I can think of quite a bit of things but then for me it’s not “they” since I’m a Republican, even if it’s of the swing voting, centrist, RINO variety. One of the few things Trump supported during the campaign that didn’t make me screech in anguish was supporting an infrastructure bill. There’s even broad bipartisan support for the general notion. So of course Trump promptly forgot about it come Nov 9th. :smack:
Right wing conspiracy theories =/= state and federal investigations being spearheaded by someone who ran the FBI for 13 years.
If Hillary Clinton broke the law, I’m in favor of her being investigated or held accountable. Nobody being above the law is one of the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. But right wing propaganda is not the same thing as legitimate news or legitimate law enforcement. If Robert Mueller or the FBI thought ‘pajamas media’ was a legitimate source of legitimate news, they’d investigate. But they don’t because they aren’t, they are a dishonest right wing propaganda outlet designed to feed conservative addiction to outrage and fear.
Also Snopes says your conspiracy isn’t true.
I know we’re supposed to bridge the political divide and all, but you people have no idea how much damage you are doing to our democracy. You people are easy prey to propaganda and russian meddling. You are not informed members of democracy, you are irrational tribalists so filled with resentment and anger that you can’t see your hand in front of your face, or distinguish fantasy from reality.
You forgot how Hillary had millions of people vote illegally, but didn’t put 80,000 of those illegal voters in PA, MI or WI where it would’ve mattered to the elections outcome.
The rule of law is important to democracy. If Hillary broke the law, then law enforcement is free to investigate.
But right wing propaganda is not considered a valid source of info to valid law enforcement agencies.
There were endless investigations into benghazi, no charges filed. I wonder why.
Which is why they can’t point at Trump’s infrastructure successes as something to campaign on, so they’re still campaigning on bashing Hillary, which is what you asked about in the first place.
According to this New York Times article from 2015 Uranium One has shipped uranium outside of the USA:
I’m not sure if this has been debunked since 2015 but if anyone has an update please share.
I think the point is the money from domestic sale of that uranium went to a Russian-owned company.
Good point. Not every interaction with Russian nationals is treason.
And now you’ve lost me. What does the FBI have to do with this deal?
This is one of the few responses in either of the two threads on this (today) that seems coherent and relevant! The question, similar to the Snopes debunking, is whether/how much President Obama’s administration knew at all.
[snipped]
I concur! Furthermore, it would be critical to ask Mueller whether or not he acted independently in withholding that information from Congress and WHY. I would want to know if he delayed revealing that (type of) information longer than necessary or has been continuing the investigations in order to solidify evidence and resulting accusations. After all, one does not bring up such allegations lightly.
–G!
After reading my own post, above, I think I’m leaving too much unstated.
I bring up the two points of inquiry because they focus on oversight and intent. Part of the Snopes debunking very clearly rejects the suggestion that Hillary could have done anything to affect (or later reject) the vote and it separates donations to her husband’s foundation from personal interest in the outcome of that vote. Similarly, Meuller’s active inhibition of the investigation or a decision to withhold that information from the President once it had been firmly established would probably be grounds for some kind of charges against him (as well as the media scandal) and if strong incontrovertible allegations were revealed to the President and he failed to act on the information he would probably also face charges of some kind – perhaps even today despite the fact that he is no longer in office.
On the other hand, if President Obama didn’t know (for whatever reason, since he was dealing with a hell of a lot of stuff going on, as any head of state must do) then he can’t be blamed even for failing to veto the CFIUS vote. Similarly, if Meuller refrained from disclosing to the President information which had not been firmly established as fact (firmly enough to pass whatever standard tests of evidence are required of any other investigation) then it’s difficult to blame him for doing something wrong. In fact it would have been more of a scandal (and a media circus event) if he had been too much of an alarmist and shared talk of possibly-maybe-not-quite-right things we’re looking into which have now turned up to be not-so-scandalous-after-all.
If there’s some heat to be taken in regard to the whole bargain, I might suggest (weakly) that the Canadian company (Canada is now our ally, right?) should have blocked the purchase of its stocks by a Russian interest. But, hey, capitalism is capitalism and doesn’t that mean anyone with the funds can buy any stock they want?
–G!
I’m not taking it as a given that the OP is coming back to this thread, but you’re a regular here, Shodan, so would you care to address the rebuttals by Snopes? It certainly would be a lot more useful and informative than this content-free drive-by.
I’m going to guess…
Snopes didn’t happen.
Snopes didn’t count.
Clinton is bad, and
Snopes didn’t happen.
She did all that while being Secretary of State, too, like some kind of comic book supergenius they way the right describes her.
The GOP has had actual, complete control of the House and the Senate AND the Presidency for 10 months now and they haven’t done anything. At all. That’s gotta be chafing their asses something fierce.
Does El Douchebag read this forum? He’s now tweeting about the uranium deal!
Nah, it’s just that Trump gets his information from Fox (instead of intelligence briefings) like more right wingers in the US.
It’s being alleged that the FBI investigated Russian corruption relating to this deal but withheld the evidence, possibly in order to make sure that the deal was approved.
See e.g. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356155-senate-seeks-to-interview-fbi-informant-in-russian-nuclear-bribery et al
IOW “But Hillary!”
No. It shouldn’t. You’re just exhibiting the fallacy of tu quoque. In actuality, accusations that “you did it, too” have no bearing on whether what was done was wrong. It is a common tactic used by those who cannot deny they did something bad, in an attempt to lessen what they did. But it doesn’t work.
Though you are correct that it is a form of spin. You took the main part of the situation, which has been proven false, and picked out one part and are now focusing on that one thing, and trying to turn that into an argument. Unfortunately, it is a fallacy.
But, I get it. Motivated reasoning is the best the Right has anymore. And it’s good enough to catch people who didn’t go to classes in rhetoric, logic, or critical thinking.
I mean, what’s being described her has nothing to do with meddling with an election, anyways. So it’s not even comparable. It’s also unlikely for such a conspiracy to let Russia get away with this stuff exists. So it’s not even a good tu quoque.
But, ultimately, none of that matters. If your best argument is tu quoque, then the argument is already moot.
This has evidently escaped your notice and will no doubt continue to do so, but the investigations into Trump’s Russia connections have moved well beyond “meddling with an election” by this point.
Leaving that aside, if you reread my prior post (the part you quoted will suffice), and think about it long and hard, it’s possible (not that I’m especially optimistic or anything) that you will be able to understand the following. My point was about the interpretation of Trump & Co’s actions vis a vis Russia, and about placing them in the context of actions of the prior administration.
The structure of the logic - which you may have vague memories of, from your “classes in rhetoric, logic, or critical thinking” - goes like this:
Person A: Since P therefore Q.
Person B: Here’s another example of P. Are you alleging Q in that instance too? If not, then your conditional proposition does not hold.
Oh, so it’s all about trying to draw a false equivalence; got it. Why, tho?