The Real Russian Scandal
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
As opposed to ambiguous cases that can be argued in any number of directions depending on your political preferences.
Uranium deal, Dossier, Comey using the Fake Dossier to obtain a FISA warrant, Fusion GPS, Manafort democrat corruption. Podesta.
Still nothing clearly showing a pay-to-play understanding on the Clinton side of that. The investigation is ongoing.
What's wrong with the dossier? Are you upset that Clinton helped pay for it?
I haven't heard that one. But if he did, it suggests that the FBI was able to substantiate some important part of it. As far as what's been released publicly though, it wasn't the dossier that lead to the warrant, but the clandestine contacts intercepted between Trump people and the Russians.
Could you rephrase that in the form of an actual allegation. Word association doesn't really work all by itself.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I guess that the 145 million dollars given by the owners of Uranium One to the Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with them gaining control of 20% of the US Uranium reserves.
I guess they were just feeling generous when they contributed that huge sum!
Well, how could it. As I've pointed out, the Clinton Foundation is not a vehicle for the enrichment of the Clintons, unless by some unknown mechanism.
There are some big numbers being thrown around, but little clear indication what they mean.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
So why do you think that the owners of Uranium One contributed 145 Million Dollars to the Clinton Foundation?
Try clicking through to the Charity Watch website. There's nothing to substantiate that on it.
And what does that prove? Nothing. I can point you to other charity watchdog groups that say the Clinton Foundation is set up to be completely opaque so that an outsider without access to the books is unable to actually understand how the money is being used.
Read the book Clinton Cash. In it the author details unbelievable corruption on the part of the Clintons. Oh, I know the Times said there was no "proof" of misuse_of_funds/corruption, but the Times was speaking in legal terms, and the only way to get that type of proof is for someone like the FBI to go in with an army of CPA's and tear their books apart from top to bottom. No journalist has that kind of access, but a good investigative journalist can follow the money, and that is what the author did. And don't tell me he's a tool of the Republicans. The guy has written books detailing corruption on polititicians from both parties, and on Congress as a whole. He is not a political hack.
What the book details is exactly what law enforcement looks at to see if an investigation is needed.
Well, for one thing, it directly refutes the charge made by the article Jerry posted. You should have a glance back.
So, if you don't like what a source is telling you, try another one. Yeah, great plan. Who cares what the actual truth is?
Charity Watch is the most prominent, well-respected, and credible organizations doing what it does. If someone wants to contradict their say about a charity, they would need pretty good evidence.
Oh, gee, "Clinton Cash"...never heard that one.
The "Times"? Which "Times"?
The obvious question, then, is how right-wing Clinton-haters know about it.
Dude, he works at Breitbart. If he's ever gone after the Right, I haven't seen it or heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schweizer
The Clintons, and especially Hillary in recent years, are two of then most frequently investigate people in the world. And the worst thing that has ever turned up that could be substantiated was the email nonsense.
Here is a short list, believe it or not but, using a public office to enrich yourself, or run a criminal enterprise is illegal but, I digress...
Federal bribery statute (18 USC 201-b)
Federal gratuity statute (18 USC 201-c)
Mail fraud statute (18 USC 1341)
Wire fraud statute (18 USC 1343)
Program bribery statute (18 USC 666)
Travel Act (18 USC 1952)
and the coup de grace “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO” (18 USC 1961-1968)
Yep, she is a contender for these and more at this point, and if it is shown that this piece of fiction called the "Trump Dossier" was used to secure a wire tap in a FISA court there will be plenty of other charges levied on her & her co-conspiritors. The problem here is the sloppy arrogance of Clinton & the DNC thinking that they had this election in the bag will be their undoing, in fact you are already seeing all the players running for cover, Pedesta, Wasserman Schultz, Pinetta are already out there denying any knowledge, and Pinetta even admitting that a full investigation is in order...LOL. They are all running for cover & leaving the Clintons to hang on this one...:rotfl: Mueller & Comey may even be in hot water...this is going to be quite the show.
opcorn:
I think you could still have shadiness without the Clintons personally benefiting. They are still invested in the foundation and donations could be seen as a favor to them.
I think the biggest point here is this, from the Fact Check link I just posted (and you previously mentioned something similar)
The donations may have been made to sway Clinton but she was just one part of it and the fact that no one else objected either makes it harder to pin ill motives on her.
What you have not shown, and what you cannot show, is any evidence that any of this applies to any of the Clintons. What we have here is another case of conservatives desperately hoping that there's something they can pin on Hillary, but there just isn't.
That shows a complete misunderstanding of what the dossier is, and it ignores that fact that a lot of what is in the dossier seems to be checking out. It's perfectly legal for the Clinton campaign and the DNC to hire a former spy to compile such a thing. It's also perfectly legal to take information from it, where it has a solid basis in fact, to a court and get a warrant based on it. A judge isn't typically going to issue a warrant on a big pile of heresay.
The problem here is the sloppy arrogance of Clinton & the DNC thinking that they had this election in the bag will be their undoing, in fact you are already seeing all the players running for cover, Pedesta, Wasserman Schultz, Pinetta are already out there denying any knowledge, and Pinetta even admitting that a full investigation is in order...LOL. They are all running for cover & leaving the Clintons to hang on this one...:rotfl: Mueller & Comey may even be in hot water...this is going to be quite the show.
You've always been one to celebrate early when it comes to charges against the Clintons. I warned you before, but you didn't listen, and then the emailgate thing completely went *poof*. This is more of the same. You can point to a lot of things you don't like, but you haven't even pointed to any conduct on the part of the Clintons that constitutes a crime, in this case, beyond the delusionally fantastic.
Maybe. But really only a moral "favor". The Clintons can't get much cash out of it. It's not like the Trump Foundation.
https://www.charitywatch.org/charit...-t-charitywatch-rate-the-trump-foundation-/65
No, desperation at all, the woman is a NOBODY, a NOTHING, she is nothing more than the former first lady that couldn't sell a worn out message in a campaign she should have been able to win, even without having a message I might add. The woman is a petty criminal, just like her sexual predator husband was, and whether she ever sees a jail cell or not would just be a cake topper to the failure she is, America already sees her & her husband for the criminals they are without a trial.
Which part? Really Rex, what part of this work of fiction has been substantiated? That is the entire argument thus far, none of it has been tested or proven, it is a hit piece that has no basis in fact, and that is what is at issue but, feel free to substantiate the document if you can, nobody else has to date.
There is your problem, it is not fact, nor can any of it be substantiated with facts, that is why it is illegal, and why democrats are all pointing fingers at each other distancing themselves from it. It is illegal to use non-factual information to secure FISA warrants, lie to congress, etc. It will be interesting to see how that all took place, it is going to be even more interesting to see this all unfold given Pedesta, & Wasserman Schultz have both testified to not knowing that the very DNC she was chairing, & a Campaign he was running, had spent $9 million on a dossier which neither had any idea was being compiled...Cmon man. The shoes have just begun to drop, and we can discuss it out here but, the distance that democrat heads & former Clinton allies are putting between themselves & the Clintons is telling...can't say I am not enjoying it though...I am.
Actually it has not went *poof* yet, the woman has not been adjudicated as of yet, and that fact means she still can be adjudicated. The email case is being reopened this week on capital hill, and the Clintons have run out of friends to run interference for them. You haven't seen me celebrate yet but, trust me when there is cause for celebration you can be sure I will be leading the parade. :thumb:
The only thing that is more of the same here is the apologetics that leftists (such as yourself) attempt to employ as the noose continues to tighten around the necks of the leftist unholy, not so royal family...the Clintons. They are going down, and I am going to enjoy every minute of it...C-Ya in 2020.
The desperation I'm referring to is the desperation to distract from the Russia scandal by trying to make it all about Clinton. I'm sure it's a coincidence that Jeanine Pirro is screaming again about "lock her up", the first plank of her demands the Robert Mueller be fired...just as it leaks that he's issuing his first sealed indictment.
Here's a warning for Trump. If he listens to her, if he fires Mueller and Rosenstein, it will be obstruction of justice. Maybe he knows his crimes are as serious as that already, and he's already caught, but if there is any rule of law left in the Congress, he will be immediately impeached in response to any such action. Either way, it will be a clarifying moment.
Well, one part, that we know of. It's a bit old, but one thing concrete.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
Mostly, the dossier is being investigate in secret, as a part of the official Russia investigation.
I doubt Clinton and the DNC would have paid millions of dollars for a work of fiction, nor would the Republicans who funded it first (interesting how none on the right seem interested in bringing charges against those parties). You don't hire a spy to create a work of fiction. Not knowingly, anyway. Neither you nor I know which parts of the dossier have checked out and which haven't, but what we can be pretty certain of is that if it is being used as a part of a legitimate investigation, some parts of it must have. And it is certainly going to be necessary in any case for Mueller to find the actual evidence, even if the dossier produced leads.
And there is, simply, no reasonable argument that any of this is illegal. It's perfectly legal for the Clinton campaign to commission such a document. It's perfectly legal for Mueller to examine it as part of his investigation, and follow any leads in it wherever they lead. It's perfectly legal to use anything in it that checks out in court, because then you're relying on the evidence you've turned up instead of the dossier.
Even if the whole dossier turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't be illegal. But there is no way you could know that it's all wrong either.
Name one.
Not exactly. Knowingly presenting wrong information to a court would potentially be perjury. There's no reason to believe that's happened.
There's no evidence that's happened either. Unless you count some members of the Trump team.
It's entirely possible they didn't know about it. It was three degrees separated from either of their organizations. They didn't pay Christopher Steele themselves. He was paid by Fusion GPS. And they didn't pay Fusion GPS directly either. Fusion GPS was paid by Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie was paid by Clinton. And while a few million dollars sounds like a lot, it's a pretty small portion of the budget of either the Clinton Campaign or the DNC.
Or maybe they just perjured themselves in order to cover the perfectly legal activities of a failed presidential campaign. Can't imagine why they'd do that.
I'm sure it seems that way on Fox. But it really isn't that way. Check out MSNBC and see if those folks are putting any distance between themselves and Clinton. In a sense, I wish they would, not for that reason, but because they need to figure out the next election, but they still like Clinton, and still don't mind being associated with her.
Capital Hill doesn't lead to an adjudication. We've seen years of the worst, most partisan investigations of the Obama administration and Clinton in particular, but I'm sure Trey Goudy would love another chance to run an endless string of investigations with no reasonable hope of a conclusion.
The only thing that is more of the same here is the apologetics that leftists (such as yourself) attempt to employ as the noose continues to tighten around the necks of the leftist unholy, not so royal family...the Clintons. They are going down, and I am going to enjoy every minute of it...C-Ya in 2020.
Yeah, good luck with that. And you think Democrats are hung up on 2016?
The DNC and Clinton used false information to obtain FISA warrants to spy on their political opponent.
That's a lie, Pat.