Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

Almost everyone was against the $4.8 billion loan to Russia EXCEPT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Why?

And here again we run up against the rewriting of history to fit a conspiracy storyline, a popular pastime. You might consider going back and re-reading the links you yourself posted here:

 

To finance the Russian bailout, the United States agreed to lend the fund $2.1 billion.

 

Other countries making loans include Japan, Germany, France and Saudi Arabia.

 

The truth is that the developed world was almost universally behind the Yeltsin regime at that time. In retrospect it is perhaps politically expedient to distance oneself from that position but the West was at that time basically desperate to prop up a government seen as the most reformist since the creation of the USSR. Clinton's pushing for the loan to go through quickly was illustrative of the general feeling internationally. To try to link it to blackmail without any evidence whatsoever would be laughable if it was not such a sad example of the way conspiracy theorists think. And sadly this is not your first example of such thinking.

[Zelandakh]

Don't you think that there is a difference between spending money to solve a problem (if not a crisis) like Bush and Obama did and spending money simply to favor a couple of rich folks "because you can", like Trump wants to do?

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism. :unsure: :ph34r:

[RedSpawn]

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism. :unsure: :ph34r:

Fair enough.

 

Please see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bush_administration_cronyism_and_incompetence

 

The crowning achievement of cronyism in the Bush administration is Michael DeWayne Brown who joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as General Counsel in January 2001. He was the 1st person hired by Bush's long-time friend, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, who also managed Bush's election campaign in 2000. Allbaugh later named Brown his Acting Deputy Director in September 2001. Bush nominated Brown as Deputy Director of FEMA in March 2002 and nominated him for directorship in January 2003 after Allbaugh resigned.

 

Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest hurricane ever to hit the United States. Total fatalities were estimated at 1,833 and the subsequent flooding in August 2005 left millions homeless. FEMA's lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed just how little rescue and disaster recovery experience Bush's appointee had. It also revealed how little disaster recovery experience the top 3 leaders of FEMA had who were either Bush's 2000 campaign groupies or had ties to the White House advance operation.

 

As an example, President Bush learned about the 25,000 people trapped in the convention center not from his Director, who didn't know himself, but from a newswire story 24 hours after the trapped were pleading on almost every news channel! This type of cronyism is more expensive and destructive than Trump's scenario because people paid the ultimate cost with their lives.

 

Also, Senate Judiciary Committee members were saying that for the 1st time in memory, none of the most senior officials at the Department of Justice during Bush's Administration--Alberto R Gonzales, Timothy E. Flanigan, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., and Alice S. Fisher-- would have experience as a criminal prosecutor. This is after Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey resigned in August 2005 to pursue other interests in the private sector.

 

Review the link about Bush's cronyism and determine if we can accept this type of cronyism of hiring an unqualified friend of a friend in some of our nation's most critical departments and institutions.

[Zelandakh]

As an example, President Bush learned about the 25,000 people trapped in the convention center not from his Director, who didn't know himself, but from a newswire story 24 hours after the trapped were pleading on almost every news channel! This type of cronyism is more expensive and destructive than Trump's scenario because people paid the ultimate cost with their lives.

Before Katrina hit, the cost was also low. Trump has only been in power a short while - give time for a similar disaster to turn up before counting the cost.

[barmar]

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism. :unsure: :ph34r:

Wrong.

 

Spending money to help pelple who are doing fine is not not "solving a problem". It's not a problem that Trump's cronies don't have a third boat or vacation home.

[barmar]

And that's not all: Scam alert: Trump's $1tn 'infrastructure plan' is a giveaway to the rich

Could someone explain the difference between giving developers $billons of tax breaks on infrastructure projects and actually paying the developers those billions? Revenue not received is essentially the same as money spent, isn't it? So paying $1b for a bridge to be rebuilt is the same as paying $100m and giving $900m in tax credits, it's just an accounting difference. How does the crony get any richer in the latter case than the other?

 

Is it because the government has less control over the projects? If we pay for the projects, the government can put out a bid for a contractor to rebuild a particular bridge. If it's tax breaks, we have to hope that some contractor decides that rebuilding that bridge is something they want to invest in, then we allow them to do it for 18 cents on the dollar with a tax subsidy.

 

But if the cronies don't find projects to work on, they're not going to get the tax breaks. So if the cronies get rich, don't we get infrastructure improvements? And don't the construction workers get jobs?

 

I'm sure I'm missing something, since I don't trust Trump at all. But it doesn't seem as nefarious as his tax plan (which was also just some talking points, no actual details) and Trumpcare (which takes away numerous benefits for people who can't afford healthcare, and gives tax breaks to those who can).

[PassedOut]

Could someone explain the difference between giving developers $billons of tax breaks on infrastructure projects and actually paying the developers those billions? Revenue not received is essentially the same as money spent, isn't it? So paying $1b for a bridge to be rebuilt is the same as paying $100m and giving $900m in tax credits, it's just an accounting difference. How does the crony get any richer in the latter case than the other?

When the developer owns the bridge, the developer gets the tolls. When the government owns the bridge, the government gets the tolls.

 

Also, not all of the needed infrastructure improvements are profit opportunities.

[RedSpawn]

Before Katrina hit, the cost was also low. Trump has only been in power a short while - give time for a similar disaster to turn up before counting the cost.

 

Duly noted, but I'm not understanding the logic here. President Bush took a calculated risk of hiring cronies for the top positions at FEMA. And yes, he perceived that cost as very low intially, but Bush knew exactly what he was doing. He was doing what other Presidents before him had done, but on a larger scale. He was rewarding those who either contributed heavily to his Presidential campaign or had helped him to attain the Presidency of the United States of America.

 

Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other plans for Louisiana. So a seemingly harmless "low-cost" type of cronyism became a bill due costing 1,833 American lives. Even if Bush honestly believed such consequences of cronyism weren't foreseeable, he has no excuse; he rolled the political dice and hit snake eyes. Honestly, I don't know how many lives were attributed to the federal government's untimely and woefully inadequate rescue response and how many can be attributed to the incompetence of the local and state government.

 

However, I do know that cronyism breeds corruption and incompetence, and both can be dangerous if not deadly.

 

An experienced leader of the most powerful nation should understand, appreciate, and abide by the veracity of this maxim .

 

Here are a few links that discuss the depth of Bush's cronyism. Take them with a grain of salt as most are from the left, but honestly Michael D. Brown and the Department of Justice are enough for me.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/the-top-43-appointees-who-helped-make-bush-the-worst-president-ever-2e1afb29e135 ===> progress website with listing of top 43 Bush appointees who seem to be cronies.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm ===> liberal website, but the listing of cronies is interesting.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kerry_Bush_prefers_paying_off_cronies_0626.html ===> same issue of cronies through Senate recess appointments.

 

Agreed. Let's give President Trump some more time, and he too, will eventually roll snake eyes.

[Winstonm]

Wrong.

 

Spending money to help pelple who are doing fine is not not "solving a problem". It's not a problem that Trump's cronies don't have a third boat or vacation home.

 

Dividing a nation's assets among a limited number of super rich and then allowing their businesses personal rights is oligarchy-in-the-making. By masking that intent in the flag of nationalism and by feigning ties to the majority religion the end result is theoligarchy, an oligarchy pretending to be a theocracy.

[RedSpawn]

And here again we run up against the rewriting of history to fit a conspiracy storyline, a popular pastime. You might consider going back and re-reading the links you yourself posted here:

 

The truth is that the developed world was almost universally behind the Yeltsin regime at that time. In retrospect it is perhaps politically expedient to distance oneself from that position but the West was at that time basically desperate to prop up a government seen as the most reformist since the creation of the USSR. Clinton's pushing for the loan to go through quickly was illustrative of the general feeling internationally. To try to link it to blackmail without any evidence whatsoever would be laughable if it was not such a sad example of the way conspiracy theorists think. And sadly this is not your first example of such thinking.

Please provide links showing that world leaders were supporting the billion $ IMF wires to financially imploding Russia circa mid 1998.

 

Let's step back and get the timeline right.

 

http://russianlaw.org/chron.htm

 

Of course, the Western world was supportive of Russia's transition from a command economy to a market based economy under Yeltsin, but that too came with caveats. Between the years of 1992 and 1996, the IMF loaned Russia $12.5 billion to help with this transition. Even though this $12.5 billion was not paid back, I am not questioning what happened to it--though it's possible the money was placed into the hands of offshore accounts and the Russian oligarch.

 

What I am asking about is the second loan tranche of $22 billion in mid-1998 which contained a $4.8 billion loan payment. Russia had not enacted significant budgetary reforms and the IMF top leaders were hesitant about loaning more money to Russia. Why? Because they IMF had not yet completed its due diligence and hadn't seen any significant good faith efforts from Russia to move toward a market economy. The IMF leaders didn't see the purpose of propping up the economy, especially when they aren't confident that the 1st loan tranche accomplished its intended purpose (i.e. to stabilize the Russian economy). Also, the Asian Economic Crisis in late 1997 began to affect Russia since Asia's demand for oil plummeted and thus the price of oil collapsed with adverse consequences for Russia’s balance of payments and government revenues.

 

The IMF’s advice [to Russia] in the first half of 1998 was to tighten monetary policy and introduce new fiscal measures to deal with the growing fiscal gap. The former worked in January, but the very high interest rates in May did not contain the loss of international reserves. While the authorities recognized the need for further fiscal measures, they were paralyzed by the unexpected dismissal on March 23 of Chernomyrdin as prime minister, and the delay until Sergei Kiriyenko was approved on April 24. With confidence not restored in financial markets after the May crisis, calls for more drastic measures were heard, including devaluation, refinancing of government debt to extend maturities, and a massive external loan. The IMF’s room for maneuver was narrowed by the announcement, by President Clinton’s office on May 31, that the United States endorsed additional financial support from the international financial institutions to promote stability and structural reforms. (bold mine) https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 22

 

(Why did Clinton's office announce this in the midst of Russia's potential economic disaster? Why would he adversely affect the bargaining strength of the IMF by making this announcement? This announcement reduces the chances that Russia will accept the devaluation of its ruble as a necessary step to stabilizing the market. Russia is on the ropes and Clinton mysteriously extends a life line before negotiations with Russia are completed. It's odd!)

 

During the months that followed until the crisis in August, the IMF was focused on attempting to strengthen Russia’s fiscal policy, knowing that the government was weak and could not deliver very much. The key event here was the approval on July 20 by the Executive Board of a major loan (US$4.8 billion) in support of a new package of fiscal and other measures, many of which would not take effect until January 1999. The aim of this loan was to provide Russia with additional reserves so that it could manage any short-term outflows, until such time as confidence in financial markets was restored. Unfortunately, after a temporary improvement in July, confidence continued to weaken in August and drastic measures, such as those announced on August 17, became inevitable.

I have already shown you at least two decent articles detailing that top IMF leaders were against the wires to Russia in July/August 1998 since the Russian parliament had NOT enacted any budgetary measures. Again the articles stated that the top IMF leaders felt pressured by the Clinton administration to make these wires and accelerate Russia's financial rescue package.

 

Do you think Clinton's position on the $4.8 billion wire was a popular one despite the articles showing otherwise? Doesn't prove he was blackmailed, but his behavior is quite odd and dubious in light of the circumstances.

 

Also the articles line up with the climate that Admiral Lyons was asserting. And the fact that the $4.8 billion just evaporated (embezzled) after being wired and the Russian economy still crumbled. . . just wow.

 

I look forward to seeing some articles supporting your representations.

[Zelandakh]

He was rewarding those who either contributed heavily to his Presidential campaign or had helped him to attain the Presidency of the United States of America.

 

Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other plans for Louisiana. So a seemingly harmless "low-cost" type of cronyism became a bill due costing 1,833 American lives.

I suspect you are vastly underestimating the effect here. I am confident that the number of avoidable deaths attributable to the Bush administration through "favours" to campaign contributors dwarfs those from Katrina.

 

One of the places I have lived is Aberdeen. Amongst other things, Aberdeen is the centre of the UK oil and gas industry. One of the guys I met during my time there was in charge of oil rig safety at a large oil company. He described his job as "deciding how many people would die that year". It works like this - the oil companies know the cost of every safety improvement together with the expected number of deaths and injuries it would avoid. From this data they decide which safety regulations to implement and which not to. Lobbying helps to ensure that they only need to implement the ones they want to.

 

Scale this process up to the size of the US oil and gas industry - heavy contributors to GWB's campaign funds - and you have a lot more than 1833 deaths.

[Zelandakh]

Please provide links showing that world leaders were supporting the billion $ IMF wires to financially imploding Russia circa mid 1998.

 

I have already shown you at least two decent articles detailing that top IMF leaders were against the wires to Russia in July/August 1998 since the Russian parliament had NOT enacted any budgetary measures.

The quote I provided came from your own link and stated that several countries were providing cash to Russia at that time, some directly and others, like the USA, through the IMF. It seems strange to me that you would think these countries were providing their own cash but were against Russia receiving it from anyone else. More to the point though, I am old enough to remember the late 90s quite well and remember full well how keen the West was to prop up the regime. I have seen nothing in the way of contemporary sources to dispute this.

 

From what I can make out, the start of the story behind the $4.8 billion was a "prank" by a Russian newspaper accusing PM from the period (1998) Kiriyenko of embezzling the money. No evidence was provided and the paper lost a resulting libel case. The rest is modern spin and conspiracy.

 

As for direct evidence that the Western powers were behind Russia in 1998. Well quite frankly I am not willing to devote a lot of time to shooting down every tin hat conspiracy theory that makes it to these forums but here is a contemporary story from the time I found within 2 minutes mentioning that Germany, Britain and France were all supporting the Russian government's plans, not to mention the $1.5 billion that Japan loaned them. But that couldn't be right could it? It doesn't fit the conspiracy theorist's plotline. :blink:

[RedSpawn]

The quote I provided came from your own link and stated that several countries were providing cash to Russia at that time, some directly and others, like the USA, through the IMF. It seems strange to me that you would think these countries were providing their own cash but were against Russia receiving it from anyone else. More to the point though, I am old enough to remember the late 90s quite well and remember full well how keen the West was to prop up the regime. I have seen nothing in the way of contemporary sources to dispute this.

 

From what I can make out, the start of the story behind the $4.8 billion was a "prank" by a Russian newspaper accusing PM from the period (1998) Kiriyenko of embezzling the money. No evidence was provided and the paper lost a resulting libel case. The rest is modern spin and conspiracy.

 

As for direct evidence that the Western powers were behind Russia in 1998. Well quite frankly I am not willing to devote a lot of time to shooting down every tin hat conspiracy theory that makes it to these forums but here is a contemporary story from the time I found within 2 minutes mentioning that Germany, Britain and France were all supporting the Russian government's plans, not to mention the $1.5 billion that Japan loaned them. But that couldn't be right could it? It doesn't fit the conspiracy theorist's plotline. :blink:

 

I have shown you three different articles showing that the Clinton administration was going against the grain on this $4.8 billion IMF loan. One of the articles was a working paper from the IMF! Clinton made a statement at the end of May 31, 1998 that undermined the IMF's ability to force Russia to devalue its ruble as part of the economic plan to stabilize Russia's market. He promised economic support despite Russia's intransigence on embracing tight monetary policies. It's odd!

 

I am suggesting that Clinton's timing and support for the $4.8 billion wire to a failing Russia should be reviewed ESPECIALLY after the IMF loans of $12.5 billion between 1992-96 haven't been paid back AND Russia's parliament has not approved any significant budgetary changes in light of the Asian economic contagion. It makes no economic sense to send a $4.8 billion wire to the Titanic if the ship has already hit the iceberg and the Russian leaders are not embracing tight monetary policy to stem the damage. Russia was already in meltdown mode:

 

• Russian debt was rising from 1991-1998. Please see http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/reserve-readings/http:__www.cnie.org_nle_econ-72.html%23n_2_ .Russia's debt rose from $96.8 billion in 1991 to $147.1 billion in 1998! Thus, the Russian government was knowingly running budget deficits to finance operations.
  
• Asian Economic Crisis reduced oil to $8 a barrel in late 1997 and destroyed Russia's revenue stream to finance government operations.
  
• There was a large amount of capital outflow from Russia due to market instability and panic.
  
• Upon helping with the re-election of Yeltsin, the powerful Russian oligarch reduced their tax payments. It was no coincidence that nearly all the main enterprises with tax arrears at the end of 1996 were oil or gas companies. See https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 21.
  
• The Russian government did not want to embrace tight monetary policy for the long-term ==> resisting devaluing the Ruble to alleviate market pressures.
  
• The Russian economy was shrinking ===> productivity was declining especially since the Russian government did not diversify its revenue stream. Also, workers who weren't paid on time (or at all) typically reduced their productivity as a sign of protest. Also unemployment in Russia was rising due to the capital outflow and flight.
  
• There were rumors and obvious signs of fiscal mismanagement where the IMF did not institute a commensurate amount of supervision in light of Russia's deteriorating economy.
  

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

 

How the heck can a lowly Patrick Buchanan read the tea leaves properly?

 

See http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-let-russia-default-310 ===> He says let Russia default on the IMF debt and stop sending them taxpayer funded money on 06/09/1998.

See http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/30/opinion/op-17927 ===> On August 30, 1998 after the implosion, Buchanan says, "I told you so!" and suggests criminal behavior at the IMF (or elsewhere).

 

Don't worry, it's obvious you are going to defend the Clinton administration's position on the $4.8 billion wire in 1998 when it makes absolutely no sense and goes against the top IMF officials goals at the time. Cue that sexy a$$ saxophone solo please. I guess the IMF should also be surprised when that $4.8 billion was embezzled in short order?

[Winstonm]

I have shown you three different articles showing that the Clinton administration was going against the grain on this $4.8 billion IMF loan. One of the articles was a working paper from the IMF! Clinton made a statement at the end of May 31, 1998 that undermined the IMF's ability to force Russia to devalue its ruble as part of the economic plan to stabilize Russia's market. He promised economic support despite Russia's intransigence on embracing tight monetary policies. It's odd!

 

I am suggesting that Clinton's timing and support for the $4.8 billion wire to a failing Russia should be reviewed ESPECIALLY after the IMF loans of $12.5 billion between 1992-96 haven't been paid back AND Russia's parliament has not approved any significant budgetary changes in light of the Asian economic contagion. It makes no economic sense to send a $4.8 billion wire to the Titanic if the ship has already hit the iceberg and the Russian leaders are not embracing tight monetary policy to stem the damage. Russia was already in meltdown mode:

 

• Russian debt was rising from 1991-1998. Please see http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/reserve-readings/http:__www.cnie.org_nle_econ-72.html%23n_2_ .Russia's debt rose from $96.8 billion in 1991 to $147.1 billion in 1998! Thus, the Russian government was knowingly running budget deficits to finance operations.
  
• Asian Economic Crisis reduced oil to $8 a barrel in late 1997 and destroyed Russia's revenue stream to finance government operations.
  
• There was a large amount of capital outflow from Russia due to market instability and panic.
  
• Upon helping with the re-election of Yeltsin, the powerful Russian oligarch reduced their tax payments. It was no coincidence that nearly all the main enterprises with
  tax arrears at the end of 1996 were oil or gas companies. See https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 21.
  
• The Russian government did not want to embrace tight monetary policy for the long-term ==> resisting devaluing the Ruble to alleviate market pressures.
  
• The Russian economy was shrinking ===> productivity was declining especially since the Russian government did not diversify its revenue stream. Also, workers who weren't paid on time (or at all) typically reduced their productivity as a sign of protest. Also unemployment in Russia was rising due to the capital outflow and flight.
  
• There were rumors and obvious signs of fiscal mismanagement where the IMF did not institute a commensurate amount of supervision in light of Russia's deteriorating economy.
  

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

 

How the heck can a lowly Patrick Buchanan read the tea leaves properly?

 

See http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-let-russia-default-310 ===> He says let Russia default on the IMF debt and stop sending them taxpayer funded money on 06/09/1998.

See http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/30/opinion/op-17927 ===> On August 30, 1998 after the implosion, Buchanan says, "I told you so!" and suggests criminal behavior at the IMF (or elsewhere).

 

Don't worry, it's obvious you are going to defend the Clinton administration's position on the $4.8 billion wire in 1998 when it makes absolutely no sense and goes against the top IMF officials goals at the time. Cue that sexy a$$ saxophone solo please. I guess the IMF should also be surprised when that $4.8 billion was embezzled in short order?

 

You are still using the Whatabout dodge to distract from the current occupant of the White House. I would ask you either defend or not defend Donald Trump and his administration instead of off-topic tangents.

[RedSpawn]

You are still using the Whatabout dodge to distract from the current occupant of the White House. I would ask you either defend or not defend Donald Trump and his administration instead of off-topic tangents.

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/demokratizatsiya%20archive/06-04_sokolov.pdf .

 

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.

 

Corruption is involved with all of the processes of privatization, and the question of how money circulates no longer has any relationship whatsoever to the market economy. The Chamber of Accounts has conducted a complete review and analysis of these processes, which we finished in 1996. One of our main conclusions of this audit was that privatization, taken as a whole, was carried out with a huge number of violations of law. If we were talking about violations of old Soviet law, then one could understand and justify this situation. But as a matter of fact, even the laws drafted by Mr. Chubais and Mr. Gaidar were violated, and therefore, one cannot find any economic rationale or any economic goals of these processes. We have outrageous examples of corruption, which are basically connected with financial manipulations. We have come to this conclusion as a result of what we call a complete documentary audit of actions by the Ministry of Finance, which is totally lacking any kind of systematic accounting for incomes and outflows from the federal budget.

Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

 

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

 

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

[RedSpawn]

To be fair, I said I didn't like Trump because he is a slimeball. I did not say he should be impeached because of that, as slimeballism is not a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

He deserves impeachment for numerous other acts, including violation of the emolument clause and borderline if not actual obstruction of justice. Keep in mind, impeachment is a political act and as such clear crimes are not required - Congress determines what acts are high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/12/two-states-to-sue-donald-trump-over-unprecedented-constitutional-violations/

 

Well the state Attorney Generals are trying to sue Trump for violation of the Emoluments clause since the sitting Attorney General (Sessions) can't prosecute a sitting President (his boss).

 

Oh so messy!

[RedSpawn]

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

How in the world is Qatar hiring Former Attorney General John Aschcroft to serve as Arbitrator for the Gulf crisis between President Trump and its Arab neighbors?

 

The government of Qatar has hired former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to help the country challenge accusations from its Arab neighbors and U.S. President Donald Trump that it supports terrorism.

See http://journaldumaghreb.com/2017/06/12/united-states-and-russian-federation-call-for-dialogue-over/

 

http://journaldumaghreb.com/2017/06/12/qatar-slams-saudi-allies-terrorism-list-as-baseless/

 

And the Gulf partners want to curb Al-Jazeera's freedom of the press rights since it tries to present a balanced view on issues.

 

Wow! It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

[kenberg]

How in the world is Qatar hiring Former Attorney General John Aschcroft to serve as Arbitrator for the Gulf crisis between President Trump and its Arab neighbors?

 

 

See http://journaldumagh...-dialogue-over/

 

http://journaldumagh...st-as-baseless/

 

And the Gulf partners want to curb Al-Jazeera's freedom of the press rights since it tries to present a balanced view on issues.

 

Wow! It just gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

Yes, and the pills your mother give you don't do anything at all.

[diana_eva]

Soviet States of America shaping up:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html

 

You think I am exaggerating. I am not. Here's what White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said about Trump: "We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda."

[Winstonm]

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/demokratizatsiya%20archive/06-04_sokolov.pdf .

 

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.

 

 

Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

 

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

 

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

 

I'll allow myself to be pulled in for just this one comment - considering the Soviet Union had collapsed and the West was trying to save Russia's struggling movement to democracy, $4.8 billion is chickenfeed to put into a bailout to try to prevent a collapse that could lead to the rise of another authoritarian government.

 

White Rabbit

[Winstonm]

Soviet States of America shaping up:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-meeting/index.html

 

Trump's Kim Jun-un impersonation.

[Winstonm]

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/12/two-states-to-sue-donald-trump-over-unprecedented-constitutional-violations/

 

Well the state Attorney Generals are trying to sue Trump for violation of the Emoluments clause since the sitting Attorney General (Sessions) can't prosecute a sitting President (his boss).

 

Oh so messy!

 

It's actually one state - Maryland (go ken!) - and the District of Columbia.

[RedSpawn]

I'll allow myself to be pulled in for just this one comment - considering the Soviet Union had collapsed and the West was trying to save Russia's struggling movement to democracy, $4.8 billion is chickenfeed to put into a bailout to try to prevent a collapse that could lead to the rise of another authoritarian government.

 

White Rabbit

For the President to save the Russian economy from collapse, he needs to be confident that the $4.8 billion loan will be used for its intended purposes.

 

Since the Russian Inspector General has concluded that the internal control structure in the Russian Federation is rife with corruption, price manipulation, and dare I say fraud, why would the IMF assume that the Russian leaders will use the $4.8 billion for its intended purposes?

 

Yeltsin's assurances are inadequate since the accounting and budgeting process is out of control. The IMF should not wire money to the Russian Federation until it can conduct a full due diligence on the concerns the Inspector General highlighted.

 

The Clinton administration has a higher fiduciary duty to the American public and therefore must protect and safeguard tax payer funded bailout money from unnecessary loss and waste. It can worry about saving face on the pending Russian default later. This is called putting PRINCIPLES before POLITICS.

[diana_eva]

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu...-04_sokolov.pdf .

 

This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America.

 

 

Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98?

 

The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6.

 

Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

 

It's important to understand the context. All the countries that exited strict centralized economy have been ridden with corruption for years, most of them still fight it. Many enormous and also smaller industries were taken off state control and put out for privatization. Just image the opportunities for people who were in power and then they have access to these businesses. Perestroika and glasnost were widely supported by the West, despite the corruption. You can't just get out of a centralized system straight into capitalism and democracy without anyone trying to game the flaws in the transition process. Should the international powers not support a country fighting corruption on its way to democracy? Perhaps... but I'd say it's in everyone's best interest to help smooth the process with a huge power such as Russia, provided that its efforts to transparency are credible.

[Zelandakh]

You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring?

And I have shown you without any wriggle room that the developed world was squarely behind the Yeltsin-Kiriyenko government at the time of the transfer. Whether it was a good idea, particularly with the additional benefit of hindsight, is a completely different thing. There was plenty of reason to suspect issues to turn up, not least because the Russian government/economy had been losing an incredible amount of cash every year and not fulfilling various obligations since 1992.

 

But we do not have to worry about that do we? Your assertion is that Clinton was personally pushing for the transfer of funds to Russia due to being blackmailed. You make this claim despite not having a shred of evidence to support it. So you are using the American government being alone in supporting Russia as a proxy for going out on a limb in an unusual position. Except that the government of most developed countries took a similar stance. Now you are saying, "oh but the IMF was only luke warm about it back in June." Well yes, that is true, but it is hardly evidence of the proxy you are trying to make; and the proxy itself is incredibly weak.

 

This is typical conspiracy theory attire - take one thing, restate it as something else, then equate that to something even bigger. So let us lay it out - the American government supported something that Britain, France, Germany, Japan, etc also supported. Given that, please provide evidence, preferably direct evidence, of any blackmail.

 

And finally, talking about blackmail and to bring this back to DT, any comment about his two main blackmail stories - the threats to Comey and the alleged material held by Russia? The latter appears to have only slightly more evidence than your claims against BC; but then again your burden of proof is different to mine so I imagine you are pretty upset about it... ;)