DNC Ukraine Collusion/Conspiracy

[auburn41 492]

Hey, there is going to be a story released tonight about the DNC requesting Ukraine officials provide some dirt on DJT in order to get him removed from the ballot prior to the election.  I wonder how all of the Russia, Russia, Russia people on this board (you know who you are) will feel about this "collusion?"  We will also see how the main stream media covers this story.  There seems to be some e-mail evidence that will be presented.  Story is not released yet.....a little birdie told me about it.

[auburn41 492]

 

For all of you "Collusion" experts...............

“She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election,” he recalled.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016

[homersapien 11,388]

What's good (bad) for the goose is good (bad) for the gander.

If seeking out or - knowingly accepting - information from foreign governments to use against political opponents is not against the law, it should be. Such overtures should be immediately reported to the FBI.

[alexava 6,973]

I would have to find out if Hillary was trying to build a hotel in Ukraine and constantly lying about it. Or if she had people on her campaign pledge to drop economic sanctions undermining our government while they were actively helping her politically. 

[homersapien 11,388]

20 minutes ago, alexava said:

I would have to find out if Hillary was trying to build a hotel in Ukraine and constantly lying about it. Or if she had people on her campaign pledge to drop economic sanctions undermining our government while they were actively helping her politically. 

Certainly those are examples of extenuating/aggravating factors, but if a foreign government is attempting to intervene in our election by contacting one of the campaigns, it should be reported.  And seeking out such intervention should be illegal.

I imagine if Mueller had found direct evidence of a quid pro quo - instead of circumstantial evidence  - as when Republicans modified their platform in Russia's favor - criminal conspiracy would have been a slam dunk.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

12 hours ago, alexava said:

I would have to find out if Hillary was trying to build a hotel in Ukraine and constantly lying about it. Or if she had people on her campaign pledge to drop economic sanctions undermining our government while they were actively helping her politically. 

That would definitely have happened if Hillary had won. Several countries owned her in exchange for donations to the foundation. She was absolutely compromised.

[homersapien 11,388]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

That would definitely have happened if Hillary had won. Several countries owned her in exchange for donations to the foundation. She was absolutely compromised.

That's BS.

It's not illegal - nor should it be - for foreigners to donate to a charitable foundation.  Donating to a charitable foundation is not the same as putting money in the sponsor's pocket (well, unless it's Trump's foundation. )

There's no evidence that the Clinton foundation has directly benefited the Clinton's personally.  And their books are open.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's BS.

It's not illegal - nor should it be - for foreigners to donate to a charitable foundation.  Donating to a charitable foundation is not the same as putting money in the sponsor's pocket (well, unless it's Trump's foundation. )

There's no evidence that the Clinton foundation has directly benefited the Clinton's personally.  And their books are open.

For Sale...waterfront land...AZ

[homersapien 11,388]

19 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

For Sale...waterfront land...AZ

Not a substantive response.  Wrong forum.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Not a substantive response.  Wrong forum.

Same to you my friend. Just confirms that I am right.

[homersapien 11,388]

15 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Same to you my friend. Just confirms that I am right.

Show me the evidence that "confirms" you are right.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Show me the evidence that "confirms" you are right.

Hillary sells uranium to Russia.

Russian company donates millions to foundation.

Bill gives speech in Russia.

Bill paid half mil for speech in russia.

Russia expects Hillary to be president.

Hillary expects to be president.

Hillary loses election.

Donations immediately dry up and disappear.

Russia loses expected influence over US government by Hillary losing the election. (So why would Russia help Trump again? And how would they steal an election? Still waiting on the nuts and bolts of stealing the election.)

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

30 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Hillary sells uranium to Russia.

Russian company donates millions to foundation.

Bill gives speech in Russia.

Bill paid half mil for speech in russia.

Russia expects Hillary to be president.

Hillary expects to be president.

Hillary loses election.

Donations immediately dry up and disappear.

Russia loses expected influence over US government by Hillary losing the election. (So why would Russia help Trump again? And how would they steal an election? Still waiting on the nuts and bolts of stealing the election.)

So much speculation here that doesn't confirm a damn thing.  Go read this from Fact Check.  I've pulled the most pertinent paragraph out below for you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

"It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case."

[auburn41 492]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So much speculation here that doesn't confirm a damn thing.  Go read this from Fact Check.  I've pulled the most pertinent paragraph out below for you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

"It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case."

Well, donations certainly dropped when she lost the election.  So they (Clinton's) are out of power and donations plummet 88%......I know you are specifically speaking to Uranium One but I think jordan was speaking of the Clinton Foundation as a whole.....

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-donations/

Kind of seems when they (Clinton's) are out of power they can no longer help the donors, huh?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, auburn41 said:

Well, donations certainly dropped when she lost the election.  So they (Clinton's) are out of power and donations plummet 88%......I know you are specifically speaking to Uranium One but I think jordan was speaking of the Clinton Foundation as a whole.....

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-donations/

Kind of seems when they (Clinton's) are out of power they can no longer help the donors, huh?

Jordan specifically brought up the uranium deal, which is why I quoted that piece.

Look, the Clinton's aren't saints.  In fact they are shady as hell in many ways.  However, it's also to be somewhat expected that donations will drop over time too.  88% is a larger normal than most, but it's still so speculative to say what anyone's motivation is for donating.  Would it shock me if it was to influence them politically?  Nope.  But I don't know that.

[auburn41 492]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Jordan specifically brought up the uranium deal, which is why I quoted that piece.

Look, the Clinton's aren't saints.  In fact they are shady as hell in many ways.  However, it's also to be somewhat expected that donations will drop over time too.  88% is a larger normal than most, but it's still so speculative to say what anyone's motivation is for donating.  Would it shock me if it was to influence them politically?  Nope.  But I don't know that.

I think I addressed that in my comment, anyway thanks for your honesty in that response.  It wouldn't shock me either. 

[homersapien 11,388]

Meanwhile, Dear Leader was taking monetary benefits from his "charitable foundation" while using it as a front for personal financial gain.  That's known fact.

There has been no such evidence regarding the Clinton foundation. (And it's not like no one has looked.)

And Russia most certainly didn't want Clinton to win.  Putin hates her.  That's one of the reasons they supported Trump.  

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Meanwhile, Dear Leader was taking monetary benefits from his "charitable foundation" while using it as a front for personal financial gain.  That's known fact.

There has been no such evidence regarding the Clinton foundation. (And it's not like no one has looked.)

And Russia most certainly didn't want Clinton to win.  Putin hates her.  That's one of the reasons they supported Trump.  

Homer knows Putin. Who knew?  Talk about unsupported speculation.

[homersapien 11,388]

20 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Homer knows Putin. Who knew?  Talk about unsupported speculation.

Great argument! 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153

[bigbird 60,567]

19 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Jordan specifically brought up the uranium deal, which is why I quoted that piece.

Look, the Clinton's aren't saints.  In fact they are shady as hell in many ways.  However, it's also to be somewhat expected that donations will drop over time too.  88% is a larger normal than most, but it's still so speculative to say what anyone's motivation is for donating.  Would it shock me if it was to influence them politically?  Nope.  But I don't know that.

I've always thought of the Clinton's to be very similar to the REC. They both are masters of the "these aren't the droids you're looking for" move.

[AU64 10,122]

I would have to check for a link but I recall that donations to the Clinton Foundation dropped like a stone immediately after the election  ...no longer any quid for the quo I guess.

[auburn41 492]

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

I would have to check for a link but I recall that donations to the Clinton Foundation dropped like a stone immediately after the election  ...no longer any quid for the quo I guess.

The link is above in one of my posts.......

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 5/6/2019 at 11:40 AM, homersapien said:

Meanwhile, Dear Leader was taking monetary benefits from his "charitable foundation" while using it as a front for personal financial gain.  That's known fact.

Wrong thread. If you want to discuss Dear Leader, either:

(a) start a thread; 

(b) click on any other thread in this forum;

(c) go to smack-talk forum; or

(d) click on any thread under (c).

(e) failure to comply with subsections (a) - (d) will result in the prompt deletion of posts in violation thereof. Administration reserves discretion to issue any warning deemed necessary against the poster(s) in violation of referenced subsections. If your name is "homersapien," Administration further reserves the right to revoke all posting privileges indefinitely, with discretion to grant or withhold post-revocation hearing for all matters arising from same.