Clinton campaign and DNC paid for Trump Dossier

[JustWinBaby]

(10-25-2017, 07:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: ....and was more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump.

I'm not sure this isn't just more a post-election perspective.  Plenty of Russian fingerprints all over stuff to impugn Trump, ESPECIALLY the Dossier.  That meeting Trump Jr. had with the lawyer - totally smells like a set-up (especially reading that email!).

Then you look at this uranium deal and large donations to the Clinton Foundation.....Russians leaving plenty of breadcrumbs on both designed to cause all sorts of trouble for whomever won the election.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2017, 08:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ehhhh, I'm saying regardless if it's 5 months or 14 months in, I think it's pretty curious to be examining/questioning the foundation of the investigation at this point.  5 months or 14 months in, you're not going back to the beginning.....on top of leaks the focus might be shifting, again, but would certainly be a plausible explanation of why you're interviewing Steele at this point.

Point being, they've been following-up on Steele's leads and intel for over a year - shouldn't you be well past deposing him?  You've independently corroborated his evidence and accusations or not - what value does he have to an investigation that has long moved on from the Dossier?

I would add I remember reading Steele had paid Russian informants to compile that Dossier, many of whom were former KGB and govt officials.  He's not an American citizen, but does that mean he was a go-between for people in the Clinton campaign and DNC being "agents of a foreign govt"?

Steele's dossier isn't really the foundation of this all. It's going to be a part, because part of the information that was confirmed by our intelligence will play a role in all of this, but the dossier is only a small part in all of it.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-25-2017, 08:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Steele's dossier isn't really the foundation of this all. It's going to be a part, because part of the information that was confirmed by our intelligence will play a role in all of this, but the dossier is only a small part in all of it.

That assumes the FBI didn't already have the memo when McCain delivered it in October.

It's also curious that Fusion GPS began working with the DNC/Clinton campaign in April, months ahead of the opening of an investigation into the Trump campaign.  The FBI had been investigating Manafort back to 2014, but had suspended that by June of 2016.  Then, in August or September, I believe, new FISA warrants were issued.

Questions definitely need to be answered about the sources and justifications of these investigations.

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2017, 08:52 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That assumes the FBI didn't already have the memo when McCain delivered it in October.

It's also curious that Fusion GPS began working with the DNC/Clinton campaign in April, months ahead of the opening of an investigation into the Trump campaign.  The FBI had been investigating Manafort back to 2014, but had suspended that by June of 2016.  Then, in August or September, I believe, new FISA warrants were issued.

Questions definitely need to be answered about the sources and justifications of these investigations.

Because in August evidence was revealed in Ukraine detailing millions in cash he received from the former pro Russian Ukrainian government. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2017, 07:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No one here is saying that what was done by everyone involved wasn't shady as hell, or even possibly illegal on some level. We're just saying this isn't news. What is being reported in the article in the OP was revealed back when the dossier was really heavy in the news.

Right now, I'm more interested in finding out who is benefiting from trying to bring this and the uranium deal thing back into the public eye. Someone is putting an agenda in motion by making sure things like this get back in the media circus, even though the information isn't really anything new. This causes the public to pay attention and results in lawmakers changing their agenda. So who benefits from this?

Who benefits most by casting doubt onto the validity of the golden shower dossier by linking it to "crooked" Hillary?

[JustWinBaby]

(10-25-2017, 10:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because in August evidence was revealed in Ukraine detailing millions in cash he received from the former pro Russian Ukrainian government. 

Like I said, they had been investigating Manafort for nearly 2 years - BECAUSE of the Ukraine thing - and dropped it for lack of evidence.  What you're referring to may have been leaked/reported in August, but I believe that's actually the reason he had been under investigation initially.....it was something else that led to new FISA warrants.

Similar story with Carter Page, who reportedly was also being investigated back to 2014.  But the article wasn't clear on whether those FISA warrants simply renewed as part of that ongoing investigation, or if a new investigation was opened because of new "evidence".

[GMDino]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/whats-up-with-the-times-piece-on-elias-steele-and-fusion-gps

Quote:What’s Up With The Times Piece on Elias, Steele and Fusion GPS?

 SHARE
I wanted to follow up on my post from last night about the latest news on the Steele Dossier. As I explained last night, the Democratic party’s top election lawyer, Marc Elias, deserves some kind of vast national, public thank you since his decision to fund the Fusion GPS/Steele research likely played a key role in blocking the ‘grand bargain’ and policy payoffs to Russia which President Trump was hoping to make in January and February of this year.

But let’s look at the follow-up story in The New York Times.

As I explained last night, almost everything we learned last night had been known for roughly a year: specifically, that after Republican funders lost interest in probing President Trump’s ties to Russia, Democrats began funding the on-going research by Fusion GPS. What we learned last night was specifically which Democrats. A new filing from the law firm of Perkins Coie showed that it was Marc Elias who contracted Fusion GPS with funds from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Last night on Twitter the two Times reporters who wrote the overnight story went on Twitter and said that Elias had earlier denied all of this. One of the two reporters, Maggie Haberman, went so far as to say that Elias and others had not only lied but “lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

Ken Vogel, the lead on the Times piece, suggested that Elias had given a more general but adamant denial. “When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.'”

(Just in the interest of full visibility and transparency, Vogel’s a great investigative reporter.)

The Times article suggests that it was less a flat denial than some misleading but lawyerly language on Elias’s part. Citing Anita Dunn, longtime Democratic communications hand, the Times says this …

Quote:Anita Dunn, a veteran Democratic operative working with Perkins Coie, said on Tuesday that Mr. Elias “was certainly familiar with some of, but not all, of the information” in the dossier. But, she said “he didn’t have and hadn’t seen the full document, nor was he involved in pitching it to reporters.” And Mr. Elias “was not at liberty to confirm Perkins Coie as the client at that point,” Ms. Dunn said.

As I wrote last night, whether Elias lied about his role funding the Fusion GPS research is really his problem. It seems clear, even based on the Times reporting, that the Clinton campaign did not know about Fusion GPS or what subcontractor was working on an oppo research project (nor would it have been routine for them to know). The key point as a story is that we already knew that the project began with funding from Republicans. Republicans lost interest after Trump won the nomination. Then Elias agreed to fund continuing the work. As I noted last night, Elias deserves some kind of big national security award from the US government for this.

But here’s what jumps out at me about the Times story: what’s not included. Let me list a few points.

* The fact that it has been publicly known for more than a year that the Fusion GPS investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia began with funding from Republicans and was later funded by Democrats. This has been known since David Corn’s report in October 2016 and reported in numerous other reports since. This is never mentioned in the Times article.

* The fact that the Fusion GPS’s investigation into Russia began as a project funded by Republicans. This is never mentioned in the Times report, although it’s alluded to in the letter from Perkins Coie Managing Partner Matthew J. Gehringer. (The precise timeline is this: Republicans hire Fusion GPS to investigate Trump business. Investigation quickly turns to focus on Trump’s ties to Russia. Republicans lose interest. Elias agrees to continue the funding with money from DNC/HRC campaign. Steele brought in to go deeper into Russia ties.)

* The Times report can be read to suggest that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid $12.4 million for the Fusion GPS research. But as the Post notes, these tabulations date back to June and November 2015, fully a year before Elias signed up Fusion GPS. So by definition, it can’t all be for that research.

* Leaving out the first two points makes the Times piece seem quite misleading to me. In a different category is another detail left out. As the Post notes, the Democrats stopped funding the Fusion GPS the day before the election. But Steele had already shared his findings with the FBI because he was so alarmed by what he had found. The FBI was sufficiently disturbed and confident in Steele’s work that they agreed to continue funding his work. (They eventually stopped once Steele’s name became public.) This is highly relevant information for determining the quality and credibility of Steele’s findings. But it doesn’t appear in the Times report even though the lede of the Times report focuses squarely on Republican accusations about Steele and Fusion GPS.

Let me quote the third and fourth paragraphs of the Times piece …

Quote:The revelation, which emerged from a letter filed in court on Tuesday, is likely to fuel new partisan attacks over federal and congressional investigations into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates assisted in the effort.
The president and his allies have argued for months that the investigations are politically motivated. They have challenged the information contained in the dossier, which was compiled by a former British spy who had been contracted by the Washington research firm Fusion GPS.

The FBI’s confidence in Steele’s work and going so far as to agree to keep funding it seems highly relevant information in evaluating those attacks. At the end of the day, what seems relevant to me is that the funding behind the Steele/Fusion GPS effort has been known since last year. It had details about at least the outlines of the Russian subversion campaign long before they were publicly known. How there’s anything bad about money from the campaign and the DNC helping to fund it is a complete mystery. The only problem is why they didn’t do more with it since this was critical information for the public to know.
But the public was left in the dark.

[BmorePat87]

(10-26-2017, 01:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Like I said, they had been investigating Manafort for nearly 2 years - BECAUSE of the Ukraine thing - and dropped it for lack of evidence.  What you're referring to may have been leaked/reported in August, but I believe that's actually the reason he had been under investigation initially.....it was something else that led to new FISA warrants.

Similar story with Carter Page, who reportedly was also being investigated back to 2014.  But the article wasn't clear on whether those FISA warrants simply renewed as part of that ongoing investigation, or if a new investigation was opened because of new "evidence".

The ledger was revealed in August by a Ukrainian anti corruption task force, but I understand what you're saying. Steele did send the FBI a memo regarding communications in June or July. So it's a question of if that played a role. From what he has said, he leaked the full dossier because he felt there was no action on the information he found, so that memo may not have been the catalyst. 

[JustWinBaby]

(10-26-2017, 02:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The ledger was revealed in August by a Ukrainian anti corruption task force, but I understand what you're saying. Steele did send the FBI a memo regarding communications in June or July. So it's a question of if that played a role. From what he has said, he leaked the full dossier because he felt there was no action on the information he found, so that memo may not have been the catalyst. 

What I read was intercepted communications on routine surveillance of Russian operatives is what led to re-opening the investigation of Manafort in June/July.  Steele may or may not have had a role in that.  It's possible we're both correct and the ledger was the basis for yet another FISA warrant.

The justification for all this is only one of many questions that need answered.  Personally, I think the Russians played Steele, relying on his past relationships thru MI6 to dupe the DOJ.  And that's apparently just one of many balls they had in the air as part of their overall strategy to shake confidence in our govt and elections.

[BmorePat87]

(10-26-2017, 05:18 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What I read was intercepted communications on routine surveillance of Russian operatives is what led to re-opening the investigation of Manafort in June/July.  Steele may or may not have had a role in that.  

The justification for all this is only one of many questions that need answered.  Personally, I think the Russians played Steele, relying on his past relationships thru MI6 to dupe the DOJ.  And that's apparently just one of many balls they had in the air as part of their overall strategy to shake confidence in our govt and elections.

All in all, it was a general investigation into Russian interference which, campaign involvement aside, is something the intelligence community has agreed occurred. The root of all of that was the hacking of political party emails and websites. When you then have a campaign chair who has a history of off the books dealings with pro Russian groups, that opens itself up to further investigation, especially when, at the time, you only know of cyber attacks against the opposing party. 

There certainly could be a number of false flags, but too many circumstances exist to write them off without a proper investigation. A feel like there would have been a lot less fuel on this if they never pegged Manafort for the campaign chair job or if Trump Jr wasn't a ***** moron and lied about meeting Russians regarding getting dirt on Hillary. Shit like this coming up just fans the flames 

[Griever]

who cares who paid for it? we shoud be concerned if this stuff is real and factual, not with who paid for it

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2017, 01:50 AM)Griever Wrote: who cares who paid for it? we shoud be concerned if this stuff is real and factual, not with who paid for it

But, if crooked Hillary paid for it then everyone will know it is all lies.

[Vlad]

(10-27-2017, 01:50 AM)Griever Wrote: who cares who paid for it? we shoud be concerned if this stuff is real and factual, not with who paid for it

This fake dossier has democRAT fingerprints all over it... paid for by Hillary and the DNC as an attempt to deligitimize the election of a president, so it does matter.
The reason this investigation continues to persist is because it has turned into strategizing a way to absolve Clinton and the democRATS from wrongdoing.
This the mother of all scandals.

Too bad Trump Jr.'s meeting with the Russians didn't work out for you all.
You all thought you had something there didn't you?

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 01:50 AM)Griever Wrote: who cares who paid for it? we shoud be concerned if this stuff is real and factual, not with who paid for it

This is actually the truth of it all. I mean, if campaign finance laws were broken, someone should face punishment, but who funded the research matters very little. The implication we are seeing from the media right now is that the DNC/Clinton campaign somehow manufactured this fake dossier to smear Trump. I can't see any other reason for this to be brought up than this. However, this is an illogical implication.

One, the research was being done at the behest of a Republican donor to begin with. So far, Rubio and a rep from Bush are on the record denying it was them. There may be others. Second, if you think the grand master plan of the DNC/Clinton was to manufacture this dossier with fake, salacious information, and then hold onto it until after the election, you are a fool. I've heard both a person who was a comms person for Clinton, and one for Bush, say if they had been handed this prior to the election, it would have been in the hands of the media long before it ended up being out there.

It amazes me how readily people expel critical thinking and logic when things like this pop up.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2017, 09:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is actually the truth of it all. I mean, if campaign finance laws were broken, someone should face punishment, but who funded the research matters very little. The implication we are seeing from the media right now is that the DNC/Clinton campaign somehow manufactured this fake dossier to smear Trump. I can't see any other reason for this to be brought up than this. However, this is an illogical implication.

One, the research was being done at the behest of a Republican donor to begin with. So far, Rubio and a rep from Bush are on the record denying it was them. There may be others. Second, if you think the grand master plan of the DNC/Clinton was to manufacture this dossier with fake, salacious information, and then hold onto it until after the election, you are a fool. I've heard both a person who was a comms person for Clinton, and one for Bush, say if they had been handed this prior to the election, it would have been in the hands of the media long before it ended up being out there.

It amazes me how readily people expel critical thinking and logic when things like this pop up.

Do you think it becomes a byproduct of defending Trump for so long (in this case) that when presented with a story that most people knew about already the tic is to jump all over it, go all in, because they have trained themselves that the world is out to get him?

Like you said, there might be a story in there about something.  But the meat of it has already been in the media and well known.  Yet the Trump supporters act as if this is the smoking gun that means the entire Russian collusion investigation (and any other investigation) is a witch hunt.

And I'm talking about people I consider sane, reasonable people in most things.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 09:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think it becomes a byproduct of defending Trump for so long (in this case) that when presented with a story that most people knew about already the tic is to jump all over it, go all in, because they have trained themselves that the world is out to get him?

Like you said, there might be a story in there about something.  But the meat of it has already been in the media and well known.  Yet the Trump supporters act as if this is the smoking gun that means the entire Russian collusion investigation (and any other investigation) is a witch hunt.

And I'm talking about people I consider sane, reasonable people in most things.

Not really. The reason I say that is because it's not just the people that have been defending Trump. There are media outlets that are very critical of Trump that are making these implications. I don't know what is going on, here, but it is baffling.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2017, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not really. The reason I say that is because it's not just the people that have been defending Trump. There are media outlets that are very critical of Trump that are making these implications. I don't know what is going on, here, but it is baffling.

Attempt to be "fair"?

I've read a number of article that all say this isn't new news but the comments are still filled with the rubes who can only push their agenda and don't believe anything they read or see unless it agrees with them.

Maybe the outlets that are trying to give facts/details are trying to educate or at least seem like the are covering it so the inevitable "no one in the lamestream media is talking about this" quotes can be headed off.

[SunsetBengal]

Interesting piece on this topic, written by WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-russia-bombshells-1509059214

Quote:The confirmation this week that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid an opposition-research firm for a “dossier” on Donald Trump is bombshell news. More bombshells are to come.
The Fusion GPS saga isn’t over. The Clinton-DNC funding is but a first glimpse into the shady election doings concealed within that oppo-research firm’s walls. We now know where Fusion got some of its cash, but the next question is how the firm used it. With whom did it work beyond former British spy Christopher Steele ? Whom did it pay? Who else was paying it?
The answers are in Fusion’s bank records. Fusion has doggedly refused to divulge the names of its clients for months now, despite extraordinary pressure. So why did the firm suddenly insist that middleman law firm Perkins Coie release Fusion from confidentiality agreements, and spill the beans on who hired it?
Because there’s something Fusion cares about keeping secret even more than the Clinton-DNC news—and that something is in those bank records. The release of the client names was a last-ditch effort to appease the House Intelligence Committee, which issued subpoenas to Fusion’s bank and was close to obtaining records until Fusion filed suit last week. The release was also likely aimed at currying favor with the court, given Fusion’s otherwise weak legal case. The judge could rule as early as Friday morning.
If the House wins, don’t be surprised if those records include money connected to Russians. In the past Fusion has worked with Russians, including lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who happened to show up last year in Donald Trump Jr.’s office.

FBI bombshells are also yet to come. The bureau has stonewalled congressional subpoenas for documents related to the dossier, but that became harder with the DNC-Clinton news. On Thursday Speaker Paul Ryan announced the FBI had finally pledged to turn over its dossier file next week.
Assuming the FBI is comprehensive in its disclosure, expect to learn that the dossier was indeed a major basis of investigating the Trump team—despite reading like “the National Enquirer,” as Rep. Trey Gowdy aptly put it. We may learn the FBI knew the dossier was a bought-and-paid-for product of Candidate Clinton, but used it anyway. Or that it didn’t know, which would be equally disturbing.
It might show the bureau was simply had. Don’t forget that it wasn’t until January the dossier became public, and the media started unearthing details. And the more ugly info that came out (Fusion, Democratic clients, intelligence-for-hire) the more former Obama officials seemed skeptical of it. In May, former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper said his people could never “corroborate” its “sourcing.” In June, Mr. Comey derided it as “salacious and unverified.”
Yet none of this jibes with reports that the FBI debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work. Or that Mr. Comey was so convinced by the dossier that he pushed to have it included in the intelligence community’s January report on Russian meddling. Imagine if it turns out the FBI was duped by a politically contracted document that might have been filled up by the Kremlin.
There’s plenty yet to come with regard to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Every senior Democrat is disclaiming knowledge of the dossier deal, leaving Perkins Coie holding the bag. But while it is not unusual for law firms to hire opposition-research outfits for political clients, it is highly unusual for a law firm to pay bills without a client’s approval. Somewhere, Perkins Coie has documents showing who signed off on those bills, and they aren’t protected by attorney-client privilege.
Those names will matter, since someone at the DNC and at the Clinton campaign will need to explain how they somehow both forgot to list Fusion as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings. Some Justice Department lawyer is presumably already looking into whether this was a willful evasion, which can carry criminal penalties. It’s one thing to forget to list that local hot-dog supplier for the campaign picnic. It’s a little fishier when two entities both fail to list the firm that supplied them the most explosive hit job in a generation.


And there are still bombshells with regard to unmasking of Americans in surveilled communications. If the Steele dossier reports (which appear to date back to June 2016) were making their way into the hands of senior DNC and Clinton political operatives, you can bet they were making their way to the Obama White House. This may explain why Obama political appointees began monitoring the Trump campaign and abusing unmasking. They were looking for a “gotcha,” something to disqualify a Trump presidency. Of course, they were doing so on the basis of “salacious and unverified” accusations made by anonymous Russians, but never mind.
No, this probe of the Democratic Party’s Russian dalliance has a long, long way to go. And, let us hope, with revelations too big for even the media to ignore.

[Belsnickel]

(10-27-2017, 11:05 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting piece on this topic, written by WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-russia-bombshells-1509059214

This is more making a mountain out of an ant hill. A telltale sign is in the last section when they talk about Obama official abusing unmasking. That was cleared up quite some time ago and was found to be much ado about nothing. This article was written with bias behind it and intended to continue stoking the conspiratorial flames.

[Dill]

(10-27-2017, 11:05 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting piece on this topic, written by WSJ.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-russia-bombshells-1509059214

Bombshells???  pop pop fizzzzz.