Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 26, 2017

The Republicans have developed a theory of alt-collusion, centering on elements of these same facts. Their version of the story uses Steele's research in Russia as evidence that Steele is a tool of the Russian government. Steele's report, charges the The Wall Street Journal editorial page, is "based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources." ... It is obviously true that Steele's sources had some contact with the Kremlin. That, of course, is why they were sources. If they had no connections to the Russian government, Republicans could say they were ignorant people speculating on subjects they knew nothing about. But by pretending that Steele's sources were actually Kremlin agents, Republicans can proceed to hypothesize that they were deliberately spreading a message devised by Putin in order to smear Donald Trump.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The purpose of the theory of alt-collusion is not necessarily to be swallowed whole. It is merely to be taken plausibly enough to raise questions about Trump's investigators. If the FBI might be compromised by a sinister Russian conspiracy, then it follows that James Comey is suspect. And since Mueller is close with Comey, he too is suspect. ...

In some ways the theory of alt-collusion mirrors the propaganda methods used by Putin himself. When William Browder publicizes Russia's murder of crusading lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, Russia turns around and implies that maybe Browder is the one who murdered Magnitsky. The accusation is preposterous, but that doesn't matter. The purpose is to create an offsetting accusation against the accuser, so that the average bystander can only puzzle at the spectacle of two sides making the same allegation against each other.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Everyone colluded with russians.

Everyone except for Donald Trump."

-- every republican

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-26 07:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I love how republicans are walking around pretending like this never happened:

www.theguardian.com

The emails show music promoter Rob Goldstone telling the future US president's son that "the crown prosecutor of Russia" had offered "to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father".

British-born Goldstone adds in the exchange of 3 June 2016: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump."

Seventeen minutes later, Trump Jr welcomes this with the reply: "If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer."

If that had been obama or hillary's campaign, fox news would have started an additional channel just to handle all the coverage of it.

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-26 07:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Accuse the other side of doing what you are actually doing.

Republican strategy since Nixon.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-26 07:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Putin could piss in trump's in the middle of 5th Ave and morons will still believe he has noting to do with Russia.

#4 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-26 07:46 PM | Reply

Putin could piss in trump's mouth in the middle of 5th Ave and morons will still believe he has noting to do with Russia.

Fixed.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-26 07:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Well, if the rethugs, can't vet their own, might as well be the dems.

#6 | Posted by bat4255 at 2017-10-26 08:16 PM | Reply

This method can work if you have enough mouthpieces who are sufficiently devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect to be willing to spread your obviously absurd message. A key fact that Trump has discovered, and which has enabled his takeover of the Republican Party, is that this is a resource the American right has in abundant supply.

As seen in the comments here, and on my FB feed daily.

#7 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-26 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sophomoric and transparent to say the least.

#8 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-10-26 08:36 PM | Reply

"intellectual self-respect"

That's awesome, totally stealing that phrase.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-26 08:40 PM | Reply

Our system only works if the people responsible for the checks and balances actually do the work they are constitutionally obliged to do.

#10 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-26 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Our system only works if the people responsible for the checks and balances actually do the work they are constitutionally obliged to do."

Yeah I don't like the fact that powers vested in one branch can be assigned to the other, like when Congress passes an AUMF to let the President use War Powers.

They should have to declare War for the President to use War Powers.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-26 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


Chairman Nunes: "The people that made the Russians successful [in subverting the election] are the Democrats."
twitter.com

imo, Chairman Nunes is being used. The sad part is that he probably does not even know he is being used.

Chairman Nunes has shown already where his goals reside, running to the White House to tattle to Pres Trump.

Does not Chairman Nunes realize that he spent all of his credibility in that episode, that he needs to work on rebuilding his credibility, not continuing to spend what the credibility no longer has?

If only Pres Trump really would drain the swamp, instead of enabling and bolstering the incompetent stagnant lagoons thereof.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-10-26 11:11 PM | Reply

Are republican voters this stupid?

don't answer.

#15 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-10-26 11:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


Yikes...

to spend what the credibility no longer has?

should be

to spend the credibility no longer has?

(I know how to type, really...)

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-10-26 11:15 PM | Reply

I just realized that the headline for this post is incorrect: it should read, "GOP Spreads ---- Moronic Theory of Democratic Collusion"

#17 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-26 11:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This deflection plan has been in the works for a while (from an article dated June 30, 2017):

You know what another big scandal would be? If a political party used a well-financed Democrat oppo-research group to fake-up an intelligence file smearing a Republican candidate -- and then got the FBI and CIA involved with investigating the candidate based on those false findings. That would be quite something.

pjmedia.com

Mueller must be getting close.

"PJ Media was founded as Pajamas Media in 2004 by Charles Johnson, the blogger behind Little Green Footballs, and screen producer Roger L. Simon."

en.wikipedia.org

Charles Johnson is also the guy who recently went with Dana Rohrbacher to meet with Julian Assange:

www.businessinsider.com

#18 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-26 11:29 PM | Reply

Rep. Eric Swalwell‏ @RepSwalwell

Rep. Eric Swalwell Retweeted GOP
Please, everyone, save this tweet. Trust me. #TrumpRussia
5:47 PM - 26 Oct 2017

The tweet he is referring to:

GOP‏ @GOP

The script has flipped on the Russia investigation. Now Hillary and the DNC have explaining to do. Demand answers: gop.cm
9:48 AM - 26 Oct 2017

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-26 11:43 PM | Reply

Yep, Mueller must really be getting close:

The Senate Judiciary Committee's Russia Probe Just Blew Up

Republicans and Democrats are now pursuing their own investigations.

www.motherjones.com

Republicans spoil for a fight over Russia probe budget

Robert Mueller's first spending report must be reviewed by the Justice Department, but lawmakers are already questioning the open-ended use of taxpayer funds.

www.motherjones.com

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-26 11:53 PM | Reply

Has anyone even read the Dossier? In it, the author, Steele, actually lists multiple persons who provided the information and specifically identifies them as several different "high ranking Russian officials" and similar identifications. Before being so hasty in your criticism of this theory (and, by the way, attaching it to the entire "GOP") you may want to check out the most glaringly available facts which completely debunk your primary premise. Steele DID appropriate Russian officials in high ranking Russian positions-not merely, as you said, "persons with some connection to the Kremlin"- to provide the information he received. Thus the Dossier IS, as those who recognize the truth in this matter, promulgated by Russians for Steele who was, by their own admission, paid by the DNC- perhaps this is why no one in the DNC is now taking responsibility for making that payment. This is a REAL thing, contrary to the BS we've been hearing for 16 mos. in re: the "Russian collusion" of Trump, et al which is totally unsupported by any reliable, meaningful, convincing, genuine, authentic evidence of any kind. Wake up, my friends....wake up!

#21 | Posted by TrueBeliever76 at 2017-10-27 12:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

@#20 ...but lawmakers are already questioning the open-ended use of taxpayer funds....

The funds should be provided so that the investigators can determine what happened.

Yes, such an assignment is open-ended. But when you go into a serious investigation, you do not know where you will end up.

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-10-27 12:06 AM | Reply

Wait, the GOP is questioning investigative funds? You mean, they are going to go back to the 1990's and review the impeachment investigation, then to the Obama investigations and subsequently the years of HRC investigations? Cool!

#23 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-27 12:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#21

The dossier was first funded by Republicans.
We've known about it for over a year, this is not news.
Many of the components of the dossier were under investigation BEFORE the dossier was commissioned. Many other components of the dossier have been confirmed to be true.
Political campaigns do oppo research, just usually not in direct contact with foreign powers, like Drumpf Jr. did.

But continue to grasp at straws as the crap hits the fan. Panic is fun to watch with people who don't realize they're already knee-deep in it.

#24 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-27 12:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

How dare that fat bitch try to smear someone!

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-27 12:27 AM | Reply

Ever had someone recommend a coupla "great" movies to you, then when you watch them they're so awful that you can't even finish them?

#26 is telling you that you really need to check out The Fast And The Furious part 8.

#27 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-27 06:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

The DR shows there are people who will literally believe anything they read from their Conservative sources. Sniper, Humtake, JeffJ, AFK, etc. etc.

You can fool some of the people all of the time and they are called Republicans.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 10:28 AM | Reply

GOP winds down Russia probes with Trump collusion unanswered

www.politico.com

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 10:48 AM | Reply

GOP winds down Russia probes with Trump collusion unanswered
www.politico.com

#29 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

And we were expecting...?

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 10:59 AM | Reply

If there's no evidence of Trump collusion, there's no evidence.

The only evidence so far points to a botched reset, pay-for-play uranium deal gone bad, and a fabricated dossier purchased by the DNC and Clinton campaign (which Hillary is SHOCKED to learn).

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-27 11:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

Let's see: what came out this week that Trump and GOP want to cover up:

The Trump campaign is scrambling to distance itself from Cambridge Analytica amid Assange-Hillary Clinton email flap

Key members of President Donald Trump's campaign team scrambled Wednesday to distance themselves from the data mining and analysis company Cambridge Analytica, whose CEO reportedly reached out to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during the presidential campaign to offer help in finding Hillary Clinton's "missing" emails.

www.businessinsider.com

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 11:07 AM | Reply

#32 deflection duly noted.

#33 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-27 11:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"This method can work if you have enough mouthpieces who are sufficiently devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect to be willing to spread your obviously absurd message."

They aren't devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect, they are paid shills. They will say anything they are told to say. That is the right wing news media today, a bunch of sold-out pieces of crap who lost their patriotism for the love of the dollar.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 11:20 AM | Reply

"#32 deflection duly noted."

Your own comment is the deflection not Gal's, hers was quite pertinent to the discussion. But that's what happens when you pretend to be someone that you aren't. You think you fool us into not recognizing a right wing tool but you don't.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 11:22 AM | Reply

"GOP winds down Russia probes with Trump collusion unanswered "

Translation: they were getting too close to the truth.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 11:23 AM | Reply

Translation: they were getting too close to the truth.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew this whole story was fake. What we didn't know was how much was facilitated by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Even that surprised me a bit.

Clinton 2016 was the worst run campaign in American political history. It was like Nixon not shaving for a year straight.

#37 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-10-27 11:28 AM | Reply

You think you fool us into not recognizing a right wing tool but you don't.

Yep, Sheeple takes his talking points from Trump, always has:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

It is now commonly agreed, after many months of COSTLY looking, that there was NO collusion between Russia and Trump. Was collusion with HC!
6:33 AM - 27 Oct 2017

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 11:28 AM | Reply

And now we've come full circle:

Hillary Clinton Colluded with Russians to Rig Election Against Trump

www.breitbart.com

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 11:32 AM | Reply

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew this whole story was fake. What we didn't know was how much was facilitated by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Even that surprised me a bit.

Ummmm no.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together is seeing just how bad Washington is across the board.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-27 11:59 AM | Reply

Good read:

How Republicans Are Jumping on the New Steele Scoop to Distract From the Trump-Russia Scandal

Meanwhile, they are promoting a counter-controversy of dubious origins.

[H]ere's where the hypocrisy truly kicks in: the Clinton-uranium story originated with an anti-Clinton book called Clinton Cash, which was produced at a nonprofit supported by right-wing hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer and co-founded by conservative firebrand Stephen Bannon.

So you see what's happening? Republicans are asserting the Steele memos should be dismissed because they are a dastardly Democratic oppo concoction and saying this somehow undermines the whole Trump-Russia scandal. Yet at the same time, they are demanding an investigation of the fake Clinton-uranium scandal that was based on a debunked story subsidized and promoted by a big-money conservative donor and Trump backer.

www.motherjones.com

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 12:01 PM | Reply

"Anyone who could somehow be considered an opponent of Donald Trump or anyone affiliated with him colluded with Russia."

-- every republican

#42 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-10-27 12:19 PM | Reply

"Anyone with two brain cells to rub together is seeing just how bad Washington is across the board."

That sounds like third party voter talk.

I'm a lot more concerned with which ones are bad... for me, friends and family, the country as a whole.

If they're bad as a person, that only really matters to the extent it runs off on their policies.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-27 12:21 PM | Reply

This is a REAL thing, contrary to the BS we've been hearing for 16 mos. in re: the "Russian collusion" of Trump, et al which is totally unsupported by any reliable, meaningful, convincing, genuine, authentic evidence of any kind. Wake up, my friends....wake up!

#21 | Posted by TrueBeliever76

I'll keep posting this for you until it sinks in:

The emails show music promoter Rob Goldstone telling the future US president's son that "the crown prosecutor of Russia" had offered "to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father".

British-born Goldstone adds in the exchange of 3 June 2016: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump."

Seventeen minutes later, Trump Jr welcomes this with the reply: "If it's what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer."

If you can read that and say there is NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND of collusion, then something is wrong with your brain.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hint: The GOP wouldn't be angling for this "deal" if they thought Trump was innocent.

David Frum‏ @davidfrum

House / Senate GOP acting as Trump bodyguards on Russia probe.

"GOP eyes end of Russia probes with Trump collusion unanswered"
www.politico.com

Between lines: GOP offering Dems a deal. We'll join you to stop future Russian interference if you give Trump a pass on past interference.
3:44 AM - 27 Oct 2017

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Clinton 2016 was the worst run campaign in American political history. It was like Nixon not shaving for a year straight."

That's why she got 3 million more votes than Trump. The real truth, more votes than Hillary needed to win were eliminated through voter suppression in key states. Republicans only win because Republicans cheat and they've done it since 2000. I don't even dignify posts like yours with an argument because you're merely repeating the stupid talking points given you by the right wing media who won't even discuss Interstate Crosscheck or the other methods of suppressing minority, elderly and student voters.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-27 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Looks like CNN, Wolf Blitzer and Leon Panetta were being "moronic" on CNN this morning as well:

BLITZER: So it's very awkward. How could both the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign not know about these payments?

PANETTA: Well, it's obviously something that the intelligence committee is going to have to, have to look at. You know, knowing presidential campaigns, they're big operations and somehow the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. And that could be the case here, but I really do think that the committee is going to have to get into this, determine just exactly what happened. Who knew what and when.

BLITZER: But the lawyer who was representing the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, Marc Elias, is sitting next to John Podesta. He was asked, "Do you know about the funding?" He says no. Wouldn't it be his responsibility to at least whisper in his ear," yes," and at least tell him what's going on? So if he wasn't lying, John Podesta, he would be able to clarify all of that before the committee on a sensitive issue like this?

PANETTA: Well, it certainly makes the situation very awkward. If you're testifying and saying you have no knowledge and the attorney sitting next to you is one of those that knew what, what was involved here, I think it does raise an issue that the committee is going to have to look at and determine just exactly who knew what.

Panetta looks like he would rather be anywhere else but answering these questions, kudos for Blitzer for trying to pin him down on this.

Podesta, Wasserman-Schultz and Elias better all find new lawyers.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-27 02:05 PM | Reply

Panetta looks like he would rather be anywhere else but answering these questions, kudos for Blitzer for trying to pin him down on this.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter

But wait, I thought CNN was left wing fake news?

You mean that's not true?

If it was, they'd be treating this like fox news treats russia - by not covering it at all.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 02:31 PM | Reply

#48

If it was, they'd be treating this like fox news treats russia - by not covering it at all.

The funny thing is, Shreek, is that they don't have the interview linked to their website (yet) but at least 5 other sites have already linked the interview and written about it.

Weird that CNN is getting scooped by other sites on an interview that they had on their own channel on live tv...

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-27 02:34 PM | Reply

I'm still waiting to figure out the crime in all of this... or what Clinton and the DNC did wrong.

Anyone? Anyone?

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I'm still waiting to figure out the crime in all of this... or what Clinton and the DNC did wrong.

Anyone? Anyone?

#50 | Posted by Sycophant

So far the worst thing I can see is that they denied having anything to do with it, which implies THEY thought something was wrong about it. But more likely they just knew repubs would twist their normal opposition research into a false narrative saying it's just as bad or worse than trump colluding with russians.

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 02:38 PM | Reply

who lost their patriotism for the love of the dollar.

#34 | POSTED BY DANNI

Clintons?

#52 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 03:30 PM | Reply

Clintons?

#52 | Posted by tontonmacoute

No the clintons gave up their LIBERALISM for the love of the dollar.

Republicans are the ones choosing to side with putin. Reagan would be disgusted.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 03:34 PM | Reply

Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the FBI informant says there is "on-the-record quid pro quo" surrounding the Uranium One scandal with Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian backed bank and the Clinton Foundation receiving millions of dollars from people involved on the deal.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

#54 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 03:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

SYCOPHANT

Opposition research isn't a crime by itself.

The charge against Trump will probably be obstruction of justice for which there is ample evidence. In true prosecutor fashion, Mueller will no doubt follow the Nixon/Watergate playbook and send a few of Trump's inner-circle to prison before Trump will be given the same option that was given to Nixon ~ resign or be impeached.

That's the way I see it playing out anyway. The punch/counter-punch we're seeing now is just Trump trying to sew seeds of doubt which probably has little-to-none affect on Mueller's conclusions and, in fact, is so transparent that it carries the stench of desperation ~ if not the death rattle itself.

Trump is not so stupid that he can't see what's coming. There are no GOP profiles in courage in the House and Senate either. They'll do a CYA so fast it will make your head spin when they're about to go down with the ship and there are no lifeboats.

As for Trump's decision when faced with the inevitable, I have a feeling he'll try to fight it out to the bitter end. He's not one to face, or even recognize, that he's a failure.

We're in for a long and bumpy ride regardless. Everyone might want to consider voting Democrat in the mid-terms.

#55 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-10-27 03:57 PM | Reply

Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the FBI informant says there is "on-the-record quid pro quo" surrounding the Uranium One scandal with Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian backed bank and the Clinton Foundation receiving millions of dollars from people involved on the deal.
www.thegatewaypundit.com

#54 | POSTED BY TONTONMACOUTE AT 2017-10-27 03:39 PM |

There is a quid but no quo pro

The Clintons did not have the ability to influence the deal. Bill had no vote or voice and Hillary had 1 vote on one committee among many.

If this is quid pro quo then you must be ready to impeach Trump for all his direct pay for play setups?

#56 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-10-27 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

TONTON

That old chestnut has been roasted so many times it's barely recognizable as a cinder in the Washington D.C. landfill of lost dreams.

#57 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-10-27 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Clintons did not have the ability to influence the deal.

The deal required State department approval.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 04:14 PM | Reply

So are Hillary and the DNC really evil or just incompetent?

Wolf Blitzer: "It's very awkward, how could both the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign not know about these payments?"

Leon Paneta..."The left hand may not know what the right hand is doing"

#59 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 04:23 PM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

That's my point.

We've known all of this information since prior to the election.

There is no crime. There is nothing even shady.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 04:26 PM | Reply

So are Hillary and the DNC really evil or just incompetent?
Wolf Blitzer: "It's very awkward, how could both the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign not know about these payments?"
Leon Paneta..."The left hand may not know what the right hand is doing"
#59 | POSTED BY TONTONMACOUTE

Or managing 100's of millions of dollars with a great deal spent on opposition research? Sorry they can't account for it all off the top of their heads.

#61 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 04:27 PM | Reply

"The Clintons did not have the ability to influence the deal."
The deal required State department approval.

#58 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

God, you're a moron.

No, the deal did NOT require State Department approval.

Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.

According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself "never intervened" in committee matters.

www.snopes.com

And the best part? The uranium didn't leave the US. It had to stay IN the US under the Russian subsidiary.

#62 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 04:32 PM | Reply

Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.
Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta's attorney and not as a witness.

www.cnn.com

See, he was only there as Posesta's attorney and not a witness. No problem.

#63 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 04:35 PM | Reply

The deal required State department approval.

Among several other departments.

Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law www.lawfareblog.com

#64 | Posted by et_al at 2017-10-27 04:36 PM | Reply

So I guess Elias out of curiosity, just for a lark moved what 9 million dollars to stick it to Trump?

#65 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 04:38 PM | Reply

According to Snopes, most of the money that is said to have been a bribe for the deal came from a guy who had sold he company 3 years before the deal was approved:

"Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share -- $131.3 million -- came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state."

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 04:41 PM | Reply

Marc Elias, What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!... I salute you.

#67 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-27 04:41 PM | Reply

Among several other departments. - Et Al

Did any of those departments have the sway and influence of Hillary Clinton and State?

Did any members of those other departments have millions donated to their respective "charity" foundations?

Regardless, I will definitely read your link. i like that site.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 05:20 PM | Reply

Or managing 100's of millions of dollars with a great deal spent on opposition research? Sorry they can't account for it all off the top of their heads.

#61 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

There is no malfeasance a Democrat could commit that you won't excuse away.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 05:24 PM | Reply

Did any of those departments have the sway and influence of Hillary Clinton and State?
Did any members of those other departments have millions donated to their respective "charity" foundations?
Regardless, I will definitely read your link. i like that site.

#68 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, they didn't have the same sway Hillary Clinton had. They had significantly more since Clinton wasn't even involved with the committee and some of them were intelligence departments.

No. Because the Clintons have charity, not a "charity".

Seriously, read the damn Snopes link. It shows all the errors in your reasoning clearly.

#70 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 05:26 PM | Reply

According to Snopes, most of the money that is said to have been a bribe for the deal came from a guy who had sold he company 3 years before the deal was approved:
"Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share -- $131.3 million -- came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state."

#66 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Oh you and your details. You know JeffJ will NEVER read them? He has an allergy to facts and research.

#71 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 05:28 PM | Reply

There is no malfeasance a Democrat could commit that you won't excuse away.

#69 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There's also NO malfeasance here which TOTALLY helps.

Unless you care to explain what was so wrong here? No? Didn't think so.

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 05:29 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT,/i>

You really need to --------.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 05:36 PM | Reply

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share -- $131.3 million

So, the company's founder contributed $131.3 million before she became SOS. I would guess that such a generous donation would give him some influence with the Clinton's later on. Also, the remaining $13.8 million isn't chump-change. Well, it is to Sycophant, but that's a different story.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 05:40 PM | Reply

There is no malfeasance a Democrat could commit that you won't excuse away.

#69 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I would just like to point out that your willingness to assume guilt on the clintons' part is the exact opposite of your willingness to assume innocence on the trump/russia stories. You spent months mocking the story as a nothingburger until the Trump Jr emails came out and that was no longer a sustainable position.

Now you're perfectly willing to accept the GOP's story about the steele dossier, despite the fact that the GOP lies about everything all the time. What happened to all your skepticism?

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 05:45 PM | Reply

#75

That's because it was a nothing burger until the story about Jr broke.

This dossier thing is much, much worse than Jr's meeting. If his meeting bothered you, this should too.

That wasn't directed at you personally, Speaks. To your credit, you call out Dems when they commit wrongdoings.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 05:49 PM | Reply

I wished they made nothing burgers. I could lose weight then.

#77 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-27 05:52 PM | Reply

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share -- $131.3 million
So, the company's founder contributed $131.3 million before she became SOS. I would guess that such a generous donation would give him some influence with the Clinton's later on. Also, the remaining $13.8 million isn't chump-change. Well, it is to Sycophant, but that's a different story.

#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I have to ask...WHY does it matter how much they gave Clinton's charity IF she had no power over the decision? Like literally, its been proven repeatedly she had NO power over the decision.

So if you are claiming this is a Pay-to-Play scheme, these donors have to be as dumb as you are. Or as Trump would say, "Worst deal EVER!"

#78 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 05:56 PM | Reply

That's because it was a nothing burger until the story about Jr broke.

This dossier thing is much, much worse than Jr's meeting. If his meeting bothered you, this should too.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ

Before the Trump Jr emails emerged, we already knew trump hired a putin operative to run his campaign, hired putin's favorite oil exec to run our foreign policy, putin's favorite general as national security advisor, a ton of his team had lied about contacts with russia, and the only part of the GOP platform the trumps touched was to ease pressure on russia over the ukraine invasion. Furthermore russia had been hacking to help trump in the election, and trump was publicly asking them to release more hacked emails.
In what world does that all add up to a nothingburger?

The dossier was at least commissioned as a normal part of opposition research. To say that's worse than colluding with our enemies is just crazy.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 06:01 PM | Reply

So, the company's founder contributed $131.3 million before she became SOS. I would guess that such a generous donation would give him some influence with the Clinton's later on. Also, the remaining $13.8 million isn't chump-change. Well, it is to Sycophant, but that's a different story.
#74 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You are also ignoring that the company founder sold off his stake in the company years prior to the donation.

But to answer your point: Why does Bill Gates or Mark Cuban donate to charity? People are charitable and like good press.

#80 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 06:02 PM | Reply

That's because it was a nothing burger until the story about Jr broke.
This dossier thing is much, much worse than Jr's meeting. If his meeting bothered you, this should too.
#76 | Posted by JeffJ

Except Jr's meeting broke the law and showed collusion with Russia.

This shows...absolutely nothing. Like literally nothing.

#81 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 06:03 PM | Reply

--Why does Bill Gates or Mark Cuban donate to charity?

Virtue-signaling and buying influence. They are so insanely rich they could give away 99 percent of their net wealth and still live in extravagant luxury.

#82 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-27 06:09 PM | Reply

Virtue-signaling and buying influence. They are so insanely rich they could give away 99 percent of their net wealth and still live in extravagant luxury.

#82 | Posted by nullifidian

Selfish -------- think that everyone is as selfish as they are.

So anyone who does anything nice must just be faking it.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"--Why does Bill Gates or Mark Cuban donate to charity?
Virtue-signaling and buying influence."

Follow-up question:
Why doesn't Trump donate to charity?

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-27 06:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#84 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm going to guess a healthy mix of being a selfish orange -------, being less wealthy than he pretends to be, and dementia.

#85 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-27 06:42 PM | Reply

"GOP Spreads Moronic Theory of Democratic Collusion"

Could also be "Democrats Spread Moronic Theory of GOP Collusion"

stupid story

#86 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-10-27 06:44 PM | Reply

Could also be "Democrats Spread Moronic Theory of GOP Collusion"

stupid story

#86 | Posted by Maverick

Trump junior released evidence of GOP collusion.

If that's just a THEORY to you, get your head checked.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-27 07:10 PM | Reply

Oh but he does, SNOOFY. It's just that his charitable giving turn out to be scams. Remember that big charitable rally he held for veterans (so he'd have an excuse to avoid a debate on the same date). He paid himself a healthy chunk of change out of that and the rest disappeared into his Trump Foundation which, a year later, only got distributed as a result of complaints and media pressure. Even then, millions of that money went to a phony (on paper only) charity that was actually owned by Trump. as it turned out.

I'm too lazy to look up his other scams but I do recall he made a sizable contribution to a charitable foundation owned by his son.

Trump has ulterior motives for everything he does. Strange how everything goes full circle only to end up back in his pocket.

#88 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-10-27 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#77 Laura

If you want to lose weight consider Weight Watchers. I joined in February and have lost 58 pounds (only 21 more to go) in 38 weeks. Everything has a point value so you can eat whatever you want as long as you don't exceed your daily total. You also get weekly slush points so if you have a really bad day, it's still fine.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 07:30 PM | Reply

If you want to lose weight consider Weight Watchers. I joined in February and have lost 58 pounds (only 21 more to go) in 38 weeks. Everything has a point value so you can eat whatever you want as long as you don't exceed your daily total. You also get weekly slush points so if you have a really bad day, it's still fine.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 07:30 PM | Reply

OMFG That's a lot of weight loss bud. Im proud of you. I'll check them out cause my knees are talking to me now.

#90 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-27 07:51 PM | Reply

Follow-up question:
Why doesn't Trump donate to charity?

#84 | Posted by snoofy

He does. As long as the kick back is big enough. Or a beautiful painting of himself is involved.

#91 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-27 07:55 PM | Reply

So, the company's founder contributed $131.3 million before she became SOS. I would guess that such a generous donation would give him some influence with the Clinton's later on. Also, the remaining $13.8 million isn't chump-change. Well, it is to Sycophant, but that's a different story

No, you are misreading the significance of that detail:

"Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share -- $131.3 million -- came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state."

IOW, the guy who gave her all that money sold his stake in the company 3 years before the uranium deal was made. Meaning: he did not benefit from the deal because he no longer had a stake in the company.

#92 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 08:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#92 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

That is probably way too long and complicated for the Deplorables.

Can you maybe boil that down to 3 or 4 simple words for the #MAGA crowd?

#93 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-27 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#93 Best I can do: Donor didn't own company when deal went down.

#94 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 08:30 PM | Reply

IOW, the guy who gave her all that money sold his stake in the company 3 years before the uranium deal was made. Meaning: he did not benefit from the deal because he no longer had a stake in the company.

#92 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I agree with you on this.

I was playing a bit of 'gotcha', but you were the only one to respond, and I was casting a net and you were the only person I didn't want to snare.

the 'gotcha' was a Cheney/Halliburton comparison. Anyhow, nobody else took the bait and you deserve better than a gotcha-game, so I am dropping this.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 08:47 PM | Reply

Mueller just filed charges against someone in D.C. Choke on that nothing burger.

#96 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-27 08:53 PM | Reply

Dangit, I was just about to take the bait!

Congrats on the weight loss. I knew I should have bought that stock when Oprah became their spokesmanateee.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-27 08:53 PM | Reply

I honestly wasn't aware that Oprah was ever their "spokesmanatee"

Unlike diets, it's a system that works really well for me. I can adjust around cravings without violating the terms of the program. It's also designed to be long-term. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon. Through slow, progressive weight-loss I am learning what I can and can't consume, quantities, etc with the hope that this has become enough of a lifestyle change that I can maintain my target weight range once I hit my ideal (21 pounds to go). I'm hoping that by the time I hit my goal with the understanding that as long as I don't exceed 10 pounds over my ideal weight I am able to understand things well enough that I can stop documenting everything I consume. I expect to be there by the time summer '18 rolls around, so....

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 09:02 PM | Reply

Jeff, congrats on a job well done. Very impressive. Keep it up.

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 09:18 PM | Reply

JeffJ: I didn't have time to respond on the other thread that is now closed about your gout problem.

My Grandmother had it and I inherited it from her. It took several years to figure out the culprit that was causing the flare-ups. For me it was tinned sardines, tinned herring, and chicken thighs. Sardines have one of the highest amounts of purines except for organ meats. (Avg: 480mg/100g uric acid).

I keep a bottle of colchicine on hand at all times. I haven't had an attack in over a year, but I used to get them every couple months. I honestly thought a person would pass out before reaching the threshold of pain gout induces.

www.acumedico.com

#100 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-27 09:57 PM | Reply

Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law

lawfareblog.com

(It's complicated!)

#101 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 09:57 PM | Reply

#100 | POSTED BY MADSCIENTIST

Thank you for sharing that.

The only trigger on that list that I partake is chicken thighs and that is very infrequent.

It's a horrible affliction and it transcends politics. :-)

Tony Roma is susceptible too.

Tony has shared with me things that have worked for him (cherry juice...).

I don't wish gout on my worst enemies. The word itself is horrible -

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-10-27 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff, a good friend of mine suffers from gout too. He swears by pineapple juice. A big trigger for him was high fructose corn syrup, which is in a lot of things that you wouldn't expect it to be in. BBQ sauce, for instance.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-27 11:45 PM | Reply

"Mueller just filed charges against someone in D.C. Choke on that nothing burger."
#96 | Posted by Sycophant

We all understand the secrecy requirements of a Grand Jury but that doesn't stop us from speculating. So who's the lucky suspect that's going to flip . . . . or take the bullet for Trump and pray for a pardon.

Manafort?
Flynn?
Page?
Page's son?
Cohen?

I can tell you who it's NOT. It isn't Hillary Clinton.

#104 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-10-28 02:48 AM | Reply

high fructose corn syrup, which is in a lot of things that you wouldn't expect it to be in. BBQ sauce, for instance.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017

Tell me about it, it is in everything, and yeah it is almost impossible to fine BBQ with out it.

#105 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-10-28 02:49 AM | Reply

Or is it going to be some other Trump bottom feeder that's been flying under everybody else's radar ... except Muellers.

#106 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-10-28 04:07 AM | Reply

I've found a BBQ sauce called Stubbs that is excellent and contains no HFCS. I don't know if it's available outside of Texas, but here are the ingredients:

Water, Tomato Paste, Cane Sugar, Distilled Vinegar, Molasses, Tapioca Dextrin, Salt, Brown Sugar, Spices, Corn Starch, Contains Less Than 0.5% of: Onion, Paprika, Garlic, Chile Powder, Natural Smoke Flavor, Guar Gum, Xanthan Gum, Corn Syrup, Tamarind.

www.amazon.com

#107 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-28 07:01 AM | Reply

I don't know about other places, but I do see Stubbs in the supermarkets in the Raleigh, NC area.

#108 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-10-28 09:11 AM | Reply

In what world would any administration think it was a good thing to sell 20R% of our uranium ore to Russia? Had the Bush administration done this the lefties here would have been 'screaming bloody murder'!

#109 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-10-28 04:41 PM | Reply

#109
that's a mischaracterization of what occurred. good luck.

#110 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-10-28 05:15 PM | Reply

#107 Thanks for the tip, MS. I'll tell my friend about it.

#111 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-28 08:48 PM | Reply

"The only evidence so far..."

You must have missed Junior's emails.

#112 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-28 08:49 PM | Reply

"In what world would any administration think it was a good thing to sell 20R% of our uranium ore to Russia? "

In the world of your fevered dreams.

Meanwhile, back in reality:
www.politifact.com

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-10-28 08:50 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort