Did the Dems do the collusion with Russia

[jimnyc]

My my, funny how some time changes things, and how newer and newer things are found out.

---

The Week the Russia Conspiracy Theory Fell Apart

The Russia conspiracy theory so beloved by the media and the Democratic Party fell apart this week — though it was easy to miss, amidst the chaos at the White House and the collapse of Congress’s effort to repeal Obamacare.

Investor William Browder testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that Fusion GPS, the firm that had been responsible for creating and pushing the so-called “Russia dossier” against Donald Trump, had been paid by the Russian government to push for the repeal of the human rights sanctions in the Magnitsky Act of 2012. In other words, the Russian government may have been paying to smear Trump with false and salacious accusations.

Until now, the media and the Democrats have proceeded under the assumption that Russia intervened in the 2016 election by hacking the email server of the Democratic National Committee, as well as the private email of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, and releasing their emails via Wikileaks. They have further claimed — with no evidence — that the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians in obtaining or releasing the emails.

The entire theory rests on the ridiculous claim that Trump had invited Russia to hack Clinton and the Democrats when he joked last July about the Russians releasing the emails Clinton had deleted from her illicit private server. (The left-wing HuffPost observed Thursday as the anniversary that Trump “asked for Russian help in the election.”) That joke prompted then-CIA director John Brennan to convene an investigation of alleged Russian interference.

In fact, it turns out that Russia may have been trying to undermine Trump. And it may have done so in collusion with the Democrats. The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel noted Thursday that Fusion GPS has ties to the Democrats — and will not reveal who paid it for the dossier. Strassel asked: “What if it was the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton’s campaign?” The money could have passed through intermediaries, she added.

That means the real story of collusion in the 2016 election could be that Democrats were working with Russia. And that would make sense, given their long history of appeasing the Russians, under both Clinton and Barack Obama.

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/28/week-russia-conspiracy-theory-fell-apart/

[Kathianne]

That actually makes sense. I do hope some truth gets found with all the investigations.

[jimnyc]

That actually makes sense. I do hope some truth gets found with all the investigations.

Yups. And perhaps they'll find crap on both sides! Wouldn't that be funny if they both get screwed by one another. :laugh:

With Hillary, and CNN and Brazile, and CNN also lying, as did the WaPo, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone over there was paying to try and drum up information. I'll be curious to see how far of an investigation they plan on doing in the democrat direction.

[aboutime]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

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


Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.
Collusion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

[Ricky Tavy]

That actually makes sense. I do hope some truth gets found with all the investigations.

If you are susceptible to Breitbart "logic." I counted three "may have's" and one "could have" in the construction of a straw man that the suspicions about trumpy collusion are based on his flippant request the Russians look into Hillary's email.

Lessee, on the one hand you have "may haves" and "could haves" and guilt by association from Steve Bannon's minions (no offense) vs the findings of the US intelligence community. I think I'm gonna need some time to ponder that one.

[Ricky Tavy]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

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


Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.
Collusion - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion


You really need to pull your head out of your echo chamber from time to time. That is one of the most thoroughly debunked of rightardisms. The uranium deal had to be signed off on by two countries and several agencies, among other absurdities in that fairy tale. But, if you like a good charity story, I got one for you. I don't remember all the details but I can find them soon enough.

Once upon a time, trump's "charity" got a donation from some foundation. trump then gave it to some Florida police group. They then decided to honor his "generosity" - trump had contributed none of his own money to his charity in some time - by having a big dinner to give him an award. He rented out Mar a Lago for the event, making more money than he had "donated."

Class.

Of course, we are talking about somebody who used his "charity" to pay for his spawn's boy scout fees ... and that isn't what provoked the organization to have to apologize for something trump did.

[Kathianne]

If you are susceptible to Breitbart "logic." I counted three "may have's" and one "could have" in the construction of a straw man that the suspicions about trumpy collusion are based on his flippant request the Russians look into Hillary's email.

Lessee, on the one hand you have "may haves" and "could haves" and guilt by association from Steve Bannon's minions (no offense) vs the findings of the US intelligence community. I think I'm gonna need some time to ponder that one.

Not necessarily the logic, just total skepticism when it comes to political spin in the environment that now exists. The only 'defense' any partisan's seem to have is 'they're worse, we're justified to do what's necessary to win.' That is the logic I see in the argument.

Only escape I currently see is a third party emerging from the disgusted from both major parties.

[Ricky Tavy]

Not necessarily the logic, just total skepticism when it comes to political spin in the environment that now exists. The only 'defense' any partisan's seem to have is 'they're worse, we're justified to do what's necessary to win.' That is the logic I see in the argument.

Only escape I currently see is a third party emerging from the disgusted from both major parties.

I believe "both parties are equally bad" is cynicism pretending to be sophistication. The Regressives work hard to promote that notion, because it fits their silly meme that a popular sovereignty government is the enemy of the people. "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

The right is appealing to the worst elements of our nature and has nothing but contempt for most of us. At a time of terrific debt, they still insist on tax cuts, especially for the wealthy because the know others will be happy with scraps. They excuse it by saying the government spends to much money on "those people" ... you know the lazy ones and illegal immigrants with "welfare Cadillacs." They attack our free press as fake news. They point to people who have been fired for getting things wrong as evidence of bias, oblivious to this proving there is a price to pay in the news media for being wrong. Bottom line, the Regressives benefit if they can convince everyone the government is bad. Then, they can stop it from working on things like consumer and environmental protection. They can continue the trickle-on, free-lunch, supply-side scam that has led to the disparity of wealth and income we see today.
And, it is working. Saw a poll recently that showed more Americans believe the Regressives are better for the economy. There is no factual support for this. The economy has done better historically under Dems than it has under the people who gave us the Great Rightard Depression and the Great Rightard Recession. And, the Regressive administration in which the economy did really well was when Eisenhower did big-time taxing and spending. Tales of St. Raygun's great economy are myths. His mediocrity was achieved by putting the economy on a credit card so Yuppies could get rich and others got scraps. He then passed on huge deficits to Bubba, who not only cleaned up that mess but gave us a much better economy than anything we had under the gimper. Trickle-on II under bush gave us a recession that would have been a depression if not for Obama.
Both parties are not the same. Liberal and conservative philosophies are not the same. It is wrong and even intellectually lazy to be conned by that Regressive manipulation.

[Kathianne]

I believe "both parties are equally bad" is cynicism pretending to be sophistication. The Regressives work hard to promote that notion, because it fits their silly meme that a popular sovereignty government is the enemy of the people. "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

The right is appealing to the worst elements of our nature and has nothing but contempt for most of us. At a time of terrific debt, they still insist on tax cuts, especially for the wealthy because the know others will be happy with scraps. They excuse it by saying the government spends to much money on "those people" ... you know the lazy ones and illegal immigrants with "welfare Cadillacs." They attack our free press as fake news. They point to people who have been fired for getting things wrong as evidence of bias, oblivious to this proving there is a price to pay in the news media for being wrong. Bottom line, the Regressives benefit if they can convince everyone the government is bad. Then, they can stop it from working on things like consumer and environmental protection. They can continue the trickle-on, free-lunch, supply-side scam that has led to the disparity of wealth and income we see today.
And, it is working. Saw a poll recently that showed more Americans believe the Regressives are better for the economy. There is no factual support for this. The economy has done better historically under Dems than it has under the people who gave us the Great Rightard Depression and the Great Rightard Recession. And, the Regressive administration in which the economy did really well was when Eisenhower did big-time taxing and spending. Tales of St. Raygun's great economy are myths. His mediocrity was achieved by putting the economy on a credit card so Yuppies could get rich and others got scraps. He then passed on huge deficits to Bubba, who not only cleaned up that mess but gave us a much better economy than anything we had under the gimper. Trickle-on II under bush gave us a recession that would have been a depression if not for Obama.
Both parties are not the same. Liberal and conservative philosophies are not the same. It is wrong and even intellectually lazy to be conned by that Regressive manipulation.


Didn't say they were the same, said they both are controlled by extremists that many do not agree with and are often disgusted by.

[Ricky Tavy]

America has always done better under tax and spend. You can look up the American System of the early 1800s, when this nation taxed and spent for infrastructure that built great wealth. You've heard of the Erie Canal.
The first great growth of the middle class occurred when the gov't provided protection to unskilled labor union under the New Deal, when FDR saved free enterprise. Rightard revisionism likes to say that FDR never fixed the Great Rightard Depression; WWII did. This is true, but WWII was taxing and spending on a level that made FDR look like a TBagger. After the war was over, Regressives started squawking about debt and spending and when they took power they implemented a policy of austerity. Naturally, we got a recession. Taxing and spending fixed it. Eisenhower taxed and spent like crazy. Top effective tax rate was nearly double what it is today. We spent on GI Bill education and home buying. We spent on a national highway system. We got our best economy ever. Trickle up has always worked. Trickle up has always had a lot of excuses for why it never has.

[Ricky Tavy]

Didn't say they were the same, said they both are controlled by extremists that many do not agree with and are often disgusted by.

If the Dems were controlled by the extremists, we would have single payer health care, instead of Obamacare. Bernie would have been the nominee instead of Hillary. As something of an extremist, I often complained about Obama's moderation and caution, along with many other liberals. Regressives are now dominated by TBaggers. They fear only a Koch brothers-funded challenge from farther right, if they get anywhere near moderation.

Fact is many Regressives are breathing a sigh of relief that McCain saved them from an abortion of health care legislation they dared not oppose for fear of aggravating nutjobs like Hannity and Limbaugh and losing the massive amounts of money the Koch brothers can use as a weapon.

[O E]

My my, funny how some time changes things, and how newer and newer things are found out.
---
The Week the Russia Conspiracy Theory Fell Apart

Investor William Browder testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that Fusion GPS, the firm that had been responsible for creating and pushing the so-called “Russia dossier” against Donald Trump, had been paid by the Russian government to push for the repeal of the human rights sanctions in the Magnitsky Act of 2012. In other words, the Russian government may have been paying to smear Trump with false and salacious accusations.

Sorry, Jim, but that's patently devastating.

Bannon's Breitbart, an outfit of abysmal, subterranean standards, in an almost completely fact-free propaganda piece, declares the Russia Conspiracy Theory fell apart, and you wouldn't read that thing with heightened alert?

For that Breitbart goon didn't even put the slightest effort into making his screed appear consistent. It's well known that Fusion GPS was initially hired by the Trumpy's Republican primary opponents to do oppo-research on the Trumpy. Russia had nothing to do with that. Moreover, reportedly the Trumpy would like very little more than to do away with the sanctions against Russia, so much to the U.S. Senate's chagrin that they moved to write those sanctions into law, with overwhelming support. Why on earth, given this situation, would the Russians even want to "smear Trump"?

You really have to marvel at that very athletic leap: The Russians hired Fusion GPS to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, hence they "may have been paying to smear Trump". Did you really buy that?

[O E]

Didn't say they were the same, said they both are controlled by extremists that many do not agree with and are often disgusted by. Please, amongst the many, name the top three "extremists" controlling the Democratic party. TIA!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Originally Posted by Ricky Tavy
I believe "both parties are equally bad" is cynicism pretending to be sophistication. The Regressives work hard to promote that notion, because it fits their silly meme that a popular sovereignty government is the enemy of the people. "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

The right is appealing to the worst elements of our nature and has nothing but contempt for most of us. At a time of terrific debt, they still insist on tax cuts, especially for the wealthy because the know others will be happy with scraps. They excuse it by saying the government spends to much money on "those people" ... you know the lazy ones and illegal immigrants with "welfare Cadillacs." They attack our free press as fake news. They point to people who have been fired for getting things wrong as evidence of bias, oblivious to this proving there is a price to pay in the news media for being wrong. Bottom line, the Regressives benefit if they can convince everyone the government is bad. Then, they can stop it from working on things like consumer and environmental protection. They can continue the trickle-on, free-lunch, supply-side scam that has led to the disparity of wealth and income we see today.
And, it is working. Saw a poll recently that showed more Americans believe the Regressives are better for the economy. There is no factual support for this. The economy has done better historically under Dems than it has under the people who gave us the Great Rightard Depression and the Great Rightard Recession. And, the Regressive administration in which the economy did really well was when Eisenhower did big-time taxing and spending. Tales of St. Raygun's great economy are myths. His mediocrity was achieved by putting the economy on a credit card so Yuppies could get rich and others got scraps. He then passed on huge deficits to Bubba, who not only cleaned up that mess but gave us a much better economy than anything we had under the gimper. Trickle-on II under bush gave us a recession that would have been a depression if not for Obama.
Both parties are not the same. Liberal and conservative philosophies are not the same. It is wrong and even intellectually lazy to be conned by that Regressive manipulation.


The right is appealing to the worst elements of our nature and has nothing but contempt for most of us. At a time of terrific debt, they still insist on tax cuts, especially for the wealthy because the know others will be happy with scraps.

^^ Obama spent more than all previous president combined, was he part of the--Right? -TYR



Trickle-on II under bush gave us a recession that would have been a depression if not for Obama.

Right and clever how you ignore the many extra trillions of dollars of debt that Obama --a dem by the way- left this nation with---while you castigate Reagan and Republicans.
^^ Hoss, riding a horse blind --bolds well for no man..-Tyr


It is wrong and even intellectually lazy to be conned by that Regressive manipulation.

^^^^ Lazy is not factoring in the deeds/actions of the side that one is obviously biased for.
As in daring to condemn Republicans for debt and financial malfunctioning . while entirely ignoring the glaring fact and tragic results in future
financial problem caused by the Obama excess/extra trillions spent/wasted..--Tyr

[PostmodernProphet]

Please, amongst the many, name the top three "extremists" controlling the Democratic party. TIA!
well, in recent years, there was Pelosi, and Reid, and Hilliary.....Obama.....I know you only asked for three, but the fourth is a freebie......

[Ricky Tavy]

^^ Obama spent more than all previous president combined, was he part of the--Right? -TYR

First, that is not only not true, it is absurd. Only a trumpy Deplorable could believe something so ludicrous. Second it is a clumsy deflection. I did not criticize spending. In fact I showed where government spending has always helped the economy. What I criticized indirectly was spending without taxing.



Right and clever how you ignore the many extra trillions of dollars of debt that Obama --a dem by the way- left this nation with---while you castigate Reagan and Republicans.
^^ Hoss, riding a horse blind --bolds well for no man..-Tyr

Given the silliness you've already swallowed, discussing structural debt would be a waste of time. Bottom line, Obama has lowered deficits and the rate of debt increase has slowed significantly from what bush and the Regressives handed off to him.




Lazy is not factoring in the deeds/actions of the side that one is obviously biased for.
As in daring to condemn Republicans for debt and financial malfunctioning . while entirely ignoring the glaring fact and tragic results in future
financial problem caused by the Obama excess/extra trillions spent/wasted..--Tyr

Irony is believing that talking like Yoda makes one poetic rather than pretentious. You have stated things as facts that are simply not true. That means what you believe is not based on evidence but on personal bias.

[PostmodernProphet]

First, that is not only not true, it is absurd.

it is, of course true......the national debt increased to over $19 trillion dollars during his eight year administration......

[jimnyc]

The Obama admin did in fact increase the deby by more than something like the last 30 or 40 years of presidents combined? I'd have to look it up for sure, but not worth it. Bottom line FOR SURE, is that it did go up dramatically.

Here's a fair take from Business Insider.

--

As part of the broader economic legacy of President Barack Obama, from jobs to the stock market, one of the most notable changes has been the increase in the national debt.

Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly $10,699,805,000,000.

As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at $19,573,445,000,000.

Based on the website USdebtclock.com, which extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday.

Thus, the national debt under Obama will have grown by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

[aboutime]

First, that is not only not true, it is absurd. Only a trumpy Deplorable could believe something so ludicrous. Second it is a clumsy deflection. I did not criticize spending. In fact I showed where government spending has always helped the economy. What I criticized indirectly was spending without taxing.




Given the silliness you've already swallowed, discussing structural debt would be a waste of time. Bottom line, Obama has lowered deficits and the rate of debt increase has slowed significantly from what bush and the Regressives handed off to him.





Irony is believing that talking like Yoda makes one poetic rather than pretentious. You have stated things as facts that are simply not true. That means what you believe is not based on evidence but on personal bias.


Poor, poor Ricky Tavi....Overdosed on DNC Kool-aid. Makes liberals Always Deny Actual PROVEN FACTS.....<img src="https://pics.onsizzle.com/official-drink-of-the-liberal-part-justin-trudno-dont-drink-14870617.png">
<img src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8a/1f/40/8a1f402b5ae222eadab61be4a3b4232e.jpg">
HOW MANY ARE STILL LEAKING IN WASHINGTON?
<img src="http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1210/fire-obama-democrats-battaile-politics-1350081099.jpg">

[PostmodernProphet]

The Obama admin did in fact increase the deby by more than something like the last 30 or 40 years of presidents combined?

actually......Bush increased the debt by more than ALL previous presidents combined........and Obama increased the debt by more than Bush PLUS all previous presidents combined.....