A. Not a single thing in the Snopes article contradicts anything I’ve said. Literally nothing.
B. I’m not choosing to frame anything; that is the way it happened. In true Clintonite fashion, YOU are the one framing it in a way to serve your echo chamber and then projecting.
For example:
“The decision was made at a much lower level than SoS, from what I have read.”
You have no idea if that’s the case. If you had evidence this was the case, you would’ve included it in your Clinton-approved talking points. According to the NY Times—which, I’ll remind you, endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008 and twice in 2016—the discussion and vote were shrouded in secrecy. When pressed for details, Team Clinton was typically forthcoming, couching everything in generalities and platitudes w/out actually confirming or denying anything:
“The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, ‘Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.’”
“In general”…”would not comment”…”never intervened with me,” which could mean anything. It’s all double-speak meant to create the impression that Clinton wasn’t personally involved w/out actually saying Clinton wasn’t personally involved. Gee, why would HRC’s handlers do that?
But let’s assume Hillary was never personally involved. That is exactly my point!
That would mean Russia was such a non-threat that HRC’s team didn’t even think it necessary to bother her with such a trivial matter as selling rights related to uranium (a strategic asset that was exported despite Snopes’ assurance it could never be, again, per the NY Times article) and HRC implicitly agreed b/c she didn’t insert herself when she had a right to do so. This despite the uranium deal being of “strategically important” to Vladimir Putin.
Yet, now, we’re supposed to believe Russia is this singular bogeyman with sinister motivations behind everything it does? Where every meeting w/a representative of the Kremlin is evidence of treason (despite no declaration of war)?
Additionally, you ignore the stone-cold fact that, by arguing all this money flowed into Clinton coffers w/out influencing Hillary, you are contradicting Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stephens in the Citizens United dissent while agreeing with liberal heroes like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts (emphasis mine):
“Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA, a record that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions, lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other’s backs — and which amply supported Congress’ determination to target a limited set of especially destructive practices.”
You’re also implicitly rejecting what Obama has said on the matter:
“The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes.…”
As for Russiagate being ginned up nonsense, those of us arguing this cannot be proven wrong or made to look like fools b/c we are not arguing the matter shouldn’t be investigated or the story covered as it unfolds.
What we are arguing (or at least what I am arguing) is that, thus far, there is no reason for the hysteria because, THUS FAR, nothing that justifies the tenor of the coverage has been hinted at, much less proven.
It is a problem that Donald Trump and his henchmen keep lying about meetings with Russians. Yes, as it is a problem that the vast majority of our politicians lie, lie and lie some more.
It is a problem that it is highly likely Russia interfered in the election. But none of that is particularly shattering news b/c Russia is not a uniquely dangerous or malignant foreign actor. It is no worse than many of the Gulf countries we regularly cooperate with and arm, no worse than many of the corrupt Eastern bloc countries and no worse than China.
If anyone uncovers compelling evidence that Team Trump somehow facilitated the hack or engaged in quid quo pro, then frenzied coverage would make sense. Either situation would be a big deal.
But since that hasn’t happened, the frenzied coverage that is already happening is absurd. No future development can change that b/c it is already happening.
Of course, such revelations don’t seem very likely b/c, as Clintonites are so found of reminding everyone, Putin hates Clinton and was always out to hurt/humiliate her, which is true. He never needed further inducement or incentive.
That doesn’t mean Team Trump, in its infinite arrogance and incompetence, didn’t involve itself unnecessarily. But, again, until actual evidence of such involvement arises, the coverage will remain ridiculous.
