Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

CNN’s Camerota Dismisses DNC/Ukraine Oppo Effort as “Red Herring”

CNN’s Camerota Dismisses DNC/Ukraine Oppo Effort as “Red Herring”

Stick to the script: we’re here to talk Trump/Russia!

https://youtu.be/ko8qekGbCnI

Russia, Russia, Russia. We’re here to talk about Trump/Russia: get it? Don’t go distracting us with talk of the DNC working with Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump!

This morning on CNN, Alisyn Camerota and John Berman co-hosted a segment with Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, and Dem consultant Hilary Rosen. Miller tried to raise this Politico story, which reported that Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary, meeting with a DNC consultant to research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.

Berman cautiously suggested that, even though the Russia and Trump situations weren’t “apples to apples,” the Ukrainian story could be fruit of another sort. Camerota cut him off: “Isn’t that a red herring? No pun intended.”

Got it, John? Stick to the script!

JASON MILLER: This complete double standard that we’ve seen out there where we saw there was absolutely collusion between the DNC, going and sitting down with the Ukrainians to try to dig up information on President Trump

ALISYN CAMEROTA: That’s not the answer to my question.

. . .

MILLER: There absolutely was 100% coordination, solicitation and collusion between the DNC and the Ukrainians.

CAMEROTA: I know you keep saying that.

HILARY ROSEN: Simply not true.

MILLER: According to the January report in Politico.

CAMEROTA: And you think those two are equal?

. . .

JOHN BERMAN: I will say this. It’s not apples to apples. It just isn’t apples to apples here. But it doesn’t mean that what happened with the Ukrainians isn’t also some type of fruit. It may be a cherry or cranberry, but this consultant to the DNC, according to Politico, did have interaction with the Ukrainians. It’s just at a different —

CAMEROTA: But isn’t that a red herring? I mean, no pun intended.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


“No pun intended” That’s good because there was no pun given!

Another meaningless attempt at destroying Trump. We know that the dossier against Trump came from Russians, yet no one cares. McCain actually sent a guy to Europe to get his hands on the Russian dossier in an effort to hurt Trump. No problem.

Oh, I think we need to talk about Russia, all right.

Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team
BY JOHN SOLOMON AND JONATHAN EASLEY – 07/12/17
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

Media, Democrats Stretch Mightily to Accuse Trump Jr. of Lawbreaking
Former FEC commissioner says ‘zero evidence’ president’s son did much besides talk politics with a Russian
by Jim Stinson | Updated 12 Jul 2017
http://archive.is/jxAv6

EXCLUSIVE: Radical Dem Worked For Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump, Jr.
RICHARD POLLOCK
9:47 PM 07/12/2017
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/12/exclusive-radical-dem-worked-for-russian-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr/

Citizen Journalist collection of information, with theorizing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6mwddl/everything_you_need_to_know_about_russiagate/

–I’m not big on charges of “narcissism” — that is a misused medical term, and not a crime or misdemeanor.

Russian oligarch hired lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr and also paid the shadowy research company behind dirty dossier – then settled $230million money laundering case for just $6million
By ALANA GOODMAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 21:18 EDT, 12 July 2017 | UPDATED: 23:55 EDT, 12 July 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4690834/Don-Trump-Jr-lawyer-linked-dirty-dossier-firm.html

Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s meeting with the Trump campaign last June was part of a larger, multi-pronged lobbying campaign in Washington
Veselnitskaya’s boss Denis Katsyv spearheaded the lobbying campaign against the U.S. ‘Magnitsky Act’ that has hurt his financial interests
The operation included an effort to influence the Trump campaign’s Russia policy, as well as targeted meetings with members of congress
At the time Katsyv was charged with $230million in money-laundering offenses
But days before the case was due to come to trial in New York in May of this year, it was settled for just $6million

You almost have to admire the Dims for their brazenness. There should be investigations ongoing into Bill and Hillary and the pay-for-play scheme they had running when she was SoS, including the payola from the Russians and the transfer of ownership of strategic North American Uranium assets under her watch. But instead we have this nonsense. It’s projection of monumental proportion and the media, as usual, is playing their part like the good little Dim bitches that they are. Disgusting.

    Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 13, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    and the transfer of ownership of strategic North American Uranium assets under her watch.

    This nonsense again? Look, the Clintons have always, from their Arkansas days, been thoroughly on the take, and I’ve no doubt Clinton would have taken such a bribe were it available, but the whole story is nonsense.

    (1) She had no control over the decision so it would have made no sense to bribe her. If anyone involved did want to bribe someone for a favorable decision the obvious person to bribe would be 0bama, or someone close to him.

    (2) The only money the Clinton Foundation got during the relevant period, from anyone who stood to profit from the deal, was $250K from Ian Telfer, who was a regular donor, and who usually gave more than that. Reducing ones donations is an odd way to bribe someone.

      Paul in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      “She had no control over the decision…” Wrong, her consent was required. The deal “…required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel.”

      “The only money the Clinton Foundation got during the relevant period, from anyone who stood to profit from the deal, was $250K from Ian Telfer…” Wrong again. The Clinton slush fund received millions during this period from parties that stood to profit or otherwise benefit from the deal.

      You should read Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash”, or the National Review article linked below.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 14, 2017 at 2:38 am

        Wrong, her consent was required.

        Bullsh*t. That is a out-and-out lie.

        he deal “…required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

        No, it didn’t. The committee is purely advisory. It makes a recommendation to the president, who makes his own decision.

        Secretary of State Clinton was one of nine federal department and agency heads on that secretive panel.”

        No, she wasn’t. There were no department or agency heads on it. Nine departments and agencies, including State, have representatives on it but these are not the secretaries or heads. Clinton not only was not on this panel but showed no awareness that it even existed. The State Department’s representative has stated that throughout his time on it she never said a word to him about its work.

        But even if you had been correct that she was on it, and that its approval was needed your claim that her consent was required would still have been an obvious lie, since she’d only have been one vote out of nine. If someone were interested in getting a corrupt decision out of this committee they’d have had to bribe five of its members. Any five.

        Wrong again. The Clinton slush fund received millions during this period from parties that stood to profit or otherwise benefit from the deal.

        No, it didn’t. Schweizer is a discredited hack, and you’re a fool for believing him. And Deroy Murdock is even more of a fool for citing his lies after they’ve already been disproven. For instance he repeats Schweizer’s bullsh*t about Giustra, who had no interest in the deal at all.

          Paul in reply to Milhouse. | July 14, 2017 at 8:15 am

          Are you really that naive about how politics works, or are you just being willfully obtuse?

          So it’s a committee. She was a cabinet-level department head with a long and well-known reputation for corruption. Who better to grease?

          And Clinton “showed no awareness” of the deal you say? How would you be aware of her awareness? Taking her word for it? By reviewing the official records of her correspondence while in office, perhaps? News flash: she wiped them, with a cloth or something.

          And your argument about the bribes is equally laughable… oh… not ALL of the money can be directly traced back to people profiting financially from the deal. Lawd you are slow boy, bless your heart.

          The book is “discredited” you say? By whom? The NYT? Snopes? YOU? LOL.

          Seriously, you’re hillaryous.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm

          So now you admit it’s a committee. That alone makes your previous claim that her approval was required a f***ing lie. Even if she were on this committee, and even if its approval were required, she would have only one vote on it. If she was against it but five other members were in favor it would pass without her approval. And if she was for but five members were against it would not pass. So even in your false scenario, if they were expecting opposition they’d have to bribe five members, not one. But since they were not expecting opposition, there was no need to bribe anyone.

          But in the real world, Clinton was not on this committee, and the committee had no power to approve or block the transaction. Which means there was no point in bribing anyone on it. If it were controversial but mysteriously got five votes on the committee, 0bama would wonder why, and would ignore the recommendation and reject the transaction anyway.

          She was a cabinet-level department head with a long and well-known reputation for corruption. Who better to grease?

          If the transaction’s fate were in the committee’s hands (which it wasn’t) you’d want to grease the committee members’ hands, not those of their department heads. How could the heads explain to their representatives why they wanted them to change their votes?

          And Clinton “showed no awareness” of the deal you say? How would you be aware of her awareness?

          She showed no awareness of the committee’s existence, let alone any specific transaction that it was to consider. The State representative on the committee has said on the record that throughout his time on it she never said a word to him about it.

          And your argument about the bribes is equally laughable… oh… not ALL of the money can be directly traced back to people profiting financially from the deal.

          What money? Unless you can trace it to someone who would profit from the deal, and show that it was given while the deal was pending, there’s nothing that could be a bribe.

          The book is “discredited” you say? By whom?

          By the facts. Such as the fact that Schweizer makes a very big deal of Giustra and his massive contributions, but Giustra had no connection to this deal, nothing at all to gain from it, so his donations could not have been connected to it. The fact that he had once been chairman of the company is irrelevant, and Schweizer was dishonest to bring it up.

          Paul in reply to Milhouse. | July 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm

          So, willfully obtuse then.

      murkyv in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

      Only way to come to that conclusion is to ignore the 2015 NYT article with the timeline of events involving Bill and the Canadian company involved

        Milhouse in reply to murkyv. | July 14, 2017 at 2:47 am

        No, the only way to come to any other conclusion is to ignore the timeline and pretend that every donation, even years before or years later, from anyone who had ever had any contact with the company, was somehow related to this perfectly routine application. And to ignore the fact that Clinton had no role in approving it anyway, and couldn’t have done anything to block or advance it even if she’d wanted to. The most she could have done would be to instruct State’s representative on the advisory committee to cast his one vote out of nine to recommend approval. For which, if he had been going to vote against it, she’d have had to give him some innocent explanation; “because I said so” would not have cut it. Meanwhile, if there were something fishy about the deal and it passed the committee by a narrow margin, 0bama’s advisers would have wondered why, and would have advised him to ignore it and reject the application anyway. So the only logical person to bribe would be 0bama himself or whoever was advising him on this.

This is the result of a President who does not simply sit in the Oval Office and ignore the attacks of the press. Until Der Donald was elected, the press were free to vilify and excoriate any politician, including the President. When Trump called them on their false narratives and demanded that they present proof, they went ballistic. Because they HAD NO PROOF of the claims that they were presenting. Now, Trump, et al, is actually presenting the media, and the American people, with proof that a political party and campaign was ACTUALLY COLLUDING with a foreign government against its political opponents. Unfortunately for the press, that party was the Democrats and the candidate was HRC.

At this point the Media has ceased making any attempt at objectivity. They ignore evidence that the collusion, which they continue to ascribe to Trump and Company, actually did occur because it was done by the DNC on behalf of HRC. But, still it leaks out. Now we see reputable media outlets mentioning the foreign campaign contribution scandals of the Clinton administrations. We see media references to the use of US taxpayer dollars to campaign against Benjamin Netanyahu. We see stories surfacing of the DNC/Ukraine collusion. The media lid on facts is beginning to leak. And, the slime that is leaking out is staining the skirts of Dems, not Trump.

    Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | July 13, 2017 at 10:52 am

    I apologize. I forgot the biggest scandal of the last ten years, the Uranium One incident.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 13, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      There was no incident. The decision to allow Uranium One to retain its mining assets in the US after its takeover was made in the normal manner; there was no reason to oppose it, nobody raised any objections to it, so the president approved it. Hillary Clinton had no input into this decision. There’s no evidence she was even aware of it.

        murkyv in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 7:41 pm

        I know they don’t spend much time together, but I’m pretty sure she knew her husband was involved with some of the key players in the deal

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2017 at 10:20 pm

        Wrong again. This has been answered above. But, to reiterate, the takeover required the approval of DepState and would have been brought to the attention of the SecState, if by no other person than the President who would have requested input from HRC on the deal. DepState approved the deal. Following the approval, the Clinton Foundation received millions in “donations” from persons, businesses and other entities who benefited from that decision. And, it has been reliably shown that the assets of the Clinton Foundation were used, on a regular basis, for the benefit of the Clinton family. This is why the criminal investigation into that foundation, something which is completely ignored by the MSM, refuses to go away. Now, this does not PROVE that these “donations” were rewards for the approval of the Uranium One deal. But, there is a heck of a lot more smoke there then there is from the alleged Trump/Russia collusion claims.

          Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 14, 2017 at 2:53 am

          the takeover required the approval of DepState

          It did not. You don’t know what you’re talking about and are repeating Schweizer’s lie.

          and would have been brought to the attention of the SecState, if by no other person than the President who would have requested input from HRC on the deal.

          Why would he do that? And how could any would-be briber count on it?

          Following the approval, the Clinton Foundation received millions in “donations” from persons, businesses and other entities who benefited from that decision.

          “Following” is a long time. It’s also irrelevant; the relevant period is while the application was pending, and in that period the only connected person who gave anything was Telfer, who gave less than his usual donation. Schweizer fudges this even more, by counting donations made “before, during, and after”, including ones made years before there even was a takeover to be approved, and including ones made by people who had nothing at all to gain from it.

Lots of digging going on. The speculation is casting a wide net, as it should, right now. The sifting part comes a little later.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6n1lvb/breaking_russian_lawyer_was_admitted_to_us_to/

The press is single-mindedly pursuing their agenda, the silent coup, in collusion with the intelligence community and (former) administration officials. Anything else is not going to be allowed on their programs.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Dave. | July 13, 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Too bad for all those Evil MSM Colluders that they will fall on their own sword and perish.

Democrats are Pro-Choice, selective, unprincipled, and opportunistic as a rule, not the exception. It’s the religion or moral (i.e. behavioral) philosophy backed by a consensus of mortal gods, including liberal justices, psychos, quasi-scientists, planners, and journolists of the fourth estate.

They, not limited to Democrats, refer to the survivors of the Obama/Merkel-backed coup d’etat in Kiev as “separatists”, not “refugees”, as they do in other nations that were targeted for Obama’s elective wars.

Maybe Camerota can tweet us about it?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend