Flynn Next Target For Mueller

[NYC17]

That isn't about Uranium One; that is about the fact that there are other "in-situ recovery production capacity" then Uranium One. Completely different thing.

Uranium One is still 100% RosAtom controlled.


You're not refuting what i said at all.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one actually trying to make a tangent about completely different concern.

I addressed this previously.

[Shalcker]

Well, not to the Clintons, since they did not get that money. I mean that is the weirdest part of the argument you present here.
'Hey, that guy gave millions to charitable causes Clinton likes. Maybe if I vote in their favour, they will donate something to a cause I like, too! That is totally worth losing my job over'.

But Clinton didn't lose her job over that. Because she knows how it works.

Also, there was direct payment to Clinton family too. Before approval. From FactCheck:
Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

And that Canadian Charity was called "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership"; which, obviously, had nothing to do with Clintons whatsoever. Except having Clinton's name. And donating to other Clinton's charities/projects. And shielding names of contributors under Canadian law (unless they expressly permit releasing their name).

Someone who thinks like that honestly would have just been looking for an excuse to be corrupt so that they could be corrupt.

There are direct and indirect corruption; it is not just about "Money for me!", it is also about "this charity associated with me getting projects done to rise my recognition".

People who donated to her charity also later donated to her campaign, after all. And many of them got into dinners with her too.

[Kiri]

But Clinton didn't lose her job over that. Because she knows how it works.

Also, there was direct payment to Clinton family too. Before approval. From FactCheck:
Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

And that Canadian Charity was called "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership"; which, obviously, had nothing to do with Clintons whatsoever. Except having Clinton's name. And donating to other Clinton's charities/projects. And shielding names of contributors under Canadian law (unless they expressly permit releasing their name).

There are direct and indirect corruption; it is not just about "Money for me!", it is also about "this charity associated with me getting projects done to rise my recognition".

People who donated to her charity also later donated to her campaign, after all. And many of them got into dinners with her too.

Yeah, but according to your theory, Clinton could only be sure to not lose her job because the FBI was also corrupt. So she would have needed to know that to be the case in order to fully disregard that possibility. And let's be real here - Clinton, by then, would have already been planning to run for president after Obama. There was a lot to lose there, and she would open herself up to blackmail forever.
Again, your theory assumes that she would be willing to do all that for a payment of half a million and a bunch of money to projects she likes.
On the other side, we have Russia having to influence not just her, but also the secretaries of treasury, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy, along with thee attorney general, White House representatives and the NRC. If any one of them objected, it would bounce back to the president. Any of these people would face a massive scandal if they acted immorally. So by now, for your theory to work, half the government has to be corrupt, along with enough people in the FBI to squelch any investigation.
And all of that for what? Promises of potential donations to projects these people liked? Not all of them had prestigious charities to even donate to. On the other side, if Russia can influence pretty much the whole American nuclear security apparatus, they use it on....a good play on the uranium markets? Really?

That complicated theory faces competition from a much simpler one. The Committee on Foreign Investments can only object to a sale for national security reasons. If they object, it gets kicked to the president and becomes a matter of public interest. Whoever objects would thusly have to justify said objection to the American people and have a good reason to do so. The much more likely scenario is that neither of them saw the the sale as a threat to national security because, well, it doesn't seem to be. Unless 'helping Russia make money' is somehow a threat to national security. I know, people just doing their job and not create a potential international incident for no reason at all is a bit boring, but past administrations have done that all the time.

Now, of course, you will bring up that speech and the donations again. And I will use the same fact check that you used and which states that there is no evidence that either of those things influenced decision making. Did the ones paying for that want to influence it? Maybe, who knows. People donate to charities of important people all the time in the hopes of currying favour. Former presidents get paid for speeches all the time.

[Shalcker]

Yeah, but according to your theory, Clinton could only be sure to not lose her job because the FBI was also corrupt.

Nope, that's not what i was saying; i have given three possibilities, only one of which was FBI corruption; and first one was Clinton knowing system enough to not get caught in anything obviously inappropriate - to the level that would invite indictment, anyway.

There was a lot to lose there, and she would open herself up to blackmail forever.

And she was; it was one among many scandals that marred her run.

Again, your theory assumes that she would be willing to do all that for a payment of half a million and a bunch of money to projects she likes.

Do what?

Did you actually read what i wrote? And if so, what exactly did i said Clinton did?

That complicated theory faces competition from a much simpler one. The Committee on Foreign Investments can only object to a sale for national security reasons. If they object, it gets kicked to the president and becomes a matter of public interest. Whoever objects would thusly have to justify said objection to the American people and have a good reason to do so.

"Uranium security!!!" is pretty easy sell.

Now, of course, you will bring up that speech and the donations again. And I will use the same fact check that you used and which states that there is no evidence that either of those things influenced decision making. Did the ones paying for that want to influence it? Maybe, who knows. People donate to charities of important people all the time in the hopes of currying favour. Former presidents get paid for speeches all the time.

Scientific research shows that when faced with choice "help contributors" or "help electorate", US politicians quite predictably select contributors.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I like how the Putinbot continues to try and make this about Clinton when Flynn was caught red handed.

All this deflection.

[Shalcker]

I like how the Putinbot continues to try and make this about Clinton when Flynn was caught red handed.

All this deflection.

Caught red-handed with what exactly? :/

Plenty of people were aware of his Turkish ties last year.

For some reason all media talked about was that meeting with Russian Ambassador though; something that is entirely forgotten now.

[Aehl]

This is about Muller investgiating the Trump Campaign's ties to Russia, Trump's possible connections and Trump possibly (...) trying to obstruct Justice

[Kiri]

Nope, that's not what i was saying; i have given three possibilities, only one of which was FBI corruption; and first one was Clinton knowing system enough to not get caught in anything obviously inappropriate - to the level that would invite indictment, anyway.

And she was; it was one among many scandals that marred her run.

Do what?

Did you actually read what i wrote? And if so, what exactly did i said Clinton did?

"Uranium security!!!" is pretty easy sell.

Scientific research shows that when faced with choice "help contributors" or "help electorate", US politicians quite predictably select contributors.

Okay, this is getting a bit silly in general. Let's lop it all together in one simple question. Uranium security, scandal, helping contributors vs helping electorate, all of this is predicated on one specific notion - namely that the Uranium One deal is harmful to the US. Now tell me, how is Uranium security compromised if a russian company profits from the sales of an American company? How is it running against the interests of the electorate? And how is it even a scandal? What is the specific national security concern that arose from the sale, which Clinton should have picked up and used as a cause for veto?

[Deleted]

Yes, Trump is just the pustulent head of a particularly nasty boil.

this was going on long before Trump and will go on long after hes gone.

[Mormolyce]

I like how the Putinbot continues to try and make this about Clinton when Flynn was caught red handed.

All this deflection.

Caught red-handed with what exactly? :/

Plenty of people were aware of his Turkish ties last year.

For some reason all media talked about was that meeting with Russian Ambassador though; something that is entirely forgotten now.

Did you just self-identify as "Putinbot"?

[Shalcker]

Did you just self-identify as "Putinbot"?

Nope. /10propaganda

- - - Updated - - -

Why does it have to? Realistically speaking, why can the US of all nations not have a modicum of control on how foreign states and nationals intervene in their politics?

Because that undercuts freedom of speech claims? And because it shows that US political landscape is weak(ened) enough that they cannot fight "alternative propaganda" in any other way but controlling it.

I'd agree that for many small countries that expectation is unrealistic but should it not be possible for the US to keep their house clean of foreign propaganda?

Isn't it actually a lot easier for small countries?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, this is getting a bit silly in general. Let's lop it all together in one simple question. Uranium security, scandal, helping contributors vs helping electorate, all of this is predicated on one specific notion - namely that the Uranium One deal is harmful to the US.

No, it isn't.

The fact that politicians expect to be paid for deals that are actually in US interests (or neutral to them) can be easily seen as worse.
That would mean that they expect to be paid by outside interests to do their job.

[Deleted]

Why does it have to? Realistically speaking, why can the US of all nations not have a modicum of control on how foreign states and nationals intervene in their politics? I'd agree that for many small countries that expectation is unrealistic but should it not be possible for the US to keep their house clean of foreign propaganda?

Not while you allow money in politics, countries, companies and billionaires all exert influence over your politics. Look at what Facebook, Google and other tech companies are throwing into lobbying now (mainy to stop antitrust and privacy regulation). Look at how much money Koch thinktanks throw into politics (opposing efforts to curb global warming, tea party shenanigans) or big foreign lobbies like Israel (stop iran deal, stop boycott), Turkey (stop recognition of armenian genoicde, anti kurd and gulen), Saudi Arabia (where to fucking begin). Your country will still be for sale long after Trump goes. And lets not mention paid for OP'eds in you newspapers and online platforms, I could pick from pro war Charles Listers to journalistic smashers like Peter Thiel.

What a joke.

[Kiri]

No, it isn't.

The fact that politicians expect to be paid for deals that are actually in US interests (or neutral to them) can be easily seen as worse.
That would mean that they expect to be paid by outside interests to do their job.

So you are saying that there is no national security problem with the deal. Thus, Clinton would have to routinely approve it within the confines of her role in the matter. I think that settles it then? Everything else is simply a matter of conjecture.
In your scenario, Clinton would only do her job if she was 'being paid' and the donation and speaking fee were something she either urged or saw as that payment.
The other explanation is that Clinton was wholly unaffected by the money and just did her job anyway. Her husband was invited to speak at a conference and paid for it, which is something a lot of former presidents do. The Canadian guy donated money to charity for reasons all of his own.

It is easy to see corruption if you want to see corruption, but that does not mean it exists. As your own source has stated, there is zero evidence that the cash flows did in any way influence decision making.

[Shalcker]

So you are saying that there is no national security problem with the deal. Thus, Clinton would have to routinely approve it within the confines of her role in the matter. I think that settles it then? Everything else is simply a matter of conjecture.

Settles what exactly? Settles Clintons being corrupt, perhaps.

What exactly is "matter of conjecture"? Payment happened and potential conflict of interest was hidden by using Clinton-connected Canadian organization.

In your scenario, Clinton would only do her job if she was 'being paid' and the donation and speaking fee were something she either urged or saw as that payment.
The other explanation is that Clinton was wholly unaffected by the money and just did her job anyway. Her husband was invited to speak at a conference and paid for it, which is something a lot of former presidents do. The Canadian guy donated money to charity for reasons all of his own.

But we know their reasons.

That would be like saying "Trump campaign talked to Russians, who talked in private how they are going to ruin Clinton and help Trump which got intercepted by CIA/FBI/NSA, and then Russians indeed helped Trump campaign by releasing emails, but Trump himself was wholly unaffected by it".

Going from assumption that people can take money and then be "wholly unaffected by it" is wishful thinking. This isn't how humans work.

It is easy to see corruption if you want to see corruption, but that does not mean it exists. As your own source has stated, there is zero evidence that the cash flows did in any way influence decision making.

It is just as easy to close your eyes to corruption if you're so inclined.

Btw, do you think Flynn will also be free from being indicted on that 15 million $ offer if FBI cannot prove he actually did anything?
Would that prove that he isn't corrupt? That all people have on him is "conjecture"?

[Kiri]

Settles what exactly? Settles Clintons being corrupt, perhaps.

What exactly is "matter of conjecture"? Payment happened and potential conflict of interest was hidden by using Clinton-connected Canadian organization.

But we know their reasons.

That would be like saying "Trump campaign talked to Russians, who talked in private how they are going to ruin Clinton and help Trump which got intercepted by CIA/FBI/NSA, and then Russians indeed helped Trump campaign by releasing emails, but Trump himself was wholly unaffected by it".

Going from assumption that people can take money and then be "wholly unaffected by it" is wishful thinking. This isn't how humans work.

It is just as easy to close your eyes to corruption if you're so inclined.

It settles that the outcome of the council not preventing the sale was settled with or without contributions.

And again you are presenting as fact what is conjecture. Yes, there was indeed money donated to the Clinton-connected Canadian organization by a Canadian, and the name of said donor was not disclosed due to how Canadian law works. Rich people tend to donate money to charities all the time, for tax credits and the like. What ties the donor to the whole Uranium One thing is that at one point he sold his company to it. But, allegedly, he sold his stock in the company before Clinton even became secretary of state. To turn that donation into a quid pro quo for the Uranium One deal would assume a seriously long con there. So yeah, we don't know his reasons. But the corruption angle in that context seems more far-fetched than the tax break angle.

Regarding Trump: the example is not exactly picked well there. If, indeed, people in his campaign only talked among themselves to ruin Clinton and the Russians helped independently of that, then Trump himself would not be at fault for that. It is literally how it works. There currently is an investigation in the Russian assistance that might clear Trump from the collusion rumours or find evidence of it. Just like there is a probe into Hillary. Just like there have been multiple investigations into Benghazi. We will see how that plays out and really should not make definite corruption statements until then.

As for the assumption: if you really believed that, it would be logical for you to consider Trump just as corrupt as Hillary, due to him appointing people that donated directly to him (not just charitable projects her likes) to his administration. I believe that people can be influenced by such things and I believe that people can not be influenced by that. Because with your skewed reasoning, anyone could make any politician 'corrupt' just by donating to to their campaign if said person stands to gain from them doing what they would be doing anyway. The way money is infused into US politics is ridiculous, though, and should be amended.

Edit: Also, this has gone on for far too long and is pretty much off-topic. If you wish to discuss this further, just quote this post in a topic that fits it better.

[Felya]

For some reason all media talked about was that meeting with Russian Ambassador though; something that is entirely forgotten now.

His lying about meeting with Russian Ambassador, is why he was forced to resign. He was forced to resign, because he told Pence his meeting didn’t happen, who than went on media rounds, saying there was no meeting. Yates even told Trump as much, but he fired her. FBI knew it was Flynn’s lying, even though Pence said it. That’s how deep in your shit FBI is...

[Shalcker]

His lying about meeting with Russian Ambassador, is why he was forced to resign. He was forced to resign, because he told Pence his meeting didn’t happen, who than went on media rounds, saying there was no meeting. Yates even told Trump as much, but he fired her. FBI knew it was Flynn’s lying, even though Pence said it. That’s how deep in your shit FBI is...

In your shit. It's your shitty politicians and their appointees, after all.

[Felya]

In your shit. It's your shitty politicians and their appointees, after all.

Oh... you bet... the Russian ambassador was the inocent bye stander, the target was Flynn. But, look on the bright side... we are now talking about Flynn and Russian ambassador. It’s no longer forgotten... you succeeded in bringing it back up.

[Shalcker]

Oh... you bet... the Russian ambassador was the inocent bye stander, the target was Flynn. But, look on the bright side... we are now talking about Flynn and Russian ambassador. It’s no longer forgotten... you succeeded in bringing it back up.

Show me the media talking about it now. Or FBI pressing any charges related to it.


...and why do you think "this time will be different"?

[Dontrike]

Show me the media talking about it now. Or FBI pressing any charges related to it.


...and why do you think "this time will be different"?

And yet again someone says if the media isn't talking about it therefore it doesn't exist.