The REAL Russia scandal

thethe said:
Why was it OK that muellers team donated money to democrats though? Why are they now not biased?
Click to expand...

If Obama was being investigated do you want a Republican or a Democrat doing the investigation? If he has nothing it doesn't matter who it is.
 
Julio3000 said:
It's a matter of public record that this particular echelon of the profession donates more to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant margin...as does the profession as a whole.

A lot of the attorneys that the Trump administration folks have retained are also significant D donors. Hell, Trump's lead attorney has donated to some very prominent left-leaning D's.

What this means to me is that, while it doesn't guarantee a lack of bias, it at least indicates that they have been able to do their jobs without bias and adhere to the ethical standards of their profession in the course of reaching that level of professional success. Is it always going to work that way? Probably not. Does it, generally? Yes.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair argument but there is still overlap between what you felt didn't impair the objectivity of an investigation and what does.
 
cajunrevenge said:
If Obama was being investigated do you want a Republican or a Democrat doing the investigation? If he has nothing it doesn't matter who it is.
Click to expand...

I would want someone who was bias because it lines up with my bias. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.

We are now basically a year into the investigation and no smoking gun. Let's check back in after year 3.
 
thethe said:
I would want someone who was bias because it lines up with my bias. That doesn't mean it's the right choice.

We are now basically a year into the investigation and no smoking gun. Let's check back in after year 3.
Click to expand...

So, shorter than the Whitewater, Benghazi, or Watergate investigations, is what you're saying.
 
Julio3000 said:
So, shorter than the Whitewater, Benghazi, or Watergate investigations, is what you're saying.
Click to expand...

This will go on for a long time because they won't stop until they find something. Obviously that is the point of the investigation but we've been told countless times how it was proven and trump is going to be impeached.
 
thethe said:
Why was it OK that muellers team donated money to democrats though? Why are they now not biased?
Click to expand...

Everyone is biased. The Supreme Court should be the most unbiased group in the country, but both sides fight over getting "their" judge appointed.
 
Trump finally tweeted about it!

Good thing he's been in office for almost 10 months already! One day people will see past his diversion and smokescreen tactics.
 
Forever Fredi said:
Trump finally tweeted about it!

Good thing he's been in office for almost 10 months already! One day people will see past his diversion and smokescreen tactics.
Click to expand...

The pee tape is real

We just need that poker tell of his to know he's lying "trust me..."
 
There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.6b32c9d570a9

pinocchio_4.jpg
 
So is the Mercer family the "actual left's" version of George Soros? I thought that role was reserved for the Koch bros.

I get lost in mega-wealthy boogeyman angle game.
 
Hawk said:
So is the Mercer family the "actual left's" version of George Soros? I thought that role was reserved for the Koch bros.

I get lost in mega-wealthy boogeyman angle game.
Click to expand...

I dunno. You tell me. They invested $10M in Breitbart, $5M in Cambridge Analytica, and gave at least $2M to Citizens United. Bannon and David Bossie from CU ended up running Trump's campaign and CA did their data work. They've backed Bannon in lots of his other ventures. They bankrolled the Clinton Cash book and documentary (c.f. the recent piece that had Bannon and Yiannopolous celebrating its publication aboard Robert Mercer's yacht).

That seems a whole lot more specific and substantial than the vague Soros bogeyman stories about BLM and "paid protesters."

But, yeah, the mega-rich bankroll our political infrastructure, in a particularly un-transparent way. This is the post-Citizens United vs. Clinton world we live in. The Kochs, the Mercers, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, Tom Steyer... but I'm making a specific allegation about where the money for a specific project came from. Are you disputing it?

Are you disputing that the Mercers bankrolled the Clinton Cash book, or that they're the money behind Breitbart and various other Bannon ventures?
 
More to the point, do you think that the story at issue is on the level? Do you think that its genesis makes it a teensy bit suspect?
 
Julio3000 said:
I dunno. You tell me. They invested $10M in Breitbart, $5M in Cambridge Analytica, and gave at least $2M to Citizens United. Bannon and David Bossie from CU ended up running Trump's campaign and CA did their data work. They've backed Bannon in lots of his other ventures. They bankrolled the Clinton Cash book and documentary (c.f. the recent piece that had Bannon and Yiannopolous celebrating its publication aboard Robert Mercer's yacht).

That seems a whole lot more specific and substantial than the vague Soros bogeyman stories about BLM and "paid protesters."

But, yeah, the mega-rich bankroll our political infrastructure, in a particularly un-transparent way. This is the post-Citizens United vs. Clinton world we live in. The Kochs, the Mercers, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, Tom Steyer... but I'm making a specific allegation about where the money for a specific project came from. Are you disputing it?

Are you disputing that the Mercers bankrolled the Clinton Cash book, or that they're the money behind Breitbart and various other Bannon ventures?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not disputing it. And I'm not surprised that they are a part of the money (although I do think it's important to distinguish that they are not all of the money) behind these various ventures/causes. That's what these individuals do - they donate to things that advance their politi-ideological interests. Politics is doused in shady money and I don't think where it comes from is necessarily revelatory at all.

That a conservative would help fund a project that assails liberal ideologues/causes is not shocking. Do you think a liberal would make that investment?

For what it's worth, I'm all about extracting excessive/illegal/corporate/mega donations it from the political sphere by whatever means necessary.
 
Julio3000 said:
More to the point, do you think that the story at issue is on the level? Do you think that its genesis makes it a teensy bit suspect?
Click to expand...

I honestly haven't had a chance to follow it aside from skimming the posts in this thread. Just finishing up a cross-country move that's kept me in a relative news/pop culture void for the past week.
 
I think that every dime that is donated to the advancement of any political cause should be 100% transparent. No dark money, no Super-PACs, no ambiguity. That seems like a reasonable position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top