[ul][li]It didn’t happen.[/ul][ul][]It doesn’t count.[/ul][ul][]Trump is bad, and [/ul][ul][*]It didn’t happen.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Mueller whispers secrets into your ear, does he?
So let’s back up. It seems to me there are a few assertions in these stories, and they ought to be separated out.
To the extent that a Russian company engaged in bribery and money laundering, they should be prosecuted to the extent that we can. (I’m also not surprised, because I just assume Russian companies are generally corrupt.)
To the extent that right-wingers are making out Russia to be our friend whenever Trump is in the picture, and Russia to be a threat to our national security when the scary word uranium is used, I say… whut? If a Russian company owns part of a Canadian company that has substantial control of a portion of the uranium in this country, I’m failing to see what is alarming about that. We have plenty of uranium, the Russians have plenty of uranium, we can make more uranium… why should anyone care?
And to the extent that there is alleged a quid pro quo where investors in the Canadian energy company made donations to the Clinton Foundation, it seems to me the Snopes article is pretty convincing that there’s no scandal there. If new evidence comes up, sure, I’ll reconsider my opinion. And saying that Hilliary Clinton served on CFIUS belies that CFIUS decisions are generally made by bureaucrats serving in several cabinet departments, not actually the heads of each cabinet agency.
I’m just not sure what I’m supposed to be outraged about here.
That’s because you’re overlooking the Benghazi link. Duh!!!
Even a sarcastic squirrel finds a sincere nut once in a while.
There is no lie about Hillary that can be sufficiently debunked that they won’t rebunk it.
Republicans and Russians-strange rebunkbedfellows.
This is definitely the smoking gub.
If I say you molested your neighbor’s kid, you’ll say it didn’t happen. How very suspicious!
Don’t be rebunkulous.
The big mistake in this thread is the focus on Hillary. That’s the weakest link of the story. The real story - to the extent that there is one - is the Obama administration’s willingness to overlook Russian misdeeds and suppress knowledge of them from relevant authorities in the name of maintaining good relations with Russia (“reset”). Whether this actually happened - and if it did, whether this was in any way criminal - is very unclear at this point. But there’s no less reason to look into this than to look at all the Trump-related matters.
Regardless, it’s worth noting for context. Right now, any Trump-related contact with Russians, or apparent attempts to do things that are aligned with Russian interests, are viewed with the highest suspicion in certain circles. Appreciating that these types of things happened under Obama too should put a different spin on things.
One sub-question is how this impacts Bob Mueller specifically. He had the top position in the FBI at the time this info was allegedly being withheld from congress. If he was found to have been involved in that, that could entangle his Trump-Russia investigation, I would think.
The first line of the linked article:
“Contrary to the Left’s favorite narrative, any Russia scandal has always been worse for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.”
So, is it this thread that is mistaken, or is it the linked article?
Yes, but what about Chappaquiddick?
I didn’t read the linked article (though I’ve read about the emerging story elsewhere, mostly in The Hill).
I believe pjmedia is a RW outlet, and they may share Trump’s obsession with Hillary. Regardless, it’s a mistake to focus on her role, based on the evidence so far.
Well I am on the right and this “case” is almost entirely built from misrepresentation, exaggeration, and wishful thinking. It’s 2017. Hillary Clinton lost. She’s unlikely to get another chance. Why bother campaigning against her?
[Tradition!] Distraction! Distraction![/T!]
I was driving down to Portland on Monday, and there’s a stretch of SW Washington where the majority of radio stations are country, Gospel/Christian rock, or right-wing talk radio. I heard one of the talk show hosts haranguing about this one while channel-flipping, so evidently it’s the talking point du jour.
What else have they got?
The degree of false-equivalence-mongering there is pretty damn breathtaking.
Are you willing to show us you understand any of the key differences there, or is “A President and a Secretary of State had contact with Russia!” enough to satisfy you?
In Russia, board pay YOU to post!