Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are all Russia ties now sinister, or are some just business?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are all Russia ties now sinister, or are some just business?

    MOSCOW (AP) — A shipping company partly owned by President Donald Trump's commerce secretary is one of the few in the world that can transport liquefied petroleum gas in cold and icy conditions. Russia is known for its brutal winters as well as its giant, state-controlled oil and gas producers.

    So, for years, Wilbur Ross' company has been moving LPG for a Russian gas giant.

    But now, in what might seem almost an echo of the Red Scare that lasted in America for generations, this business relationship is seen as tainted, an ominous connection to a country that unleashed cyberwar against American democracy and the 2016 election that put Trump in the White House.

    Are all connections to Russia now suspect? Or are they sometimes merely an inconvenient consequence of doing business in a country where major corporations often are controlled by the Kremlin?
    https://apnews.com/fc2a9a02b69a46c2b...f0d5b2d8254f0e

  • #2
    Another example disproving the old saying 'there are no stupid questions'.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Only those ties tangentially related to Trump are sinister. All other ties, particularly those involving Hillary Clinton and/or the DNC are business as usual and/or opposition research.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4

        Comment


        • #5
          Are all Russia ties now sinister, or are some just business?
          Only if said Russian ties involve anybody connected with Trump. If you are Hillary's campaign manager it is perfectly ok that your company represents Russia's largest bank.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
            Only if said Russian ties involve anybody connected with Trump. If you are Hillary's campaign manager it is perfectly ok that your company represents Russia's largest bank.
            I’ve said it a million times, but the language of politics is hypocrisy.

            Comment


            • #7
              To answer the question: Of course, some ties can be just business...

              HOWEVER, first we need to see the issue of motive. So, it is hard to ague for example that Hillary had a motive to cooperate with Putin considering how each of them saw the other.
              Second, we demand from people in power to show us their business, and then it is up to us to see and debate the nature of their transactions. If you remember, there was a special agreement with Hillary. She could be a Secretary of State but we could also see who and from what nation could donate to her organization. We also had other arrangements followed by previous presidents who had extensive business all over the world, as for example with the case of Bush (both of them). They took the extra step to separate themselves from their business by having a blind trust managing their wealth while they were in the White House. And a blind trust gives the actual owner limited access to the business operation exactly because it intends to address issues of conflicts of interests as a result of having business deals with foreign countries...

              Now, when someone does not follow any of the above ethical standards and procedures and when he keeps all his business in secrecy, and when he is in power, and when he defends Putin and when he tries to change long-term US policies with respect to Russia, and when he encourages the Russians in campaign speeches to find the Hillary emails, and when he denies th judgment of the DOJ, FBI, NSA, CIA, Senate, and House that the Russians were meddling with the elections, and when he lies about the contacts that his campaign HAD with Russian officials, and he :separates" himself from his business by having his family managing it, and when his son in law participates in the government, then he should not expect that people will just trust him and assume that he is "just" into casual business. Voters are not jurors to have to assume that a politician is innocent until he is proven guilty. One's vote and political trust should be given only to politicians who try the hardest to prove their innocence because the default position in politics is that all of them are crooks!
              Last edited by pamak; 07 Nov 17, 02:20.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #8
                So, its OK for Hillary with her Uranium deals, OK for then President Obama to tell the Russian leader how free he will be to deal with him on a hot mike, but not OK for Trump to conduct business deals before he declared himself in the race for President?

                Love that Double Standard from the Democrats on the Far Left.
                “Breaking News,”

                “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Only when they are not disclosed.
                  Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                  Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                  Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 11/06/17

                    [...]

                    Experts have spent months shoehorning Trump into ill-fitting criminal provisions. Some have argued that he can be charged under Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States “in any manner or for any purpose.” Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason has argued, “Running a free and fair presidential election is a core lawful function of the federal government. Any agreement to secretly and dishonestly attempt to interfere with a federal election would fall squarely within Section 371’s prohibition on conspiracies to defraud the United States.”

                    Well, if seeking dirt from the Russians on Clinton is now a federal crime, how about seeking dirt from Russian sources against Trump? If that does not “fall squarely with” the criminal code, how about rigging the primary, as alleged last week by former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile? In her new book, she contends Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for controlling critical elements of the organization before the primary. Brazile was fired by CNN for unethical conduct in leaking debate questions to Clinton, then lying about it to the media. However, even Brazile balked at what she found at the DNC.

                    [...]

                    Many Trump critics have insisted the pattern of concealing or lying about Russian connections is an obvious basis for investigation. However, Clinton never fessed up to paying for the dossier over months of coverage and speculation. In addition, journalists (including two New York Times reporters) have accused Clinton lawyer Marc Elias of repeatedly lying in denying any connection between the dossier and the campaign. Elias later sat next to the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, who denied any connection with the campaign in a formal interview with congressional investigators. It is a crime to knowingly give false information to federal investigators or to Congress.

                    Other criminal allegations against Clinton do not require linguistic gymnastics to fit the criminal code. Critics have charged that huge amounts of money were exchanged through the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees for Bill Clinton, including the $500,000 given to him by Russians before the State Department approved the controversial Uranium One deal under Secretary Hillary Clinton. While there are obvious defenses for Clinton, the allegation would fit a classic “pay to play” scheme. If true, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was sent to jail for far less.

                    Does this mean Clinton or her aides committed crimes? No. The point is only that a sharp disconnect exists between the interpretive approaches given to allegations about Trump as opposed to those about Clinton. A presumption of criminality exists for one, and for the other, a virtual immunity. A concerted effort is being made to get the law to fit the conduct, at considerable risk to our legal system.

                    [...]

                    The Hill

                    Jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at the George Washington University Law School.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Personally, I would trust a street corner taco in Tijuana and the local water more than I would the Russians.
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We have a trade relationship with China, but no one hardly says China is our best friend. So it is like with Russia. Although we are on opposite side of many issues, we are not at war with Russia, so depending on sanctions, it is okay to do business with Russia. On the other hand, we should be cognizant of the fact that Russia isn't our best friend as well.
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                          Only if said Russian ties involve anybody connected with Trump. If you are Hillary's campaign manager it is perfectly ok that your company represents Russia's largest bank.
                          In criminal investigations, it is quite difficult to build a case if there is no motive, and it is hard to argue that Hillary or Putin had motives to help each other...
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                            We have a trade relationship with China, but no one hardly says China is our best friend. So it is like with Russia. Although we are on opposite side of many issues, we are not at war with Russia, so depending on sanctions, it is okay to do business with Russia. On the other hand, we should be cognizant of the fact that Russia isn't our best friend as well.

                            Having a close relationship with another country does not mean that you bend over and remain silent when your "friend" tries to mess with you...
                            Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 17, 20:14.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772 View Post
                              We have a trade relationship with China, but no one hardly says China is our best friend. So it is like with Russia. Although we are on opposite side of many issues, we are not at war with Russia, so depending on sanctions, it is okay to do business with Russia. On the other hand, we should be cognizant of the fact that Russia isn't our best friend as well.
                              Exactly!
                              Probablly been more "hacking" by Chinese than Russians, but we don't seem to hear much on that ...

                              Meanwhile, "trade relationships" between countries manifest as transactions between for-profit businesses, which Trump has, comparred to for-scam foundations which the Clintonistas have.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X