Trump Loyalists

[Dill]

(05-19-2017, 05:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Ok Obama's, make a line in the sand and stand by it, stop redrawing it.
But fyi,  Podesta did fail to fully disclose his position on the board of directors (he owned 75k shares) of Joule Unlimited and include it in his fed financial disclosures as required by law before the became Obama's Senior Advisor in Jan 2014. Joule' received upwards of $35 Mill from the Russian Government. 

So you were saying?

Also Clinton's $500k "speech fee" came right before Hillary signed off on the the 20% sale of the US Uranium. Coincidence? I think not.
Uranium One's chairman Russian Ian Telfer used his Family Foundation and donated another $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation that Hillary failed to disclose, other people with ties to the company also made donations to the CF that was also not disclosed as per the agreement between Obama's WH and Hillary to publicly identify all donors. 

So what's the new line now?  
Or are you going to accept that I said money flows from both sides to each others politicians for "favors".

This whole Russian hacking/influence thing was not a big enough of a deal for Obama to do anything about it until Hillary actually lost????
More Politics as usual, gotta find someone to blame for personal failures.

Mike I am glad you continue to ask questions about this subject. You ask that we stop redrawing lines in the sand, as if somehow a threshold or standard had been changed in our discussion of Trump. But what line has been redrawn?

I am not sure if Dino said the current Russia scandal was simply about whom Russian money flowed to. If he did then you certainly refuted him with your $500,000 Clinton speech.

But if he did not say that, then the Clinton reference is beside the point. No equivalence. Of course, Hillary did not sign off on a sale of 20% of US Uranium. That was a Trump oversimplification which lives on only in the bubble. I cannot find any real Podesta/Joule scandal outside of Breitbart and websites like Stormfront, Freerepublic, Teaparty.org, girlsjust wannahaveguns, and megynkelly.org.  Can you provide me with a reliable link to the scandal you reference? It concerns me that erroneous claims continue to influence people's political evaluations. I would like to examine this one more closely to makes sure I am not in error.

Benton mentioned money paid for "work completed" and that critical word--"staff." I have made it pretty clear that the issue for me--my "line in the sand"-- has been

1) Trump's JUDGMENT as evident in his placement of an unstable, compromised general at the NERVE CENTER OF THE US NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS, knowing he had been compromised and despite warnings. He fired one FBI Director for warning him about Flynn and another for continuing to investigate him. He let Russian diplomats and a TASS journalist into the White House practically unvetted--with international fallout, including a TASS news coup.  He continues to make missteps almost daily. His own dysfunctional White House has been leaking bombshells that undermine him. What in Hillary and Obama's world compares to this?

And 2) a pattern of contacts between Trump people and Russians while they were interfering in the election. Today we learn the Russians bragged they thought Flynn was an asset who could be used to influence Trump. The Russians were actively contacting/cultivating other assests as well--Paige, Stone, and more. Which Obama or Clinton people have been implicated in an intel scandal like this?  That Flynn received money is not the primary concern. The concern is rather that that money directly moved US national security decisions in directions desired by the donors.

The equivalence to 1 and 2 is not a speech in Moscow or the sale of stock to Russian companies--the flow of money to both sides for "favors."

To summarize, the current storm is not simply about whether people accepted money from Russia.[/b] Anti-Trumpsters are not simply saying "Trump people accepted money from Russia and that"s all bad." So you could refute them by pointing out that one-time Democratic office holders ALSO had Russian dealings.

Rather it is about this: as Russia interfered in the US election to favor Trump, a number of Trump operatives were talking to Russians who were looking for intel assets. It appears the Russians successfully cultivated some of these. Most of these Trumpsters initially denied contact or "forgot" about it. Now we learn of 18 more undisclosed contacts.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106. And Trump appears to have used his office to obstruct this intel investigation. This is already bad, and at the bottom may be something infinitely worse--collusion with the Russians to throw the election. Impeachment. Way beyond "politics as usual" and blaming people for personal failures.