Hillary Clinton Appears to Claim Russians ‘Grooming’ Tulsi Gabbard

[The Barbarian]

just the thought of Hillary as president should scare the hell out of us.....

she is bad news....leaving those souls in Libya to die....her economic plans etc...bad, bad bad

I'm no Hillary fan, but honesty would call for you to admit that it was a republican congress who cut security for our embassies over Clinton's objections, making Benghazi possible.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

“Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912

Among the "priorities" more important to Chaffetz than protecting our embassies and diplomats? Redecorating a National Guard meeting area in Alabama.

 

[Stripe]

I'm no Hillary fan.

:rotfl:

 

[The Barbarian]

Not only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Where did you hear that from, Adam Schiff?

Mueller report...
Barr lied: Mueller found that Trump tried to obstruct justice — a lot
https://shareblue.com/william-barr-lied-mueller-found-trump-tried-obstruction-of-justice-a-lot/

You must be ignorant of the fact that Mueller's report didn't determine whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice.

Mueller, merely noted that since the Justice Department said that he could not indict the president, he did not do so. He merely documented several cases of Trump attempting to obstruct the investigation. Would you like me to show you again?

So it is certain that Trump was not named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

President Donald Trump has, for the first time, become an unindicted co-conspirator, analysts said following the release of a sentencing memo on Friday.

Among the details in the memo, which track with reporting on the Stormy Daniels hush-money payoff, is a description of criminal behavior that includes the president, identified as Individual-1 throughout.

“During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1. As a result of Cohen’s actions, neither woman spoke to the press prior to the election,” the memo reads.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/do...o-conspirator-cohen-sentencing-memo-analysis/

I challenge you to prove that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in regard to obstruction in the Mueller investigation.

You've got the right president, but the wrong crime. He's a very versatile criminal.

 

[annabenedetti]

Is there any criticism of her that I think has merit? I think she should be more critical of Putin.

Well, that's a start... but I get the impression you're team Tulsi and that's as far as you'll go, and that's fine. The fact that you didn't address the sponsors of her trip to Syria or the implications of it certainly give me pause. Whether Van Jones thinks Hillary shouldn't have said what she said has absolutely no impact on me, I think Hillary is dead to rights and I also think she's been somewhat misquoted and I'll explain why in a minute - but Tulsi's response to Hillary said a lot more about Tulsi than perhaps Tulsi realized. Being a female version of Trump is going to look attractive to the alt-right but it gives me the creeps. Tulsi doesn't stand a chance in 2020 at being anything but a wedge to split Democratic votes but she's young so who knows? I may have to give a lot more thought to this in another 4 or 8 years than I'm willing to give it now.

But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it.

Worst: her meeting with Assad. Secretive. Poor timing. Questionable judgment. Questionable sponsorship. Questionable intent. And here's the thing. A lot of people from varying political vantage points of experience, ideology, both sides of the aisle, had problems with her trip but in the Joe Rogan clip (I noticed she likes to use the word "smear" a lot) she dismisses it all as the "usual tactic of trying to smear" her. They had rational problems with what she did, and trying to reduce it to nothing more than smear tactics won't change the fact that she had an secret, unauthorized meeting with a dictator with whom the U.S. has no diplomatic relationship with. She told Rogan that she asked him "tough questions" but we don't know what those question were, do we? She said Assad gave her "his perspective," and we don't know how aligned she is with his perspective, do we?

Okay that's to start. I'm writing this off the top of my head and had to go back and listen to parts of the Rogan video again to check the exact words. I actually spent the previous hour listening to the podcast that recent Hillary quote came from so I could get it in context and I want to say something about that next, but regarding Tulsi, I haven't read anything yet that's changed my initial thinking about her. She's not horrible, she has some good positions, but there's something about her that, odd as it may seem, considering she's obviously very intelligent, but it's a personality thing - she reminds me in some ways of Trump. Maybe that's something all her right-wing supporters are picking up on instinctively, I don't know. But her tweeted response to Hillary sounded so much like something Trump would've said, it was uncanny. "Queen of warmongers?" Come on... but of course, it threw the MAGA crowd into ecstasies.

 

[annabenedetti]

Regarding the Hillary quote (doesn't bother me at all that she said it, she's right): it's been misconstrued by some sources. Example:

CNN: Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently “grooming” a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.
​

Hillary said (and she did this without naming Tulsi, so it's super interesting it was Tulsi who reacted :chuckle that "someone" is a favorite of the Russians and there's definitely a case that can be made for the accuracy of Hillary's statement. However, when Hillary spoke of grooming a third party candidate, Hillary was referring to the Trump campaign.

The podcast is Campaign HQ with David Plouffe, Oct. 16.

At about the 34/35 minute mark, Plouffe and Hillary are talking about how Trump won because a third party candidate split the vote, and that the Trump campaign can't win in 2020 without repeating that same strategy. "They're also gonna do third party again" comes right before the viral quote. She says after the viral quote "They know they can't win without a third party candidate..."

So as has happened so often with Hillary, the narrative has been given a twist that gives ammunition to the right, and there won't be any putting the horse back in the barn, everyone will now say that Hillary said "the Russians are grooming" and entirely miss (or intentionally ignore) that of course the Trump campaign will want a third party spoiler or disgruntled Bernie/Stein/Gabbard voters to sabotage the nominee. Of course they do! And of course Russia is going to meddle in the election again, of course it will!

 

[User Name]

I get the impression you're team Tulsi

She's polling at 1.5%, so she doesn't have a snowball's chance of being elected. I'd much prefer Bernie over her anyway. Too bad his age and health are such a concern now. But aside from him, I really don't have a preferred candidate yet.

 

[annabenedetti]

She's polling at 1.5%, so she doesn't have a snowball's chance of being elected. I'd much prefer Bernie over her anyway. Too bad his age and health are such a concern now. But aside from him, I really don't have a preferred candidate yet.

I voted for him in the 2016 primary, but I won't be voting for him this time.

 

[User Name]

At about the 34/35 minute mark, Plouffe and Hillary are talking about how Trump won because a third party candidate split the vote

She really does have endless reasons for why she lost, and none of them are her fault. Amazing.

 

[annabenedetti]

She really does have endless reasons for why she lost, and none of them are her fault. Amazing.

From the specifics of my Hillary post you only come away with this? Amazing that you have so little response to either of my posts and I wonder why I bothered, really, and probably won't make that same mistake again. You said "But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it." I'm not holding my breath waiting for your reply. I think I'm finished here.

Anyway, if you were a Bernie supporter, surely you know that 12% of Bernie voters ending up voting for Trump. Stein voters voted for Trump. Stein voters voted for Stein. You may also know the margin of difference between Clinton and Trump in PA, WI and MI was less than the total votes for Jill Stein in those states.

 

[User Name]

You said "But give me the worst criticism you can find about Gabbard and I'll let you know what I think of it."

Honestly I thought you'd pick something else because we touched on that already. The worst anyone can say about it is that it looks "questionable," which doesn't really say anything. The House Ethics Committee certainly hasn't had anything to say about it--which says a lot.

She was planning to run for president, she was in Syria, she got the chance to communicate with the ruler of Syria, she took it. I can't think of a reason to fault her for that.

 

[annabenedetti]

Honestly I thought you'd pick something else because we touched on that already. The worst anyone can say about it is that it looks "questionable," which doesn't really say anything. The House Ethics Committee certainly hasn't had anything to say about it--which says a lot.

She was planning to run for president, she was in Syria, she got the chance to communicate with the ruler of Syria, she took it. I can't think of a reason to fault her for that.

Actually, we don't know if the ethics committee had anything to say, we just couldn't source it one way or the other. Oh well... I took a closer look at her and pretty much came away with the same opinion so I don't regret the time spent. :e4e:

 

[annabenedetti]

Bill Browder
✔@Billbrowder
Tulsi Gabbard say that she doesn’t control the Russian bots that support her, but she did control the hiring of Chris Cooper, the smear campaigner who was paid by Natalia Veselnitskaya and her Russian backed sponsors to smear me and try to repeal the Magnitsky Act in DC https://twitter.com/maurabarrettnbc/status/1185656969392218113 …

Maura Barrett
✔@MauraBarrettNBC
I asked @TulsiGabbard - twice - if she disavows Russian state media support of her campaign.

Gabbard: "This is not about Russia. This is about a smear campaign that has been waged against me.." & "Again, I don't control them. I don't control what anyone else says or does."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Not only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Here is what your own site said:

First, Mueller's report says that if his team "had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

However, "Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Mueller report did "not conclude that the President committed a crime."

What do you not understand about those words? Despite the fact that the Mueller report did not conclude that the President committed a crime you say that he is an "unindicted co-conspirator":

No only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Tell me how Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator since your own source said that the Mueller investigation did not conclude that the President committed a crime?

You are delusional, proving once again that the Trump Collusion Delusion remains in the minds of those who refuse to use their brains.

 

[The Barbarian]

Mueller was, according to Justice Department rules, unable to indict Donald Trump. That being so, he was not allowed to accuse him of the crimes he dccumented in his report. Since he showed that Trump, on several occasions, ordered his people to obstruct the investigation, we know he committed that crime. The fact that his people ignored his orders and did not commit obstruction does not mean the attempt is not criminal. It is a crime to merely attempt to obstruct an investigation.

Mueller did as much as he could under those limits, pointing out that while he could not indict Trump, he did not clear him of criminal activity.

And as you learned, in another criminal case, Trump is and remains an unindicted co-conspirator. Would you like me to show you again?

You are delusional, proving once again that the Trump Collusion Delusion remains in the minds of those who refuse to use their brains.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Mueller was, according to Justice Department rules, unable to indict Donald Trump.

So now that your delusions have been exposed you change your story because earlier you said that Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator:

No only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

Now you say that Mueller was unable to indict Trump.

Somehow you can trick your mind into believing that even though Trump was not indicted he actually was.

Typical of the fuzzy minded progressives.

 

[The Barbarian]

So now that your delusions have been exposed you change your story because earlier you said that Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator:

It's true. He would you like me to show you again?

Plea Deal Makes Trump 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator,' Watergate Prosecutor Says
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/22/cohen-plea-deal-trump-watergate-prosecutor

Donald Trump, unindicted co-conspirator
One Fox News contributor thinks the President may already have been indicted

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a regular Fox contributor, told Shepard Smith, the mid-afternoon anchor, that there was ‘ample evidence’ to indict Trump. Perhaps, he implied, this had already happened, in secret.

He began by saying: ‘Last week in a federal direct court here in New York City, a federal judge at the end of Michael Cohen‘s sentencing said the president orchestrated and paid for this crime.’ The crime in question was a felonious campaign finance violation, Cohen paying two women for their silence about Trump days before the election.

Smith asked: ‘So you’re saying he’s an unindicted co-conspirator?

‘Yes,’ Napolitano answered.
https://spectator.us/donald-trump-unindicted-co-conspirator/

Now you say that Mueller was unable to indict Trump.

Yes, I showed you that. Hence "unindicted co-conspirator" Somehow you can trick your mind into believing that even though I showed you that Trump was not indicted, I actually said he was.

Typical of the fuzzy minded Trump supporters.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's true. He would you like me to show you again?

Plea Deal Makes Trump 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator,' Watergate Prosecutor Says
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/22/cohen-plea-deal-trump-watergate-prosecutor

Donald Trump, unindicted co-conspirator
One Fox News contributor thinks the President may already have been indicted

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a regular Fox contributor, told Shepard Smith, the mid-afternoon anchor, that there was ‘ample evidence’ to indict Trump. Perhaps, he implied, this had already happened, in secret.

He began by saying: ‘Last week in a federal direct court here in New York City, a federal judge at the end of Michael Cohen‘s sentencing said the president orchestrated and paid for this crime.’ The crime in question was a felonious campaign finance violation, Cohen paying two women for their silence about Trump days before the election.

Smith asked: ‘So you’re saying he’s an unindicted co-conspirator?

‘Yes,’ Napolitano answered.
https://spectator.us/donald-trump-unindicted-co-conspirator/



Yes, I showed you that. Hence "unindicted co-conspirator" Somehow you can trick your mind into believing that even though I showed you that Trump was not indicted, I actually said he was.

Typical of the fuzzy minded Trump supporters.

Not sure there's such a thing as a 'clear minded' Trump supporter anyway but hey...

:thumb:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It's true. He would you like me to show you again?

Plea Deal Makes Trump 'Unindicted Co-Conspirator,' Watergate Prosecutor Says
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/22/cohen-plea-deal-trump-watergate-prosecutor

Donald Trump, unindicted co-conspirator
One Fox News contributor thinks the President may already have been indicted

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a regular Fox contributor, told Shepard Smith, the mid-afternoon anchor, that there was ‘ample evidence’ to indict Trump. Perhaps, he implied, this had already happened, in secret.

He began by saying: ‘Last week in a federal direct court here in New York City, a federal judge at the end of Michael Cohen‘s sentencing said the president orchestrated and paid for this crime.’ The crime in question was a felonious campaign finance violation, Cohen paying two women for their silence about Trump days before the election.

You prove once again that you are delusional!

The subject was the Mueller investigation and not anything to do with campaign violations. You said:

Not only did the Mueller report document several attempts by Trump to obstruct the investigation (which will have to wait until he leaves office), he is also an unindicted co-conspirator.

I hope they treat you well in your padded cell.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Not sure there's such a thing as a 'clear minded' Trump supporter anyway but hey...

:thumb:

Yes, thumbs up for the Trump Collusion Delusion!

Birds of a feather flock together. I hope they treat you will in your padded cell too!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, thumbs up for the Trump Collusion Delusion!

Birds of a feather flock together. I hope they treat you will in your padded cell too!

Oh, you hope "they'll" treat me "will" do you? That's nice...

I suppose you think that Trump has your very wellbeing at heart and cares about all Americans ahead of his own oh so obvious ego as well do you?

:cloud9:

Heck, it's not like most politicians give a whit about constituents in general but your beloved president would likely want to carve Mount Rushmore into one face only - and guess who's depiction that would be?

lain: