12

Russia and the Democrats

Posted by $ Casebier 2 years, 11 months ago to Politics
22 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

A FB friend recently asked me what I thought of the most recent revelations surrounding the Russian investigation, and all its many tentacles into into our current politic. This was my response:

Mueller has steadfastly tried to ignore or downplay (through carefully worded leaks) the 2010 bribery investigation surrounding the Uranium One deal which Mueller oversaw as the then FBI Director with Rod Rosenstein as the US Attorney supervising the investigation. Then in 2017 Rosenstein, now the Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General for the Russia investigations, appoints Mueller as Special Counsel over the investigation. ( Recall that Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the Russian investigation over having had conversations at a dinner reception and in a Senate office meeting with the Russian ambassador when he was a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.) Also curious is that Mueller’s appointment by Rosenstein came on the heels of Mueller’s failed attempt to be rehired as the FBI chief following Rosenstein’s review of Comey's employment and Rosenstein’s recommendation that Comey be fired.

It now appears that either Obama knew of the ongoing Uranium One bribery investigation and sat on the information to get the deal approved over Republican opposition which was near unanimous against giving Putin control of 20% of America’s uranium, or Obama told his department heads to approve it anyway. Why? Did Clinton promise Obama that part of the Russian money from Uranium One backers that was pouring into the Clinton Foundation would be used to support the non-profit groups Obama was planning to create and head up as paid administrator after leaving the Oval Office? How did the Uranium One deal get through the approval process, supposedly without the agencies that had to sign off on it knowing of the ongoing bribery investigations? Did the State Department ask Holder’s Justice Department and Mueller’s FBI to keep a public disclosure lid on the investigation?

Then in 2011, Obama goes to Congress and gets a highly unusual 2-year extension to Mueller’s contract to head the FBI, effectively an extension to see Obama through his 2012 reelection campaign. Was that so Mueller could keep the bribery investigation under wraps until after Obama was reelected and Clinton had left office? Doesn’t it strain credulence to believe that the investors in the Uranium One Deal didn’t expect something for their tens of $millions donated to the Clinton Foundation in 2010 and 2011? Doesn’t it strain credulence to believe that more than a speech was expected from Bill Clinton’s half $million Russian speaking fee?

Now we come to Hillary’s 2016 campaign and the discovery that she and the Democratic National Committee paid $millions from their campaign war chest to fund a former British spy who, using purchased Russian disinformation, created the now completely discredited anti-Trump dossier. Was that also part of the Uranium One deal that Russia would help Hillary win the election? Was the anti-Trump research effort to find possible U.S. misdealings started and ended by the conservative Washington Free Beacon (and its billionaire anti-Trumper Paul Singer) just a convenient starting point for Hillary to expand the investigation into Russia? And after its authors leaked it as “an independent inquiry by a former British MI6 boss” and it was pretty quickly judged worthless except to the anti-Trump Russian conspiracy supporters, why did the FBI initially agree to take it up and continue funding it? Was it because after Obama’s operatives left office and the FBI could no longer use Obama’s personnel to end-around the FISA courts, that they needed the discredited dossier as an excuse to tap the phones of Trump and his associates? And after that exercise didn’t produce what they were looking for, is that why the FBI decided to abandon the dossier and not make the promised payments to its authors for its use?

So if Russia was Obama and Hillary’s friend, why did they supposedly turn against her with their social media campaign that is now believed to have helped Trump? Recall the Putin sees himself as the unquestioned ruler of the world’s second most powerful country. He chaffs that he and his cohorts are called corrupt and mafia by U.S. politicians, particularly when he sees those politicians as hypocritical and equally as corrupt and scandalous. He has given clear signals that while he doesn’t particularly care for any American leader, including now Trump, he has a special disdain for Hillary because she’s a woman who he thinks isn’t worthy of leading our country, and his ego is fed by disrupting her ability to win. And while he probably would not think of any woman being capable, it is certain that he has had a particular distain for Hillary after being obviously disrespected when presented with a big red toy reset button as if his officials were children in a kindergarten class. Further, if Hillary and the Clinton Foundation were involved with the Uranium One deal, he now no longer suspects, he knows she’s corrupt, and further he probably thinks he and his cronies paid too much to get it approved. While Hillary now claims publicly that the State Department was just another cog in the Uranium One approval process, maybe just the opposite was said to the Uranium One backers. Putin’s social media campaign may have been just his way of some pay back for being dissed with the red button and then misled about Hillary's authority and overcharged for Uranium One. So then why the anti-Trump dossier? Putin had to be laughing out loud that his agents would be paid $millions for disinformation that he would have happily provided for free, and was probably overjoyed to get paid to throw another crank into the U.S. electoral system. Besides, he thought that the fix was in for Clinton to win the election anyway. Why wouldn’t he? She spent twice as much, had held the highest appointed office in our government, was part of a family political machine rarely rivaled in U.S. political history, had all the “vote-for-her-because-she’s-a-woman vote”, had all the electronic and print media supporting her plus was way ahead in the polls. Assuming she won, he’d already paid her foundation and her husband a lot of money. And if she lost, at least he had a worldly rich anti-establishment businessman who already said that while you may not like Putin, you have to respect Putin. (In the business world, if you have big money, you have respect.)

And finally, isn’t it odd that the one former FBI agent who knows all about the bribery and the Uranium One deal was required by the FBI and former Obama Justice Department to sign a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting him from revealing what he knows about the deal even to Congressional investigators? Well, he’s now been released from that pledge. So the barn door is open, and all this is about to see the glaring light of day. Finally. And when it does, the Clinton, Obama, Holder, Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, Podesta, Democratic Party, anti-Trump barn may very well implode.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Mitch 2 years, 11 months ago
    Great write up and very concise… One peace that doesn’t make any sense to me is why the DNC and Hillary used the phrase - “The Russians did it”. Remember that this was from the person with the big red “Up charge” button and the Russian reset. (The misprint "Up charge" which makes more sense now given the FBI informant on the Uranium One deal. Wonder if it was an accident or someone playing a joke) “The Russians did it” seems like such a lame excuse until it was revealed that the DNC and Hilary paid money for this Russian Dossier. This Dossier was obviously poorly done, one would have to question the loyalty of her cohorts; wasn’t believable at all… Then to have these leaked e-mails for John Podesta’s e-mail and his ties to his brother’s business, it’s not a far stretch for her to believe that her Russian friends had become a turncoat and was working for the Trump campaign.

    I never understood the lame excuse that the Russians were involved when no one has presented any evidence of such – which if there was, someone would have made it available. Just doesn’t make any sense. When new information brings everything into focus, I tend to believe it…

    My point is that we dodged a bullet with the election of Trump, his most important duty is to restore our republic and remove these traitors from office. I knew that Washington was corrupt but now that a bright light is being shined on the ugly underbelly of Washington, we can all see just how bad the rot truly is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
      It reminds me of little children playing if someone
      breaks something say, a lamp, by knocking it over the clever kid is the first one say soandso did it..In Hillary's case her fall back was the Russians, which started an entire witch hunt of guilt by association. Mueller is either vastly partisan or dumb as a stump to buy into that.Or perhaps he just wants favors from the queen but he is backing the wrong person in the race, he hust have determined that Trump was guilty of associating with the Russians at some point and use the word collusion instead of associate and there was an outside chance that Trump would surely fall. But too bad, he had no collusion, zero, zip, nada...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
    I can write as eruditely as anyone. I can put down sentences that make sense and illuminate foggy thinking. But all you folks out there in the Gulch are intelligent, aren't you? You realize that the entire Russian thing is a ruse perpetrated by the left. Even now when it has been clearly debunked, the Democrats persist much to their shame and the country's embarrassment. Does the subject need more revelation? Probably the answer is "YES" for the greater population, "NO" for this group of informed intelligent men and women. Or am I wrong? (Watch out for traps before you answer.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 2 years, 11 months ago
      There are people in the Gulch who require more factual data to come to a conclusion, being that rational decisions use data. That is why we rarely see any rational decisions made by politicians, as they would have to disclose "facts" and that then closes the book on an issue. Much better to keep it alive with good, descriptive terms like "collusion", "nefarious contacts" "racist", "undermining democracy" and have no facts, and still get all the right people charged up to vote for you. I haven't seem many people in the Gulch demand such facts, just that they will not commit to voting for the Beast to get Life, yet.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
        My object was twofold.One to express an opinion and two, to have Gulchers do a little self examination. But always -- Always without compulsion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ nickursis 2 years, 11 months ago
          Well, it was a nice effort. My point is the amount of deception and camouflage used today for anything reported by media is such that you can only try to be objective and fact based. But you did a nice job at making the point too....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
            Gold, diamonds, uranium -- easy to find. Truth -- hard to find.Lies and obfuscation, cover-ups and false witness have been the common denominators of communications between public figures and their various lap dogs and followers.For the average guy or gal digging out the truth is harder than finding the solution to a James Patterson novel. Even if one manages to dig out what appears to be the truth, either it turns out not to be true, partly true, or as in the case of the Clintons, nothing is done about the truth. It is a losing battle.It is tempting just to say, "There's no such thing as truth" and let it go at that. I'm damned if I can do that, and I already know that you can't.Well, limbo is not only a dance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ nickursis 2 years, 11 months ago
              Truth, but I just refuse to stand aside and allow it to pass unanswered. I even tried to insert myself into State politics to try to bring a little sanity to it, and the Republicrats dragged me in for an inquisition and were shocked to hear I would make my stands based on my constituents inputs, and that I was not going to accept their position on everything if it conflicted. They refused to support me and asked me to leave their little party....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
                Did you really think that you would be accepted?C'mon, Nick,even I know you better than that. Let's see - you want to bring honesty, integrity and the will of the people into politics? While I am an atheist, if you succeeded, angels with psalms being played on the mighty Wurlitzer organ, as the heavenly choir sang the immortal words of psalm 23 and the clouds part, and Groucho Marx's face would shine down upon you. I'm afraid that we haven't descended low enough as yet, before a person such as yourself, could get anywhere, because by then, things would be so bad, they'd try anything.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ nickursis 2 years, 11 months ago
                  I was actually naive enough to think they would because they had no one who had said they would run for the seat. But they were so determined to have someon who would vote "their way", that they asked me "how would you vote for(fill in the blank)" and it was abortion, guns, taxes. The abortion one really got them going, as most people I had talked to in my area believe it is up to the individual to carry it on their conscience and not the the state to dictate. I said that, and they about threw up at the idea.....banned for ever and 86'd....
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 11 months ago
                    One of the ways to lie without actually lying is to a modified answer. Example: Abortion, To abort or not to abort is nobody's business but the woman involved, however, my wife was advised To abort and refused giving birth to our 2nd son who was perfectly normal and mentally brilliant. Not too good of an example but I think you get it. Anyhow, that would make you just as oleaginous as our current political herd, so you wouldn't do it. It does, however, give an insight as to why certain really good people won't go into politics, no matter how grand the title or description.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ nickursis 2 years, 11 months ago
                      Well that ewas what the majority of people I had talked to felt, that it was an individual decision, not to be mandated. If religion said no, it is up to that individual to reckon that. The need for the party to rule and survive is what is killing individuals today.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 11 months ago
    I do not see how 20% of USA uranium was sold to Russia, when Uranium one is a very small part of the about 54,000 tons of uranium mined in the world with the US being one of the largest users.
    Seems like a lot of political knee jerking going on due to the Clintons being involved. If I recall right, the Uranium One's, several companies and based in Canada, product is yellow cake, which refined to U238, can only be used in power reactors which do not use enriched uranium or it can be enriched for other reactors or enriched for bomb production possible made into a product that can be irradiated by a fusion reaction by neutrons to increase the power of fusion bombs.
    Seems, to me, to be a lot of blowing off of political steam and a waste of tax payer money.
    Well written article, though.
    These Wiki articles about uranium, have accuracy depending upon the political views of contributers who edited them somewhat currently.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo