Is Russiagate Really Hillarygate?

[GennGreymane]

Trump as the named person in this: I sleep
Hillary time traveled to let trump do this: real shit

[Caolela]

>9/11 was an inside job!
>But no evidence exists that Putin is on Trumps side.

hue

There is verifiable evidence to make a prima facie case for the former.

There is no verifiable evidence given by the NSA to date on Russia hacking the Dems. If you know of any then post it.

Hue indeed.

And as I've said elsewhere, Trump as President has the power to order NSA to declassify any info NSA may have on the Dems and Podestas emails. Why he hasn't done so can be any number of reasons.

By the way, since some coward (probably Skroe) whined to a mod about my mentioning 9/11 (after he talked about it as well), we'll have to get off that topic. As I said several times in this thread it is a verboten topic on MMO-C. But when you can't win an argument on the merits, be a gutless wonder and run to the mods to seek revenge.

Please post constructively without flaming other posters.

[Orbitus]

It isn't a crime but moving past that...

For the second part there is no response I can give to dispel your beliefs.

Actually it is. There has been a law posted a couple of times that this breaks federal campaign laws.

[Berndorf]

It wasn't overlooked. There was nothing there, sorry.

Nothing but plenty of money($40 million) exchanging hands. Check out this graphic done by the NYT on it all: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...investors.html

[Orbitus]

What's getting overlooked in all of it are Hillary's own connections to Russia which includes taking huge amounts of money into the Clinton Foundation from a Russian energy company which she then managed to get Uranium rights for in the us while she was sec of state.

Repeating a lie, doesn't make it true.

[Deleted]

There is no verifiable evidence given by the NSA to date on Russia hacking the Dems. If you know of any then post it.

Oh sure there is (well, not NSA but DHS and FBI) - and you know what they base it on? The CrowdStrike analysis - and that is it.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/defaul...-2016-1229.pdf

The NSA just said "ya, whatever they say".

[Berndorf]

Repeating a lie, doesn't make it true.

So the NYT decided to run its own smear campaign against Hillary based on nothing but lies and their own imaginations?

[Edge-]

So the NYT decided to run its own smear campaign against Hillary based on nothing but lies and their own imaginations?

No, the posted a news story. You misinterpreting the story believing it to be about her criminality is your problem. It's not a smear just because it's not a positive piece, yo. The world isn't black and white, and the NYT isn't a monolith incapable of critical news coverage of liberals (or in her case, moderates).

[Orbitus]

So the NYT decided to run its own smear campaign against Hillary based on nothing but lies and their own imaginations?

Considering you, AT BEST, have circumstantial evidence, yeah it really isn't anything. Especially since if anything a lot of the donations came before she was secretary of state and after she left. And not to mention, she was 1 of 9 people that signed off on it. They couldn't stop it, those 9 departments. Only Obama could have stopped it if he saw a reason to.

So I say again, REPEATING A LIE, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

[Caolela]

No, they aren't. You're relying on your abject ignorance and belief in fantasies. There's nothing more than that for you.

Nope. I'm relying on known physics and science that can't be disputed, evidence found at the crime scene, eyewitness accounts, and other evidence that is fully admissible in any U.S. court of law.

[Berndorf]

No, the posted a news story. You misinterpreting the story believing it to be about her criminality is your problem. It's not a smear just because it's not a positive piece, yo. The world isn't black and white, and the NYT isn't a monolith incapable of critical news coverage of liberals.

Please tell me where I mentioned her criminality? You are putting words in my mouth to try and justify your own words now. What I said is that the CF's connections to Russia are being overlooked as though they don't exist as well as Hillary putting a special clause in her agreement with the us gov't to not take money from foreign entities into the CF via waivers. I misinterpreted nothing. There is a connection between the CF and what became a Russian energy company and much money was exchanged from a few sources which could easily be seen to have been given to sway a decision which Hillary was part of. There is no denying this. She may not have been charged over this but it really comes as no surprise that she wouldn't be given that it was Obama's own AG who would make that decision and who isn't exactly objective politically speaking. I'm sure nothing I say can possibly make any degree of sense to most of the people who discuss politics on this board though since so much as being even semi critical of Hillary means you must spend all of your time on alt right websites/message boards these days.

[Caolela]

Oh sure there is (well, not NSA but DHS and FBI) - and you know what they base it on? The CrowdStrike analysis - and that is it.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/defaul...-2016-1229.pdf

The NSA just said "ya, whatever they say".

That's not verifiable evidence, it's just "our best guesstimation" bullshit. Also known as propaganda.

[Edge-]

Please tell me where I mentioned her criminality? You are putting words in my mouth to try and justify your own words now. What I said is that the CF's connections to Russia are being overlooked as though they don't exist as well as Hillary putting a special clause in her agreement with the us gov't to not take money from foreign entities into the CF via waivers.

They were looked into, when the donations were made. There was a process in place to limit any attempts to influence Hillary/State Department by having multiple other departments clear donations from foreign entities, dude.

And the last sentence is confusing, but there was a waiver process in place that required signoff from multiple government agencies if she wanted to accept a foreign donation. Again, shit was already screened and cleared.

There is a connection between the CF and what became a Russian energy company and much money was exchanged from a few sources which could easily be seen to have been given to sway a decision which Hillary was part of.

Yes. And again, the donations were reviewed and approved by multiple government agencies. So what's your point?

She may not have been charged over this but it really comes as no surprise that she wouldn't be given that it was Obama's own AG who would make that decision and who isn't exactly objective politically speaking.

See, you say you don't mention criminality then reference charging her.

Charging her with what?

I'm sure nothing I say can possibly make any degree of sense to most of the people who discuss politics on this board though since so much as being even semi critical of Hillary means you must spend all of your time on alt right websites/message boards these days.

I don't believe that at all. I just think it's about as relevant as bringing up Bill getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. Sure, it happened, it was bad, but like...shit already happened and wrapped up, yo. Shit is old news.

[Berndorf]

Considering you, AT BEST, have circumstantial evidence, yeah it really isn't anything. Especially since if anything a lot of the donations came before she was secretary of state and after she left. And not to mention, she was 1 of 9 people that signed off on it. They couldn't stop it, those 9 departments. Only Obama could have stopped it if he saw a reason to.

So I say again, REPEATING A LIE, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

Its not my evidence. ffs, its the NYT's own research. Wasn't Clinton SoS from 2009-2013? That is when the vast bulk of all the donations and activity being looked into occurred. You can write it all off and obfuscate it as much as you need to but it did happen, I have yet to state a single lie regarding any of it and it is very shady when looked at as a whole. This does not mean I am pro Trump either. I am more than willing to criticize him as much as I feel the need to just as I have every president going back to Bill which is when I started following politics. I'm simply not one of the rabid horde of anti Trump internet posters who have had this endless vendetta with him since the day he won the election.

[Deleted]

That's not verifiable evidence, it's just "our best guesstimation" bullshit. Also known as propaganda.

Oh - I totally agree. The US govt has never been allowed to run forensics on the DNC server. All we have is the "word" of the DNC. That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

[Berndorf]

They were looked into, when the donations were made. There was a process in place to limit any attempts to influence Hillary/State Department by having multiple other departments clear donations from foreign entities, dude.

And the last sentence is confusing, but there was a waiver process in place that required signoff from multiple government agencies if she wanted to accept a foreign donation. Again, shit was already screened and cleared.



Yes. And again, the donations were reviewed and approved by multiple government agencies. So what's your point?



See, you say you don't mention criminality then reference charging her.

Charging her with what?



I don't believe that at all. I just think it's about as relevant as bringing up Bill getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. Sure, it happened, it was bad, but like...shit already happened and wrapped up, yo. Shit is old news.

You don't see the slightest bit of hypocrisy with someone like Hillary talking about Trump being in Russia's pocket when her own foundation accepted $40m in donations while she was helping to oversee policy decisions which heavily impacted the people making these donations(on behalf of a Russian energy corp)? ok then. Let's just end it here and spare me the time and trouble of responding to anything else you have to say on this topic. You can respond if you feel the need but I am done wasting my time responding to you. You and a few others accused me of lieing for mentioning something which is well established as fact and her not being charged for criminal conduct doesn't mean there isn't an appearance of something very shady going on when looking at the big picture of what happened. Because it is extremely questionable and its not actually surprising in the least that Obama's AG would decide against charging her with anything when she was the presumptive dem candidate for president in 2016.

[Edge-]

You don't see the slightest bit of hypocrisy with someone like Hillary talking about Trump being in Russia's pocket when her own foundation accepted $40m in donations while she was helping to oversee policy decisions which heavily impacted the people making these donations?

You...realize that the Clinton's can't actually touch that money...right? Like, it's not a slush fund, it's for charity work, yo.

Meanwhile, we've got more and more contacts between the Trump team and people with current or former connections to the Russian government/intelligence during the campaign, contacts that they spent months lying about even happening.

Also, possible debts owed to Russian investment banks on the part of Trump, though we don't know for sure since we can't see his taxes. Debts now owed by Hillary, despite the donations.

people who think the NYT is alt right news.

Nobody thinks this, you're just making shit up to excuse your lack of an argument right now.

[Orbitus]

Its not my evidence. ffs, its the NYT's own research. Wasn't Clinton SoS from 2009-2013? That is when the vast bulk of all the donations and activity being looked into occurred. You can write it all off and obfuscate it as much as you need to but it did happen, I have yet to state a single lie regarding any of it and it is very shady when looked at as a whole. This does not mean I am pro Trump either. I am more than willing to criticize him as much as I feel the need to just as I have every president going back to Bill which is when I started following politics. I'm simply not one of the rabid horde of anti Trump internet posters who have had this endless vendetta with him since the day he won the election.

Doesn't change the fact that there were a lot more than just the Clintons that were in on this deal. If it was the Clintons alone, you might have an argument.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump...s-uranium.html

[Berndorf]

You...realize that the Clinton's can't actually touch that money...right? Like, it's not a slush fund, it's for charity work, yo.

Meanwhile, we've got more and more contacts between the Trump team and people with current or former connections to the Russian government/intelligence during the campaign, contacts that they spent months lying about even happening.

Also, possible debts owed to Russian investment banks on the part of Trump, though we don't know for sure since we can't see his taxes. Debts now owed by Hillary, despite the donations.



Nobody thinks this, you're just making shit up to excuse your lack of an argument right now.

You are like a child and I am done trying to have a reasonable discussion on this with a child. I know this may rankle you or w/e but I am being perfectly honest here. You and a few others simply see everything and everyone through your Trump lenses and can't see the forest for the trees. I am out. Also, when multiple people refer to what I mentioned initially as being fake news and having been debunked then yes they are both insinuating that a company like the NYT is fake news and lieing themselves about what has already been proven. There is an established connection but Hillary wasn't charged with wrong doing(which I never said she was in the first place). This has to do with the idea of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones. Not whether Hillary should be in jail right now.

[Orbitus]

You...realize that the Clinton's can't actually touch that money...right? Like, it's not a slush fund, it's for charity work, yo.

Meanwhile, we've got more and more contacts between the Trump team and people with current or former connections to the Russian government/intelligence during the campaign, contacts that they spent months lying about even happening.

Also, possible debts owed to Russian investment banks on the part of Trump, though we don't know for sure since we can't see his taxes. Debts now owed by Hillary, despite the donations.



Nobody thinks this, you're just making shit up to excuse your lack of an argument right now.

You do realize that people, specifically Trump supporters, think that the Clinton Foundation is nothing but a scam and that the foundation is the reason the Clintons are wealthy again, right? Yet, of the 2, Trump and Hillary, only 1 used their "charity" to enrich themselves. And that was Trump. These people don't care that Trump literally admitted several times to breaking laws when it comes to charities. Even bribing others with money to stop their investigations into the Trump University.

- - - Updated - - -

You are like a child and I am done trying to have a reasonable discussion on this with a child. I know this may rankle you or w/e but I am being perfectly honest here. You and a few others simply see everything and everyone through your Trump lenses and can't see the forest for the trees. I am out. Also, when multiple people refer to what I mentioned initially as being fake news and having been debunked then yes they are both insinuating that a company like the NYT is fake news and lieing themselves about what has already been proven. There is an established connection but Hillary wasn't charged with wrong doing(which I never said she was in the first place). This has to do with the idea of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones. Not whether Hillary should be in jail right now.

Well, that "child" just schooled you. You, repeating a lie again, doesn't make it fucking true. I am not saying that NYTimes is fake news, I am saying they have circumstantial evidence at best and if it was just the Clintons that signed off on the deal, you might have an argument. But since they weren't, you don't.