The Trump / Russia Controversy

[Claeyt]

luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul zealot till the end. Brainwashed as *****

Yet the questions remain....

If Clinton did anything illegal EVER then why don't Trump and Sessions open an investigation or prosecute her? Why doesn't Congress investigate her foundation?

Trump's foundation is now under investigation by the NY Attorney General. He was forced to shut it down and give back the money. Subpoenas have been sent and a grand jury is active. Why is no Republican led State AG doing the same to Clinton's foundation?

Answer any of these or admit that you believed the lies of the Republican Party and Trump.

[Chrumps]

Her foundation did much good in the world.

src: http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2 ... e98d-9.pdf

So she spent more cash on conferences than on actual grants. Even amortization costs are higher than grants. 5.7% of total expenses and some 3% of total revenues is "much good", yeah.

Perfectly legal of course, people on gov positions are usually intelligent enough not to do anything obviously illegal.

If Clinton did anything illegal EVER then why don't Trump and Sessions open an investigation or prosecute her?

What would be the point of doing that ? She lost. She's too old to run for the next elections. Why waste precious resources ?

[Dallane]

Answer any of these or admit that you believed the lies of the Republican Party and Trump.

You saying this shows exactly how desperate you people are. You are completely obsessed and everyone here ignores this thread other than me and meow trolling you for the last few months.

[TotalyMeow]

Then you probably got it from farther up the human centipede of right wing nonsense "news".

I think it's funny how Claeyt is always so concerned with WHERE I get my information whenever I say something he can't argue with factually. It's a variation on the ad hominim fallacy, I suppose; if you can't argue effectively against the information being presented, imply that your opponent has some character flaw that somehow invalidates anything they say. In this case, he's implying that because I might have gotten my information from somewhere like FOX (and he's trying also to imply that FOX is somehow less trustworthy than other media sources) that it's not even worth trying to refute the facts of what I say because obviously I'm not trustworthy. This is actually a favorite tactic of the Left. When there's a scandal on the Right, they are concerned with the scandal, when it's on the Left, they're concerned with with WHERE the information is coming from, and try only to discredit the source in hopes the facts then won't matter. The irony here is that I got this information from sources he loves to quote such as WaPo and NYT, and direct interviews with people like Susan Rice. The facts DO get mentioned sometimes, they are just glossed over and not talked about subsequently.

tell me your rational thoughts why Quatari gov would be giving money do Clinton Foundation.
... etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GHth-bt0Qs

[Dallane]

[Claeyt]

Then you probably got it from farther up the human centipede of right wing nonsense "news".

I think it's funny how Claeyt is always so concerned with WHERE I get my information whenever I say something he can't argue with factually. It's a variation on the ad hominim fallacy, I suppose; if you can't argue effectively against the information being presented, imply that your opponent has some character flaw that somehow invalidates anything they say. In this case, he's implying that because I might have gotten my information from somewhere like FOX (and he's trying also to imply that FOX is somehow less trustworthy than other media sources) that it's not even worth trying to refute the facts of what I say because obviously I'm not trustworthy. This is actually a favorite tactic of the Left. When there's a scandal on the Right, they are concerned with the scandal, when it's on the Left, they're concerned with with WHERE the information is coming from, and try only to discredit the source in hopes the facts then won't matter. The irony here is that I got this information from sources he loves to quote such as WaPo and NYT, and direct interviews with people like Susan Rice. The facts DO get mentioned sometimes, they are just glossed over and not talked about subsequently.

You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't asking where you got it. It clearly came from right wing nonsense news because all of them were running the same false news at the same time that day. Brietbart and other deep right wing outlets were pushing it after the Nunes thing and the Trump false hacking tweets. Fox and Trump both echoed it and mainstreamed it. Meanwhile Facebook and counter-intelligence experts stated that Russia's 15,000 person bot army were also pushing the Rice story endlessly to mainstream social media sites and pushing it to the top of Twitter and Facebook news streams.

...and that's how you heard about it.

How do I know you heard it from one of those sources?

Because every moderate conservative news source didn't call it "illegal". Only nonsense news sources called it "illegal". There is zero proof that anything about what she did is illegal.

If you want clear and factual conservative newspapers and want to avoid the nonsense right wing ***** then read the Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, or the Chicago Tribune. Locally I have the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as a moderate conservative paper.

If you're looking for good online conservative sources that use facts and avoid spouting off vast tornadoes of hyperbole then stick with Red State. Even Drudge is slightly based in reality and won't parrot Russian news for long.

For radio, I'm a huge fan of conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes and he's going national as a conservative commentator on MSNBC and other opinion shows.

____________________________________

Now, since you posted the ***** parroting of the Susan Rice story 2 days ago here's what's happened.

1. Susan Rice went on a bunch of news shows and denied absolutely all of it and said she would testify in front of the HIC (House Intelligence Committee) at any time they want.

2. The White House allowed Schiff to see some of what Nunes was given but is refusing to release it all or provide any other sources for Trump's wild claim that Rice committed a crime. The White House is refusing to give the other HIC members besides Nunes (including the other Republicans) all of what Nunes saw and is even refusing to give easy little things to the HIC like the White House log (to see who signed Nunes in) or the actual source of the request by Susan Rice for the requested names to be unmasked by the NSC which the White House is saying was illegal. Both of these could be gotten in a matter of minutes and are simple items to collect so as to show who worked with Nunes and what actual names Rice asked for.

3. It was revealed that Nunes was given the information by 3 people within the White House and then that he lied when he said he returned to the White House to brief the president on it. I've talked about 2 of them already. The third was an assistant White House counsel. The important thing though is that apparently the NSC assistant that was promoted by Flynn had been put to work on finding proof of Trump's "Hacked Trump Tower" tweet so as to prove it true after the fact. This means that the White House was using the NSC for political reasons but also to possibly find out what evidence of foreign collusion the FBI had been given by the NSC and Susan Rice during the transition.

4. Every single person with connections with the intelligence agencies in the past who is not currently working for the White House (including Bush, Obama, Reagan and Bush appointees to the NSC) have now come out for Susan Rice's actions and said she was just doing her job to protect the country if she did unmask the names of Trump's Russia connections so that the FBI and the CIA/NSA counter Intelligence investigations could know who they were. There is zero proof that any of what she requested was ever leaked.

5. Schiff has now said that the White House is lying about Rice so as to distract the HIC's investigation.

6. Ohh, and Nunes canceled public hearings by the HIC for the future, canceled all private hearings for 2 weeks and is denying the Dem's on the committee from calling Yates to testify.

So to summarize: Susan Rice did her job, didn't leak it and helped the FBI's investigation with their counter intelligence investigation into one of the largest breaches this country has ever seen. Meanwhile Trump accuses her of committing a crime and then provides NO proof of that and actually refuses to release basic information, that would take minutes to look up, from White House archives that would prove if his accusation is true.

Answer any of these or admit that you believed the lies of the Republican Party and Trump.

You saying this shows exactly how desperate you people are. You are completely obsessed and everyone here ignores this thread other than me and meow trolling you for the last few months.

Who's desperate? Trump's providing his own noose.

I'm absolutely obsessed with Trump and his multitude of aides possibly colluding with Russian Intelligence. If completely true this would be the most important story in this country since WWII or possibly the end of the Cold War. It would fundamentally change how this country works.

Even now, with Flynn getting fired and asking for immunity, the FBI counter-intelligence investigation, Nunes's idiotic midnight run to the White House and all the stupid back channel meets by Prince, Page and Stone this will be a huge story for years and it seems as if it's not slowing down.

We never had this much excitement during the Obama administration even with all the partisan Benghazi horse ****. If the Republicans lose the House (and I think they do) and all of a sudden the Dem's control the committee chairs to investigate this will explode like wildfire. The only hope for Republicans is to send this to a special committee otherwise Trump will drag them underwater with all this.

So she spent more cash on conferences than on actual grants. Even amortization costs are higher than grants. 5.7% of total expenses and some 3% of total revenues is "much good", yeah.

Perfectly legal of course, people on gov positions are usually intelligent enough not to do anything obviously illegal.

I have zero idea what you're trying to say with this image. They have an 88% distribution rate which is huge for any charity. Grants are just part of what they give. They also pay for stuff like doctors and aid's drugs in Africa along with building schools for girls in Africa. They're one of the largest distributor of aids drugs in the world. They distribute 88% of what they take in according to charity watch groups and have the highest grade from charity watch group 'Charity Navigator'. That means that the Clinton foundation distributed over 100 million for programs while most of the rest probably went to pay for local charity workers, administration and distribution expenses.

As for conferences, why wouldn't charities put on conference to educate people about stuff. 2 big things just mentioned on the wikipedia page prove why they payed for conferences. The Clinton Global Health initiative held conferences for doctors wanting to work in 3rd world countries. They also hold a massive Aids conference in Africa for doctors and medical staff to attend and coordinate distribution. Why would you think conferences are bad?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

It's hilarious that you were conned into thinking this charity was somehow the evil empire by Republicans and right wing radio.

If Clinton did anything illegal EVER then why don't Trump and Sessions open an investigation or prosecute her?

What would be the point of doing that ? She lost. She's too old to run for the next elections. Why waste precious resources ?

What would the point of prosecuting crime be? Didn't you guys yell lock her up for months and months? Are you saying that people should only be prosecuted if they poss a political threat to your views?

Precious resources? The FBI investigation already happened and they cleared her. The Congressional investigation already happened and THEY cleared her. All Trump has to do if he actually thinks she did something illegal and isn't just lying to you so as to further his political ***** is tell Sessions to look into starting an investigation.

[Dallane]

[TotalyMeow]

You misunderstood my comment.

No, I did not. You are attempting to call into question the facts based on WHERE you think I heard them. You're still wrong though, even if the source does matter I don't frequent any of the sites you go on to list. I've never even read a Brietbart story, for example. No, all this that I have said comes from news sources you have quoted yourself.

here's what's happened.

[parroted *****]

I'm not sure how what Nunes did, whether it was the right thing or not, has anything to do with the actions of Susan Rice or of the Obama Administration last year or in previous years. It also doesn't matter if people who used to work in the intelligence community but don't any longer things she's a swell gall.

The Obama administration, especially in its last months, used its power inappropriately. When foreign agents are wiretapped or otherwise recorded, the names of American citizens are always masked to protect them; they are called things like American1 or American2 in all intelligence briefings to the White House. Susan Rice specifically requested that those names be unmasked in the reports that contained anyone associated with Trump or the Trump Campaign or the Trump Transition team after he won. She had no reason for doing that, legally, however Obama changed the rules of who could see unmasked names and who was allowed to request that unmasking to include quite a large number of people; more people than had ever been allowed to see or request such things before, so she was able to, herself, request that information and get it. So, that makes it marginally legal, however that doesn't make it right, and it was absolutely an abuse of power. She then went on to distribute these unmasked reports to the many people who were allowed to see them with the knowledge that the Obama administration was leaky enough that the press would get the information as intended. She KNEW it would be leaked, and the leaking of that information was absolutely illegal. I don't think I ever specifically said that she was the one who leaked anything, only that it had been leaked illegally and that she had recently been named as a person responsible, but if you got an impression otherwise, sorry. Really, she's been used as the fall guy before, this could be another case of that. Doesn't change the fact though that the actions happened and that they were wrong.

Edit: Not being familiar with the intricacies of SID Law, I've heard that the unmasking itself was illegal from some sources and that it was not from others (because of the aforementioned extended permissions), and don't know which is true. However, looking into it further there's this: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/111 ... SP0018.pdf , the actual regulations concerning Signals Intelligence and when names can be unmasked. It does seem that having the power to request that names be unmasked is not enough. There has to be a reason that fits certain specific allowed reasons. Unmasking names for political purposes is illegal.

We never had this much excitement during the Obama administration

Well, the press was too busy sucking Obama's ***** to do anything else. :/

the partisan Benghazi horse ****.

Wow.

[Claeyt]

You misunderstood my comment.

No, I did not. You are attempting to call into question the facts based on WHERE you think I heard them. You're still wrong though, even if the source does matter I don't frequent any of the sites you go on to list. I've never even read a Brietbart story, for example. No, all this that I have said comes from news sources you have quoted yourself.

Then why not say where you got it from?

here's what's happened.

[parroted *****]

I'm not sure how what Nunes did, whether it was the right thing or not, has anything to do with the actions of Susan Rice or of the Obama Administration last year or in previous years. It also doesn't matter if people who used to work in the intelligence community but don't any longer things she's a swell gall.

...and that's why Trump is flailing because he doesn't think it matters either. The problem with that is that it does matter. Government is about service to your country, no matter your political beliefs. It's for people who like to sit through boring meetings about sewage, taxes, complex FBI investigations or NSA intercepts that possibly compromise America's democracy. Susan Rice is one of those people and so are many, many Republicans and they value that while Trump's cronies don't. It's called respect for the public servant and it's why Trump is having so many problems.

Nunes tried to drag her into it and it failed.

The Obama administration, especially in its last months, used its power inappropriately. When foreign agents are wiretapped or otherwise recorded, the names of American citizens are always masked to protect them; they are called things like American1 or American2 in all intelligence briefings to the White House. Susan Rice specifically requested that those names be unmasked in the reports that contained anyone associated with Trump or the Trump Campaign or the Trump Transition team after he won. She had no reason for doing that, legally, however Obama changed the rules of who could see unmasked names and who was allowed to request that unmasking to include quite a large number of people; more people than had ever been allowed to see or request such things before, so she was able to, herself, request that information and get it. So, that makes it marginally legal, however that doesn't make it right, and it was absolutely an abuse of power. She then went on to distribute these unmasked reports to the many people who were allowed to see them with the knowledge that the Obama administration was leaky enough that the press would get the information as intended. She KNEW it would be leaked, and the leaking of that information was absolutely illegal. I don't think I ever specifically said that she was the one who leaked anything, only that it had been leaked illegally and that she had recently been named as a person responsible, but if you got an impression otherwise, sorry. Really, she's been used as the fall guy before, this could be another case of that. Doesn't change the fact though that the actions happened and that they were wrong.

First off:

1. There is zero proof that Obama used his powers inappropriately or had any connection to Susan Rice's actions. All Trump would have to do is release any inappropriate requests to the Republican controlled HIC (House Intelligence Committee) or any proof of intelligence mismanagement. He has refused to do this even though Adam Schiff and 2 Republican Senator's on the Senate Intelligence committee have requested him to do so now.

2. The reason Susan Rice had for requesting the unmasking was to make that information available to the FBI, CIA and NSA in the ever expanding counter-intelligence investigation. If the CIA collected information containing an American talking on the phone then the only way the NSA would see that name is if it was Unmasked.

3. The "quite large amount of people" is like 40 and it went up from 25 and they did that 2 years before when they changed the NSC structure. There's this false narrative that somehow unmasked information isn't still classified and that it was passed out via email. This is false. Only the tops of their departments would have ever seen the names or the information and a legal justification would have been requested for them to do so.

4. It was not an abuse of power. It is in her job description to manage this information and get it into the FBI's hands if it relates to their investigation.

5. NONE OF THE INFORMATION WAS LEAKED. ABSOLUTELY NONE OF IT. NONE OF THE NAMES HAVE BEEN LEAKED AND NONE OF THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN LEAKED ACCORDING TO ***** NUNES FFS.

6. None of it was leaked. We still have no idea what anyone said to any of the Russians. For the record Sessions contact and Kuschner's contact was through simple deductive reporting and neither of them met super secretly. It's just WHO they met with that is strange. Erik Prince's, Carter Page's and some of Flynn's meetings were all passed on and confirmed by foreign intelligence agencies (Estonia, Arabic, MI-6 and other European sources) AND they met overseas so they would not have been protected by FISA law. Carter Page's ties with Russians back in 2013 came out through the court documents and FBI investigation at the time. Flynn's other meetings all came from MI-6 apparently while he was in Russia. Manafort's connections are leaking continuously from Ukraine. ***** Stone's contacts with Gucifer 2.0 and Julian Assange, he flat out bragged about to a reporter and live on television.

The only 2 who may have been involved with Susan Rice's unmasking are Flynn's contact with the Russian Ambassador and some of Manafort's money laundering operation in the Caribbean.

7. This leads us to why she did it. Everything I've read is that she specifically did this so as to get these foreign collected information and the Flynn tapes into Comey's hands and into the ever growing FBI/CIA/NSA counter-intelligence investigation and specifically into the FBI criminal investigation. This was exactly what her job was. She was responsible to request information that seemed criminal or espionage into the FBI's hands.

Again, She, herself didn't unmask it. The NSC unmasks it and it IS NOT a political operation. It is military and intelligence with very few political appointees on it and again, nothing she unmasked has been leaked as far as we know. The leaks are most likely coming from inside the CIA and the FBI investigation but are just that the meetings happened. Not anything that was said in the meetings.

_________________________________________________________________________

Okay then... the legalese

Here's a nice bit by MTP daily explaining it with a former NSA lawyer:

http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/un ... 3971267826

She absolutely had the legal authority to request they be unmasked it's a requirement of the unmasking that a legal reason be given to the NSC who chooses to unmask or not to unmask. For those who don't know about this, "unmasking" means revealing the name of either Americans caught talking to foreign nationals or the name of an American that 2 foreign nationals mentioned. This is done hundreds of times a year through the NSC (National Security Council) lawyers with FISA court oversight on each request that involves collected information by phone or electronic device.

Susan Rice could not of just unilaterally unmask anyone. This is why this is an argument about nothing and a smokescreen. She would have put in a simple request form asking who, 'legally; why' and 'purpose; why'. Trump has refused to release this form to the HIC who would be in charge of any oversight of it. She can't put in multiple names unless they're all on the individual piece of intelligence. She can request one of 2 things. Either she can request all Americans in a specific piece of intelligence be released or she can request that an individual American's name be released across multiple pieces of intelligence. She has to give a reason why she wants it to be unmasked. The NSC under the watch of the FISA court then decides if it's legal and a good reason.

Edit: Not being familiar with the intricacies of SID Law, I've heard that the unmasking itself was illegal from some sources and that it was not from others (because of the aforementioned extended permissions), and don't know which is true. However, looking into it further there's this: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/111 ... SP0018.pdf , the actual regulations concerning Signals Intelligence and when names can be unmasked. It does seem that having the power to request that names be unmasked is not enough. There has to be a reason that fits certain specific allowed reasons. Unmasking names for political purposes is illegal.

This was of course not illegal. Even Nunes says so. Only Trump, a few Republican supporters and the White House aides are saying it's illegal.

There is zero proof that she did it for political purposes. Exactly how does it help Obama politically to do it after the election during the transition. All real news sources are speculating that she may have done it so the FBI and counter intelligence teams had the information and did it so Trump couldn't obstruct the investigation by not releasing it to the head of the FBI and Counter Intel Investigators.

We never had this much excitement during the Obama administration

Well, the press was too busy sucking Obama's ***** to do anything else. :/

Nope. I know you hate to think about it but Obama was actually the president with the least amount of scandals since Eisenhower. There's a reason the economy grew so well.

the partisan Benghazi horse ****.

Wow.

9 Benghazi investigations in Congress and none of them did anything now or then. All of them found nothing and blamed DoD and CIA response times. The only thing they had on Clinton or Rice is that they lied in the immediate aftermath of the attack so as to throw off the attackers while Libyan and NATO prepared a counter attack. A few weeks later they told the truth. Why ***** up your counter attack if you don't have to. Libyan military officials have since attacked the militia that was responsible and removed them from the quagmire of Libya.

[Chrumps]

I have zero idea what you're trying to say with this image. They have an 88% distribution rate which is huge for any charity. Grants are just part of what they give. They also pay for stuff like doctors and aid's drugs in Africa along with building schools for girls in Africa. They're one of the largest distributor of aids drugs in the world. They distribute 88% of what they take in according to charity watch groups and have the highest grade from charity watch group 'Charity Navigator'. That means that the Clinton foundation distributed over 100 million for programs while most of the rest probably went to pay for local charity workers, administration and distribution expenses.

I have earlier linked their IRS documents for you to review yourself. Neither Charity Watch nor Charity Navigator define which items from IRS form they count as "delivering services" so I have no way to verify what they did. If you bothered looking into section IX of the form you would see more detailed structure of expenses. What I see in that structure is huge money for foundation employees and quite a lot for travel and occupancy. Apparently that is counted into those 88% "efficiency".

One of the things you seem to not understand is that if two people do the same charity thing and one spends 1000$ on it while another spends 100$ on it, they both can have 100% efficiency.

As for conferences, why wouldn't charities put on conference to educate people about stuff. 2 big things just mentioned on the wikipedia page prove why they payed for conferences. The Clinton Global Health initiative held conferences for doctors wanting to work in 3rd world countries. They also hold a massive Aids conference in Africa for doctors and medical staff to attend and coordinate distribution. Why would you think conferences are bad?

13 million bucks for conferences ? Calculating 500$ per person-day on conference that would be 26000 person-days of conferences. Add to that another 13 million bucks from Clinton Health Access initiative. This is either unbelievable or insanely expensive. Services in Africa are cheap.

I could go on with other items on that IRS doc. It all looks like a huge office work with little outside product. I have no time to bother with that.

It's hilarious that you were conned into thinking this charity was somehow the evil empire by Republicans and right wing radio.

It's hilarious how you believe whatever leftist media is spilling out without doing your own research.

What would the point of prosecuting crime be? Didn't you guys yell lock her up for months and months? Are you saying that people should only be prosecuted if they poss a political threat to your views?
Precious resources? The FBI investigation already happened and they cleared her. The Congressional investigation already happened and THEY cleared her. All Trump has to do if he actually thinks she did something illegal and isn't just lying to you so as to further his political ***** is tell Sessions to look into starting an investigation.

Your problem is that you believe crime has to be prosecuted, as if you never learned anything from this game. You do not understand you can have as much justice as you are willing to fight for. Yes, I am saying crime will be prosecuted only when it brings some benefits to the prosecuting party. Be it political advantages, gang competition, neighbour animosities or just self esteem and salary for an ordinary cop. See how bankers responsible for 2008 crash were "punished".
Precious resources as trusted people who would actually want to look deep enough to find some dirt.
Also the Clinton part is just a small part of the whole thing and increasingly becomes a distraction only. As I said she's finished. The real Trump adversaries are elsewhere.

I did not yell to lock Hillary. I am not a citizen of US and I hope I would never want to be, so it is not my job to bother with Hillary.
I just do not trust her and all your leftist side of political scene so much that if anyone of you says the Earth is turning around the Sun I would check through the window to see if the Sun is falling.
It does not mean I trust the right side of the scene either. I do my own fact checking.