Thursday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, February 8. 2018

Love vs. Lust: Don’t Know What the Angular Gyrus Is? Your Heart Does

Hmmmm. I call it all "desire"

WHY IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION FAIR?

Maryland School District Dedicates This Week To ‘Black Lives Matter’ Lessons…

Re Kimmel: The lovable late night host is gone, replaced by a finger wagging scold belittling half the country.

Study: New Minimum Wage Laws Will Eliminate More Than 260,000 Jobs in 2018

Including teens who want to work

California and the definition of insanity: Why do Democrats love tax hikes so much?

Philip Hamburger on ‘The Administrative Threat’

FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy"

Clinton ‘Hatchet Man’ Shopped Trump Dirt Earlier Than Previously Believed

FBI Didn’t Notice Clinton Emails MARKED Classified, Wanted To Shut Down Probe Before Others Did

FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

Reynolds: “Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”

VDH: The press used to uncover government wrongdoing. Today’s press is defending it.

FISA-gate may become a more worrisome scandal than either Watergate or Iran-Contra. Why? Because our defense against government wrongdoing — the press — is defending such actions, not uncovering them. Liberal and progressive voices are excusing, not airing, the excesses of the DOJ and FBI. Apparently, weaponizing government agencies to stop a detested Donald Trump by any means necessary is not really considered a crime.

Trump's Right: The U.K.'s Health System Is Broke And Failing

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:23 | Comments (48) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Today's press defends Obama's weaponization of our FBI. This is really the scariest part of this story. It was bad that any politician would do this; believe he could get away with it. It was bad that any FBI, CIA, NSA, or state department workers would participate in this crime. It is bad that the entire Democrat party will rally around this crime and try to cover it up. But it is a disaster for our Republic that the press actively participates in the coverup. It is an absolute failure of the 1st amendment and if the MSM fails to turn this around we are seeing the failure of our government and the devolution into a banana republic or a shithole country. It is an indication of how serious and how deep Trump derangement syndrome runs.

#1 OneGuy on 2018-02-08 10:08 (Reply)

Yet, the persist.

#1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 10:22 (Reply)

And it's not as if he/his people don't have a history of this. Remember his first Senate campaign was resuscitated when his opponent's sealed divorce records were "mysteriously" released to the press, leading to his withdrawal from the race.

#1.2 another guy named Dan on 2018-02-08 10:24 (Reply)

Just a thought that came to me: Could it be that the press fears that rooting out and reporting the crimes will be punished by the Dems when they are back in power, which the press believes will be soon? Or, something like Soros?

#1.3 mary on 2018-02-08 10:34 (Reply)

Being wholly-owned minions of the Dems, what would you expect?

#1.4 Sam L. on 2018-02-08 14:25 (Reply)

QUOTE:

FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy"

The U.S. production involved in the Uranium One deal represents only 0.2% of global production, so is strategically insignificant. To get an idea of the amounts involved, the Clinton-Yeltsin uranium deal resulted in the U.S. acquiring a thousand times the annual U.S. production of the Uranium One deal.

#2 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 10:34 (Reply)

Russia.

Isn't.

Significant?

#2.1 JLawson on 2018-02-08 10:36 (Reply)

JLawson: Russia. Isn't. Significant?

Russia is significant. The U.S. production associated with the Uranium One deal is insignificant. It would take a thousand years for the U.S. mine to produce as much as the Russians shipped to the U.S. in the wake of the Clinton-Yeltsin uranium deal.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 10:42 (Reply)

it was worth million-dollar grease payments to obtain. It was significant to somebody for some reason.

#2.1.1.1 another guy named Dan on 2018-02-08 10:51 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: it was worth million-dollar grease payments to obtain. It was significant to somebody for some reason.

To the individual players, it was a chance to chisel some personal profits. To the buyers, it was the chance to acquire the very productive mines in Kazakhstan. It's a global market.

#2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 11:05 (Reply)

Which required US State department approval, granted after millions were funneled to the Clintons.

#2.1.1.1.1.1 another guy named Dan on 2018-02-08 11:17 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: Which required US State department approval, granted after millions were funneled to the Clintons.

There is no evidence the Clintons personally profited from the deal. There were donations made to the Clinton Foundation, but not to the Clintons. Bill Clinton also received a speaking fee, but that was in line with his usual compensation.

If you want to argue there is too close a nexus between moneyed interests and politicians, then sure. It's pervasive throughout society, and much of may be unavoidable. However, there is no evidence that Clinton had anything to do with the uranium decision, much less that she made the decision based on donations to the Clinton Foundation.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 11:25 (Reply)

Uh-huh.
Wink, wink.

To the sandbox, kiddiez.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 11:31 (Reply)

No I'm talking that millions of dollars were paid to the benefit of the Clintons while the Uranium decision was pending before the department of which Hillary was head.

the Clinton Foundations exist to better the interests of the Clintons, even if they do not directly financially benefit. And the argument that other people also paid Bill exorbitant speaking fees in no way mitigates or ameliorates the fact that he accepted money from people who stood to benefit from the actions of his wife, even if there was no immediate quid pro quo.

Considering the Left argued for years that the 2003 Gulf War was started so that Cheney's former company could benefit from reconstruction contracts, this tissue of an argument holds even less water.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 another guy named Dan on 2018-02-08 15:17 (Reply)

another guy named Dan: the Clinton Foundations exist to better the interests of the Clintons, even if they do not directly financially benefit.

Much better. Sure. That's rather how most of the charity industry works. Contribute to the cause, you'll have the satisfaction of doing good, all the while garnering positive press coverage. A win-win! In the case of the Clinton Foundation, it also allowed the Clintons to develop their political network.

another guy named Dan: And the argument that other people also paid Bill exorbitant speaking fees in no way mitigates or ameliorates the fact that he accepted money from people who stood to benefit from the actions of his wife, even if there was no immediate quid pro quo.

As noted, if you want to argue there is too close a nexus between moneyed interests and politicians, then sure. It's pervasive throughout society, and much of may be unavoidable.

As for exorbitant, that is the going rate for someone of Clinton's fame and stature, about the same as George Clooney, and he's just an actor.

#2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 15:30 (Reply)

Now try to answer the point raised. Why would the relatively tiny amount of uranium produced by the U.S. mine be strategically significant when the Russians had shipped a thousand times that amount to the U.S?

There's no shortage of uranium for weapons. The vast majority of uranium is consumed for energy. There's a global market, and the Russians are major players.

#2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 11:08 (Reply)

QUOTE:

An extremely important aspect of Campbell's timeline is that the Obama FBI , headed by Robert Mueller, knew of the bribery scheme with the transportation company before approving the Uranium One deal which would have utilized TLI for transporting the mined uranium.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials." –The Hill

Thus, the Uranium One deal clearly never should have been approved.

Ahem, kiddiez .
Back to your sandbox.

#2.1.1.1.2.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 11:47 (Reply)

"Why would the relatively tiny amount of uranium produced by the U.S. mine be strategically significant when the Russians had shipped a thousand times that amount to the U.S? "

According to an FBI Informant on Uranium One...
“The Russians expressed a sense of urgency to secure new U.S. uranium business because they knew that the two-decades-old “Megatons to Megawatts” program would cease in 2013,” Campbell said. “Then Russia would no longer be guaranteed a market to sell recycled nuclear warhead materials as peaceful reactor fuel in the United States."

#2.1.1.1.2.2 Hank_M on 2018-02-08 15:06 (Reply)

Hank_M: “The Russians expressed a sense of urgency to secure new U.S. uranium business because they knew that the two-decades-old “Megatons to Megawatts” program would cease in 2013,” Campbell said. “Then Russia would no longer be guaranteed a market to sell recycled nuclear warhead materials as peaceful reactor fuel in the United States."

The U.S. component of the deal only represented about 0.2% of world production, so was not strategically significant. The Russians were actually after the associated mines in Kazakhstan. In any case, according to your own citation, it was about money and markets, not control of a strategic resource. Uranium is a global market, and the Russians have a right to compete on that market.

#2.1.1.1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 15:21 (Reply)

Z group, you asked a question and I provided the answer and explained why the Uranium One deal was strategically significant to Russia.

Then, as always, you move the goal posts.

I never said that Russia wanted "control of a strategic resource."

And then you state the obvious"
"Uranium is a global market"
Gee Whiz, really?

And finally, you write that "the Russians have a right to compete on that market."
No one is arguing otherwise. But it's nice to see you're suddenly defending the Russians.

Back to the sandbox, kiddiez.

#2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-02-08 15:42 (Reply)

Hank_M: I provided the answer and explained why the Uranium One deal was strategically significant to Russia.

But you didn't answer the question as to why such a tiny amount of uranium would be strategically significant. The U.S. mine only produces about 0.2% of global production, while the U.S. imports nearly all of its uranium. It was the Kazakh mines they were after, not the insignificant U.S. production.

Hank_M: No one is arguing otherwise.

Of course they are. Have you read this thread?

#2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 16:01 (Reply)

It's the BRIBES, kiddiez, something y'all continually ignore.
They got caught no matter how you spin it.

Like the man said, "back to your sandbox, kiddiez".

#2.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 18:54 (Reply)

It wasn't about Russia using the uranium. It was about taking away OUR ability to use it.

#2.1.1.2 Jim on 2018-02-08 14:50 (Reply)

Jim: It wasn't about Russia using the uranium. It was about taking away OUR ability to use it.

As the mine in question is of very limited production, and as the U.S. imports nearly all of its uranium, it's not a strategically significant resource.

#2.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 15:40 (Reply)

Once again, the kiddiez miss the point.

Back to your sandbox.

#2.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 10:36 (Reply)

Switch the name from Clinton to Trump and I suspect you'd find a lot of significance in it, no?

#2.3 jimg on 2018-02-08 14:40 (Reply)

QUOTE:

FBI Didn’t Notice Clinton Emails MARKED Classified, Wanted To Shut Down Probe Before Others Did

Oops.

Clinton: I didn't note the markings.
FBI: Um, neither did we.

#3 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 10:36 (Reply)

Yeah, it's like no one at the FBI would lie or something.

Back to the sandbox, kiddiez.

#3.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 10:39 (Reply)

It is not the entire FBI but WHO in the FBI did not "notice" the headers and markers. The investigation is likely to narrow down the FBI investigators that did not SEE. That will get interesting.

#3.2 indyjonesouthere on 2018-02-08 18:01 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: It is not the entire FBI but WHO in the FBI did not "notice" the headers and markers.

True enough, but more than likely just an error. Let us know when you develop evidence otherwise.

#3.2.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-09 09:13 (Reply)

QUOTE:

FBI lovers' latest text messages: Obama 'wants to know everything'

As the Clinton investigation had already been closed, and as Obama was meeting with Putin in the next few days, it was clearly a call for information about Russian cyberattacks, and issue which he brought up with Putin when they met.

#4 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 10:40 (Reply)

Yep, "clearly".
Uh-huh.

Back to the sandbox, Kiddiez.

#4.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 10:43 (Reply)

Just wait until the FISA/702 abuses and what FBI/DOJ was really up to really starts to be revealed. Wasn't just Trump, people. Lots of people were politically targeted. Trump is just the worst example of it...and it was the most dangerous as it was about taking down a presidential candidate and the actual president.

Both Nunes and Sharyl Atkisson have implied that intel has been weaponized in this way for YEARS. By both parties. There will be more. Both Rs and Ds will be found out as victims. Then, you will see some Dem voters get on board with what Trump's administration is attempting to do: clean up the swamp.

#5 MissT on 2018-02-08 13:47 (Reply)

It is the inspector generals report that is likely due to come out at the end of March that is going to bury a lot of Democrats. The Dems did not even know they were being monitored. Along with the DWS and Awan discoveries there may be little left of the Democratic party...except gap jaws.

#5.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-02-08 14:06 (Reply)

So zachriel finally admitted there was wrongdoing in the Uranium One sale. But it's just minor.

Leftists are always the same. Another day, another excuse, but always wrong.

#6 DrTorch on 2018-02-08 14:04 (Reply)

DrTorch: So zachriel finally admitted there was wrongdoing in the Uranium One sale.

Our position has been consistent. From previous comments on this forum:

Zachriel: Yes, the nexus of money and politics is a problem of influence, but it isn't limited to just the Clintons, but endemic to the system. The Clintons have provided their tax returns, so we can see where they get their money. Trump has not.

Zachriel: What this shows is that there is a close nexus between money and politics. Some of this is avoidable through regulation that Republicans have stymied, while some of this is just the natural course of things. Of course these ties matter, and should be made public, which is why Trump's tax returns should be made public.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 14:15 (Reply)

What Clinton did was already prohibited by State Department conflict of interest rules which she ignored, and then lied to the federal government about it, violating her promise she would comply with them and would allow nothing to go to the "Foundation" (Clinton Money Laundering Machine).

#6.1.1 Jim on 2018-02-08 14:56 (Reply)

Jim: violating her promise she would comply with them and would allow nothing to go to the "Foundation"

That was not the agreement

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 15:34 (Reply)

Typically mis-leading Z.
That was not the "agreement" but was in the Memorandum of Understanding from the same link. Said memorandum, from, 2008 stated that "CGI also would not accept contributions from foreign governments." A 2016 Washpo article reports that "The Clinton Foundation previously indicated that Qatar was one of seven foreign governments that made donations to the global philanthropy while Clinton was secretary of state."

Jim was correct.

#6.1.1.1.1 Hank_M on 2018-02-09 10:04 (Reply)

Hank_M: Typically mis-leading Z.

It wouldn't be just "mis-leading", but outright false — if you were correct.

Hank_M: Said memorandum, from, 2008 stated that "CGI also would not accept contributions from foreign governments." A 2016 Washpo article reports that "The Clinton Foundation previously indicated that Qatar was one of seven foreign governments that made donations to the global philanthropy while Clinton was secretary of state."

You are conflating the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) with the Clinton Foundation. While CGI is an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, donations to the Clinton Foundation were not precluded by the agreement, only donations to CGI.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-09 10:51 (Reply)

Why do Dems love taxes? It's the gateway drug to spending more.

FISA-gate: Entrenched Dem bureaucracy.

UK's NHC broke and failing? But, But, Paullie "The Beard" Krugman keeps telling me that's a LIE.

#7 Sam L. on 2018-02-08 14:36 (Reply)

The Gang of Z is nothing if not consistent.

#8 Sam L. on 2018-02-08 14:39 (Reply)

So is a broken clock.

#8.1 Christopher B on 2018-02-08 14:52 (Reply)

Consistently dishonest.

#8.2 drowningpuppies on 2018-02-08 19:03 (Reply)

I have to admit, I lacked the imagination to predict that the response to the FBI's not "noticing" the classified markings on Clinton's emails would be, "See? They're hard to notice. No wonder Clinton failed to see them."

Absolutely shameless.

#9 Texan99 on 2018-02-08 15:32 (Reply)

Texan99: I have to admit, I lacked the imagination

The emails in question didn't have the proper headers or covers, so they were easily overlooked in the thousands of emails at issue. Furthermore, there's no motive for passing classified information through email, and Clinton used the secure system extensively for classified information. She was overly reliant on career professionals to make sure no classified information was sent to her by email. It turns out that it is a continuing problem in the federal government. Gee whiz. Secretary Powell was using AOL!

#9.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-08 15:38 (Reply)

Who sent the emails without the proper headers or covers. You can delegate a job you are responsible for but you can not delegate the responsibility. You are always responsible for that job. Using private servers and private email for any government communication is against the law. Powell should be prosecuted. If there was classified information in those emails he should be prosecuted and jailed like anyone else that mishandles classified information. That includes prosecuting Hillary and her staff that did the same thing.

#9.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-02-08 17:30 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: You can delegate a job you are responsible for but you can not delegate the responsibility.

However, that would not be criminal responsibility, but administrative responsibility.

indyjonesouthere: Using private servers and private email for any government communication is against the law. Powell should be prosecuted.

No. It's administrative policy.

indyjonesouthere: If there was classified information in those emails he should be prosecuted and jailed like anyone else that mishandles classified information.

Powell can't be prosecuted without a finding of "elements of scienter and bad faith" which do not apply in either case.

#9.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-09 09:07 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, February 8. 2018

Thursday morning links