Dave Hill​ makes a good point! Great read!

Dave Hill​ makes a good point! Great read!

Originally shared by Dave Hill

Tweetizen Trump – 2017-03-28 «Russia! Russia! More Russia!»

After getting out yesterday’s recap at the eleventh hour, it’s remarkable there’s new material already! What’s on your mind, Donald?

Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech…….money to Bill, the Hillary Russian «reset,» praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA! . [1]

Oh, it’s going to be one of those days, is it, Donald?

Not to repeat myself, Donald, but since you’re repeating your self …

The House Intelligence Committee isn’t investigating the deal that allowed a Russian company to acquire a majority stake in a company that owns a portion of America’s uranium reserves because this all came out during the 2016 election (and was covered at the time it happened). [8] A Canadian company, Uranium One, which held rights to 20% of the uranium in the US, was majority-acquired by Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear agency, in 2010. Part of the deal required a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, which includes nine cabinet-level or top departmental officials from multiple agencies, including State, where Clinton was, at the time, Secretary.

CFIUS offered no negative evaluation of the deal, which was approved by President Obama. Clinton was not only just one of the nine reviewing it, she apparently didn’t intervene in the review.

Your campaign tried to make a point (based on a discredited expose book) that the Clinton Foundation received a large number of donations from Uranium One investors. Except the timing reported on in the book doesn’t match the Rosatom deal.

In short, there’s very little there there.

The other bits you shotgun here are similarly ill-founded or trivial. And, most importantly, nobody has been seriously proposing that Clinton tried to collude with Russia to throw the 2016 election.

Talking with Russians, business deals with Russians, diplomacy with Russians, speaking engagements with Russians — none of those are particular crimes or problematic in and of themselves. We live in a world where Russia plays a prominent role in geopolitics, diplomacy, and business.

The problem comes when (a) Russia acts covertly on behalf of one candidate in the election, and (b) that candidate and their surrogates keep denying any communications or activities with the Russians, sometimes under oath, and then (c) it turns out they had such communications and activities.[9]

That’s why the House Intelligence Committee (and the FBI, et al.) are investigating you and yours, Donald. And your repeated efforts to deflect this off into some sort of «I didn’t! And the Clintons did it first!» 2nd grade excuse-making is … really kind of pathetic, Donald.

And, then, today:

Watch @foxandfriends now on Podesta and Russia! [5]

Which seemed to involve investments and Podesta and Russia, all of which looks to have been business-related, despite breathless attempts to make it look skeevy.[10]

And, again, nobody’s suggesting that Podesta, Clinton, or Obama were collaborating with Russia to throw the election, and there’s no indication that Russia acted to favor anyone in this election … besides you, Donald.

===

The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. After so many bad years they were ready for a win! [2]

Yeah, do keep up with that winning friends and influencing people, Donald. I’m sure conservative Republicans will be thrilled by your winning ways.

The Democrats will make a deal with me on healthcare as soon as ObamaCare folds – not long. Do not worry, we are in very good shape! [3]

And how remarkably responsible it is of you, Donald, to focus on the bright side of the Dems coming to deal with you once you let the current ACA collapse for lack of any needed patching. Never mind all the people whose medical care will be impacted — with lives and livelihood at stake. No, all that’s important to you, Donald, is being Large and In Charge. Presidential!

===

Big announcement by Ford today. Major investment to be made in three Michigan plants. Car companies coming back to U.S. JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! [4]

Oh, look. More credit-taking for business plans (and union deals) years in the making.[11] Presidential!

===

The failing @NYTimes would do much better if they were honest! [6P]

That, in turn, linked to an op-ed at the New York Post [7] by John Crudele — a guy with his own issues about honesty and integrity in journalism.[12]

Crudele starts with a poorly (but pointedly) elided recap of the New York Times apology to its readers that makes it sound like the were confessing to dishonest journalism, just as you’ve claimed (the apology was actually for being so incorrect over the anticipated Clinton victory [13]).

He then basically goes on to say that the NYT was being dishonest by reporting that there was no basis for your claim that you were wiretapped by President Obama, when they knew from an earlier story they had published that there was a broad law enforcement / intelligence community investigation into you and your sidekicks over links with Russian officials.

But even though Crudele states that there’s a difference between the two stories, he also maintains that there’s no difference.

He also asserts the same points you do, Donald (no wonder you like him), that because some Democrats had contact with the Russians, the NYT is exagerrating claims that your folk were in collusion with the Russians, too.

Except that, again, Russia didn’t seem to be trying to throw the election in the Democrats’ favor, Donald. No matter how much you and various pundits you find keep talking about people chatting with Russians, it’s your team’s continuous denial of doing so (until caught) and the Russians’ own actions in favor of your candidacy (which you’ve admitted to) that are the source of scandal here.

That said, I hope Mr. Crudele appreciates your giving his columns at the Post a boost.

Oh, speaking of which … still not failing[14], Donald. Much as you would like them to (and feel compelled to use the official POTUS twitter account to attack them with).

[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846533818811080704, https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846536212362018816

[2] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846537639167713281

[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846543183223963649

[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846672219073863681

[5] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846682464215076866

[6] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/846745288735887360

[7] http://nypost.com/2017/03/27/the-new-york-times-ongoing-dishonesty-only-helps-trump/

[8] http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.f3fb7d1154ee, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2017/feb/16/donald-trump-repeats-his-mostly-false-claim-about-/

[9] http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/28/15086626/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-russia

[10] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4357104/Trump-tweets-Podesta-s-Russia-connections.html. https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/fox-news-hypes-wikileaks-claims-about-clintons-ties-to-russia-just-as-trump-asks-followers-to-watch/

[11] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-ford-jobs-idUSKBN16Z19M

[12] http://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/bogus_new_york_post_story_census.php

[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/15/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-new-york-times-apologized-bad-co/

[14] http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/media/new-york-times-subscribers-trump/

[P] So incredibly important you felt the need to post it not just on RealDonaldTrump, but also on the official POTUS account, too!

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

WordPress.com-logo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut /  Endre )

Google-bilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google konto. Logg ut /  Endre )

Twitter-bilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut /  Endre )

Facebookbilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut /  Endre )

Kobler til %s

Dette nettstedet bruker Akismet for å redusere spam. Lær hvordan dine kommentardata behandles..