So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
(11-15-2017 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote: Of course she had some influence, but this narrative that she was the sole person responsible for the sale is laughable.
Oh, I doubt she was the sole person. It probably wasn't even her idea (Bubba is the brains in that arrangement). There was more than enough money laundered through the Canadien arm of the Clinton Foundation for everyone involved. $240 Million. Disgusting!
(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
(11-15-2017 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote: Of course she had some influence, but this narrative that she was the sole person responsible for the sale is laughable.
The question though is exactly how does her influence come into play. She wasn't sitting on the committee during this vote; her deputy was. Clinton and Obama weren't the tightest, even those she was his Secretary of State. So did she try to ease the deal to him? A non-partisan agency approved the deal. What exactly was Hillary Clinton needed for?
(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
Owl, what were the dates and amounts of donations from those 9 donors to the Clinton Foundation?
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 09:32 AM by Latilleon.)
(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
(11-15-2017 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Ah ha... Basically you think that she influenced 8 other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, people who had knowledge of all the donors to the Clinton Foundation and the payers of Bill Clinton's speech fees and President Obama who had already had a frosty relationship with Vladimir Putin and his puppet Russian President.
You believe all this, but don't believe the Russians were helping the 2016 Trump campaign and actually directly communicated with them about the scheme.
(11-15-2017 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Ah ha... Basically you think that she influenced 8 other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, people who had knowledge of all the donors to the Clinton Foundation and the payers of Bill Clinton's speech fees and President Obama who had already had a frosty relationship with Vladimir Putin and his puppet Russian President.
You believe all this, but don't believe the Russians were helping the 2016 Trump campaign and actually directly communicated with them about the scheme.
I believe what the evidence proves. And I believe that where the evidence is not there to prove or disprove, investigation is warranted. One is being investigated. The other is not. All that I want to see is the same rules applied with equal vigor to all.
(11-15-2017 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Ah ha... Basically you think that she influenced 8 other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, people who had knowledge of all the donors to the Clinton Foundation and the payers of Bill Clinton's speech fees and President Obama who had already had a frosty relationship with Vladimir Putin and his puppet Russian President.
You believe all this, but don't believe the Russians were helping the 2016 Trump campaign and actually directly communicated with them about the scheme.
I believe what the evidence proves. And I believe that where the evidence is not there to prove or disprove, investigation is warranted. One is being investigated. The other is not. All that I want to see is the same rules applied with equal vigor to all.
One has to do with a Presidential administration which may be compromised; one has to do with a private citizen that wouldn't be talked about if not used as a deflect from the investigation of the Presidential administration.
But you were cool with the find nothing Benghazi investigations too.
(11-15-2017 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Ah ha... Basically you think that she influenced 8 other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice
An Arizona tarmac meeting says AHA! right back at you.
(11-15-2017 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Ah ha... Basically you think that she influenced 8 other Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice
An Arizona tarmac meeting says AHA! right back at you.
Did it? You'd think Bill Clinton had Loretta Lynch's personal phone number, since he appointed her do an office during his administration and all. And whether he tried to influence her or just shot the breeze, it ended up hurting Hillary Clinton because Lynch stepped away from the investigation as not to give the appearance of impropriety, and had she not, would have denied Comey's letter to Repubs which had a political effect, which the FBI is not supposed to do.
