According to reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe now includes the recently disclosed meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The music publicist who arranged the meeting told Trump Jr. the lawyer had compromising information on Hillary Clinton on behalf of the Russian government, but the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, says she was only trying to lobby against the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russian officials. If that's true, then there's another interesting Clinton tie here. Hillary Clinton also opposed the sanctions when she was Secretary of State, and that only came after her husband, Bill Clinton, received $500,000 for a speech at a Russian investment conference in Moscow. According to leaked emails, Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign killed a Bloomberg story that tried to link Hillary Clinton's stance to her husband's paid gig, which means Donald Trump might not be the only 2016 candidate with a conflict of interest related to Russia.Let's get some perspective here.
TRNN
Aaron Mate interviews Michael Sainato
See also
Russia Insider
High-Ranking Democrat Weighs in on DNC Collusion With Foreign Government: "No Biggie"
See also
It's official: The self-appointed foreign collusion police have forgiven themselves for colluding with a foreign government. It was all in the past. To quote Barack Obama after we "tortured some folks": Forward!The familiar, "It's only bad when others do it," syndrome. Seems to be rampant in the American elite.
Russia Insider
High-Ranking Democrat Weighs in on DNC Collusion With Foreign Government: "No Biggie"
Michael Hering
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia.[1][2][3] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[5][6][7] It is a variant of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
ReplyDeleteIt is a variant of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy
ReplyDeleteExcept when it isn't.
When hypocrites criticize others while stating or imply that their own way is optimal because of deficiencies of other alternatives, hypocrisy is material, for it shows the dubiousness or actual falsity of that claim or implication.
The story comes initially from Fox News and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
ReplyDeleteSnopes: Did Hillary Clinton Side With Kremlin on Sanctions Due to a $500,000 Payment to Bill?
In preceding years, the Obama administration, with Clinton as Secretary of State, was actively trying to normalize relations with Russia, hoping Putin’s predecessor Dmitry Medvedev would serve as a moderating force. Part of that effort included hesitation by the administration to pass the Magnitsky Act.
Although in hindsight it’s clear the effort was doomed to fail, it seemed to start optimistically (despite prescient warnings from Russian critics of Putin, like chess champion Gary Kasparov). Medvedev and Obama hammered out an arms agreement in 2010. The Russians allowed the Americans to fly through their airspace to reach Afghanistan.
During this time, the Obama administration was criticized for its inaction on the Magnitsky Act — a move they feared would scuttle reset efforts. [...]
We haven’t found evidence that supports the claim that Clinton’s posture on the Magnitsky Act was influenced by her husband’s speaking fee. Instead, it appears the position was one adopted by the Obama administration as a whole in a wider foreign policy effort to shift Russia relations to a friendlier footing.
During the campaign, HRC's critics claimed she was so anti-Putin she'd be a threat to start WW3 against Russia. Now they say she was a Putin patsy paid off by a mere $500k. It doesn't add up.
What "adds up" is that Bill Clinton took a $500,000 speaking fee while his wife was actively engaged in US politics.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Magnitsky Act, the Clintons knew it was on the Russian agenda at thew time because everyone did. Of course there was no quid pro quo, which is illegal. But there is at least the appearance of conflict of interest that ethical parties would avoid.
Plus it was not just this instance. The Clintons received many donations to the Clinton Foundation while involved in positions of influence in the US government and US politics.
What doesn't "add up" is all the allegations about Trump and his associates, most all of which remain allegations sourced anonymously or by people with a political agenda.
Regarding money, contrast the less than $50, 000 that Mike Flynn got from RT (payment plus expenses) with the $500,000 that went to the Clinton family.
Again, let's get some perspective here.