| Another Trump Cabinet member fails to disclose links to Russian interests |
|  |
|
|
Post Reply |
Forum |
|
|
|
So, what's this thing about Russia and the Trumpster's buddies and Cabinet members? Is this anything to worry about? And why do they always forget to mention their Russian ties during their confirmation hearings?
And the tie is to Putin's son-in-law. No biggie!
Wilbur Ross Russian ties
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 15:12:37
|
|
|
|
|
I thought Trump, the uber successful businessman, was supposed to pick the very best people to work for him.
Well, like boogers, Trump sure knows how to pick winners. 
|
|
|
|
but you've made Jim look reasonable.
The system of government in all our countries relies on everyone being prepared to accept either one of the main parties being in power. Okay so your party won or lost but it will still be okay. Trump did his version of let's get along now, I govern for everyone, we're all Americans speech that the incoming leader gives but it wasn't enough to settle things down, and it doesn't look good.
Why can't you accept the uranium left the country? you really believe the Russians would buy it without being able to use it - they've could have sold some of it to North Korea for all we know. It's disgusting the way armaments are sold friend or foe, I remember way back it being an issue during the cold war - for heaven's sake what's news in any of this stuff - It Is Business As Usual. Whoever is in power. They're simply the ones who can get richer for that period of time and if Clinton goes to jail it would be a surprise to me.
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Lesley, but I'm not going to accept Jim's sources because he says they are legit.
Jim won't accept my source.
So, what is unreasonable here?
Here's what is said about The Hill:
The Hill is a conservative, pro-Republican American political journalism newspaper and website published in Washington, D.C. since 1994. It is published by Capitol Hill Publishing, which is owned by News Communications, Inc. Focusing on politics, policy, business and international relations, The Hill coverage includes the U.S. Congress, the presidency, and election campaigns.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 18:43:20
|
|
|
|
This is just another distraction by the Trumpster to remove the focus from himself and his cronies, who will be going to jail unless Trump pardons them.
It is just more red meat for Trump's base.
Trump is hyping a uranium scandal about Hillary Clinton
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 19:41:42
|
|
|
|
In fact there are many websites calling the Uranium One scandal a hoax.
It seems that Jim's Breitbart and The Hill and, of course, Fox News are seeing it as a bigly scandal.
Sorry, but this is FAKE Right Wing News.
|
|
|
|
And I certainly don't disagree that Trump has played on it - mud slinging they used to call it.
but saying it couldn't possibly have left America because it doesn't have the right licence - well whitewashing is what they used to call that.
Nobody seems to dispute Bill Clinton got paid half a million dollars to give a speech in Russia. Seems a lot of money to me but maybe he tells good jokes, it doesn't seem like much money to be payment for a uranium deal. Tho I guess it could be a down payment.
I read the stuff jim posted and I read the article you just posted and they are opinion pieces, like my post here - they know lots more stuff than I do, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors, we really don't know the truth of all the deals that go on in the world.
There's a psychological ploy for dealing with the narcissist in your life and it's called 'grey rock' be uninteresting, don't invest emotionally, don't let them lead you round by the nose.
I feel like that about all our world leaders.
Yes they are having a terrible impact on the world we all live in but I have zero interest in standing up to be counted in relation to them, or even lying down - I have my own life to lead.
|
|
|
|
And I certainly don't disagree that Trump has played on it - mud slinging they used to call it.
Yes, but mud slinging is generally done against an opponent. Clinton lost the election nearly a year ago. She's no longer an opponent for Trump.
No, Trump is trying to get the attention off of himself and his own Russian scandal where two of his guys just got indicted and the third plead guilty. And there will be more to come.
And again, it's red meat for Trumps base.
Lock her up.
Lock her up.
Lock her up.
Crooked Hillary.
Crooked Hillary.
Crooked Hillary.
Same old stuff from Trump.
but
saying it couldn't possibly have left America because it doesn't have
the right licence - well whitewashing is what they used to call that.
In the articles or opinion pieces I read (and Jim's Hill article was an opinion piece as well, IMO) the uranium mined in the US was low grade non-weapons grade uranium. According to the articles the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) did not issue a license to the Russian company to export any of this low grade uranium. Now, Jim's Hill opinion piece indicates that they did export uranium. Like I keep saying, I don't accept Jim's source of information. If I see otherwise, I will say so.
There's
a psychological ploy for dealing with the narcissist in your life and
it's called 'grey rock' be uninteresting, don't invest emotionally,
don't let them lead you round by the nose.
The narcissist in my life that you refer to, who is it? Is it someone here on the Forum? I'll have to look up this 'grey rock' thing.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 21:46:33
|
|
|
|
incorrect grammar - I should have said narcissist in one's life. ok? I'm surprised you didn't understand that considering the context.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, did you read the timeline? Even that doesn’t account for all of the money. 145 million paid to the Clinton Foundation. Why?
Anyway, yeah she’s going to be indicted. Of that I have zero doubt whatsoever. Okay a tiny, tiny bit. But that’s all. Put it this way. I bet $100. Would I bet $200? I think so. $300? No. Probably not.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 22:31:51
|
|
|
|
I'm not a financial forensics specialist Jim, but I do understand a fee for a guest speaker,  - so I commented on that.
|
|
|
|
Lesley, why would you say that? I’m just asking why you think these guys would give 145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Do you think that it’s more likely or not that they did it in exchange for something?
|
|
|
|
Oh because I don't know enough to evaluate the evidence but not knowing anything much at all about the subject my rule of thumb opinion is that in private, of course they were doing business, isn't that what they're all doing? taxpayer funded business trips, and isn't that how the world goes round?
|
|
|
|
Well yes Jim. 145m smells out loud for sure, but Hillary, as one would expect, appears to be at many removes from anything resembling a signature, so I wouldn't bet on it myself. I've always been cautious in that regard though, it's an inbuilt temperment feature, but that doesn't mean I think you're wrong about an indictment. Could be. I read an article earlier whilst I was at work, published in a banking emag, again just opinion, saying that the FBI investigation going back to the private email server outing, looks as though it was also concerned with the uranium business.
Unfortunately I can't find it now I'm back home.
Actually, I agree with lesley most of all. The election is over & Trump won. Get over it. Instead of which we have on the one hand laughably bizarrre allegations concerning Russians hacking the election, no doubt with the intention of trying to get Trump impeached , & on the other attempts to put the big KO on Hillary even though I'm sure she probably deserves it, but then high level sleaze is a grey area in many a body politic, not just the US.
Why she wasn't prosecuted over the server affair, I don't understand. That was really much more serious than this...after all it's only money. On second thoughts it's also about facilitating a foreign power getting control of a significant strategic asset. Maybe.
I don't know if Putin has a sense of humour, but the behavior of the US political class since the election must have him rolling in the aisles. And plotting & scheming in the sure knowledge that none of those bozos, regardless of which 'side' they represent will have the faintest clue.
|
|
|
|
Pat,
Why do you think the allegations of Russia messing with the election is so bizarre? Don't you believe the stories of the Russians buying advertising on FB? The same people were behind similar activity with Brexit. Don't you think the Russians must be laughing their socks off at the chaos in the UK and the US? It took so little money, such a small effort, and no real risk to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Pat, you say this:
Instead of which we have on the one hand laughably bizarrre allegations concerning Russians hacking the election
It's funny, but every US intelligence agency (FBI, NSA, etc.) strongly believe that the Russians did cyber-meddle with the election. I mean it's like saying the sky is not blue.
What kind of bubble wrap are you using over there?
Now, whether the Trumpster had knowledge prior to the election or during the transition or now we don't know that yet and I'm not jumping to any conclusions on that one.
|
|
|
|
What's bizarre is the notion that spending $100 grand on facebook placements, which as far as I know have never been seen, when the total ad spend on the election was in the billions, could've swung it.
Incidentally 13 I'm unaware that the Russians stand accused of meddling in the Brexit vote. That really is a new one on me.
|
|
|
|
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/brexit-ministers-spy-russia-uk-brexit
but then:
https://www.ft.com/content/e0620c2a-c2f3-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656
Aaron Banks. I think we'll hear more and more about him.
And the tiny amount of advertising gone into FB placements were supposed to be so effective because they were precisely targeted at the people most likely to swing their vote in the places where that vote counted for most.
|
|
|
|
I'll read the links tomorrow, but I'd still like to see one or two of these supposedly so influential ads.
As for Aaron Banks I know all about him & have done for a few years now. That c*** is largely responsible for dislodging the people who have a workable plan for Brexit, one that doesn't involve jumping off a cliff, out of the orbit of the relevant politicians. I don't know that he's in hock to the Russians though. My impression of the man is that his main interest is solely himself.
I'll be fascinated to read about him, but I'm not expecting much except distortion, or indeed anything new.
|
|
|
|
I wonder whether these journalists have a screen in large print handy, with this sort of stock phrase prominently displayed, for use when writer's block strikes.
Seriously though, the Observer article is a disappointingly trivial dance around what by now should be a centre stage enterprise; namely, what are the real motives & aims of the so called Hard Brexiteers, or Ultras as they are also known, & more importantly the people behind them. I'm not saying the article is wrong in point of fact, just that it's hardly investigative journalism. Several of those names have been in the news recently in the US as a result of the Trump smear story involving a British ex-intelligence officer. No mention of that. Most of it could've been cobbled together from the internet & since when is it news that foreign powers seek influence.
At least the FT article mentioned that along with warning about reading too much into it. Nothing on Banks though, apart from mentioning he once got pissed up at the Russian embassy...
Have you ever heard of the Legatum Institute? One of its proxy organisations is the European Research Group, to which up to 80 Tory MPs belong, apparently. These braying dumbfucks are mindlessly going along with a project they show no signs at all of understanding. Where is the 4th estate to explain to the public what's going on. Nowhere. What is Jeremy Corbyn's opposition doing. Fuck all, though one or two people on that side of the aisle appear to have some clue. Stephen Kinnock for one.
Meanwhile, Legatum has its man in the Cabinet in the form of Steve Baker, & the Prime Minister is lost.
Heaven help us all. It really needn't have been this way.
Anyway here's a link to a real piece of investigative journalism. When the big boys come out to play they don't need low level Russian operatives to swing the game their way.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86556
That link might not be working. If not google legatum & it's on the 1st page under the title 'disaster capitalism'.
Modified by PatD at Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 13:11:14
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that. Naively, I forget to look at who'd benefit financially from a hard Brexit, and take the Ultra's stance as ideological.
So, where can I buy shares in disaster capitalism? It looks like there is more effort behind shoving us off the cliff than I imagined. No wonder things are going so very slowly. It seems like nothing at all is settled, and very little prepared for.
Sell everything. Buy land round Dover. Personally, I reckon my best investment was to send my kid off to medical school. I hope that we remain on good terms and I don't become ill before he qualifies... the NHS is already teetering - more cuts in finance, fewer foreigners working for them and the economic shock of the cliff edge could put it in intensive care.
Here's another source quoting EUReferendum, but tying it in with a couple of other articles that show how things have been manipulated: https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-brexit-was-engineered-by-foreign-billionaires-to-bring-about-economic-chaos-for-profit/5614194
Odd to have people like Richard North and George Monbiot sounding the same alarm!
|
|
|
|
Pat, as I understand it, it doesn't really take much to prove bribery of a public official. The bribe doesn't have to be big, even a weekend for two at some nice resort can qualify. Or a few relatively modest gifts, certainly a campaign contribution and definitely some excessive payment for services. And it also doesn't take much to prove that the gift or payment was made and received with a benefit in mind. It doesn't matter if there's some uncertainty as to whether or not the recipient can deliver. In this case, not only do we have the circumstantial evidence of the outrageously large contributions and Bill's speaking fee for appearing at a Kremlin-front bank for an hour or so.
There's also the anticipated evidence of the FBI informant whom the Obama admin stifled with a gag order. That order's been lifted and buddy's lawyer, who has a good reputation as honest and serious, says that he has not just his own account but corroborative evidence that the Clintons were directly involved in their bribery. Amazing stuff. Hopefully, he won't jam out or Seth Rich it. You never know. As for Clinton's ability to deliver, there's lots of good commentary explaining how as SoS Clinton had major sway over the process. It sure seems like Guistra and friends thought so anyways. And of course that's just one of the many major scandals that can and should break open if and when the congressional committees get moving and/or the DOJ wakes up. I think it's a matter of when not if and I say that knowing full well how weak the Republicans have been on this score before. This time I think it's going to happen. And that's why I think that Hillary will finally face the music. So why does it matter? It matters because this is the ultimate test of whether or not anyone's above the law. The Dems are doing all they can to grind Trump's presidency into a meaningless disaster of disfunction. The liberal media has lost any vestige of integrity and lies, lies, lies all the time. Conservatives don't have a chance in the grand public relations contest. Frankly, I see an indictment and ultimate conviction of Clinton as as the big, fat humble pie the election itself should have been were it not for this Russia nonsense.
Modified by Jim at Mon, Nov 06, 2017, 17:21:52
|
|
|
|
Not being above the law, that's the most important thing.
|
|
|
|
Here's the money quote to me from your link. "To begin with, the uranium was for commercial use in reactors. In fact, Graham says, "the United States has no way to turn uranium into nuclear fuel for weapons."
I'd imagine most people think this uranium is weapons grade material. It's rarely mentioned by so-called liberal media and never as far as I know by so-called conservative media.
It all seems to be another example of Soviet style "whataboutism" to me by the Trump regime in cahoots with the far right media.
|
|
|
|
And then whether some of it was or was not exported from the US to Canada or maybe Europe, what does that have to do with Clinton? At the time the deal was done there was no export license. And I doubt if there is an export license today either.
If some of this low grade uranium did get exported after the fact then, again, what's the connection to Clinton unless she actually drove the trucks to Canada?
The real reason Russia bought this company was not to get this small amount of low grade US uranium, but it was to get the mother lode of uranium in Kazakhstan.
And the whole timeline with Clinton is just being twisted up and forced to make it seem plausible that she had everything to do with it is BS.
The whole Trump/Right Wing media hyped hoax is to do two things:
- Be a diversion from Trump's RussiaGate and the indictments last week. Don't look here. Look over there.
- Be red meat - LOCK HER UP - for Trump's base which clearly includes Jim. I mean, look at Trump's historically low numbers in the polls. He's got to do something to rev up the base.
|
|
|
