Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Quote Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton. read more at: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 Trump didn't need to be sabotaged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 You have a Ukraine-American operative consulting the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian officials about the Trump campaign and it's not behind each party's back. This was done in coordination. This story was published back in January by Politico. The media are obsessed with the "collusion" angle of Trump's campaign yet didn't bother to mention anything about this story of the Clinton campaign back in January. They've decided to bury it and make it unimportant. Why didn't they cover it? The lack of coverage of actual "collusion" crystallizes that it's not really about collusion. If the self-righteous media actually cared so deeply about collusion then they would have taken time out of their wall-to-wall coverage of Trump-Russian "collusion" to mention this story about the Ukraine-American operative helping the Clinton campaign. But the media don't actually care about collusion. While Russia's actions to interfere in the election were certainly more prominent than any other foreign entity to influence the election, the actual "collusion" aspect has been proven to be more prominent from the Clinton-Ukraine side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey 16,578 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Of course the Russians wanted Clinton to win the election. They already had a quid-pro-quo relationship established with her through their $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation in return for her assistance in Russia buying 20% of America's uranium. The Clinton Cartel and the Russians are business partners, they'd have much preferred someone they could buy in the Whitehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said: You have a Ukraine-American operative consulting the DNC, Clinton campaign, and Ukrainian officials about the Trump campaign and it's not behind each party's back. This was done in coordination. This story was published back in January by Politico. The media are obsessed with the "collusion" angle of Trump's campaign yet didn't bother to mention anything about this story of the Clinton campaign back in January. They've decided to bury it and make it unimportant. Why didn't they cover it? The lack of coverage of actual "collusion" crystallizes that it's not really about collusion. If the self-righteous media actually cared so deeply about collusion then they would have taken time out of their wall-to-wall coverage of Trump-Russian "collusion" to mention this story about the Ukraine-American operative helping the Clinton campaign. But the media don't actually care about collusion. While Russia's actions to interfere in the election were certainly more prominent than any other foreign entity to influence the election, the actual "collusion" aspect has been proven to be more prominent from the Clinton-Ukraine side. "Collusion" is not a legal term. It's a subjective - political - term. Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Mikey said: Of course the Russians wanted Clinton to win the election. They already had a quid-pro-quo relationship established with her through their $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation in return for her assistance in Russia buying 20% of America's uranium. The Clinton Cartel and the Russians are business partners, they'd have much preferred someone they could buy in the Whitehouse. Seriously? Puten hates Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 13 hours ago, homersapien said: "Collusion" is not a legal term. It's a subjective - political - term. Regardless, Donald Trump Jr. is guilty of it. No. It's a reach for Democrats to say that Trump Jr. is guilty of "collusion". Collusion would entail an agreement or coordination of carrying out something. What did Trump Jr. offer the Russian lawyer in exchange for info? Just agreeing to meet with her because he thought he would get some dirt on Clinton is not collusion. This was a one time meeting and there was no follow up to try and get more info. No coordinating of info or being involved in the interference of the election means no collusion. Was that meeting inappropriate? Absolutely. Trump Jr. was foolish to take that meeting. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of collusion. For Democrats and Mueller to prove collusion, they're going to have to find evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on getting info on Hilary or that the Trump campaign knew about Russia's plan to hack the DNC e-mails and Podesta e-mail. So far there hasn't been any evidence to support collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said: No. It's a reach for Democrats to say that Trump Jr. is guilty of "collusion". Collusion would entail an agreement or coordination of carrying out something. What did Trump Jr. offer the Russian lawyer in exchange for info? Just agreeing to meet with her because he thought he would get some dirt on Clinton is not collusion. This was a one time meeting and there was no follow up to try and get more info. No coordinating of info or being involved in the interference of the election means no collusion. Was that meeting inappropriate? Absolutely. Trump Jr. was foolish to take that meeting. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of collusion. For Democrats and Mueller to prove collusion, they're going to have to find evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia on getting info on Hilary or that the Trump campaign knew about Russia's plan to hack the DNC e-mails and Podesta e-mail. So far there hasn't been any evidence to support collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Fascinating. That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. Russians offered Jr info on Hillary Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer. Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not. You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 15 hours ago, alexava said: Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy To whom? Trump? Good question. Personally, I feel we should support Ukraine's independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted July 15, 2017 Author Share Posted July 15, 2017 20 hours ago, alexava said: Isn't Ukraine an ally and Russia enemy Do you think that matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said: Do you think that matters? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 13 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said: Do you think that matters? The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 19 hours ago, homersapien said: Fascinating. That sounds exactly like the sort of arguments the Clinton's used to make. Russians offered Jr info on Hillary Jr says great, even better if you can time it for late summer. Legal definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not. You sound like Bill equivocating about what "sex" is. This is the most fascinating observation today. Legal Defnitions of Collusion, etc "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'collusion' is..." KARMA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless. Was it illegal when Gore accepted $300K from a Buddhist Monk then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 23 minutes ago, DKW 86 said: Was it illegal when Gore accepted $300K from a Buddhist Monk then? Illegality by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: Illegality by whom? I rest my case..."l definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not." The standard laid down was the Ordinary Layman Standard. When you have to start CHOOSING SEPARATE STANDARDS for different parties then you have to realize you lost the debate. Your arguments against your opponents need only meet the Ordinary Layman Standard. The arguments for someone against your ideas or allies must meet all criminal legal standards surpassing Reasonable Doubt. Of course you see nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the modern DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said: I rest my case..."l definitions and/or requirements aside, to an ordinary layman, that sounds like actual collusion whether or not it reaches a given legal threshold or not." The standard laid down was the Ordinary Layman Standard. When you have to start CHOOSING SEPARATE STANDARDS for different parties then you have to realize you lost the debate. Your arguments against your opponents need only meet the Ordinary Layman Standard. The arguments for someone against your ideas or allies must meet all criminal legal standards surpassing Reasonable Doubt. Of course you see nothing wrong with this. This is the problem with the modern DNC. I think you confused my post with TT's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 No, I am just tired as hell of wannabe talking head pundits confusing issues by declaring differing standards, Tex, for forever, every time you lose a debate you start asking never ending inane questions. IT IS YOUR SIGNATURE MOVE. You were declaring guilt based on: Ordinary Layman Standard The Sewing Circle chimes in with a now hilarious "what the definition of the word is is" answer. I give the ICE Test to political speech. Integrity, Character, Ethical? If something doesnt meet that, then i disregard it. People who are party sycophants can be identified in seconds. OLS if it benefits our side, CPS-Criminal Prosecution Standards ("what the definition of the word is is") if it is negative to our side. You see, Party Sycophants/Corporate Democrats have disregarded ICE. They will do or say anything that benefits the party line. "All Republicans are owned by corporations." Obviously OLS thinking. Reality: After 2008 no significant Wall Streeter was investigated, prosecuted, or jailed by the DOJ or the Obama Administration after some checks from Wall Street cleared. Obama is giving speeches to Wall Street for almost 2X what the Clintons get. Now lets apply that OLS thinking: "LOOKS LIKE OBAMA & THE DNC IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS." now here comes the CPS reply: "But there is no concrete evidence that the DNC/DOJ/OA was bought." Noe lets apply this to the Russian Investigation: OLS Think: Well, gggooolllllllyyyy, we spent $1.2BN and lost an election....."RUSSIANS!!!!" CPS Think: A year later, there is still no concrete evidence actually showing anything. As a Justice Democrat, I reject this craziness. Why dont we stop all this crap and obstruction and start to fix the ACA? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets go get Single Payer or at least start the ball rolling? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets start a talk on reforming higher education for all? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets start a talk on moving toward a Real Living Wage and Wage Stagnation for the Middle Class? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets move to fix Citizens United? Lets get Corporate Money out of the DNC! But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 5 minutes ago, DKW 86 said: No, I am just tired as hell of wannabe talking head pundits confusing issues by declaring differing standards, Tex, for forever, every time you lose a debate you start asking never ending inane questions. IT IS YOUR SIGNATURE MOVE. You were declaring guilt based on: Ordinary Layman Standard The Sewing Circle chimes in with a now hilarious "what the definition of the word is is" answer. I give the ICE Test to political speech. Integrity, Character, Ethical? If something doesnt meet that, then i disregard it. People who are party sycophants can be identified in seconds. OLS if it benefits our side, CPS-Criminal Prosecution Standards ("what the definition of the word is is") if it is negative to our side. You see, Party Sycophants/Corporate Democrats have disregarded ICE. They will do or say anything that benefits the party line. "All Republicans are owned by corporations." Obviously OLS thinking. Reality: After 2008 no significant Wall Streeter was investigated, prosecuted, or jailed by the DOJ or the Obama Administration after some checks from Wall Street cleared. Obama is giving speeches to Wall Street for almost 2X what the Clintons get. Now lets apply that OLS thinking: "LOOKS LIKE OBAMA & THE DNC IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS." now here comes the CPS reply: "But there is no concrete evidence that the DNC/DOJ/OA was bought." Noe lets apply this to the Russian Investigation: OLS Think: Well, gggooolllllllyyyy, we spent $1.2BN and lost an election....."RUSSIANS!!!!" CPS Think: A year later, there is still no concrete evidence actually showing anything. As a Justice Democrat, I reject this craziness. Why dont we stop all this crap and obstruction and start to fix the ACA? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets go get Single Payer or at least start the ball rolling? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets start a talk on reforming higher education for all? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets start a talk on moving toward a Real Living Wage and Wage Stagnation for the Middle Class? But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! Lets move to fix Citizens United? Lets get Corporate Money out of the DNC! But Bro Dave...RUSSIANS!!!!!!!!! I've said very little in this thread, and certainly nothing controversial or overtly partisan to a rational person. Rant on like a crazy man David. It's what you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 1 minute ago, TexasTiger said: I've said very little in this thread, and certainly nothing controversial or overtly partisan to a rational person. Rant on like a crazy man David. It's what you do. There is a criminal level of server space wasted on a Nothing Burger story while people in the middle class are hurting and my side of the spectrum has lost another 5 elections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, DKW 86 said: There is a criminal level of server space wasted on a Nothing Burger story while people in the middle class are hurting and my side of the spectrum has lost another 5 elections... Now you're citing WH talking points while accusing me of rank partisanship just for asking who you were accusing of illegality 19 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, TexasTiger said: The motivation of the country hoping to influence a campaign matters, at least to some degree-- it still may be problematic. If a US citizen seeks assistance from another country, however, its illegal regardless. You stated that. I asked if it was illegal when Gore sought out Poverty Vowed Chinese Buddhist Monks for $100Ks in donations as the Clinton-Gore Campaign's chief fundraiser? You, as you have for 15 or so years here, instead of answering a question replied with more questions. I'll ask it again: Was it proper for Gore to accept illegally gathered foreign money, submitted under the name of a Poor Monk, to expressly avoid Chinese government direct ties to the C-G Campaign? Let me help you here. This is a No-Brainer. The FEC Leveled Record Fines on it and if you use the ICE Standard YOU could have and would have admitted it. Quote 1996 Fund-Raising Scandals Bring Stiff Penalty Politics: The FEC levies a record $719,000 in fines against DNC and other groups for arranging illegal contributions from foreign sources. September 21, 2002|From the Washington Post WASHINGTON — The Federal Election Commission disclosed Friday that it has imposed a record-setting $719,000 in fines against participants in the 1996 Democratic Party fund-raising scandals involving contributions from China, Korea and other foreign sources. The FEC documents describe Democratic fund-raisers who set specific prices for foreign nationals to make illegal campaign contributions in return for meetings with then-President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. A Democratic finance vice chair, for example, said organizers would have to contribute a total of $100,000 in return for Gore's appearance at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,419 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 As a Justice Democrat, i acknowledge that it was absolutely wrong for Mr Gore to be there and I am working to clean up that part of the party.... See Tex, that wasnt hard at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,835 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, DKW 86 said: You stated that. I asked if it was illegal when Gore sought out Poverty Vowed Chinese Buddhist Monks for $100Ks in donations as the Clinton-Gore Campaign's chief fundraiser? You, as you have for 15 or so years here, instead of answering a question replied with more questions. I'll ask it again: Was it proper for Gore to accept illegally gathered foreign money, submitted under the name of a Poor Monk, to expressly avoid Chinese government direct ties to the C-G Campaign? Let me help you here. This is a No-Brainer. The FEC Leveled Record Fines on it and if you use the ICE Standard YOU could have and would have admitted it. You changed the question. You didn't simply ask it again. I'm only getting dragged so deep into your tangent in your Trump deflection. I believe anyone who solicits or knowingly accepts money from a foreign source for a campaign should be prosecuted. You say you identify as a Dem now. Good for you. I'd be happy at this point with a President from either party not in Russia's back pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.