To Russia With Love

[_EAllusion]

You took my OP and read all sorts of things into it that I didn't put there. If you want to know what I think, ask me and I'll tell you. No need to wonder. I'm honored though that my OP was worth a little bit of EA brain time.

You are overtly comparing a ginned up pseudo-scandal to an actual serious scandal and claiming liberals are hypocrites for not reacting the same to each story. You say as much. This implies, as in these are the mutually exhaustive options, that you think both are major scandals, that neither are, or that this one is a big deal but Trump and his inner circle's various dubious behavior regarding Russia are not. I listed every possibility and yet you insist that this is "reading into things" that you didn't put there. The only logical option that isn't listed there is that you think this is not a big deal, but the Trump Russia investigation is, but that is flatly contradicted by how you wrote your post.

On a related note, whether Russia's attempts to influence the election were ultimately successful is not exculpatory for attempting to support a hostile foreign power's efforts to interfere with the election nor would it be for participating in a cover-up for that same behavior. "We tried to do this, but our methods didn't work as well as we hoped" is not a defense.

[_EAllusion]

So, quite often "research" for climate change that is funded by Oil Companies is dismissed, because Oil Companies.

The research firm has invoked its right to not testify before the House and the Democrats have been strongly opposed to Nunes wanting the research firm's bank records on the matter.

In no particular order:

1) This is confusing the Steele dossier with all the allegations regarding Trump. Firing Comey to thwart the Russia investigation, which Trump admitted to on national TV, is not a dossier item. Nor are many other aspects of the Russia investigation.

2) We've known that the Steele oppo research was first funded by a Republican primary opponent of Trump's then later by the DNC's general election campaign since last year. Reframing this as new news in order to suggest it discredits all this Russia business is just dishonest.

3) Research on climate change funded by oil companies isn't dismissed simply because it is from oil companies. That just fundamentally misunderstands the argument. A non-strawman version of this would be that lay people who are unable to evaluate underlying scientific research should consider the credibility of authorities when evaluating what is most trustworthy. Industry funded arguments regarding climate change favorable to that industry should be viewed as inherently unreliable as trusted sources, especially when they contradict general scientific opinion.

If you wanted to make this equivalent in this case, it would be that one shouldn't trust oppo research funded by Trump's opponents on its mere say so. That's trivially true and no one disagrees with it. That's why independent confirmation, of which there definitely is for some of the Steele dossier, is required before accepting any of the information found there.

[_Black Moclips]

.....a ginned up pseudo-scandal to an actual serious scandal....

I rest my case. I think there is plenty of evidence that its NOT a pseudo-scandal. You don't see it, but I think its plainly obvious. From my point of view, your are biased. Surprised?

The financial dealings between these kinds of individuals with this amount of money and power do not happen in a vacuum, independent of each other. Bill just happens to rake in his biggest fee yet from an organization linked to this Russian group. $145M in donations just spontaneously materializes from donors related to these Russians shortly thereafter. All coincidence and happenstance? Come on EA, this is not how the real world works.

You should really be looking into the DNC at this point. Starting to look like they were the ones contracting with Russians!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-24/wapo-dnc-clinton-campaign-financed-infamous-trump-dossier

[_The CCC]

Sooner or later the Republican's will get around to impeaching President Hillary Clinton.

[_Kevin Graham]

I think there is plenty of evidence that its NOT a pseudo-scandal. You don't see it, but I think its plainly obvious.

And from his experienced point of view, your reasoning is equivalent to those with mental disabilities.

Your new pet conspiracy theory falls flat on its face for the simple fact that Hillary could have had no influence on the outcome. That's how pay for play works. You get paid, and you play to make something happen. But all you have is Hillary's family charity organization (which has been praised as one of the best and most transparent charity orgs in the world) getting donation like it always does from dozens of foreign donors. There is no solid connection between payment and reciprocation here.

[_Res Ipsa]

Personally, I've had my fill of partisan show investigations. Appoint someone like Mueller to take a look.

If I'm remembering right, wasn't the original claim last year that Hillary sold the Russians 20% of our uranium in exchange for Bill getting paid for a speech? And didn't it turn out that Bill gave a speech, for which the company paid. Then the company was sold. Then the company was sold again to Russians. Then a whole bunch of people had to approve a sale, including the State Department, but approvals of that kind were handled below the secretary and Hillary wasn't involved. So, the person who paid for the speech wasn't the person who got the deal approved. Something like that.

Now we have an anonymous informant who says there was an investigation into an entirely different company (a trucking company) but that it's all connected because both were companies involving nukes. We have allegations of "related to" and "connected with" but no actual evidence we can examine.

It smells like Benghazi grandstanding. But if the Republicans really think there is a there there, they should approach it in a serious manner.

[_Res Ipsa]

Personally, I've had my fill of partisan show investigations. Appoint someone like Mueller to take a look.

If I'm remembering right, wasn't the original claim last year that Hillary sold the Russians 20% of our uranium in exchange for Bill getting paid for a speech? And didn't it turn out that Bill gave a speech, for which the company paid. Then the company was sold. Then the company was sold again to Russians. Then a whole bunch of people had to approve a sale, including the State Department, but approvals of that kind were handled below the secretary and Hillary wasn't involved. So, the person who paid for the speech wasn't the person who got the deal approved. Something like that.

Now we have an anonymous informant who says there was an investigation into an entirely different company (a trucking company) but that it's all connected because both were companies involving nukes. We have allegations of "related to" and "connected with" but no actual evidence we can examine.

It smells like Benghazi grandstanding. But if the Republicans really think there is a there there, they should approach it in a serious manner.