US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am sure we are all reading about Donny Jr's E-mails with Russia.

Let's assume what what is being reported is true

Let's, for a moment ignore the failure to report/lying as that is a different issue.

Was Jr, communicating with Russian nationals, in this context, in violation of a federal law?

I don't care if we did not like it, or if it was a poor decision. I just want to know if there was anything illegal about what he did.

I can't find any federal statutes that address this (other than the concealment and lying). None of the news media is citing any actual laws that Jr might have broken.

Which raises the question that if what he did was not illegal, why did he conceal it?

Whether his contact was legal or illegal is a pretty important issue. And if what he did was illegal, then an actual federal law should be cited.

I agree. I agree!

This could be a real windfall, take out Trump and if investigation reveals evidence of the Clinton corruption and ties to the Russians, two birds one stone. Win win.

Of course, you know, there was a lot of corruption by the Democrats during the election and the left and media don't seem as concerned. There was a member of the CNN staff feeding questions to the Clintons and who is asking federal law to be cited in that case? When Comey admited last summer that Hillary broke federal law, the whole thing was swept under the rug by Obama. Wheres the outrage?

I don't care if this leads to kicking Trump out of office, that would be fine by me. But I am amazed by the shock and outrage of some that Trump/Trump Jr tried to dig up dirt on Hillary to win the election yet can ignore their hypocrisy.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Warning this video contains vulgar language and hate speech.

Should be a number of videos about the morons who voted for Trump too!

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

[...] But I am amazed by the shock and outrage of some that Trump/Trump Jr tried to dig up dirt on Hillary to win the election yet can ignore their hypocrisy.

On one hand i guess every side has always tried to lie about the political enemy, like with Obama's birth certificate, being a muslim, the antichrist blah. In the same vein heaping dirt on H. Clinton also consisted entirely of lies and accusations, without evidence. It is just that the people were so peed off with the political circus that they voted for Trump.

I wonder why people wonder, that the democrats try to do the same

Regarding lieing, while Clinton is probably "the norm" for a politician, Trump is completely off the charts, Borderline pathological, as someone here said. By all means, they are really not in the same league.

[August]

Yet more Dem/Rus collusion:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/10/la...block-frackin/

The Daily Signal obtained a copy of the June 29 letter to Mnuchin from Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber, both Republicans who chair energy-related House panels. (See the full letter below.)
Smith and Weber quote sources saying the Russian government has been colluding with environmental groups to circulate “disinformation” and “propaganda” aimed at undermining hydraulic fracturing. Commonly called fracking, the process makes it possible to access natural gas deposits.
The sources include a former secretary-general of NATO, who is quoted by the GOP congressmen as saying:

Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.

This anti-fracking campaign seizes upon environmental issues and health concerns that could be used to constrain U.S. drilling and fracking exercises, the letter explains.
Gazprom, a large Russian oil company, stands to benefit if Russian-funded environmental activism results in reduced levels of fracking and natural gas production in the United States, Smith and Weber tell Mnuchin. They write:

It is easy to see the benefit to Russia and Gazprom that would result from a reduction in the U.S. level of drilling and fracking—a position advocated for by numerous environmental groups in the U.S.

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, joined Weber, chairman of that panel’s energy subcommittee, in calling on the treasury secretary to investigate whether Russia works with American environmental activists to prevent the U.S. from developing its natural gas resources.
Top U.S. government officials who have acknowledged the connection between Russian and environmental groups include former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.
In 2014, Clinton delivered a “private speech” in which she discussed Russia’s financial support for environmental groups, the letter says. The speech was included in documents released by WikiLeaks, it says.
An Oct. 10, 2016, report in The Washington Times quoted Clinton as saying:

We [the State Department and the U.S. government] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand up against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of that money supporting that effort was coming from Russia.

Contrary to what Russia’s propaganda machine and its environmental allies have told news consumers in Europe and America, fracking is safe, effective, and enormously beneficial, Nick Loris, an economist and energy policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.
“If successful, an anti-fracking campaign is depriving Americans of good-paying jobs and affordable, dependable energy,” Loris said. “Despite smears and outright lies from environmental activists, smart drilling and energy extraction technologies have been proven to be safe.”
“It feels like every week a new study is published, confirming what we already know,” he said. “Hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate drinking water. The facts and history of hydraulic fracturing, a history that dates back more than half a century and over 1 million fracked wells, indicate that many of the fears associated with the process are grossly exaggerated or flat-out unsubstantiated.”
Loris added:

The good news, however, is that the anti-fracking campaign really hasn’t been all that successful in ‘keeping it in the ground.’ The U.S. is the world’s largest petroleum and natural gas producer, and we can thank fracking and American energy companies for it.
The result is that money is going back into bank accounts of hardworking families through lower energy bills, and American businesses are more competitive because of lower input costs. And we’re in a position to supply our allies with power, significantly reducing the ability of any one nation’s ability to manipulate energy markets for political gain.

In their letter to the treasury secretary, Smith and Weber also say the Russians have been able to advance their strategy without “a paper trail.”
They pass along reports that Russia apparently funnels the money through a Bermuda-based “shell company” known as Klein Ltd.
Tens of millions of dollars are moved from Russia through Klein “in the form of anonymous donations” to a U.S.-based nonprofit called the Sea Change Foundation.
The money, the congressmen write, then is moved in the form of grants to U.S. environmental organizations.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by eddie

Should be a number of videos about the morons who voted for Trump too!

My intention was to post those too for a side by side example. I looked, but if you can find some that are as entertaining please do post

[mapuc]

To put it into one word - Confused

On one side I read comments by Platapus, MaDef, August and other of my friends

On the other hand I also hear and see the news and I hear and see these journallist and political expert on USA standing in front of the White House or are in the studio saying -mostly saying stuff that goes against what some of you have written.

Let me give you an example, last night I read Platapus latest comment in this thread about 3-5 minutes later I saw this Journalist who's an expert on American politics saying

"It's pure simpel it is not allowed for a person/government from a foreign country to get involved/take part in the American election and it's not allowed for a candidate or their "crew" to take contact to a person from another country if it's a part of the ongoing election
(I Can't remember exact phrase he used, it been some hours since I heard him saying these things)

So who's correct or have I misunderstood it all ?

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Catfish

On

Regarding lieing, while Clinton is probably "the norm" for a politician, Trump is completely off the charts, Borderline pathological, as someone here said. By all means, they are really not in the same league.

True. But the way the media and left is acting, wow, they're losing their minds. it's not like Donny Jr was selling uranium rights to the Russians for personal profit while sitting as Secretary of State. That's a little worse than pathological lying, don't you think? I don't remember your bursts of outrage over that.

[Catfish]

^ Probably because i did not believe it.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/
Read it til the end.

Also: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump...s-uranium.html
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-claim-about-/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c4dff68fdc01

The fact that Trump said a hundred times "she did it" does not make it true. This man is a notorious liar, doing anything to put himself into the spotlight. this is what his campaign all about, lie and throw dirt, and it will stick if you only repeat it a hundred times.

The other fact that alt-right to racist media like Breitbart are now regarded as "respectable" or "socially acceptable" really gives me the creeps.
The last good example was that "imperial wizard" (KKK) defending the southern honour publicly. Nope, not with me.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by mapuc

To put it into one word - Confused

On one side I read comments by Platapus, MaDef, August and other of my friends

On the other hand I also hear and see the news and I hear and see these journallist and political expert on USA standing in front of the White House or are in the studio saying -mostly saying stuff that goes against what some of you have written.

Let me give you an example, last night I read Platapus latest comment in this thread about 3-5 minutes later I saw this Journalist who's an expert on American politics saying

"It's pure simpel it is not allowed for a person/government from a foreign country to get involved/take part in the American election and it's not allowed for a candidate or their "crew" to take contact to a person from another country if it's a part of the ongoing election
(I Can't remember exact phrase he used, it been some hours since I heard him saying these things)

So who's correct or have I misunderstood it all ?

Markus

You understood correctly, however in this case as far as I'm aware, Trump jr was not involved in his Dad's campaign, nor did he hold any government position that would require him to report any foreign contacts. (I could be mistaken about him being part of the election campaign though).

As for the foreign interference, well that's a 2 edge sword. the U.S. has been doing it worldwide since the end of WWII. Back during the 96' election it came out that the Chinese were "buying" influence in U.S. elections. There was a big dust-up over campaign finance reform that never went anywhere. Obama tried to influence the Brexit vote with his speech. So what the Russians did this time out isn't really unprecedented or a surprise.

[Mr Quatro]

In hindsight: Who's deplorable's or should I say, which deplorable's were the one's that Hillary Clinton was referring to in her famous last attempt to gain control of the National Election?

Trump's or the Russian's?

Surely the Russian's knew they would get caught after the election.

They left enough clues.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ Probably because i did not believe it.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/
Read it til the end.

Also: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump...s-uranium.html
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-claim-about-/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c4dff68fdc01

The fact that Trump said a hundred times "she did it" does not make it true. This man is a notorious liar, doing anything to put himself into the spotlight. this is what his campaign all about, lie and throw dirt, and it will stick if you only repeat it a hundred times.

The other fact that alt-right to racist media like Breitbart are now regarded as "respectable" or "socially acceptable" really gives me the creeps.
The last good example was that "imperial wizard" (KKK) defending the southern honour publicly. Nope, not with me.

Then how about this 2015 article from no less than the NYT that supports what Trump has said? Maybe it's this article published when the NYT still pretended to be neutral that President Trump was thinking about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the
world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium
production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a
strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had
to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number
of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually
signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,
Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three
separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow
of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman
used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35
million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the
Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama
White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to
the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a
majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a
Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
that was promoting Uranium One stock.

So none of this happened? The Russians didn't get controlling interest in Uranium One? The Clinton foundation never got those donations? Bill never got half a million bucks from the Russians for a speech? I think you pick your sources but one thing is for sure. Clinton herself claimed to be dead broke when she left the White House (maybe that's why they tried to steal the furniture) but now she is worth millions. Pretty good for a poor public servant just trying to help people...

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mapuc

So who's correct or have I misunderstood it all ?

Markus

It is quite simple, actually. If someone claims that an action is not allowed, simply ask them to cite the law/regulation that was violated.

During the Bush Jr, Obama, and now the Trump administration there are people claiming that each has been doing wrong stuff. Often the word treason is improperly bantered about along with claims that impeachment is imminent. I have always asked the same question

What is the citation to the federal/state law or regulation what was broken. Still waiting for the answer.

Not liking the president
No agreeing with the president
Having a president that is a moron
Having a president that makes decisions contrary to our opinion
Having a president that is an embarrassment to our country
... about a hundred more lines

None of these are grounds for impeachment. The president has to violate federal law.

So if an article discusses how unfit a president is but does not cite a law being violated, or if you are talking to someone who claims that the president needs to be impeached but can't cite a federal law --- it is safe to ignore them. They probably don't know what they are talking about and are confusing their opinion with facts.

[Catfish]

So the New York Times criticized a democrat for alleged corruption, can this be even possible . Seems they are not so "left" then?

Originally Posted by August

[...] So none of this happened? [...]

Exactly. At least not as the Donald perpetrated that in his tweets and speeches. Mr Clinton gets money of such an amount for speeches all the time, to pick that one out only seems to support a connection with the the "uranium deal", where there is most probably none.

Regarding the "deal" itself i do not know why it was considered at all if it was so "treacherous", but the whole US made the deal – why? There will be a reason, but do you really think even the democrats want to shift power and resources to Russia just so, for a bit of personal benefit?

And among (! – there were others) all those agencies that eventually signed off the deal was indeed the State Department, then headed by Mrs. Clinton. But just because she was the head of said agency, she was not allowed to interfere, and had no say in the matter. See first link above.

You can e.g. make Trump responsible for anything happening in America since he is the president, but it is neither reasonable nor true.

Where exactly did H. Clinton break the law?

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Where exactly did H. Clinton break the law?

Her husband Bill Clinton broke the law ... it's called a moral law of power and money influenced by the position he once held. They were both corrupt and never fully prosecuted by the law just the voting public.

All three Bill, Hillary and Trump should not be lumped together, but judged separately by their coats of many colors. America is not waiting for the FBI to give it's final verdict ... they are deciding everyday based on the media. The media is not in business to white wash Trump due to the business of making money off of "breaking news".

Three years, three months and one week till the next National Election ... I still don't think Trump will make it that far ... His own party is at stake here in just one year and three months. I'm really not that good at guessing, but VP Pence looks like the front runner in 2020 to me.

[Onkel Neal]

All this just shows one thing: people will believe what they want to believe.