors.
2. Overplay and even falsely ascribe direct links where there are none if it's Rep issues or Rep politicos and donors.
Seems very dishonest.
And since when is The NY Times against trying to obtain research or information on matters of public interest? Oh, if it's somebody they don't' like doing it, or if it's about something they would rather not be written about.
As for Mueller . . . why do we know there is a sealed grand jury indictment? It is a crime to leak grand jury information, yet it was public information shortly afterward and before any arrests were made. Mueller has been criticized for hiring Democratic Party donors and political operatives, some of whom have highly questionable legal ethics backgrounds. The illegal leaks show there is teeth to that charge.
Another perversion of the Constitution and rule of law. Grand juries exist to protect the accused from prosecutors like Mueller, not to be a sword of the government.
Unfortunately, that ship has long ago sailed. For the last century and more, grand juries have served just to at best rubber stamp prosecutorial fishing expeditions. Of course, the Consitution's grand jury clause was written with the opposite idea, but you'd need a constitutional amendment to return tot that practice. Or just get rid of grand juries all together and get rid of the additional power they give prosecutors to enforce their wills, running roughshod over the Fifth Amendment and often creating crimes where there aren't any.
Byron York had the orogimal story,,so I'm giving him the credit, yes a nda is not worthnthe pixels is you are o'reilly or Crosby, but ironclad when it comes to red queen.
Singer is a genuine hedge fund billionaire, and anti-Trump.
Also anti-conservative (pro gay marriage) apparently because he has a gay-married son.
I also think there is a cabal that has been financing a lot of anti-conservative actions, and Singer is obviously one of them.
By the way, I wouldn't accuse the Washington Free Beacon of being part of the swamp. They have been pretty consistent in their anti-swamp reporting from they day they started, something that probably doesn't engender them to most DC-ites of either variety.
"respected" spy. Uh huh. Not a sleazy golden shower monger. Re. Spec. Ted. That's the ticket, yeah.
They say steel was the headof the Russia desk but he was burned to tomlimson, their Phillip see in 1999, when he revealed steels tenure back in 1990.
It is odd reading this thread and Reddit's thread on the same topic. People really do live in different worlds.
Trump's position that Washington is a swamp of established entitled interests is validated with every revelation. They all know each other, make money off each other, and are not that interested in voters and candidates upsetting that apple cart.
Yes and the donor class is part of it, as Singer exemplifies. These people are all acquainted and go to the same cocktail parties.
Trump is a traitor to the donor class. He is hated and his best cabinet nominees, like Pruit and DeVos are hated.
Tillerson has not cleaned house at State so his actions are impeded at every turn.
Corker and allies in the Senate are sitting on Trump nominees and the State bureaucracy is sitting on resumes which are not being reviewed, hence no nominees.
The people who say Trump has not nominated people are lying.
He is being blocked by the bureaucracy.
"People really do live in different worlds."
We know you do.
The degree of blindness in that cave is extraordinary. They don't know about weissmams abuses against Arthur Anderson, his coverup of the tenex pay off plot.
Unknown: Clinton's campaign has confessed to funding the dossier. It is no longer a conspiracy theory. It is a cold, hard fact.
The only collusion with Russia has been through Fusion, Clinton and Steele.
Honestly, if Trump should go to jail because his campaign called off a meeting with a Russian agent the Obama administration had employed to lobby Congress... what should happen to Clinton for hiring Russians to conduct espionage and collect intelligence against Americans?
“Clinton's campaign has confessed to funding the dossier. It is no longer a conspiracy theory. It is a cold, hard fact.”
I didn’t dispute it. As I said the other day, so damn what? It was oppo research and she didn’t collude with Putin agents to get it, unlike Trump.
The sources weterovided by putin, probably funded by them.
"Using it as a basis to get FISA warrants granted is not so hot."
I love this theory that FISA warrants just cook up themselves, upon suggestion.
Why did they lie about it, for the better part of a year, if OT was just oppo research?
The article says quite clearly:
1. Fusion was hired by Singer with a mandate to do general opposition research on several GOP candidates, not just Trump. This assignment had nothing to do with Russia and was terminated in May 2016.
2. Fusion was hired by Clinton in April 2016, before Singer's assignment was terminated. This assignment had nothing to do with Singer's. The mandate from Clinton was specifically to dig up Russia-related dirt on Trump.
The narrative that we have been fed since the Clinton connection came to light is that Fusion was originally hired by a Republican to do the dirty Russia job and that Clinton merely picked up the ball after the Republican dropped it. We now know that was a lie. Fusion's hoax dossier was Clinton's idea alone. But no doubt CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times etc will obfuscate the time line to in order to perpetuate the lie.
Trump and cohorts pushing Uranium One, fake story, to divert attention from the indictments.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law
“The latest instance of "what-aboutism" is the House Republican decision to open an investigation of the Uranium One transaction—the allegation that Hillary Clinton transferred control of 20% of America's uranium mining output to a Russian company, in exchange for substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation from the executives of that same Russian company. Perhaps fearing future revelations of Trump's closeness to Russia, the evident purpose of the investigation is to establish a "Hillary too" counterpoint. Based on what is currently in the public record, little, if anything about the allegation is plausible. In this post, I want to summarize the legal context and known facts regarding the transfer and put the allegations of impropriety in context. (I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation. My reasoning is simple: if there is no "quo" to be given, the question of a "quid" is moot.)”
"It was oppo research and she didn’t collude with Putin agents to get it, unlike Trump."
-- She hired a foreign agent who literally paid Russians money for fake intelligence.
“-- She hired a foreign agent who literally paid Russians money for fake intelligence?”
Not Russian government agents, unlike Trump’s associations. How hard is this to understand? Plus you don’t know that the info from the Dossier is fake.
Yes steel played Russian agents because he has no sources, Alan wormold in our man in havana.
Unknown: "Not Russian government agents, unlike Trump’s associations"
Lol
Unknown: "How hard is this to understand? Plus you don’t know that the info from the Dossier is fake.
Lol
If this is the same Unknown that usually posts here, we went through this a few days ago. Several facts in the dossier are just wrong (claiming people were at a certain place or event on a given date.)
There is no reason to believe anything in the document.
"I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation."
Lol
Inga sure is agitated.
Hillary Clinton literally paid a foreign dude cold hard cash for information from Putin's pals to inject into our election.
The Democrats very own definition of Treason.
"Why did they lie about it, for the better part of a year, if OT was just oppo research?"
It has been known, for a solid year, that both the GOP and the Dems paid Steele for the dossier research. Ever since the original David Corn article in October 2016. This week's "news" is entirely manufactured.
This is theargumebt clinic, abusecin0s next door. Now this would be funny if real information like the miniaturize warheads or the disposition of Islamic state forces want crowded out to make way for this garbage.
"It has been known, for a solid year, that both the GOP and the Dems paid Steele for the dossier research. Ever since the original David Corn article in October 2016. This week's "news" is entirely manufactured."
-- This is flat out wrong.
People suspected that Clinton and a GOP donor paid for it, but no one knew for sure. In fact, since Clinton denied it, it was considered pants-on-head conspiracy cray-cray to claim she did.
This week her campaign finally admitted to lying for about a year. We also learned that there are two discrete jobs Fusion was hired for.
First: The research into Trump's businesses.
Two: The Golden Showers Dossier.
The GOP donor paid for the first one; the second is all Clinton.
If people aren't even going to get basic facts about the topic, it is kind of a waste of time to try to discuss it.
"It has been known, for a solid year, that both the GOP and the Dems paid Steele for the dossier research. Ever since the original David Corn article in October 2016. This week's "news" is entirely manufactured."
"Dems" is one thing. My understanding is that until this week we didn't know the identity of the "Dems". Is that wrong?
"Such fantasy. Putin wanted Trump to win. It’s in the emails from the Russian source who set up the meeting, to Don Jr. Good grief you people must be desperate to spin these stories."
Yes because Russian lawyers who have a working relationship with the very company your political opponent just hired to do "opposition research" on you can always be trusted to be telling you the truth!
Since there is so much unknown to Unknown, I'll let you in on the worst-kept secret of the year: Putin most likely didn't care who won. Putin wanted to create chaos no matter which candidate won.
"People suspected that Clinton and a GOP donor paid for it, but no one knew for sure. In fact, since Clinton denied it, it was considered pants-on-head conspiracy cray-cray to claim she did."
That's entirely your opinion. I believed it the moment I read it a year ago. I certainly didn't think it was cray-cray.
Original Mike: Until this week, it was simply a theory that had not been confirmed, and in fact, was actively denied by both the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
This would be like claiming if OJ came tomorrow and said, "Yeah, I did it," that this was not newsworthy since "we all knew it."
Arturo: See, you believed it. But you didn't *know* it.
Question, what didn't putin get fromthe boa.a administration, denial of the decapitation of the lazynski cabinet reduction of missile defense platforms, curbs on oil drilling onnfederal lands, half of Ukraine. The uranium one deal. the keys tie the exchanges in Nevada and elsewhere. Yes kadaffi was toppled but that's about it.
“It has been known, for a solid year, that both the GOP and the Dems paid Steele for the dossier research. Ever since the original David Corn article in October 2016. This week's "news" is entirely manufactured.”
They’re going to recycle whatever they can to distract from the fact that there are are Trump associates getting indicted.
Also: The GOP did not pay Steele; they paid Fusion. It was the Dems who had money go to Steele (unless the most current reporting on the dossier funding are wrong. Which, given the media's current batting average on reporting this, isn't entirely impossible, he said under-statedly.)
Ted atwvens unavailable fir comment, because he died in a plane crash, after the rank malpractice of the Murray team was discovered.
There are an insane number of logical leaps and inferences required to believe the latest nonsense.
Here's Leap #1: that Steele's sources weren't just Russians, but Kremlin-controlled Russians actively attempting to hurt Donald Trump with embarrassing oppo to help Putin's best friend Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, we have no idea who Steele's sources were, and certainly nothing confirmed.
We actually know that there were several sources who were Kremlin-controlled Russians, because Steele said so in his reports. Actual quote from Steele on Source B: “[Source B is] a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”
Now, it is possible Steele was lying about his sources.
But that makes the dossier LESS trustworthy, not more.
"My reasoning is simple: if there is no "quo" to be given, the question of a "quid" is moot.)”"
That's my position too. Sure there was lots of "quid". But since Clinton didn't do anything wrong it really doesn't matter she got all those millions. Solid logic. We got them this time for sure.
"Here's Leap #1: that Steele's sources weren't just Russians, but Kremlin-controlled Russians actively attempting to hurt Donald Trump with embarrassing oppo to help Putin's best friend Hillary Clinton."
Interesting that the flip side of that is exactly what the Dems have been pushing for the last year.
So, since we've shown Leap #1 is not that big of a leap (we know that Steel's sources were Kremlin-controlled Russians actively attempting to hurt Donald Trump to help Hillary Clinton), what's Leap #2?
[Sidenote: I never thought I'd ever see the day a political attack ever got turned around so epically. Sure, sure. There've been things like Monkey Business and Hiking the Appalachian Trail. But... that's kid stuff compared to how epic the Russian Turnabout is.]
The FBI knows who Steel’s sources were. No one else knows...yet.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/trump-russia-dossier-sources-christopher-steele-fbi-senate-judiciary-robert-mueller-a7908946.html
“Former British spy Christopher Steele has reportedly revealed the sources of a dossier containing information on Donald Trump and Russia to the FBI.“
“I never thought I'd ever see the day a political attack ever got turned around so epically.”
Wishful thinking.
"The FBI knows who Steel’s sources were."
I hope so, given that they apparently helped pay for it. As a taxpayer, I want my money's worth.
Except this crew put a filmmaker in jail, to cover up a political assassination of an ambassador, what wouldn't they do to prevent justice from coming to light. They also date back to the frame of Dr. Steven hatfill for the anthrax attack
We still haven't seen any of these purported memos comey wrote, were they written in invisible ink?
"We actually know that there were several sources who were Kremlin-controlled Russians, because Steele said so in his reports. Actual quote from Steele on Source B: “[Source B is] a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”"
And you're jumping to "controlled" by the Kremlin. You're also assuming, sans facts, that Steele was incapable of filtering out compromising loyalties that might affect the information he was being given.
"Interesting that the flip side of that is exactly what the Dems have been pushing for the last year."
I wonder how Don Jr. feels about this Democratic conspiracy to make him take meetings with the Russians, after specifically being told that the basis was the Russian gov's interest in helping his dad win.
A meeting with an officialmthe administration had expressly allowedcinto the country, just like the kislyak invitation to the convention in Cleveland, you have to bring a better game.
"A meeting with an officialmthe administration had expressly allowedcinto the country, just like the kislyak invitation to the convention in Cleveland, you have to bring a better game."
Really? That's it? "They were allowed into the country, so it doesn't matter if he was committing treason."
No that happened with the Iran deal, which kislyak was a conduit for thirty senators including Claire mccaskill. Then there is the Chapman ring which was spirited out of the country, faster than a speeding bullet.
Ok. Appropos of nothing, but ok.
Everyone was up in arms when Don Jr. admitted to taking the meeting with a possible source of dirt on Clinton. I read serious (presumably life long) Republicans saying that no same campaign would do anything g like thst, that the meeting was evidence of likely wrongdoing, etc. The Media and Dems agreed...This was something new and uniquely bad, no one would ever meet with it employ foreigners to get dirt on a political opponent!
Now, though, all the same people are saying "hey, this is just oppo research that the DNC & Clinton campaign paid foreigners for, these dirty dealings are normal and happen all the time, there's no story here!"
Transparent.
Is we've defined treason down from when Ted Kennedy offered to let andropv and chernenko beat Reagan in the cold war, when John Kerry libeled practically every single serviceman and woman in Vietnam.
Its about as outrageous as the access Hollywood tape when everyone from weinstein to halperin had done such things and worse (latest on the former was assault annabella schiorra)
"You're jumping to controlled by the Kremlin."
The dossier names at least one source as a current KGB official!
You seem to be arguing that the Russians Don Jr met with should be assumed to be Putin-controlled but actual acknowledged KGB members should not be.
Thats...that's something.
Hillary's campaign working with Ukranian officials = normal, yawn.
Trump's campaign taking a meeting with a lawyer from Russia = shock, treason!
Riiiiight.
"You seem to be arguing that the Russians Don Jr met with should be assumed to be Putin-controlled but actual acknowledged KGB members should not be.
Thats...that's something."
Nope, the NYT confirmed today that the Russian lawyer had cleared her talking points with the Kremlin in advance.
"And you're jumping to "controlled" by the Kremlin."
... Well.. uh... yeah. I assume if he works for the Kremlin, that you know, he works for the Kremlin.
Like I said, one side of this resembles the trust operation, the flapper dzezhinki used to snare antibolshevoks. The other the zinoviwv letter, which was used to secure Mcdonald's fall from office, with a phony claim of insurrection in the British labor unions
"Now, though, all the same people are saying "hey, this is just oppo research that the DNC & Clinton campaign paid foreigners for, these dirty dealings are normal and happen all the time, there's no story here!""
You're right in that both the GOP and the Dems paid a British national for the oppo research, but that's where it ends.
Yes the same sources that lied to then for a year. Either putin controls everything and hence knows who all these sources are doing or not. I believe tube siloviki and oligarchs give usual assent to him, but not in all instances. How about them Astros
"... Well.. uh... yeah. I assume if he works for the Kremlin, that you know, he works for the Kremlin."
That's a big assumption if they're talking to a British former spy. And you still don't know if any of the sources worked for the Kremlin. You're assuming everything.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
He was burned In 1999, by tomlinson, you think the Russians didn't know he was mi 6,
"He was burned In 1999, by tomlinson, you think the Russians didn't know he was mi 6"
I never said they didn't know.
"Nope, the NYT confirmed today that the Russian lawyer"
-- The Russian lawyer the Obama administration used to lobby Congress with, you mean?
In addition, to what a previous Glenn Simpson project did to the reputation of a pro western Arab prince, btw veselnitskaya was working with another spook shop in the UK. Fir her antimagnitski work. Guess which two outfits were recipients of that cash. Renaissance capital and sberbank, guess where that money went.
Some likely suspects to watch out for when the indictment is announced:
Samantha
Glinda
Endora
Hermioine
The one between the lion and the wardrobe.
"You're right in that both the GOP and the Dems paid a British national for the oppo research, but that's where it ends."
-- Wrong. The GOP paid Fusion; only the Dems paid Steele.
"That's a big assumption if they're talking to a British former spy. And you still don't know if any of the sources worked for the Kremlin. You're assuming everything."
-- The quote about the sources? That's from Steele. If you think Steele is lying about his sources, then you have to consider the entire Dossier to be false.
Don't forget Sabrina,,and the cast of charmed. He really think we look atone point on the cave wall.
"You're also assuming, sans facts, that Steele was incapable of filtering out compromising loyalties that might affect the information he was being given."
You're right -- Steele seems like a good person to make that judgment. You should go with that!
Stay on it, Matt.
So strong is the attempt to blurr the "oppo" lines here.
"You're right in that both the GOP and the Dems paid a British national for the oppo research, but that's where it ends."
That's not correct, and I'm betting you know that.
The latest instance of "what-aboutism"
which is what the kids these days are calling "demands for intellectual consistency"
the allegation that Hillary Clinton transferred control of 20% of America's uranium mining output to a Russian company
from later in the same article:
It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency.
so apparently Inga's weak link is making the claim that Hillary didn't have anything to do with the decision, since she was a minor functionary in the Obama administration, and anyway the deal was approved by no less than the relevant agencies in Kazakhstan, which proves everything is on the up&up. (Seriously, lawfareblog thinks your mind will be set at ease by learning that the government of Kazakhstan approved of the deal.)
as to the rest of the "allegations" (as the kids are calling "established facts" these days), that the sale of 20% of America's uranium to a Russian state agency was approved in exchange for substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation from the executives of that same Russian company, Inga's own excerpt ducks out thus: (I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation.
To sum up, Inga's rebuttal of the case against Hillary is
* yes the sale of 20% of America's uranium to a Russian state agency was approved while our gal was Secretary of State and heir apparent to the presidency, HOWEVER
* she had such a full schedule of...flying...places, and deleting tens of thousands of emails about her daughter's yoga class, that there's just no reason to think she had any input into the decision to sell 20% of America's uranium to a Russian state agency
* especially since the Kazakhs vouched for it
* and so there's no reason to ask if the donation of one hundred forty five million dollars ($145,000,000; 2,456 times American median household income) to the Clinton Foundation would have influenced her judgement in the approval of the sale of 20% of America's uranium to a Russian state agency, because as we already said there's no reason to think she had any input.
Take it way bgates, I'm handing it off to the night crew, how have you been btw.
Its clear lawfare doesn't have editors worth the name, because they would have given rosensweig the j Jonas Jamison stinkeye.
"You're also assuming, sans facts, that Steele was incapable of filtering out compromising loyalties that might affect the information he was being given."
-- Why should we assume he was able to do this when he got snookered by including information that was verifiably (from public records) false in the dossier? For example it claims this guy went to Prague. He did not.
"-- Wrong. The GOP paid Fusion; only the Dems paid Steele."
Come on, man. That's just being silly.
Anyway, the best part is that your conspiracy theories mean absolutely nothing, while Bob Mueller's indictments are as real as they get, and won't go away. Have fun, kids!
From the NYT:
“All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to The Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that The Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier,” they said. “The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele.”
It isn't being silly. It is being factual.
What conspiracy theory? It is a fact. The Free Beacon paid Fusion, then backed out. Then, the DNC/Clinton campaign paid Steele to hire Russian sources to get/create a dossier on Trump.
It has been known, for a solid year, that both the GOP and the Dems paid Steele for the dossier research. Ever since the original David Corn article in October 2016.
Here's the article you're obfuscating about, and here's how it describes who paid for the dossier: "a client allied with Democrats".
Here's how the new news describes who paid for the dossier:
HILLARY CLINTON.
See how that's different? It's different. There are lots of people "allied with Democrats" - there's Hillary Clinton, and David Corn, and you, and Vladimir Putin, and Harvey Weinstein; just lots and lots of liars and sociopaths. David Corn didn't specify which lying sociopath had paid for the bundle of lies Hillary bought from Putin's people, so she could lie about it for most of a year. Now she's been forced to tell the truth about that one fact.
Anytime a Clinton tells the truth, it's news.
(hiya narc!)
Ask Ted Stevens, (you can't) bob Mcdonnell, tom delay, how real were the underlying charges. Just because one indicts even convicts doesn't stand the test of time, unless proper procedures were followed.
I'll wait to weigh in on the indictments until we have more information. As it is, I'm not surprised that, yet again, information about the investigation has been unethically leaked by the FBI and Mueller's team.
How would the election have changed if we knew in October last year that the dossier was a Clinton dirty trick paid to a foreign spy along with money provided to pay Russian agents?
"-- Wrong. The GOP paid Fusion; only the Dems paid Steele."
Come on, man. That's just being silly.
Arturo Ui, you lying sack of shit, here's a quote from your own source:
Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.
(And remember, David Corn wrote "client allied with Democrats" instead of "Hillary Clinton" so she could lie about her involvement for as long as possible.)
Yes, this has gotten too silly. Indeed, enter graham chapman as the martinet, and albatross.
The switch on Russian collusion is so enormous it's hard to take in. It isn't a switch in what I thought was true, it's a switch in what the Post and the mainstream will acknowledge as true. But why are they doing it? I think Paul Manafort might be indicted and a lot of his Russia connections went through John Podesta and his brother and their companies. John Podesta was Hillary's campaign director. Perhaps this means that Hillary's campaign has to acknowledge its Russian collusion. It was always obvious that Hillary's collusion for cash was much larger than anything the Trumps ever did - larger, by orders of magnitude. A twenty minute meeting that leads to nothing vs. the sale of 20% of US uranium assets in exchange for $145,000,000 in cash. And now the whole dirty deal is going to come out. So Hillary or, anyhow, the Democrats, are trying to get it all out before the indictments. Soon, we'll know. That is, we'll know where Mueller stands on Hillary's corruption.
I wish I could remember where I read it and who wrote it so I could give them credit, but a commenter yesterday wrote, seemingly from the future, that the news had gotten so bad for the Democrats that Mueller would have to indict someone before the weekend arrived. I am guessing Manafort is the poor sap.
Surely there are records who Singer supported in the Republican primaries. Who is that?
I should have read the comments first- Marco Rubio.
narciso I add misspellings and shitty grammar so as to preclude defensiveness among the folks here who would otherwise likely feel as though they aren't even on my level and hence be spoiling for a fight, as well as the fact I ought to be, and will be, paid for my above-average efforts.
What the hell is your excuse for all the mucked up word jumbles you leave here, that seemingly are well-informed, interesting thoughts frustratingly rendered unintelligible by your lack of proof reading?
Automistake on my phone, so much of what passes for truth is narrative where context or even whole events are left out of the picture. So we haven't a clue if Mueller is on target. However magic eightball suggests otherwise.
I will go out on a limb and make a prediction- there are no arrests by Mueller on Monday, or at all next week.
"Anyway, the best part is that your conspiracy theories mean absolutely nothing, while Bob Mueller's indictments are as real as they get, and won't go away. Have fun, kids!"
It's no skin off my nose if the likes of Manafort is indicted.
The indictments by Mueller that are supposed to be announced Monday have extraordinarily suspect timing. This was the week that the Russian collaboration by Trump blew up AND Mueller was discovered to have been involved up to his own eyeballs in the Uranium One Russian involvement scandal. There has been an increasing crescendo of calls for his firing and for investigation of the Uranium One scandal (including Mueller's part in it suppressing the investigation into it while FBI Director), as well as of the use made of the Trump Dossier by the FBI under his successor, Comey. I highly suspect that the indictments were procured from the grand jury on a rush basis for two reasons. First, in another week, there might no longer be a Mueller led independent counsel investigation, with its apparent justification having imploded this week. This may be their last chance to go after Trump and his Administration, and it may work as insurance against getting fired. Secondly, there may be some Deep State pushback or revenge going on. Or, there is the possibility (which, right now I expect is small) that the Uranium One scandal is being faked by the Trump people (etc).
So Monday is going to be interesting. Will it start with a dawn raid or two? One of Mueller's attorneys is famous for such, and pulled that already with Monafort. I think that would be a red flag that this was personal. Are real crimes alleged in the indictment(s)? Or are they just process crimes, like how they got Scooter Libby? The latter would be both an admission that they had nothing against Trump, and, again, that the indictments were both political and personal. For these reasons, I hope, for the sake of our government that if there are indictments Monday, that they are for substantive crimes, and that they are well supported by good evidence showing probable cause. That is because the alternative is verging on lynching time for the participating Deep State operatives, esp here in a weaponized Justice Dept. The arrogance of using the prosecutorial apparatus of the DoJ for protecting Mueller and his partisan team of prosecutors would be Obe bridge too far. We shall see.
By now, we all know that leaking pending indictments violates DoJ guidelines. For one thing, the targets could just flee (or go visit Trump at the White House). If there are indictments issued Mobday, then someone from within the Mueller team did the leaking, knowing that it violated DoJ policy. And, yes, that strongly would imply at least knowledge, and very likely support for the leaking, by Mueller himself. Are they really so arrogant that they believe that the rules don't apply to them, just everyone else? Or are they so used to getting what they want in DC through this petty violation of rules and leaking, that they just didn't think of how this was going to play with Trump and his base? After all, the independent counsel investigation was, at least partially, a result of just this sort of leaking in violation of DoJ rules by the sitting FBI Director, James Comey.
The purpose of all the fuss about Clinton in recent days becomes clearer now, a squirrel to distract from the coming indictments. Sad!
So those people who guessed 'Chuck' were closest.
Or the indictments are to distract from Mueller's culpability in Uranium One, you decide.
Clash of the Titans.
I think I will let reality make the call on this one.
Sounds like the meeting with Don Jr might have been a variation on the old badger game.
"I think I will let reality make the call on this one."
Me too, but I remember the timings of the Ted Stevens and Weinberger indictments, and there is a large area of political history that you steadfastly ifnore.
He is trying to get ahead of being fired for covering for Clinton collusion and hoping to shut down the operation before it homes in on Clinton.
Rick Perry, another political indictment by Democrats. Can anybody give me a list of similar ones by Republicans?
The fuss about Clinton hiring foreign spies... My God. That's like saying "What is all this poo pooing over Led Harvey Oswald?" It shows a complete and almost deliberate level of ignorance of the topic at hand.
"The fuss about Clinton hiring foreign spies... My God. That's like saying "What is all this poo pooing over Led Harvey Oswald?" It shows a complete and almost deliberate level of ignorance of the topic at hand."
Um, YEAH. Pointing out that the latest Hillary story makes no sense at all is the same as defending Lee Harvey Oswald. Good point.
All of the sources for the Hillary Clinton hired foreign spies story are: Clinton's campaign, the DNC, Clinton's lawyers, the guy they paid, the organization they paid. In short: It is a complete confession. If you do not understand that, and think it makes no sense, you should step back and learn everything about the topic and forget what you pretend to know. Because you're probably still operating under one of the year long lies that Clinton's campaign, the DNC, Clinton's lawyers, the guy they paid or the organization they paid told you.
Pointing out that the latest Hillary story makes no sense at all
So it makes no sense at all that Russian spies were arrested by Mueller's FBI, spies who were on a project of corrupting the North American uranium industry, partly by attempting to influence Clinton by giving to the Clinton Foundation, working on behalf of the same people who gave Hillary's foundation ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS, and in whose favor she ultimately ruled on the issue.
And Mueller didn't tell the Congressional committee overseeing this deal about what he knew at the time about Uranium One.
No, none of that makes any "sense at all" because we all know about the Clinton's sterling record of ethical probity the whole time they have been in public life!
"Are they really so arrogant that they believe that the rules don't apply to them, just everyone else?"
-- Why should they think otherwise? Paul Manafort cooperated with the FBI and provided every document requested. Result: Early morning raid with weapons out on his home.
Clinton destroys subpoenaed evidence, refuses to cooperate with investigators and lies to them. Result: Comey writes his speech clearing her before even finishing the investigation.
Given that: Why SHOULD Clinton and her team *not* think the rules don't don't apply to them?
Also, if Trump really wants to show independence from Russia, he should say: "Given the revelations of Russia's corruption of State and our previous administration, we are withdrawing from the Uranium One deal."
This could only "not make sense" to a person in complete denial of the corruption that is coming to the surface, like so many methane bubbles from the rot at the bottom of a swamp.
As for the indictments. These are some people that are possible: Manafort (as part of the pre-Mueller investigation into his finances), Flynn (for lying to the investigators), Clinton's campaign team (for lying to Congress), Clinton's lawyer (for lying to Congress), Fusion GPS staff (for lying to the FBI/Congress), Steele (for same), Kushner or Donald Jr. (if they think either lied about knowledge of the meeting with the Obama-approved Russian lawyer), Podesta/Weisserman-Schultz/someone in the DNC for lying to Congress/the FBI and obstructing justice.
And those are just the public possibilities.
If it weren't Mueller, but in fact, were a truly neutral investigator, I would have included Comey for stealing government documents, admitting to leaking them and admitting to undermining the FBI's investigations (obstructing justice) by clearing Clinton before the investigation. But, since it is Mueller, Comey's criminal and unethical behavior will be ignored most likely.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন