[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2017-October-28, 19:40, said:

Winstonm, you have my sympathy. Your logic and reasoning faculties are obviously on the decline.

The Washington Post is the one who reported that the DNC and the Clinton Campaign were the source of funds for GPS Fusion research that resulted in the Trump Dossier. Is that a lie?

You seem to believe this matters. Why do you think this matters?

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-28, 20:47, said:

You seem to believe this matters. Why do you think this matters?

Several reasons.

The Federal Election Commission Filing made by the DNC and by the Clinton Campaign lists the expense as "Legal services". This is deliberately misleading since the intent was opposition research. This is a violation of Federal Election Laws and is subject to a fine and possible criminal prosecution.

The firm hired to do the research, GPS Fusion, hired Christopher Steele, a British ex-spy, to solicit information from Russian sources. The use of a foreign citizen is also a violation of Federal Election Law, subject to fines and criminal prosecution.

The solicitation of information from Russian sources to create a dossier to influence the 2016 election is exactly what Clinton and the Democrats have accused Trump of doing. So, in fact, it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC that colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. This changes the main political narrative of the day. And if is illegal for the Trump campaign to do so, then it is illegal for the Clinton campaign to do so.

The Trump Dossier, an opposition research document with much of its content already discredited, was passed to the FBI and may have been used as part of the justification for obtaining the FISA warrant the allowed surveillance of the Trump campaign staff, and eventually resulted in the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Russia/Trump connection. If this is indeed the case, then the entire investigation is tainted and would be thrown out of court as "fruit of the poisoned tree".

That is why this matters.

[Winstonm]

Let me repeat this slowly for the Ayn Rand and Steve Bannon acolyotes:

1) Donald Trump lies.
2) Fox and Friends re-enforce the lies.
2) Trump supporters believe the lies and repeat the lies.

Now, playing WhatAbout by saying, The Washington Post broke a true story that is unrelated to Trump's lies and the echo chamber surrounding his lies accomplishes nothing.

The rest of us have long known that the Washington Post is a reliable source of facts.

PS: It is probably a shock to the base that one of their own would quote the Washington Post as a reliable source, though.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2017-October-28, 19:11, said:

Robert Mueller Sends a Message. Is this the beginning of the end?

I think we will all be extremely grateful to Mueller as this unfolds.

I have tried to not jump at conclusions. Muellere has the skills the authority, the staff, and from what I understand, the integrity.. I have avoided saying who is clearly guilty of what, I have preferred to let Mueller make that call.Whomever. If there is anything or anyone in the Clinton campaign or in the D.N.C that warrants a charge. so be it. I am in favor of getting at the truth of it all, and the truth means the truth. Wherever it goes. I think in a complex and largly hidden matter such as this, we need a Mueller. I am very glad we have one. Nobody should be designated as above criticism, but sometimes a guy is really trying to do it right and that should be appreciated.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-28, 21:08, said:

Let me repeat this slowly for the Ayn Rand and Steve Bannon acolyotes:

1) Donald Trump lies.
2) Fox and Friends re-enforce the lies.
2) Trump supporters believe the lies and repeat the lies.

Now, playing WhatAbout by saying, The Washington Post broke a true story that is unrelated to Trump's lies and the echo chamber surrounding his lies accomplishes nothing.

The rest of us have long known that the Washington Post is a reliable source of facts.

PS: It is probably a shock to the base that one of their own would quote the Washington Post as a reliable source, though.

You have my condolences.

[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2017-October-28, 21:06, said:

Several reasons.

The Federal Election Commission Filing made by the DNC and by the Clinton Campaign lists the expense as "Legal services". This is deliberately misleading since the intent was opposition research. This is a violation of Federal Election Laws and is subject to a fine and possible criminal prosecution.

The firm hired to do the research, GPS Fusion, hired Christopher Steele, a British ex-spy, to solicit information from Russian sources. The use of a foreign citizen is also a violation of Federal Election Law, subject to fines and criminal prosecution.

The solicitation of information from Russian sources to create a dossier to influence the 2016 election is exactly what Clinton and the Democrats have accused Trump of doing. So, in fact, it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC that colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. This changes the main political narrative of the day. And if is illegal for the Trump campaign to do so, then it is illegal for the Clinton campaign to do so.

The Trump Dossier, an opposition research document with much of its content already discredited, was passed to the FBI and may have been used as part of the justification for obtaining the FISA warrant the allowed surveillance of the Trump campaign staff, and eventually resulted in the appointment of a special counsel to investigate the Russia/Trump connection. If this is indeed the case, then the entire investigation is tainted and would be thrown out of court as "fruit of the poisoned tree".

That is why this matters.

You know Hillary didn't win, right?

[jjbrr]

ldrews, I realize you haven't mentioned her emails. Why not?

[jjbrr]

By the way I love the talking points. Thanks for making things very clear for me. I wouldn't know what to do with myself if someone didn't tell me what I should be thinking. Very riveting stuff.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-October-28, 18:52, said:

The anti-trump contingent seems to have a pattern:

Antifa physically attacks Trump supporters at Trump rallies and right-wing speeches.

An anti-Trumper guns down Republicans at a baseball practice session

hrothgar wants to kill me if he could.

Are you seeing the pattern?

Yeap...

If you spend your life acting like an asshole people are going to start treating you as the same...

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-October-28, 18:52, said:

Are you seeing the pattern?

I see the pattern in this thread very clearly. Whenever the pressure ramps up on Trump and his allies and there are talking points that the Right would prefer to obfuscate, you come here and make many inflammatory posts in an attempt to stir up a hornet's nest that will mean any residual discussion on the real news gets swamped out. It is very clear to see this from your personal posting history, with precisely the same pattern unfolding the last time Russia was at the top of the news agenda.

I would therefore kindly ask the other BBF posters to try and finish their engagements with ldrews' rubbish today and allow a clean discussion over the indictments next week without allowing our board to be trolled away from the real and important news as it unfolds. Trolling is only successful if you allow it to be!

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-28, 21:30, said:

You know Hillary didn't win, right?

This is not about who won or lost. This is about breaking the laws. Just like I want Trump or any Trump campaign member held accountable for breaking laws, I want Clinton, the DNC, or any of their campaign staff held accountable for breaking the laws. Don't you?

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-29, 05:00, said:

I see the pattern in this thread very clearly. Whenever the pressure ramps up on Trump and his allies and there are talking points that the Right would prefer to obfuscate, you come here and make many inflammatory posts in an attempt to stir up a hornet's nest that will mean any residual discussion on the real news gets swamped out. It is very clear to see this from your personal posting history, with precisely the same pattern unfolding the last time Russia was at the top of the news agenda.

I would therefore kindly ask the other BBF posters to try and finish their engagements with ldrews' rubbish today and allow a clean discussion over the indictments next week without allowing our board to be trolled away from the real and important news as it unfolds. Trolling is only successful if you allow it to be!

Circle the wagons! Put your head in the sand! Don't listen to any adverse facts!

Sounds like a good strategy. Carry on.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-28, 21:31, said:

ldrews, I realize you haven't mentioned her emails. Why not?

Wasn't a major item in the news this last week. Would you like to discuss them?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-October-28, 23:27, said:

Yeap...

If you spend your life acting like an asshole people are going to start treating you as the same...

It seems like your preferred response to someone you disagree with or don't like is to use violence to silence them. Very civilized of you.

[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2017-October-29, 06:12, said:

Wasn't a major item in the news this last week. Would you like to discuss them?

Have the mods here happened to check if ldrews has a Russian IP?

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-29, 08:04, said:

Have the mods here happened to check if ldrews has a Russian IP?

Now that is funny! Anyone who has a different viewpoint than you must obviously be associated with Russia!

I would similarly ask if the mods here happened to check if jjbrr has a functioning brain?

[jjbrr]

good one

[Winstonm]

jjbrr, on 2017-October-29, 08:57, said:

good one

Oh, wow. Should we call a doctor? That insult was s-o-o-o deep.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-October-29, 06:14, said:

It seems like your preferred response to someone you disagree with or don't like is to use violence to silence them. Very civilized of you.

I can't think of anyone on these forums who I agree with 100% of the time.
Conversely, there are many people with whom I vehemently disagree.

I am able to have polite conversations with almost all of them.

The counter examples are the obvious trolls and the truly stupid.

In your case, you joined the forums and almost immediately started acting like a belligerent idiot.
I don't see any reason why you or your beliefs should be accorded the slightest bit of respect.

[Winstonm]

From Bannon acolyte's trusted source for facts: The Washington Post

Quote

The Uranium deal

Background: In 2010, Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company that had mining licenses for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity. The agreement was approved by the Obama administration when Clinton was secretary of state.

Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, had sold a company, UrAsia, to Uranium One in 2007. Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. Meanwhile, in 2010, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank to give a speech at a conference in Moscow.

Trump, during the campaign, tossed all of these separate facts together to falsely claim that Clinton “gave 20 percent of our uranium — gave Russia for a big payment.” But numerous fact checks have found no evidence for this claim. The original suggestion of wrongdoing was first raised in a book underwritten by an organization headed by Stephen K. Bannon, a key adviser to Trump.

Why It’s Important: Whenever news about the Russia investigation heats up, the Trump White House cites the uranium deal in an effort to muddy the waters and suggest that Russia had gained something from Clinton in exchange for money. Trump himself has claimed the case is “Watergate, modern age.”

But there is no evidence Clinton even was informed about this deal. The Treasury Department was the key agency that headed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which approved the investment; Clinton did not participate in the CFIUS decision. The deal was also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ultimately, only the president could have blocked or suspended the arrangement.

Moreover, no uranium produced at U.S. mines may be exported, except for some uranium yellowcake which is extracted and processed in Canada before being returned to the United States for use in nuclear power plants.

Conclusion:

Quote

Any suggestion that Russian money was directed to influence Clinton’s decisions would be explosive. But the fatal flaw in this allegation is Hillary Clinton, by all accounts, did not participate in any discussions regarding the Uranium One sale which — as we noted — does not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States.