General US Politics Discussion

[DrSweatySphincter]

Despite all of this, I can somehow still see him reelected. We'll I just wait and see when the time comes.

[Creed Bratton]

So what's the deal with this executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/20/presidential-executive-order-amending-executive-order-13223

[El Dildo]

Having said all that I want Congress to do their job and repeal Obamacare.

Congress' job is to represent the will of the people.

 

the Affordable Care Act enjoys popular support from recipients, caregivers, NGO's, and industry interest groups alike; none of which can be said about anything the GOP has proposed. if Congress were doing its job it would pursue legislation that is in the best interests of the people instead of fighting over political points from a minority of the electorate.

 

and you're the one lecturing us on Civics 101?

you're such a gloating ass.

[Spaghetti Cat]

I agree that it's the job of the Congress to represent the will of the people. The majority of the people in the House got there by promising to repeal Obamacare. They should do their job and get it done. A lot of people, including myself, are quite mad that it hasn't been done already. The problem is that people in DC say one thing and do the other. So we are where we are.

 

Not quite sure where you get the idea that there is popular support for the program though. Regardless, the system is falling apart. Some states have just one insurer and next year it might be none. Especially considering the EO we've been talking about.

 

I would propose eliminating the individual mandate, allowing policies to be sold across state lines, and a more permanent solution to Medicare as starting points. Block grants to states would be another idea, though I'm not thrilled by it.

[sivispacem]

Ok, American Civics 101:

Don't be patronising. I'm fully aware of how the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government function, the same way that I'm fully aware that the narrative you've presented is a gross distortion of reality.

 

AFTER the law was ruled Constitutional President Obama then ADDED funding to pay the insurance companies. All by himself and without Congressional approval. This is unConstitutional and quite frankly an impeachable offense.

Not quite.

 

Firstly, as I've already explained, the fundamental principle of subsidising insurance companies was not examined in its constitutional validity. The constitutional question merely came down to the validity of asserting that the funding appropriated for tax breaks under Section 1401 could also be used for subsidies in Section 1402 as part of the same package of legislation to reduce costs for the poor. 1401 was, as I'm sure you'd be aware presuming you'd read your own documents, fully and amicably funded by Congress.

 

This kind of wrangling is hardly exceptional and the assertion it's an "impeachable offense" is hyperbolic drivel. In fact, EOs with clauses or sections that are implicitly funded elsewhere in an order (or entirely distinct from it) are common to the point of utter banality, as are politicised slap-fights about the validity of implicitly funded policies.

 

As a good Progressive, isn't that a good thing?

Why would it be? Your wanton disregard for common sense in the pursuit of every more farcical misinformed straw men really knows no bounds.

 

Would I prefer a system in the US that was universal and free at the point of access without the involvement of insurers? Absolutely. But given the set of circumstances we're currently in, I think you'd struggle to find any "progressive" that thinks state subsidisation of insurers to keep healthcare affordable for the poor is a greater evil than the inevitable race to the bottom that Trump's EO is designed to herald. At it's core, it's a pretty poor Nirvana fallacy.

 

Furthermore isn't the very definition of Fake News articles or stories meant to convey the opposite of the truth?

I think the definition could be made significantly broader than that, encompassing wilful omission, deliberate distortion, conclusions derived from fallacious reasoning, unreasobable emphasis about a myriad of other formal and informal fallacies and cognitive biases.

 

Saying that millions and millions of people are loosing coverage is totally false.

I don't think it's unreasobable to infer that changes to the ACA that push policy prices up for consumers and shepherd the poor towards temporary insurance plans that are utterly worthless at actually providing workable cover may result in large numbers of Americans, quite possibly millions, losing either portions of or all their healthcare cover. That seems to be the consensus view of most policy analysts too.

 

Not quite the centrist are we?

Being a centrist, IE occupying the political middle ground, does not preclude me from being able to ridicule your nonsense and nor does it make my a hypocrite for doing so selectively. I don't really think you're in much of a position to be making appeals to hypocrisy. Geriatrics in glass houses shouldn't throw ad hominems.

[Tchuck]

 

Saying that millions and millions of people are loosing coverage is totally false.

 

I mean, no it isn't? There's studies that were done on this that show that yes, millions would lose their coverage if the ACA was repealed as the republicans wish it.

 

In fact, I recall a couple months ago a massive discussion on this very topic about the subject, where it was pretty well demonstrated and covered that yes, millions would lose their coverage if the ACA was repealed as the republicans wish it.

 

I get it that you like to ignore points being made against you and just repeat your own biased view that doesn't at all reflect reality. But still, sh*t. To deny reality like this is insane.

[Saggy]

But still, sh*t. To deny reality like this is insane.

 

 

Lol that's conservative's standard operating procedure. Climate change, institutionalized racism, voter disenfranchisement, police brutality, the list could go on. Name an issue they don't deny reality for and that would be something special. The conservative strategy is to remain skeptical about everything which doesn't fit your preconceived notions of how the world works, and vehemently deny good evidence opposing their personal beliefs, instead favoring any lofty bit of substantiation that supports them. It's no wonder that crackpot conspiracy-theory fabricators like Alex Jones appeal more to the right.

 

I'd like to find a group of flat-earth believers and conduct a sampling of their political leanings. I think the results would be pretty revealing.

[ten-a-penny]

And now a Hawaiian judge has suspended the new incarnation of his Muslim travel ban.

.... his travel ban. Even if you're a Syrian Atheist you'd still be blocked.

[Typhus]

This is an interesting article. Apparently Trump will not block the release of documents concerning the death of President Kennedy:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/21/trump-jfk-kennedy-assassination-documents

I wonder how significant these may be. Though in truth I doubt it will be anything Earth shaking, as some people doubtlessly believe.

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

Hold on, it's been a long time since the US was "the leader of the world", they have been that for a brief time in the 90s, but ignoring the rise of China and India and the other BRICS countries, they have fallen behind. And while the others don't posture themselves quite so publicly as the US, they are making important headway in areas like Asia, Africa and South America, places often neglected by the US and - to a lesser degree - Europe.

 

 

Will it succeed? Who knows, but one thing is for sure, the 'free world' is no longer as closely bound as it was in the 90s. As for US dominance, the damage has already been done. Part of the neglect by the US means that the US is not prepared for the 21st century, and may be - of the developed countries anyway - the least prepared the coming century.

 

 

We should be concerned indeed. But if this statement alludes to China and India's social and economic development, then it is misguided. There are strengths in numbers. But the scale alone of Indian and Chinese populations and economies won't designate them as superpowers. They've hardly embraced the basic values of modernity despite the fancy trinkets and high-tech widgets that come with rapid growth. The more reliant Indian and Chinese wealth becomes on capitalism, the less disciplined and motivated their public will likely become just as in the west. Not to mentioned the increased expectations of democracy. These countries struggle to retain talent that might enjoy a much higher standard of living in the west. As you probably know, the obsolescence of many low skilled laborers due to automation and new mgmt. strategies is a global problem poised to disrupt these emerging powers too.

Yes the US is naturally losing influence by virtue of globalization and complacency. But going into the coming decades, the US will probably fair better than much of western Europe. That's coming from someone quite cynical towards the notion of American exceptionalism. Even if Russia magically becomes benevolent towards the west, the EU will continue to come apart at the seems until it can ensure the $ecurity & $tability of the neighboring regions to prevent rapid immigration and the resulting plague of reactionary politics. So we can't be too sure that the US will be significantly worse off than the other rich western nations going forward. After all, the decline of the US Empire doesn't have to be bad news for Americans.

Many of the people who voted for Trump and helped disgrace this country are dying off every week in old age. The otherwise populist base is inherently fickle and thus unpredictable going forward.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[El Dildo]

I'm pretty sure Oswald killed the President.

that being said; I certainly wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they confirmed that he had help...

[Typhus]

I'm pretty sure Oswald killed the President.

that being said; I certainly wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they confirmed that he had help...

I am of the same persuasion. Those who characterise Oswald as an unwitting dupe always seem to ignore the fact that he also killed a police officer after the death of Kennedy. Which doesn't really fit the image of some innocent patsy being set up by the CIA.

[Creed Bratton]

Though in truth I doubt it will be anything Earth shaking, as some people doubtlessly believe.

That's because it's either going to be the confirmation of the official story or the confirmation of one of the more likely conspiracy theories. Whatever the answer is, there won't be any novelty value in it and therefore no shock and awe.

[Creed Bratton]

Sorry for double posting, but why is the US State Department acting like an extension of Kremlin: http://thehill.com/policy/international/356674-state-dept-revokes-visa-of-top-putin-critic-report

[sivispacem]

The Kremlin's treatment of Browder has been dreadful, and the US seems to be enabling this. He was the main victim of the "tainted leaks" activity- effectively a state sponsored smear campaign conducted by the Russian intelligence services in support of their other political interference. Now he's on the Interpol red list for reasons entirely unclear to me, and the US is making obvious platitudes to Russia by revoking his visa. Thankfully he's domicile in a country not ruled by corrupt kleptocrats and Kremlin apologists

[Spaghetti Cat]

The Hill has been doing some good work lately, funny how you guys missed these bombshells though...

 

 

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.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

 

and

 

 

Other activities were perfectly legal and sitting in plain view, such as when a subsidiary of Russia’s state-controlled nuclear energy company hired a Washington firm to lobby the Obama administration. At the time it was hired, the firm was providing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pro bono support to Bill Clinton’s global charitable initiative, and it legally helped the Russian company secure federal decisions that led to billions in new U.S. commercial nuclear business, records show.

 

Agents were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s version of Silicon Valley, agents said.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356630-fbi-watched-then-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary#.We1EVcvV-iI.twitter

 

Ahhh the Russian Silicon Valley, makes Russian Facebook and Russian Google and not hack the US. Not. At. All.

 

 

Returning to some items...

 

 

 

Don't be patronising. I'm fully aware of how the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government function, the same way that I'm fully aware that the narrative you've presented is a gross distortion of reality.

 

 

 

Bzzt wrong. If you understand how it works then you'd understand I'm explaining the funding and judicial aspects of Trumps EO. Points you must have missed in the previous posts. So spare the delicate sensibilities.

 

 

 

AFTER the law was ruled Constitutional President Obama then ADDED funding to pay the insurance companies. All by himself and without Congressional approval. This is unConstitutional and quite frankly an impeachable offense.

Not quite.

Firstly, as I've already explained, the fundamental principle of subsidising insurance companies was not examined in its constitutional validity. The constitutional question merely came down to the validity of asserting that the funding appropriated for tax breaks under Section 1401 could also be used for subsidies in Section 1402 as part of the same package of legislation to reduce costs for the poor. 1401 was, as I'm sure you'd be aware presuming you'd read your own documents, fully and amicably funded by Congress.

 

 

Wrong again. Go back to civics 101. Congress never passed funding the insurance companies. You do a lot of explaining but not enough listening. 1401 is fine, 1402 is unconstitutional, simple as.

 

This isn't England, King Obama doesn't get to appropriate himself funding. To put another way, if Trump took taxpayer money to help fix up his golf courses would also be unconstitutional. Violating the Constitution, what the President is sworn to uphold is an impeachable offense. All in all, it's too late now.

 

 

 

As a good Progressive, isn't that a good thing?

Why would it be? Your wanton disregard for common sense in the pursuit of every more farcical misinformed straw men really knows no bounds.

 

So money goes to individuals and not insurance companies. I've been told how eeeevil the insurance companies are from at least 2009 till the other week. Now the insurance companies are super nice? Not straw man, just hypocritical by some.

 

Would I prefer a system in the US that was universal and free at the point of access without the involvement of insurers? Absolutely. But given the set of circumstances we're currently in, I think you'd struggle to find any "progressive" that thinks state subsidisation of insurers to keep healthcare affordable for the poor is a greater evil than the inevitable race to the bottom that Trump's EO is designed to herald. At it's core, it's a pretty poor Nirvana fallacy.

 

Well terrific, a marxist redistribution through healthcare, thank you for being honest. Now what's this race to the bottom? Only one I see is Obamacare failing in certain states. Trumps EO just cut funding for the insurers. Again, that's what you progressives want right?

 

 

Saying that millions and millions of people are loosing coverage is totally false.

I don't think it's unreasobable to infer that changes to the ACA that push policy prices up for consumers and shepherd the poor towards temporary insurance plans that are utterly worthless at actually providing workable cover may result in large numbers of Americans, quite possibly millions, losing either portions of or all their healthcare cover. That seems to be the consensus view of most policy analysts too.

 

 

How did the consensus views fare since this time last year, hmm?

 

Once gain, wrong. The 1401 section that your forgetting about, that covers the people you mention. If the policy goes up, so does their tax credit under 1401. This is what you guys keep missing. Only thing that's changed is that the money isn't filtered through the eeevil insurance companies. Those same companies that give big campaign contributions. See the alexander-murray proposal as example.

 

 

 

Not quite the centrist are we?

Being a centrist, IE occupying the political middle ground, does not preclude me from being able to ridicule your nonsense and nor does it make my a hypocrite for doing so selectively. I don't really think you're in much of a position to be making appeals to hypocrisy. Geriatrics in glass houses shouldn't throw ad hominems.

 

 

 

Ah yes the centrist that advocates for marxist style single-payer healthcare. That'll fit right in with most Americans. Now this issue has ben extensively explained, so please don't come back with the blah blah blah unless there is something substantial in there. Because, I'll call it out as, say it with me, Fake News.

 

[El Dildo]

I dunno if you've noticed, Pasta Pussy, but Bill Clinton isn't president and he wasn't running

 

Bzzt wrong...
Go back to civics 101...
King Obama...
eeeevil...
a Marxist redistribution...
eeevil...
Marxist style single-payer healthcare...
Fake News...

look I don't want to call you an idiot.

you do this to yourself.

 

you're a patronizing ass.

you clearly don't understand Marxism.

you throw in the redistribution of wealth which has nothing to do with anything.

you apparently don't understand single-payer healthcare systems.

you don't really seem to understand insurance companie's motives.

and you use the phrase Fake News like it's your Get out of Jail Free card.

Edited October 24, 2017 by El Diablo

[Tchuck]

 

marxist style single-payer healthcare

 

 

So something that has been thoroughly employed throughout the first world, enjoyed by most civilized nations and been very successful at getting people extremely affordable healthcare... And it's evil because it's "marxist"?

Wow. You have really gone off the deep end.

[rome7]

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is in line to lose upwards of $150 billion according to Trumps new budget.

 

Not everyone abuses the system, some people actually need them smh

[make total destroy]

a marxist redistribution through healthcare

 

 

 

 

marxist style single-payer healthcare.

 

lmao

[ṼirulenⱦEqừinox]

Curious what's ya'll position regarding Bowe Bergdahl?

 

He does deserve some serious jail time not only for the desertion but because of what happened to fellow soldiers the 6 soldiers who died and the others who were seriously hurt while conducting search and rescue missions to find him, Some say he's been punished enough being held for 5 years by the Taliban but that still doesn't cover those who died looking for him.

 

There had been some reports that Bergdahl left the camp in search of joining the Taliban how true that is i don't know but he should suffer the consequences for what happened to his brothers who died and injuries looking for him

[Tchuck]

He wrote this to his parents before deserting:

 

 

mom, dad

 

The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. [...] [Three good sergeants had been forced to move to another company] [...] and one of the biggest sh*t bags is being put in charge of the team. [...] [My battalion commander was] a conceited old fool. [...] In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing sh*t bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. ... The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies. The few good SGTs are getting out as soon as they can, [...] I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live... We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them [...] I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting. There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them.[1]:4

 

I applaud the man for abandoning the imperialists and seeing them for what they truly are. He should be fully pardoned.

[Creed Bratton]

you're a patronizing ass.

 

you clearly don't understand Marxism.

you throw in the redistribution of wealth which has nothing to do with anything.

you apparently don't understand single-payer healthcare systems.

you don't really seem to understand insurance companie's motives.

and you use the phrase Fake News like it's your Get out of Jail Free card.

Poor guy can't even think for himself. He keeps repeating phrases that he heard on Alex Jones show with zero understanding. Much like Alex Jones in that regard. With the exception that Alex Jones knows that he's lying and he's making decent money duping people like him.

 

Oh look, Trump acting like a Kremlin puppet yet again: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-sanctions-deadline-690730

Edited October 24, 2017 by The Yokel

[sivispacem]

Bzzt wrong.

Except you've entirely and completely misunderstood the content of my post to such a substantial degree that you might as well have not even. Bothered. Case in point:

 

Congress never passed funding the insurance companies.

I never said it did. Frankly, I've got no idea what the f*ck you think you're responding to here because you've clearly not actually read my post.

 

Now the insurance companies are super nice? Not straw man

Absolutely a straw man. I've never made any comment on whether or not insurance companies are "evil", and nor have I suggest that they're good. As usual, you've responded to the post you've imagined someone has made, rather than the one you actually have. At this point it's difficult to see you as anything other than a bizarre troll.

 

Well terrific, a marxist redistribution through healthcare, thank you for being honest.

Quite literally every other Western democratic country has a nationalised free at the point of access healthcare system. If you genuinely believe this is "Marxist" then you probably need your head examining.

 

How did the consensus views fare since this time last year, hmm?

Cute attempt at poisoning the well, but in the absence of any actual coherent counterargument that isn't a logical fallacy I think it's a bit of a waste of breath.

 

The 1401 section that your forgetting about, that covers the people you mention.

Um, no it doesn't. Not necessarily, and definitely not absolutely.

 

Now this issue has ben extensively explained, so please don't come back with the blah blah blah unless there is something substantial in there.

Your silly attempts to shut down a discussion based largely on your complete inability to comprehend basic image is super cute, but if that's all you can bring to the topic you really shouldn't bother next time.

 

 

 

More generally, if this thread continues on it's currently trajectory it's going not going to be around for long.

[sivispacem]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[sivispacem]

And we're open again. Let's keep things clean and bullsh*t free; any more petty squabbling and insults will land people lengthy bans.

[Creed Bratton]

Cool. It's getting too good not to talk about some of the stuff that's been happening lately.

 

First criminal charges in Mueller's investigation have been filed. They're sealed, but we could start seeing first arrests as soon as this Monday. My money is on Manafort. But it would be so lovely if it turned out to be Trump Jr.

Now we know why the White House and their extension (Fox News) were trying so desperately to create another false scandal involving the Clintons. They probably knew that this was coming.

Edited October 28, 2017 by The Yokel

[itsallup]

This is an interesting article. Apparently Trump will not block the release of documents concerning the death of President Kennedy:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/21/trump-jfk-kennedy-assassination-documents

I wonder how significant these may be. Though in truth I doubt it will be anything Earth shaking, as some people doubtlessly believe.

Just makes me wonder if these files are real or something for media stir.

[Typhus]

 

This is an interesting article. Apparently Trump will not block the release of documents concerning the death of President Kennedy:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/21/trump-jfk-kennedy-assassination-documents

I wonder how significant these may be. Though in truth I doubt it will be anything Earth shaking, as some people doubtlessly believe.

Just makes me wonder if these files are real or something for media stir.

 

They're quite real, I'm sure. And, as a lot of us thought, yielded up nothing which really challenged what we already knew about the assassination. It did give us further insight into the Russian perception of America during the Cold War - with how the Kremlin were apparently pegging LBJ as the culprit and interpreting it as some kind of coup. Which I believe they also thought about Watergate.

 

I am curious as to those documents Trump withheld. As he did so on the behest of the CIA, could it indicate a thawing of their relationship?

[Spaghetti Cat]

Looks like Fake News Yokel is back at it again, luckily it's easily disproven. So here we go...

Yes, hopefully, people are going to face justice, including Paul Manafort, but not in the way that has been reported. See Mr. Manafort was playing both sides, he was also working for the DNC and Mr. Podesta (well both Podesta's actually). Another name to remember is Marc Elias of the firm Perkins/Coie who was the general counsel for the Clinton Campaign. It was reviled this week (interesting how this thread got locked just when all this info was coming out...) that the Clinton Campaign paid Fusion GPS for the discredited and debunked pee-pee dosser. The sources for the dossier were...wait for it...wait for it...Russian Intelligence operatives. Yes, it's true!

Source A - to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier - was ‘a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.’ Source B was ‘a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.’

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/top-10-things-to-know-about-dossier/ <---good piece worth the read.

So there was Russian interference in the election, and the Democrat National Committee paid for it!

Here's where things get interesting:

 

 

Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz both privately denied to congressional Russia investigators that they had any knowledge about an arrangement to pay for opposition research on President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The interviews happened before this week's disclosure that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the research. Senate investigators may seek to further question the two top Democrats and dig deeper on the origins of the so-called Trump dossier, one of the sources briefed on the matter said.

Their remarks to congressional investigators raise the stakes in their assertion that they knew nothing about the funding because it's against the law to make false statements to Congress.

 

*links to FNN so I won't link here.

 

In September, he accompanied former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta to a closed-door interview with Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, during which Podesta said he had no knowledge of payments to Fusion GPS.

At the time, it was not publicly known Elias had hired Fusion GPS...

...While it is common for campaigns to conduct opposition research, Elias’s decision to hire Fusion GPS has drawn intense interest because it resulted in the controversial dossier. Republicans have said their effort to investigate Fusion’s role in producing the dossier will intensify with the revelation that it was funded by Clinton’s campaign and the DNC.

President Trump seized upon the news, saying this week that “this was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing the election . . . they made up the whole Russia hoax.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-lawyer-kept-russian-dossier-project-closely-held/2017/10/27/e7935276-ba68-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

 

How would PDT know this was a hoax? Because it was in the post-mortem book written about the Clinton Campaign:

Mostly she (Clinton) was mad - mad that she'd lost and that the country would have to endure a Trump presidency... Hillary kept pointing her finger at Comey and Russia. 'She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,' this person said.

That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

 

Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes

 

 

Add all of that to the developing Uranium1 scandal that paid the Clinton Crime Syndicate Clinton Global Fund upwards of 100million dollars to acquire 20% of America's uranium. And it seems more and more like it's the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign specifically who sold out this country money. Quite the opposite from what's been in the news for the past year.

 

Though one could be forgiven if they only watched the national news broadcasts every evening:

 

 

 

...During the Watergate scandal it was the national news media that were relentless in their pursuit of the truth. The American people have every right to expect that the same level of commitment would be shown now.

 

Your lack of coverage, therefore, is not mere bias. It is a complete and deliberate dereliction of duty.

 

 

According to Media Research Center analysis as of this morning, ABC has devoted just 20 seconds of coverage to this story (on October 24 World News Tonight ). CBS has provided zero coverage on their evening newscasts, but 99 seconds of coverage in a 69-second Q&A on the October 22, Face the Nation and a 30-second mention on the October 25, CBS This Morning . NBC has produced no coverage, whatsoever.

Unlike the alleged Trump collusion story, so popular in the media, this story, now commonly known as the Uranium One scandal, is an instance of actual collusion between the Obama administration and the Russian government.

https://cdn.newsbusters.org/blog_attachment/lettertonetworks_re._uraniumone_final.docx.pdf

 

 

And BTW both Muller and Comey involved with prosecuting Uranium1 for bribery but decided to quash everything including from Congress. So are these guys investigating the President, or covering their tracks? Mr Comey is a know liar and source of many leaks this past year. And I don't think his former boss has clean hands either. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

 

And now, as they say, you have the whole truth.