Matt Allison Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 LOL Biden isn't going to prison, Ben, as prison is for criminals. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 12 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: LOL Biden isn't going to prison, Ben, as prison is for criminals. Sorry. CNN: 'Realistic chance' Hunter Biden could be indicted BY DOMINICK MASTRANGELO - 03/30/22 02:06 PM EDT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax-WaEx The nub of this story is the Clinton campaign funneled money to a law firm (Perkins Coie) which then funneled money to the Steele guy, who then produced to Steele Dossier, which then triggered the FBI investigation, with affiliated, co-opted M$M news coverage. "The FEC, in a memo to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which filed its complaint over three years ago, said it fined Clinton’s treasurer $8,000 and the DNC’s treasurer $105,000." I am sure both parties run this gag, of funneling money to law firm, since law firms have attorney-client privilege, and lawyers can even claim not to be lobbyists, when they are lobbying, or funneling money into political campaigns or "opposition research." In DC, scaling such towers of hypocrisy is the way reach the very pinnacles of righteousness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 Ben- the chain of evidence when it comes to "Hunter Biden's laptop" is worse than that of CE399. That's not an exaggeration. Think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 31 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Ben- the chain of evidence when it comes to "Hunter Biden's laptop" is worse than that of CE399. That's not an exaggeration. Think about that. Hunter's magic, pristine laptop? Received at different times by different people per the documentation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: The nub of this story is the Clinton campaign funneled money to a law firm (Perkins Coie) which then funneled money to the Steele guy, who then produced to Steele Dossier, which then triggered the FBI investigation, with affiliated, co-opted M$M news coverage. Ben. I've done this before. It's not "funneling money". It's called "paying a contractor". If you've ever had a tile job done you've "funneled money" to the sub by paying the contractor. When I've paid investigators for services, the law firm I have retained receives money from me beyond their retainer to compile information for whatever purpose. They are typically former LEO type people who have experience in the subject matter related to the underlying cause. For instance, a former Treasury Employee for financial crimes. Big scary goons for warning off gang members (yes, I have). I once hired a former heavy weight boxer/cop (right out of central casting - believe me) who had gone under cover with the Hells Angels (I think the FBI) to take depositions from witnesses. Dumb-ass Cheeto is and was a CI threat and any kind of vetting or investigation undertaken to find out if rumors swirling around about his vulnerability was and still is reasonable. FCS they guy uses unsecure phones to this day and was doing so while trying to coerce Zalensky into digging up dirt on Biden's kid. That's why Steele was an appropriate choice to look into these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 48 minutes ago, Bob Ness said: Ben. I've done this before. It's not "funneling money". It's called "paying a contractor". If you've ever had a tile job done you've "funneled money" to the sub by paying the contractor. When I've paid investigators for services, the law firm I have retained receives money from me beyond their retainer to compile information for whatever purpose. They are typically former LEO type people who have experience in the subject matter related to the underlying cause. For instance, a former Treasury Employee for financial crimes. Big scary goons for warning off gang members (yes, I have). I once hired a former heavy weight boxer/cop (right out of central casting - believe me) who had gone under cover with the Hells Angels (I think the FBI) to take depositions from witnesses. Dumb-ass Cheeto is and was a CI threat and any kind of vetting or investigation undertaken to find out if rumors swirling around about his vulnerability was and still is reasonable. FCS they guy uses unsecure phones to this day and was doing so while trying to coerce Zalensky into digging up dirt on Biden's kid. That's why Steele was an appropriate choice to look into these things. That's all fine. The FEC, not me, has ruled DNC and Clinton campaign effectively hired Steele for $1 million, laundering money through Perkins Coie. The defendants, here called respondents, have agreed to pay the fine. “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, respondent[s] does not concede, but will not further contest the commission's finding of probable cause to proceed” with the probe, said the FEC. This happens a lot with the SEC. The SEC makes a charge, and the guilty party neither admits nor contests the finding, and then pays up, citing costs. Kind of a nolo contendere, and shades of Spiro Agnew, the best VP of all time as well all agree. I confess to never hiring goons, and I will defer to your expertise on that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 "Washington (CNN)Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry." ---30--- The Clinton campaign and the DNC had the option of contesting the FEC ruling, and even contesting the matter into the court system after administrative proceedings had been exhausted. Instead, the Clinton campaign and the DNC have chosen to pay the fines, but do not concede they violated campaign laws. This results in a grey zone, seen in other administrative proceedings. The respondent does not admit guilt, but pays a fine, as if guilty. Call it purgatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 Now that Putin has obliterated any signs of human habitation in Mariopol, and de-populated the area, what's he going to do with it? Plow it all under and build a gigantic seaport? Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 EU paid Russia $16 billion for fossil fuels since the start - CNNBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax-WaEx The nub of this story is the Clinton campaign funneled money to a law firm (Perkins Coie) which then funneled money to the Steele guy, who then produced to Steele Dossier, which then triggered the FBI investigation, with affiliated, co-opted M$M news coverage. Ben, This is bunk. The Steele Dossier didn't trigger the FBI investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's numerous contacts with Kremlin agents. Here are the facts. Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/trump-russia-investigation-dossier.html December 1, 2021 Excerpt Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier? No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016. The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton. Did the F.B.I. take any investigative step based on the dossier? Yes. The F.B.I. took the dossier seriously based on Mr. Steele’s reputation, and used some of it — without independent verification — for a narrow purpose that led to a dead end and became a political debacle. It included several claims from Mr. Steele’s memos in applications to wiretap Carter A. Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser with ties to Russia. In 2019, the Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the F.B.I. for numerous flaws in those wiretap applications. While the dossier-tainted wiretap of Mr. Page has received significant attention, it was a small part of the overall investigation, which issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, made 13 requests to foreign governments under mutual legal assistance treaties, and interviewed about 500 witnesses. Mr. Page was not charged with a crime, and only a handful of the 448 pages in the Mueller report focus on him. Did investigators rely on the dossier for their findings? No. The Mueller report does not present claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues focused on by investigators did not come up in the dossier. The dossier makes no mention, for example, of a July 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russians and senior campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., who eagerly accepted the request for a meeting after being told they were bringing dirt on Mrs. Clinton. Nor does the dossier mention that in August 2016, Konstantin V. Kilimnik — described in the 2019 Mueller report as having “ties to Russian intelligence” and in a partly declassified, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020 as a “Russian intelligence officer” with possible ties to Russia’s election interference operations — flew to the United States to meet with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. Investigators established that the two had discussed whether Mr. Trump, if elected, would bless a peace plan effectively allowing Russia to control eastern Ukraine, and that Mr. Manafort had shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Mr. Kilimnik, which the Treasury Department later said he passed on to a Russian spy agency. (The government has not declassified evidence for its escalating accusations about Mr. Kilimnik.) The Senate report said Mr. Manafort’s “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.” Did Mueller rely on the dossier for any criminal charges? No. The special counsel investigation led to indictments of 34 people and three companies. Many of those indicted — like Mr. Kilimnik — reside abroad and have not faced trial. Mr. Mueller obtained nine guilty pleas or jury convictions, including half a dozen close Trump associates. None of those indictments cited the dossier as evidence. The fact that Mr. Mueller did not obtain sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with conspiracy is subject to disputed interpretations that overlap with the debate over the dossier’s significance. Trump supporters frame the lack of conspiracy charges as proof there was no collusion. By combining this with the false premise that there would not have been any Russia investigation without the Steele dossier, they portray Mr. Trump as a victim of a hoax. Beyond pointing out that there is a range of cooperation and coordination that falls short of the legal definition of “conspiracy,” Trump skeptics argue that Mr. Mueller never definitively got to the bottom of what happened in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation — like dangling a pardon before Mr. Manafort to keep him from cooperating. What was the main impact of the dossier? Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump. Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters. Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) When Biden expressed confidence that Afghanistan wouldn't fall for a long time once we left.. I didn't for a second believe it. I was positive the Taliban would take over within a month. How long was it, a week? I can't remember. I remember Doug recently posted an article from Kissinger, who I consider a war criminal. It sounded like it was 6 years old. He explained that we must be understanding to Russia's historic claims to Ukraine, then on the other he said we should nicely ask Russia to give back Crimea, and of course keep the status quo as the Eastern region staying with Ukraine,( I don't think he even mentioned that, that was just understood!) and have Ukraine agree to not to join Nato, like that would enough, if we handled it nicely! I'll play devil's advocate. Despite our sometimes exhilarating combat updates. Bottom line: These are 3 points of contention, 1) Russia giving back Crimea. 2) Russia now giving back the Eastern region. 3)Ukraine agreeing not to join Nato. It's pretty obvious now, there's no way Russia is going to give back Crimea. That's just lost, and given that Russia now largely controls the Eastern region. Why would they give that up? The agreement for Ukraine not to join Nato is the only demand Zelensky has expressed he's willing to comply with. The effects of sanctions is somewhat longer term. If Ukraine insists on wanting to keep their Eastern territory. Wouldn't that prolong the war into years, unless the equation is severely altered? Obviously that would be an incredible Ukraine victory, rolling back the gains Putin has made, and would have to involve a great loss of Russian morale over time. But the way it is now. Russia could leave Western Ukraine alone and accomplish their war aims. What is to stop Russia from continuing to shell civilian targets and carpet bomb whole cities until there's no one standing?They obviously don't care. ***** Good article W!. Fox News buzzwords are relentless. Dossier Dossier Dossier! And of course, what choice would Ben have to not also adopt it as his mantra? Just that perfect apt phrase where they can shut the door and overlook all the other evidence that came before it. Edited March 31, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 43 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Bottom line: These are 3 points of contention, 1) Russia giving back Crimea. 2) Russia now giving back the Donbass region. 3)Ukraine agreeing not to join Nato. It's pretty obvious now, there's no way Russia is going to give back Crimea. That's just lost, and given that Russia now largely controls the Donbass region. Why would they give that up? The agreement for Ukraine not to join Nato is the only demand Zelensky has expressed he's willing to comply with. Agree - Russia won’t give up Donetsk or Luhansk because in its view, the people there have been persecuted since the last conflict and It will make Putin look weak abandoning Russians. Of course naturally it will want to have more territory but, it’s got the excuse and if we were Russians in their shoes, would we? The conflict didn’t need to happen, its the result of agitation, posturing, and fuelling a fire for geopolitical reasons. NATO/The West have played a game creeping forward, the collateral damage has been Ukrainian people. That doesn’t make Russian leaders less brutal, oppressive, or tyrannical. It just means the conditions for such horror have been put in place, with responsibility on all sides IMHO. I’lll say something, in almost every conflict the people on both sides believed they were 100% right and just. Time to take a step back and look at things in terms of the consequences and the opponents view. As per usual its the middle class and poor that are the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: "Washington (CNN)Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. The DNC was fined $105,000 and the Clinton campaign was fined $8,000, according to a letter sent by the Federal Election Commission to a conservative group that requested an inquiry." ---30--- The Clinton campaign and the DNC had the option of contesting the FEC ruling, and even contesting the matter into the court system after administrative proceedings had been exhausted. Instead, the Clinton campaign and the DNC have chosen to pay the fines, but do not concede they violated campaign laws. This results in a grey zone, seen in other administrative proceedings. The respondent does not admit guilt, but pays a fine, as if guilty. Call it purgatory. We'll see what their findings are. I'm sure $113,000 wouldn't cover PC's retainer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 DeSantis inveted $300M of Florida State pension money in the Russian Stock market...https://www.newsweek.com/desantis-urged-untangle-floridas-300m-thats-invested-russia-1692721 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts