Lion of the Blogosphere

What about Hillary Clinton’s collusion with foreigners?

Mike Street Station writes in a comment: “There is far more real evidence of Hillary and Podesta ‘colluding’ and meeting foreign representatives than with the Trump non-story.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 15, 2017 at 11:00 am

Posted in Uncategorized

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. That would have more, or more accurately some, weight if he provided any of that evidence. Lion himself said that the Clinton campaign never would have met with this woman offering dirt directly but would have gone through an intermediary like they did to get the Steele report.

    Magnavox

    July 15, 2017 at 11:18 am

    • That kind of intellectual dishonesty is why I have absolutely no respect for leftists such as yourself or mikeca no matter how “respectable” you try to portray yourselves. You’ll claim “collusion” about Trump without any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. But you’ll deny “collusion”when the Hillary foundation is actually taking millions from foreign governments including China and Russia. And the whole time the left wasscreaming. “There’s no evidence that laws were broken!” But when it involves Trup you’ve been screaming collusion without even the barest hint. So tell me — what specific laws do you think were broken and what evidence do you have?

      destructure

      July 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm

      • Don Jr. may not have completely ended the debate about Trump and collusion, but it certainly makes Trump look bad, especially since it is now clear the Trump camp has been lying about their connections to Russia over and over and over again. Why would you trust him? I would not be surprised if Clinton is also guilty of collusion, but that in no way excuses Trump. I am sick of this partisan crap. Lock them all up if you want to save the country. Clinton, Pelosi, Ryan and Trump. Trump is not a conservative anyway, he is a conman who hijacked a party and country desperate for leadership. The idea that professed defenders of Western Civilization decided their savior was the twice-divorced man who brought us “Trump steaks”, “Trump University” and a crappy reality show beloved by blacks and hispanic immigrants is the kind of dark comedy Evelyn Waugh might write.

        Peter Akuleyev

        July 15, 2017 at 3:17 pm

      • “connections to Russia”

        What’s with these “connections”? I know some Russian immigrants at work, does that mean I have “connections to Russia”?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 15, 2017 at 5:52 pm

      • Peter,

        I have no interest in playing this game of watching Republicans and Donald Trump fall on their swords in noble defeat.

        I could not care less about any “laws” that Trump or his entourage may or may not have violated given that virtually the entire democratic party is a criminal enterprise who are really the only ones interpreting these laws to begin with, along with the media lickspittle.

        Remember…Hillary is not in office. That is a huge win, despite all of Trump’s faults, of which I could not care less.

        map

        July 15, 2017 at 10:22 pm

      • “I am sick of this partisan crap. Lock them all up if you want to save the country.”

        Trump is saving the country right now by cracking down on immigration. That’s one of the reasons the leftists and globalists and msm are going all out to sabotage his presidency. This is for the future of the country. And you’re on the wrong side.

        destructure

        July 16, 2017 at 11:48 am

    • Bill Clinton, husband to US Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, was paid half a million dollars by a Russian shell company for a speech while she was signing off on Uranium One.

      Andrew E.

      July 15, 2017 at 1:02 pm

      • The Uranium One deal was thoroughly reported by the MSM long before the election.

        The Uranium One deal was reviewed by the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. This committee by law can only make recommendations to the President. Only the President could reject the transaction. The committee cannot approve or disapprove of a transaction on its own. Clinton could have strongly argued in that committee for or against the transaction, but there is no evidence she took a position either way. If there were going to be objections, you would expect them to come from the Defense or Homeland Security departments.

        Of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation contributions, $131 million came from Frank Giustra, the company founder. Frank Giustra sold all his stock in the company in 2007. He made no profit from the later sale to Russian interests. He made all of his contributions to the Clinton Foundation before Clinton became secretary of state. The chairman of Uranium One did make some smaller contributions around the time of the transaction, but no one has an evidence those contributions were intended to influence the approval.

        There is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation ever influences any actions of the State Department. Bills speaking fees raise ethical questions, but the idea that those fees were a bribe to get the Uranium One deal approved seems ridiculous. Hillary Clinton was simple not in a position to approve the deal.

        This misleading story was used to attack Clinton throughout the campaign. At this point it is old news.

        mikeca

        July 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      • That was when Valerie Jarrett was leaking the stories. By 2016, Obama and team concluded Hillary was the only show in town and the media became slavishly pro-Hillary.

        Sid

        July 15, 2017 at 7:17 pm

      • The Uranium One deal was thoroughly reported by the MSM long before the election.

        You make it sound like that erases the fact Hillary sold out American interests to a foreign power.

        Andrew E.

        July 15, 2017 at 7:25 pm

      • mikeca,

        Who cares what the New York Times writes?

        “Clinton could have strongly argued in that committee for or against the transaction, but there is no evidence she took a position either way. If there were going to be objections, you would expect them to come from the Defense or Homeland Security departments.”

        Big deal…a bunch of parliamentary maneuvering. “There is no evidence” is the favorite democrat weasel phrase…as if memos and emails are going to be lying around proving and disproving anything.

        “Of the $145 million in Clinton Foundation contributions, $131 million came from Frank Giustra, the company founder.”

        One guy just donated $131 million to the Clinton foundation…for what, exactly? Services rendered? That’s mighty white of him, isn’t it?

        “Frank Giustra sold all his stock in the company in 2007. He made no profit from the later sale to Russian interests.”

        Really? And how does the New York Times know he made no profit? Oh… did he donate the proceeds to a nonprofit organization and that counts as money from which he does not permanently profit?

        “He made all of his contributions to the Clinton Foundation before Clinton became secretary of state.”

        And Russians were meeting with Trump’s people and Don, Jr. long before his father became president. Yet, this is scandalous collusion, but Hillary Clinton’s involvements are all above board.

        “The chairman of Uranium One did make some smaller contributions around the time of the transaction, but no one has an evidence those contributions were intended to influence the approval.”

        There’s that weasel phrase again “no evidence,” as if people like Hillary leave evidence. It’s a good thing guys like Comey are around investigating.

        “There is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation ever influences any actions of the State Department.”

        More weasel phrasing.

        Yet, the appearance of impropriety is well-established, plus the fact that two government officials are somehow raking in hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of pay-to-play.

        map

        July 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

      • “You make it sound like that erases the fact Hillary sold out American interests to a foreign power.”

        As I explained above, Hillary was never in a position to veto this deal. Only Obama could veto the deal.

        I suspect at the time Obama was trying to improve relations with Russia and decided to approve this deal as a step in that direction.

        This company controls 20% of US uranium mines, but the company is not allowed to export any uranium it mines. The uranium will never be exported to Russia.

        I find it fascinating how when talking about this deal, Russia is a hostile foreign power, while when talking about Trumps dealing with Russia, Russia is just another country.

        mikeca

        July 15, 2017 at 10:56 pm

      • Why was it such a good idea to improve ties with Russia in 2010, but so horrible in 2017?

        After Russia invaded Georgia, Hillary gave them the reset button to press, so don’t tell me Crimea and Ukraine are somehow unprecedented events.

        No, we’re pretty consistent in that we think a deescalation of tensions with Russia is in America’s interests. What’s baffling is how Democrats thought Russia was a fine enough country from 2009 to 2012, and even mocked Romney for his “Cold War” views, but now act as though Russia has become an enemy nation since roughly 2013, and that any sort of detente is treasonous.

        Sid

        July 16, 2017 at 12:04 am

    • They used a DNC operative to get the information, Alexandra Chalupa,

      http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

      “She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy.”

      No one is freaking out about that meeting are they?

      Mike Street Station

      July 15, 2017 at 1:33 pm

      • Alexandra Chalupa was a Ukrainian-American consultant who worked for the DNC. She mostly did organizing I think, but after Manafort became a figure in the Trump campaign she used her Ukrainian contacts to do opposition research on Manafort and Trump. She asked Ukrainian officials for information on Manafort and Trump and some of them helped her find information. Manafort was an adviser to the pro-Russian government that has just been overthrown. Many Ukrainian officials did not like him.

        The revelations she found helped to force Manafort to resign as campaign chairman.

        Alexandra Chalupa was an American doing standard opposition research for the DNC. She found some Ukrainian government officials that did not like Manafort and/or Trump and she got some useful information from them.

        That is very different from going into a meeting with foreign nationals offering opposition research which is represented as being provided by a foreign government to support your candidate. If a foreign government is offering your candidate opposition research, you have to wonder what they are going to ask in return. That is why direct money donations from foreigners is illegal.

        mikeca

        July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      • Oh mikeca…”She asked Ukrainian officials for information on Manafort and Trump and some of them helped her find information. ”

        You think that’s totally innocent, unlike Don Jr’s meeting?

        This is why we can’t have nice things, like honest discussion. As a lefty, you are not going to find a more honest place on the right that will criticize Trump, the Republicans, and right leaning commentators than Lion’s blog. Oh that we could expect some reciprocation from the left instead of the usual talking points that don’t rise any higher than a CNN chiron.

        Oh and I read the Atlantic talking points excuse as well as several others. You guys are not even trying.

        Mike Street Station

        July 15, 2017 at 6:01 pm

      • Nobody named Chalupa should be taken seriously, ever.

        Tom

        July 15, 2017 at 7:35 pm

      • “You think that’s totally innocent, unlike Don Jr’s meeting?”

        Opposition research is never totally innocent, but it is a standard fact of politics and it serves a purpose. It helps alert the electorate to sleazy and unethical things that candidates have done in the past. Of course much of output of opposition research is turned into misleading attack ads, which is unethical.

        “This is why we can’t have nice things, like honest discussion.”

        I refer you to Jennifer Rubin’s Washington Post column:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/07/14/the-gops-moral-rot-is-the-problem-not-donald-trump-jr/?utm_term=.fae81386b3fe

        Jennifer Rubin is a conservative. She one time worked at the Weekly Standard. She is apparently not a Trump supporter. As she says in this coloumn:

        Let me suggest the real problem is not the Trump family, but the GOP. To paraphrase Brooks, “It takes generations to hammer ethical considerations out of a [party’s] mind and to replace them entirely with the ruthless logic of winning and losing.” Again, to borrow from Brooks, beyond partisanship the GOP evidences “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code.”

        This is why we cannot have an honest discussion. The GOP lacks the moral and ethical principals around which an honest discussion could be framed. There is only winning and losing. Trump rose to the top of the GOP because he is a winner with the fewest moral and ethical principals.

        mikeca

        July 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

      • The GOP hates Trump, they wanted Jeb Bush to win.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 15, 2017 at 8:52 pm

      • mikeca,

        “That is very different from going into a meeting with foreign nationals offering opposition research which is represented as being provided by a foreign government to support your candidate.”

        Alexandra Chalupa did the exact same thing…used foreign government officials to get opposition research.
        You cite a distinction without a difference.

        map

        July 15, 2017 at 10:42 pm

      • This is why we cannot have an honest discussion. The GOP lacks the moral and ethical principals around which an honest discussion could be framed. There is only winning and losing. Trump rose to the top of the GOP because he is a winner with the fewest moral and ethical principals.

        That not only ignores all the similar collusion with foreign powers that the DNC engages in but, even more significantly, ignores the fact that a central elements of their long term electoral strategy is to import a semi permanent underclass to vote for them.

        Magnavox

        July 16, 2017 at 1:33 am

      • “Alexandra Chalupa did the exact same thing…used foreign government officials to get opposition research.
        You cite a distinction without a difference.

        If you cannot see the difference:

        1) Taking a meeting with foreigners and lobbyist for a foreign country who are offering you opposition research. You have not requested opposition research from them and it is represented as coming from a foreign government.

        2) A US citizen asking foreign government officials questions and recording their answers to gather opposition research.

        Then it is because you have lost your moral and ethical compass and replaced it with partisan hate.

        To quote again from Jennifer Rubin:

        Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America.

        mikeca

        July 16, 2017 at 5:11 pm

  2. The MSM still pretty much ignores any issues raised by the Wikileaks releases on Hilary and Podesta.

    Camlost

    July 15, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    • Which is especially ironic considering the “Russia hacked the election” stupidity entirely rests on the idea that Russian intelligence was who hacked Podesta.

      They simultaneously believe that there was nothing in the Podesta emails – which is why it go no press coverage but that revealing the emails turned the election.

      Steve Johnson

      July 15, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      • They’re making such a fuss about the hacking because the emails show they’re charlatans.

        Sid

        July 15, 2017 at 7:18 pm

  3. The corporate media is in a difficult position right now. In 2016, they failed in their effort to sway voters to Clinton by attacking Trump. Then, after he was elected, they switched to plan B.

    Except, there was no plan B, so they continue to attack Trump, with predictable results. And this is the best and the brightest, the editors of the Harvard Crimson, all grown up, battling their fellow Ivy Leaguers and even a Vanderbilt for scoops.

    Both the Trump campaign and the Russian government wanted Trump to become president. But parallel efforts are not collusion. The pressure on the hacks rises. Cracks appear — a few CNN hacks lost their jobs over a fake story of some kind. But for most, the show goes on.

    They are forced to blow everything out of proportion, cry SCANDAL! when an utterly forgettable meeting takes place between Trump jr and a small time lawyer, the Wall Street Journal reports on a now-dead man from the Midwest who paid hackers to find Hillary’s lost emails, in a separate story they produce a complex chart showing how a Russian bank lent money to someone who sold a building to someone who sold it to Trump. Or something like that.

    It must be done, of course. There are no other options. However, it can only ensure one thing: if a smoking gun ever emerges, the public won’t care, as they will long since have been desensitized to the Russia/Trump story.

    The only positive for me is that it is the first time I have ever seen a real witch hunt. It is fascinating how it works, how the story takes on a life of its own, how the words and words pour out onto the Internet, the hours and hours of broadcast time. The hours of our lives.

    The Shepherd

    July 15, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    • if a smoking gun ever emerges, the public won’t care, as they will long since have been desensitized to the Russia/Trump story.

      That’s an interesting point but I think you’re underestimating the cumulative effect of all these small stories about Russia. It really is a brilliant strategy to keep harping on because not only have leftists really taken to their new anti Russia ideology but it also weakens Trumps support among republicans, especially those in power. There also won’t be any shortage of leaks for the media to report on since the deep state is so anti Russia and anti Trump.

      Republicans will never solve the issue because of their pathological refusal to see the need for any kind of business regulations.

      Magnavox

      July 15, 2017 at 3:18 pm

      • It really is a brilliant strategy to keep harping on…

        Indeed. Keep going. Don’t stop.

        Andrew E.

        July 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

      • Magnavox,

        But there is an already established narrative that many Republicans don’t like Trump. The weakness in this support was baked into the cake before the election.

        What they are not counting out is NeverTrumpers getting primaried out of their jobs in 2018 and replaced with real Trump supporters.

        map

        July 15, 2017 at 10:51 pm

      • There’s been a complete lack of Trumpist being elected, except for Donald, and even he you could argue isn’t one.

        Magnavox

        July 16, 2017 at 1:27 am

  4. To me the sleaziest, most cynical, absurd and over the top stunt of either campaign during the election was the truly shameless use of Alicia Machado, Venezuelan national, as a trashy prop by the Clinton campaign. Was her time and dignity a “thing of value”? I guess not. And yet it gets a total pass by the arbiters of morality in the NYT building and on the Bloomberg editorial board. The hypicrisy is discouraging.

    Two in the Bush

    July 15, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    • On second thought I see Ms. Machado became a US Citizen. In May 2016!! Say what you will about the Clintons, but they know how to play the game.

      Two in the Bush

      July 15, 2017 at 1:25 pm

      • But it’s still an interesting point that a candidate could commit some heinous crime but if a non citizen tried to alert the opposing campaign it would be illegal for them to hear that person out, at least under the interpretation being put out there now.

        Magnavox

        July 16, 2017 at 1:36 am

  5. Aren’t you the guys who say that reason and rationality have nothing to do with anything? This is pure class warfare. The wrong type of person is in power. They won’t rest until the right kind of person is in power.

    gothamette

    July 15, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    • Even worse, as it’s become apparent by MikeCA & Magnavox stepping up their efforts of posting lugubrious essays in response to every hint otherwise, exonerating Hillary and condemning Trump, the wrong kind of people are posting comments on Lion’s blog. This needs to stop!

      Panther of the Blogocube

      July 15, 2017 at 6:41 pm

      • Actually I think it’s good that MikeCA & Magnavox kind of outed themselves that when push comes to shove, they revert to parroting talking points. Disappointing of course. I love having real discussions with the left of center, but it’s very difficult to do since ultimately they are going to stick to a script.

        Mike Street Station

        July 16, 2017 at 9:22 am

      • No, I like them. mikeca is extremely intelligent, although I disagree with him, and as for Magnavox, consider what I say to him, however angry in tone, as tough love. The comment version of PEER REVIEW. LOLOL.

        gothamette

        July 19, 2017 at 11:34 am

  6. Lion,
    Watch this video by Lee Stranahan re Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNe5WsmKwU

    Stranahan is a legitimate journalist (unlike Cernovich) and has a very comprehensive summary of the Ukraine scandal. I think this is how the Deep State truly works. Not really with devious plants and setups. But with using tactics such as Chalupa used. Must watch!

    JerseyGuy

    July 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

  7. For me, it would be interesting if there was evidence of a deal, explicit or implicit, whereby the Russians agreed to influence the election in favor of Trump and in return Trump agreed to push for policies which the Russians would deem favorable. In other words, evidence that Trump sold or attempted to sell political influence to foreigners.

    So far, I have not seen even a shred of evidence of such an arrangement.

    At the same time, there is lots of evidence that Hillary Clinton sold influence to foreigners.

    So yeah, it seems that this is just another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    fortaleza84

    July 16, 2017 at 4:20 am

  8. Silly lion!

    It’s not “rape” rape when a nobleman (democrat) does it.

    guest

    July 16, 2017 at 7:06 am

  9. Even if Trump flew to Moscow and got evidence of Clinton criminality directly from the FSB itself there’s still no “collusion” without quid pro quo. Collusion isn’t even a real legal term. It’s just a word the msm is using because it sounds legal. They’re using it to imply criminality because they can’t falsely accuse someone of a crime without getting sued.

    destructure

    July 16, 2017 at 12:34 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: