Well. I can see I signed off the politics thread too early last night. You busy bees sneaked in and changed the Constitution while I was doing something else. In a free country, I guess that’s what happens when you don’t shepherd the government…and sometimes even when you do. :–)
Actually, household votes of some type (including female headed households) would not have been a bad idea at one time. But I think we’ve already past that fork in the path, and trying to go back now would be revolutionary in the worst sense. We can’t even declare with certainty what it means to be male or female; how would we ever define a household. :–/
“Call it the original Russia collusion case, only it came long before the 2016 election. According to The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann, the FBI began to piece together a Russian operation designed to advance Vladimir Putin’s control of nuclear materials in 2009 that involved both bribery and extortion. The discovery predated two key decisions that gave Moscow control over a significant portion of the US uranium market, including the Uranium One deal that put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bill Clinton’s pockets:
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
And guess whose charitable foundation benefited from this, according to one FBI witness and documentation gathered by the FBI?
And guess whose charitable foundation benefited from this, according to one FBI witness and documentation gathered by the FBI?
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
There were actually two deals that served Putin’s interests involved in this operation. The year after State approved the purchase of Uranium One by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom in 2010, the Obama administration gave approval for Rosatom to vastly expand its sales of uranium inside the US through its Tenex subsidiary. Until then, Tenex could only sell Russian uranium gleaned from decommissioned nuclear weapons, part of the US attempts to incentivize Moscow into cannibalizing its nukes. The two combined deals gave Moscow a great deal of leverage in the US nuclear market — and the bribes and extortion alone created “legitimate security concerns” of their own.
The Department of Justice, however, never went public with its probe. Instead, Solomon and Spann report, they sat on it for four years:
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
Call me crazy, but this seems a lot more serious than a Russian troll farm buying $100,000 in Facebook ads during the election. Solomon and Spann report that this involved millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks, not just small potatoes like online ads. The FBI probe exposed new avenues of money laundering, an intelligence boon that may have serious repercussions for Russian intelligence down the road.”
__________________________________________
And the Obama admin covered up and ran interference for the Russian collusion.
“The Obama administration ran interference for Hillary on more than one occasion (that we know of), if two recent reports are to be believed.
First, there’s the issue of the Clinton Foundation’s dealings with Canadian Uranium One (sold to Russians), which include a bribery scandal the FBI was aware of, and in which the DOJ chose not to reveal until after the deal was done.
Secondly, emails posted by the FBI as part of their public disclosure efforts indicate Comey planned to exonerate Hillary months before he interviewed her in the home-brewed email scandal investigation.
—————————–
And the clincher:
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
Consider that since her embarrassing electoral loss, Hillary has been traipsing around the country, hocking her book, fancying herself a modern day “Paula Revere” warning us all that Russia is evil.
The Email Thread Suggesting Comey Never Planned to Bring Charges Against Hillary:
Confirming criticism that Comey was in the tank for Hillary, recent evidence suggests Comey planned to exonerate Hillary in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State months before she was interviewed.
CNN reports:
The five-page document included a list of nearly 50 deleted pages and a mostly redacted email chain titled “Midyear Exam.” Though the email is marked unclassified, the only visible content is FBI official James Rybicki forwarding a redacted email from Comey to other top officials asking for “any comments on this statement so we may roll it into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date.”
The Rybicki email is dated May 16, 2016, and the original Comey email is dated May 2, 2016. Newsweek was first to report the release.
Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges in the Clinton investigation in an unprecedented statement, during which he also heavily criticized Clinton and her team for their handling of sensitive information in her use of a private email server while at the State Department.
The FBI declined to comment further on the documents.
I see Trump is doing his part. Now if the establishment could get it together, maybe get something done, anything really, Congress should stay firmly in their grasp. Not that I think the disloyal louts deserve the help or anyone’s money, but they’re still better than Democrats.
“The Republican National Committee raised more than $100 million in the first nine months of 2017, marking the first time it has raised that much, that fast, in a non-presidential election year.
The record-breaking fundraising can be largely attributed to a flurry of small-dollar donors responding to fundraising appeals by the first Republican president in eight years, Donald Trump, according to a new report to be released later this week and obtained by McClatchy.
The numbers give Republicans a large cash advantage over Democrats as they look to retain control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections next year.”
—————–
“Trump collected a record-settling $239 million from donors who contributed $200 or less during his 2016 campaign. So far this year, almost 60 percent — more than $44 million of the $75 million the RNC raised in direct contributions — came from small donations, often after Trump sent pleas asking supporters to “drain the swamp” of business as usual. More than 98 percent of those who gave to the RNC were small-dollar donors.”
Debra, certainly we can’t radically change what we have now–for instance, without owner-owned houses in NYC, all renters suddenly lose the vote. Still, having a minimum age of 18 as the only standard doesn’t do much for having an educated citizenry, especially when voters can choose which politician gives up the most of other people’s money.
The Obama Aministration clearly mishandled the Benghazi matter, particularly when it blamed the attack on a video. However, at some point it seemed to me that Republicans overplayed their hand. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats deal with the Niger story.
Debra, I found this article by Douthat interesting. In the first part of the article, he argues that your hero should be Little Bush. However, he then shifts focus and the last six paragraphs are pretty tough.
First off, why shouldn’t he use this money to defend himself against false allegations?
Second, not surprisingly CNN’s numbers are wrong.
From your link.
“It’s not clear precisely what share of the campaign’s legal costs are tied to the Russia-related investigations beyond the $318,000 disbursed to Trump Jr.’s attorneys. The Trump campaign’s executive director Michael Glassner did not respond to CNN requests for comment.”
————————–
Their fake reporting aside, it is clear what he’s spent on legal fees. My link above covers it, and it ain’t the 2 million as CNN alleges.
From my link;
“Some donations, too, are helping foot the bills for legal fees stemming from various investigations into whether Trump associates worked with Russia to meddle in the presidential election. The RNC has spent more than $400,000 on legal fees this year.”
Because running an illegal gun running operation that get’s your embassy attacked (because that’s where they stored said guns) ambassador and others killed, refuse to send help while they’re being killed, and lying about it to Congress and the public is just like what happened in Niger where folks died trying to rescue hostages. .
Except it’s not. At all.
You know this. So does CNN. But like you, they’re desperate, so the truth must be sacrificed. I know you guys need a win to keep moral up, but aren’t you tired of losing, making unfounded accusations, and constantly being proven wrong?
If one can fight & die for one’s country at age 18, then shouldn’t one be able to vote & drink alcohol at age 18? That was how my dad felt, as he came back from Korea at age 19, old enough to have been in a war zone, but not old enough to buy a beer. But if we raised the age of entering the service to 21, our military might suffer a shortage of people to send out.
Hey! Maybe that’s not such a bad idea! Maybe Congress & the president would realize that we don’t have enough people to send into conflict & war zones, so we should more carefully pick our battles.
Actually, nope, that wouldn’t work. They’d institute the draft, women included. I come to that conclusion based on how they deal with money. Don’t have enough? No problem! Raise the debt ceiling & print more! Actually keeping to a budget is for the little people.
Kizzie, I don’t see how raising military age to 21 would cause a large decrease in the number of soldiers available, but I admit it’s something I haven’t studied. At any rate, being “eligible” for military service and engaging in it are two different things. I would imagine that under just about any scenario an active-duty soldier or someone honorably discharged should be eligible to vote. But 18-year-olds who have taken no visible step toward adulthood don’t necessarily have the maturity and wisdom to vote responsibly, either.
AJ @ 10:01 You are confusing Trump’s legal fees paid out of his own campaign committee and his legal fees paid by the RNC. The CNN article dealt with both.
I find it humorous that the donors are paying for huge legal fees caused by Trump framing himself before, during and after the Comey firing. He may have done something criminal, but my prediction was always that he was just stupid.
Cheryl – Maybe at some time in the past, people would have accepted allowing military personnel under 21 to vote, while not allowing others under 21, but I doubt that idea would fly these days.
As for if the military would suffer losses if the age was raised to 21, my guess is that a lot of 18 year olds who join would have found something else to do by the time they are 21. Not all, of course, & some would have their heart set on serving. But I think those who enter the military at 18 because they don’t see other prospects would have found some other track to follow by then.
The Niger episode reminds me a little bit of Somalia in 1993. In Somalia, Big Bush sent the troops late in his term but the casualties occurred in the Blackhawk Down episode after Clinton took office. Obama sent the troops to Niger, but I don’t think many Americans knew they were there until the recent ambush.
HRW, Your influence is spreading. I just saw a car with a Bernie sticker in Argyle, Texas, the most exclusive suburb in conservative Denton County. I looked to see if the car had Canadian plates. I thought it might have been you.
Wandering Views 
Well. I can see I signed off the politics thread too early last night. You busy bees sneaked in and changed the Constitution while I was doing something else. In a free country, I guess that’s what happens when you don’t shepherd the government…and sometimes even when you do. :–)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Actually, household votes of some type (including female headed households) would not have been a bad idea at one time. But I think we’ve already past that fork in the path, and trying to go back now would be revolutionary in the worst sense. We can’t even declare with certainty what it means to be male or female; how would we ever define a household. :–/
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s about time.
Yep. They finally found someone colluding with the Russians.
https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/17/bombshell-fbi-found-russia-bribery-extortion-plot-us-nuclear-industry-2009/
“Call it the original Russia collusion case, only it came long before the 2016 election. According to The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann, the FBI began to piece together a Russian operation designed to advance Vladimir Putin’s control of nuclear materials in 2009 that involved both bribery and extortion. The discovery predated two key decisions that gave Moscow control over a significant portion of the US uranium market, including the Uranium One deal that put hundreds of thousands of dollars into Bill Clinton’s pockets:
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
And guess whose charitable foundation benefited from this, according to one FBI witness and documentation gathered by the FBI?
And guess whose charitable foundation benefited from this, according to one FBI witness and documentation gathered by the FBI?
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
There were actually two deals that served Putin’s interests involved in this operation. The year after State approved the purchase of Uranium One by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom in 2010, the Obama administration gave approval for Rosatom to vastly expand its sales of uranium inside the US through its Tenex subsidiary. Until then, Tenex could only sell Russian uranium gleaned from decommissioned nuclear weapons, part of the US attempts to incentivize Moscow into cannibalizing its nukes. The two combined deals gave Moscow a great deal of leverage in the US nuclear market — and the bribes and extortion alone created “legitimate security concerns” of their own.
The Department of Justice, however, never went public with its probe. Instead, Solomon and Spann report, they sat on it for four years:
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
Call me crazy, but this seems a lot more serious than a Russian troll farm buying $100,000 in Facebook ads during the election. Solomon and Spann report that this involved millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks, not just small potatoes like online ads. The FBI probe exposed new avenues of money laundering, an intelligence boon that may have serious repercussions for Russian intelligence down the road.”
__________________________________________
And the Obama admin covered up and ran interference for the Russian collusion.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/10/recent-reports-suggest-obama-administration-covered-for-the-clintons-on-more-than-one-occassion/
“The Obama administration ran interference for Hillary on more than one occasion (that we know of), if two recent reports are to be believed.
First, there’s the issue of the Clinton Foundation’s dealings with Canadian Uranium One (sold to Russians), which include a bribery scandal the FBI was aware of, and in which the DOJ chose not to reveal until after the deal was done.
Secondly, emails posted by the FBI as part of their public disclosure efforts indicate Comey planned to exonerate Hillary months before he interviewed her in the home-brewed email scandal investigation.
—————————–
And the clincher:
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
Consider that since her embarrassing electoral loss, Hillary has been traipsing around the country, hocking her book, fancying herself a modern day “Paula Revere” warning us all that Russia is evil.
The Email Thread Suggesting Comey Never Planned to Bring Charges Against Hillary:
Confirming criticism that Comey was in the tank for Hillary, recent evidence suggests Comey planned to exonerate Hillary in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State months before she was interviewed.
CNN reports:
The five-page document included a list of nearly 50 deleted pages and a mostly redacted email chain titled “Midyear Exam.” Though the email is marked unclassified, the only visible content is FBI official James Rybicki forwarding a redacted email from Comey to other top officials asking for “any comments on this statement so we may roll it into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date.”
The Rybicki email is dated May 16, 2016, and the original Comey email is dated May 2, 2016. Newsweek was first to report the release.
Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges in the Clinton investigation in an unprecedented statement, during which he also heavily criticized Clinton and her team for their handling of sensitive information in her use of a private email server while at the State Department.
The FBI declined to comment further on the documents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I see Trump is doing his part. Now if the establishment could get it together, maybe get something done, anything really, Congress should stay firmly in their grasp. Not that I think the disloyal louts deserve the help or anyone’s money, but they’re still better than Democrats.
Barely.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article179293446.html
“The Republican National Committee raised more than $100 million in the first nine months of 2017, marking the first time it has raised that much, that fast, in a non-presidential election year.
The record-breaking fundraising can be largely attributed to a flurry of small-dollar donors responding to fundraising appeals by the first Republican president in eight years, Donald Trump, according to a new report to be released later this week and obtained by McClatchy.
The numbers give Republicans a large cash advantage over Democrats as they look to retain control of both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections next year.”
—————–
“Trump collected a record-settling $239 million from donors who contributed $200 or less during his 2016 campaign. So far this year, almost 60 percent — more than $44 million of the $75 million the RNC raised in direct contributions — came from small donations, often after Trump sent pleas asking supporters to “drain the swamp” of business as usual. More than 98 percent of those who gave to the RNC were small-dollar donors.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
How voting worked in the days of George Washington:
http://www.chicagonow.com/my-kind-of-old-town/2014/10/campaign-1785-voting-in-colonial-virginia-or-how-george-washington-got-elected-without-tv-ads-political-rallies-or-campaign-strategists/
LikeLike
I see Trump is also doing his part to spend those donations, and the legal community of Washington says, “Thank You!”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/donald-trump-campaign-legal-fees/index.html
LikeLike
Debra, certainly we can’t radically change what we have now–for instance, without owner-owned houses in NYC, all renters suddenly lose the vote. Still, having a minimum age of 18 as the only standard doesn’t do much for having an educated citizenry, especially when voters can choose which politician gives up the most of other people’s money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aj @ 7:29
Wanna bet nothing will come of that.?
Winner get’s an “I told you so.”
It will be of FoxNews.
Rush will talk about it.
That’s it.
LikeLike
The Obama Aministration clearly mishandled the Benghazi matter, particularly when it blamed the attack on a video. However, at some point it seemed to me that Republicans overplayed their hand. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats deal with the Niger story.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/17/politics/us-niger-military-investigation-confusion/index.html
LikeLike
Debra, I found this article by Douthat interesting. In the first part of the article, he argues that your hero should be Little Bush. However, he then shifts focus and the last six paragraphs are pretty tough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky,
First off, why shouldn’t he use this money to defend himself against false allegations?
Second, not surprisingly CNN’s numbers are wrong.
From your link.
“It’s not clear precisely what share of the campaign’s legal costs are tied to the Russia-related investigations beyond the $318,000 disbursed to Trump Jr.’s attorneys. The Trump campaign’s executive director Michael Glassner did not respond to CNN requests for comment.”
————————–
Their fake reporting aside, it is clear what he’s spent on legal fees. My link above covers it, and it ain’t the 2 million as CNN alleges.
From my link;
“Some donations, too, are helping foot the bills for legal fees stemming from various investigations into whether Trump associates worked with Russia to meddle in the presidential election. The RNC has spent more than $400,000 on legal fees this year.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure Ricky,
Because running an illegal gun running operation that get’s your embassy attacked (because that’s where they stored said guns) ambassador and others killed, refuse to send help while they’re being killed, and lying about it to Congress and the public is just like what happened in Niger where folks died trying to rescue hostages. .
Except it’s not. At all.
You know this. So does CNN. But like you, they’re desperate, so the truth must be sacrificed. I know you guys need a win to keep moral up, but aren’t you tired of losing, making unfounded accusations, and constantly being proven wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, 7:27, so true.
LikeLike
If one can fight & die for one’s country at age 18, then shouldn’t one be able to vote & drink alcohol at age 18? That was how my dad felt, as he came back from Korea at age 19, old enough to have been in a war zone, but not old enough to buy a beer. But if we raised the age of entering the service to 21, our military might suffer a shortage of people to send out.
Hey! Maybe that’s not such a bad idea! Maybe Congress & the president would realize that we don’t have enough people to send into conflict & war zones, so we should more carefully pick our battles.
Actually, nope, that wouldn’t work. They’d institute the draft, women included. I come to that conclusion based on how they deal with money. Don’t have enough? No problem! Raise the debt ceiling & print more! Actually keeping to a budget is for the little people.
LikeLike
Kizzie, I don’t see how raising military age to 21 would cause a large decrease in the number of soldiers available, but I admit it’s something I haven’t studied. At any rate, being “eligible” for military service and engaging in it are two different things. I would imagine that under just about any scenario an active-duty soldier or someone honorably discharged should be eligible to vote. But 18-year-olds who have taken no visible step toward adulthood don’t necessarily have the maturity and wisdom to vote responsibly, either.
LikeLike
AJ @ 10:01 You are confusing Trump’s legal fees paid out of his own campaign committee and his legal fees paid by the RNC. The CNN article dealt with both.
I find it humorous that the donors are paying for huge legal fees caused by Trump framing himself before, during and after the Comey firing. He may have done something criminal, but my prediction was always that he was just stupid.
LikeLike
Cheryl – Maybe at some time in the past, people would have accepted allowing military personnel under 21 to vote, while not allowing others under 21, but I doubt that idea would fly these days.
As for if the military would suffer losses if the age was raised to 21, my guess is that a lot of 18 year olds who join would have found something else to do by the time they are 21. Not all, of course, & some would have their heart set on serving. But I think those who enter the military at 18 because they don’t see other prospects would have found some other track to follow by then.
LikeLike
The Niger episode reminds me a little bit of Somalia in 1993. In Somalia, Big Bush sent the troops late in his term but the casualties occurred in the Blackhawk Down episode after Clinton took office. Obama sent the troops to Niger, but I don’t think many Americans knew they were there until the recent ambush.
LikeLike
HRW, Your influence is spreading. I just saw a car with a Bernie sticker in Argyle, Texas, the most exclusive suburb in conservative Denton County. I looked to see if the car had Canadian plates. I thought it might have been you.
LikeLike