Hilary's Russian collusion vs. Trumps's Russian collusion

bisleybisley Senior MemberPosts: 10,552 Senior Member
This story has been public knowledge for several years, and even the New York Times reported some of the salient points in 2015. My question is why does Trump merit a special prosecutor to look for Russian connections and Hilary doesn't. Or, if Mueller's mandate is to find out whether there was any government collusion, why not follow the trail, instead of targeting one side?

Here's the NYT story that, while it claims no smoking gun, does actually point to large amounts of money received indirectly from the Russians to the Clinton foundation at the time of this transaction - much more evidence than was required to go after Trump. After a year of investigating by Mueller, there is still no evidence of misbehavior by Trump. Could the Clintons (and Obama) withstand the same level of scrutiny that the Trump campaign has come under?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Supposedly, the uranium deal has been under investigation for four years, and an FBI whistleblower has been suppressed by court order, citing his non-disclosure agreement. My question is why can't the current AG or FBI head release this man from his agreement and why does it take four years to solve this? The FBI is investigating everything, all of the time, but there are never any grand jury indictments brought against anybody. The FBI, in its current state, is nothing more than a political tool for whoever controls its inner bureaucracy.

Personally, I'm ready for heads to roll, in government, on both sides. Put some folks in jail, fire the people who are covering for them. The collusion is there, in abundance, whether it's about the Russians, the Chinese, or just between members of both parties. There seems to be not much point in citing national security to protect politicians, because we have already been sold out on every front.
«1

Replies

  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    What good is being elite if it's not above the law?
    How do we want our cake?
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Maybe not, but if the next 4 year investigation fails to indict anyone, the terms of the agreement are in effect.

    If you blow the whistle on some one, you better win.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,481 Senior Member
    I'm baffled by this as well. I can understand why the Obama admin wanted to keep this under wraps. What I can't understand is why the current admin doesn't go after Hillary? Trump and Sessions could lift the NDA with the stroke of a pen, but they won't.

    I don't know what Sessions' end game is, but I don't think it has anything to do with justice. I think he's the proverbial fox in the hen house.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • HAWKENHAWKEN Senior Member Posts: 1,685 Senior Member
    Probably because Mueller doesn't want to commit suicide............robin
    I don't often talk to people that voted for Obama, but when I do I order large fries!
    Life member of the American Legion, the VFW, the NRA and the Masonic Lodge, retired LEO
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 8,528 Senior Member
    My thought has always been that after Mr Trump was read in, he realized just how deep the corruption runs. I believe it is so deep and broad that Washington will topple and take wallstreet with it.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    I wasn't too upset when Mueller was appointed because I thought he was a straight guy, and I believed that he would find Russian collusion in at least 50% of the Democrat hierarchy. But, as it turns out, he is more of a soldier for the establishment more than a straight-up guy. And he's got to be a little weird to be a good friend of Comey. He's had more than enough time to hang Trump if there was anything there, and hasn't touched any of the people whom half of the citizens in America know have had dealings with Russia or China.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Back to the subject of the whistle-blower - there would probably be more of them, except none of the people they blow the whistle on get prosecuted, so they are left twisting in the wind, with no job or a ruined reputation.

    Any good investigator could find plenty of small fry that could be flipped with threats of jail time, and then they could easily work their way up the ladder to the real culprits, but it never happens. We just have 'ongoing investigations' till everybody forgets.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    Diver43 wrote: »
    My thought has always been that after Mr Trump was read in, he realized just how deep the corruption runs. I believe it is so deep and broad that Washington will topple and take wallstreet with it.
    Trump knew exactly how deep the corruption ran, he openly participated on the other side for decades!
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Trump knew exactly how deep the corruption ran, he openly participated on the other side for decades!

    But not Hilary, right? We have a special prosecutor assigned to 'settling Trump's hash.' If he can trick one employee into 'lying to the FBI,' we have another Scooter Libby moment for the media to initiate a feeding frenzy.

    Who is going to do the same for Hilary? If the NYT says the Clintons received hundreds of thousands of Russian dollars through Canadian cut-outs, and Bill made $500, 000 speeches to the Russians, does that not meet the 'appearance of impropriety' threshold that Democrats have set for Republicans for several decades?
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    Likely the dirty money trail is so prolific that all inclusive prosecution would overwhelm the system. That amount of money has tentacles that stretch a long way in many directions.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    But not Hilary, right? We have a special prosecutor assigned to 'settling Trump's hash.' If he can trick one employee into 'lying to the FBI,' we have another Scooter Libby moment for the media to initiate a feeding frenzy.

    Who is going to do the same for Hilary? If the NYT says the Clintons received hundreds of thousands of Russian dollars through Canadian cut-outs, and Bill made $500, 000 speeches to the Russians, does that not meet the 'appearance of impropriety' threshold that Democrats have set for Republicans for several decades?
    I am hoping that this Meuller investigation is going to net all of these dirtbags. There is no reason for this to not cross party lines.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,543 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Who is going to do the same for Hilary? If the NYT says the Clintons received hundreds of thousands of Russian dollars through Canadian cut-outs, and Bill made $500, 000 speeches to the Russians, does that not meet the 'appearance of impropriety' threshold that Democrats have set for Republicans for several decades?

    The numbers are much higher than that and the donations couldn't be more conspicuous. From what I gathered from the talking heads, the seven Russians in the consortium that bought the US uranium with Hillary's approval have donated a combined 145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I am hoping that this Meuller investigation is going to net all of these dirtbags. There is no reason for this to not cross party lines.

    I was hoping that, too. But now I'm starting to believe Mueller is just a soldier for the establishment elite of both parties.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    The numbers are much higher than that and the donations couldn't be more conspicuous. From what I gathered from the talking heads, the seven Russians in the consortium that bought the US uranium with Hillary's approval have donated a combined 145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    Yeah, but I thought that if I cited the NYT as a source, I might get a liberal to come and answer my question. Didn't work, though. If you eliminate all of the bait and switch and strawman opportunities, they won't play. Their answer to any question asked about Hilary is, 'Trump is a butthole."
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Well, this thing is starting to get some traction, now. Senator Grassley has the ball in his court, and his committee will be 'allowed' to interrogate the FBI informant who supposedly knows what actually transpired. Actually, it is limited in scope (so far) for the original interview, supposedly to find out whether or not further investigation is merited. Grassley has a reputation for honesty, but he's been there for over 30 years, so we just have to wait and see if he has the balls to blow this thing open. There are several committees involved, so they each get to send one representative to watch a lawyer question the witness.

    Regardless of the witness, there is still plenty to look at, like $130 million in a Canadian account for the Clinton foundation, and a $500,000 speaking fee for Bill, from Russian entities, that was paid in the middle of all the negotiations. All of the rats are scurrying to their lawyers and denying any knowledge, so, if they don't flip somebody, they aren't trying. I feel sure that if they threatened Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with imprisonment, she would flip.
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,543 Senior Member
    This whole issue went from annoying to amusing with all of the new information that's been uncovered but I think Wasserman Shultz is to stupid to realize that she no longer has the protection of the Democratic party.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    But not Hilary, right? We have a special prosecutor assigned to 'settling Trump's hash.' If he can trick one employee into 'lying to the FBI,' we have another Scooter Libby moment for the media to initiate a feeding frenzy.

    Who is going to do the same for Hilary? If the NYT says the Clintons received hundreds of thousands of Russian dollars through Canadian cut-outs, and Bill made $500, 000 speeches to the Russians, does that not meet the 'appearance of impropriety' threshold that Democrats have set for Republicans for several decades?
    I'll quote myself that was directed at your post in the other thread on this very same topic.

    "Seems about right. The Clintons care about two things. Money and power and are experts at wielding each to aquire the other."

    Interpretation, you're not going to find me defending the Clintons against corruption. It's the #1 reason Hilary did not earn my vote regardless of how risky a Trump presidency appeared.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Yeah, but I thought that if I cited the NYT as a source, I might get a liberal to come and answer my question. Didn't work, though. If you eliminate all of the bait and switch and strawman opportunities, they won't play. Their answer to any question asked about Hilary is, 'Trump is a butthole."
    And the answer to Trump is incompetent, except for using his power to raise his own net worth etc by the right is Hilary is a criminal. Yet whenever anyone brought up a third option everyone goes back to playing for thier own teams. Focusing on the other side and putting on thier blinders to the problems with their own.

    I noticed no one has mentioned the no bid $300M contract for rebuilding Puerto Rico given to a major Trump donor and one of Tillerson's friends who's company is I'll equipped to actually do the job...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    This whole issue went from annoying to amusing with all of the new information that's been uncovered but I think Wasserman Shultz is to stupid to realize that she no longer has the protection of the Democratic party.
    She needs to go down. If she can hallow out the corrupt core of the Democratic party in the process all the better!
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    And the answer to Trump is incompetent, except for using his power to raise his own net worth etc by the right is Hilary is a criminal. Yet whenever anyone brought up a third option everyone goes back to playing for thier own teams. Focusing on the other side and putting on thier blinders to the problems with their own.

    I noticed no one has mentioned the no bid $300M contract for rebuilding Puerto Rico given to a major Trump donor and one of Tillerson's friends who's company is I'll equipped to actually do the job...

    I'll comment on it if I find out that it is true. It may just be another fake news item, or it may not be as sinister as you portray it. These days, a story is not a story until it has lasted through a few news cycles, and this is the first I've heard about it.

    Yes, Trump is an incompetent politician and will probably talk himself out of a job. I just hope he gets the border done, taxes cut, national defense restored, and another Supreme before y'all ride him out on a rail, complete with tar and feathers.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    The only democrat that's gonna go down in this latest fiasco is Monica Lewinski.
    Nothing will come of this.

    It could be different this time, if they don't lose their nerve. The Dems aren't defending very stridently, and there is a lot of evidence out there that the FBI has not been able to conceal. I'm almost as cynical as you, but they have got her this time, if they just have the guts to follow through. Grassley says he will appoint a special prosecutor, so the big question is whether there is an honest lawyer out there to fill the job, and will he live long enough to do it.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Naw, the jump from cynic to loser is too short - got to keep hoping. Don't believe all of those hilarious De-motivational Posters - they are jokes, son.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,053 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    This whole issue went from annoying to amusing with all of the new information that's been uncovered but I think Wasserman Shultz is too stupid to realize that she no longer has the protection of the Democratic party.
    This is going to get good. I don't really see how a special prosecutor won't be appointed, or Mueller's scope expanded because of this.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,774 Senior Member
    I not a cynic. But having watched the so-called representatives in D.C. seriously for a few decades the only way I see that the problems there can be solved is with either a 1 mile diameter meteor hitting right at the middle of the Reflecting Pool and taking out the whole mess in one fell swoop, or some crazy country with nukes taking a trip up the Potomac in a yacht and ending the place that way. That much greed, corruption, and entrenched privilege can't be voted out, regulated out, or taken to court and put in prison fast enough.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    You're a cynic.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    This is going to get good. I don't really see how a special prosecutor won't be appointed, or Mueller's scope expanded because of this.

    Mueller is in this neck deep. He was FBI Director, when it happened, and Rosenstein, as the Deputy AG, was his boss and the one who also hired him as the special prosecutor. The FBI was actively surveilling the Russian agents who were 'lobbying' the Clintons, and there is no way that either of them didn't know about their efforts to buy influence with the SecState and an ex-Prwsident. Also, the FBI interviewed (and possibly employed as a contractor) the British ex MI-6 agent who created the mostly bogus files on Trump, while employed by the Russians. Also, neither Mueller or Rosenstein recommended killing the uranium deal, after finding out about the Russian spies. Apparently, neither questioned the uranium deal which served no American interests. The FBI has admitted investigating this for the past several years, which means that, at the very least, they have withheld information about the Russian collusion that was already taking place, long before Trump came on the scene.

    So, having Mueller investigate this is even more of a conflict of interest than he already has. He should be one of the witnesses.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,774 Senior Member
    Mueller was a Hillary for President supporter and had funds funneled into her campaign. Fox watching the hen house thing. The Mueller investigation is as corrupt as it gets. Nothing of substance will come of it. Smoke and mirrors for the masses.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,587 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I'll comment on it if I find out that it is true. It may just be another fake news item, or it may not be as sinister as you portray it. These days, a story is not a story until it has lasted through a few news cycles, and this is the first I've heard about it.

    Yes, Trump is an incompetent politician and will probably talk himself out of a job. I just hope he gets the border done, taxes cut, national defense restored, and another Supreme before y'all ride him out on a rail, complete with tar and feathers.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357473-whitefish-energy-contract-bars-government-from-auditing-deal

    Company had 2 employees when it was handed $300M to do the job. Contract specifically eliminates any and all liability and accountability.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357473-whitefish-energy-contract-bars-government-from-auditing-deal

    Company had 2 employees when it was handed $300M to do the job. Contract specifically eliminates any and all liability and accountability.

    It bears watching, I guess.

    I would like to hear the other side of the story, like who else wanted the job, knowing Puerta Rico is broke, and what terms they would have wanted to take on such a job. It may not be that unusual for a fast-track job. It may be that the government of PR is waiving the FEMA audit to speed up the process and is guaranteeing payment to the contractor, and expecting it to be covered by some other funds. The Governor of PR is defending it, so either he thinks it's a good deal, or he is expecting a kickback. Not enough details to make a judgement, yet.

    Since these stories come out of the woodwork with all kinds of evil predictions, and usually turn out to be no big deal, I will wait to see a few more facts, before I throw Trump under the bus. I mean, it could be as bogus as the Russia collusion stories.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    It could be different this time, if they don't lose their nerve. The Dems aren't defending very stridently, and there is a lot of evidence out there that the FBI has not been able to conceal. I'm almost as cynical as you, but they have got her this time, if they just have the guts to follow through. Grassley says he will appoint a special prosecutor, so the big question is whether there is an honest lawyer out there to fill the job, and will he live long enough to do it.

    The one I'm thinking needs not to accept a fish in newspaper is the FBI Informant. I would think he needs a few body guards he can trust, IF there's such a thing anymore. As we all know, everyone who has ever had anything on the Clintons seems to meet an untimely end.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.