Russian collusion hoax update

[Vlad]

FBI official Bruce Ohr testified before congress.  His wife Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS extensively.

Bruce Ohr names Andrew McCabe, FBI officials tied to Peter Strzok among his Trump dossier contacts

Recap: By now you should know that the Trump dossier was an opposition research piece on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. The Clinton campaign hired research Fusion GPS who in turn hired former British agent Chris Steele to manufacture this fake dossier.
To keep the Clinton campaign out of this, Steele was paid by law firm Perkins Cole.

This dossier was passed of as legitimate intel in order to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
 
Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee told Fox News late Tuesday that Ohr gave lawmakers "a list of half a dozen" senior FBI and DOJ officials knew about his involvement with ex-British spy Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that contained unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bruce-ohr-names-andrew-mccabe-fbi-officials-tied-to-peter-strzok-among-his-trump-dossier-contacts-reports


In a tweet Wednesday, he further explained that the "operational roles" of Ohr and his wife Nellie, who worked as a contractor for the firm that commissioned the dossier, and their "financial gain from it" were known to "at least" half a dozen senior FBI and DOJ officials prior to the first Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application to spy on onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page, who has suspicious ties to Russia, and that these details were "never disclosed."

 

[Vlad]

The web of corruption and deceit.

This my friends is what the MSM should be harping on every day...not what some naughty thing Trump said.

[Benton]

Well, this is partly correct.

A- The dossier was originally contracted on behalf of conservative efforts. It was also later funded by Clinton. Neither one really detracts from the validity of anything inside, but the assumption that it was some discredit attempt by the left is as erroneous as saying it was entirely an attempt by the right.

Truth is, neither side wanted Trump and his pro-Russia agenda.

B- Fake, no. Unproven, yes.

Honestly, if there was no validity to it, why does Trump think Comey was trying to blackmail him?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/trump-thinks-comey-was-trying-to-blackmail-him

Quote:But in a sprawling interview with The New York Times, published Wednesday night, Trump asserted that when Comey told him about the dossier, in a meeting at Trump Tower two weeks before the inauguration, he was attempting to hold it over his head. “In my opinion, he shared it so that I would think he had it out there,” Trump told the Times. When he was asked if he thought the dossier would be used as leverage, Trump said, “Yeah, I think so. In retrospect.”

If someone came to me and said "Hey, Benton, I have a fake file that says you paid Russian hookers to piss on you, but there's no receipts, no photos and no testimony. Still, you owe me a favor." then I'm going to laugh at that moron. You can't blackmail someone with something that doesn't exist.

[NATI BENGALS]

For 20 plus years Ohr has worked for America and has helped fight Russian organized crime while trying to stay out of the spotlight.

A conman with a thirst for the spotlight who works for himself with the help of Russia won a rigged election.

Somehow the life long low life is the good guy and the career public servant is the villian.

I wonder if the traitorous fraud has any motives behind this stuff?

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2018, 12:38 AM)Vlad Wrote: This dossier was passed of as legitimate intel in order to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

The dossier was legitimate research.  Much of it has since been coroborated by other sources.

-the dossier identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign,

-Donald Trump Jr.’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton in a meeting that included Manafort.

-phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election.

-when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoffreported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia.

- the dossier refers repeatedly to Manafort’s “off-the-books” payments from ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, and Russian concerns that it may be a vulnerability that could jeopardize the effort. According to the Orbis report, the Russians were concerned about “further scandals involving Manafort’s commercial and political role in Russia/Ukraine.”  

[Dill]

(08-31-2018, 12:44 AM)Vlad Wrote: The web of corruption and deceit.

This my friends is what the MSM should be harping on every day...not what some naughty thing Trump said.

It starts with OBAMA! I knew it. All I needed was some photographs connected by lines. NOW I see how Obama was behind the dossier. 

These people will never admit that they wanted to see a competent president as commander-in-chief and so did their best to  .. . what exactly?

Do their jobs? 

That one guy Strozk was cheating on his wife. You can't entrust power to people like that. If they lie to their wives, they will lie to voters. Right Vlad?

[ballsofsteel]

Good morning. Lets cut to the chase. What is Trumps motives for acting the way he does? Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Here is my theory.
Trump is the greatest carnival barker in history. Schooled under Roy Cohn to lie and threaten. Left millions by his father who like Donald, dealt with the mob.
Thousands of law suits against him. Many bankruptcies. Great business man? No. Due to all his banruptcies he couldn't get any loans from banks in the USA. He then turned to Russia, who gladly lent him money as long as he laundered money for them. Its as simple as that. You can tell me I was right later.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-31-2018, 06:36 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Good morning. Lets cut to the chase. What is Trumps motives for acting the way he does? Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Here is my theory.
Trump is the greatest carnival barker in history. Schooled under Roy Cohn to lie and threaten. Left millions by his father who like Donald, dealt with the mob.
Thousands of law suits against him. Many bankruptcies. Great business man? No. Due to all his banruptcies he couldn't get any loans from banks in the USA. He then turned to Russia, who gladly lent him money as long as he laundered money for them. Its as simple as that. You can tell me I was right later.

So what’s hidden in his tax returns? I always figured he didn’t want us to know he doesn’t make what he claims.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2018, 07:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So what’s hidden in his tax returns? I always figured he didn’t want us to know he doesn’t make what he claims.

Honestly, that's probably his main reason for keeping them back. One of the reasons many people want to see them, though, is that they can reveal sources of revenue which shows influences.

[Benton]

(08-31-2018, 07:54 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So what’s hidden in his tax returns? I always figured he didn’t want us to know he doesn’t make what he claims.

Who knows.T He belief by many is that they confirm he’s either 1- relatively worthleSS or 2- indebted to Russian interests.

Probably some mix of the two judging by past claims abd past bankruptcies.

[Belsnickel]

So this is something that I always find very interesting. People like to talk about biased media, and biased media does exist. The Washington Examiner is a strongly biased media organization that can have pieces that are absolute garbage. This piece from the OP is slanted, but actually does a fair job. It actually lays out how this interpretation of Ohr's testimony is that of Ratcliffe and Meadows and it provided some other views of the testimony that were less excited.

What we see, though, is that people will read an article and only see what they want to. They will latch onto the pieces in the story that fit their already preconceived narrative in an attempt to give it more weight. This should serve as a good reminder to read things completely and critically, not rely on headlines, and make sure we aren't seeing just what we want to. Otherwise, you end up like the people we all know whose version of reality is disconnected from facts.

[Au165]

(08-31-2018, 09:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So this is something that I always find very interesting. People like to talk about biased media, and biased media does exist. The Washington Examiner is a strongly biased media organization that can have pieces that are absolute garbage. This piece from the OP is slanted, but actually does a fair job. It actually lays out how this interpretation of Ohr's testimony is that of Ratcliffe and Meadows and it provided some other views of the testimony that were less excited.

What we see, though, is that people will read an article and only see what they want to. They will latch onto the pieces in the story that fit their already preconceived narrative in an attempt to give it more weight. This should serve as a good reminder to read things completely and critically, not rely on headlines, and make sure we aren't seeing just what we want to. Otherwise, you end up like the people we all know whose version of reality is disconnected from facts.

Confirmation bias for the win!

[BmorePat87]

Trump campaign aides were being investigated well before the DOJ had the dossier.

[jj22]

Even Nunes after the House investigation admitted it wasn't the dossier that started the investigation

https://www.axios.com/one-sentence-from-gop-memo-reveals-origin-of-fbi-investigation-6b3eb893-4d2b-4955-b27c-3cc22cb060b5.html

But Trump supporters (secret and otherwise) know this. They won't even listen to Trump and Trump Jr. when they confess to collusion. They still make up these excuses, and spread the fake news.

[*bfine32*]

To be honest there's so much spin on this Fusion thing that I stopped trying to understand it a while back. Do I think the Clinton's hands are dirty in this? Yes. Do I think there was a bias on the investigation(s)? Yes. But that is nothing more than just an assumption

[*PhilHos*]

(08-31-2018, 01:28 AM)Benton Wrote: B- Fake, no. Unproven, yes.

Honestly, if there was no validity to it, why does Trump think Comey was trying to blackmail him?

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/trump-thinks-comey-was-trying-to-blackmail-him

If someone came to me and said "Hey, Benton, I have a fake file that says you paid Russian hookers to piss on you, but there's no receipts, no photos and no testimony. Still, you owe me a favor." then I'm going to laugh at that moron. You can't blackmail someone with something that doesn't exist.

To someone in the public eye, especially politicians, an unverified or false allegation can sometimes be just as damaging as if the allegation were 100% true. Ergo, it is possible that you could blackmail a politician with the threat of releasing false allegations (especially if the person releasing them is someone of a high level of credibility).

Think of it this way: a woman falsely accuses a man of rape can cause just as much damage as a woman truthfully accusing a man of rape.

Not saying Trump's right or has an argument here, just pointing out that the allegations being false doesn't have to matter when it comes to blackmail.

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2018, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do I think the Clinton's hands are dirty in this? Yes.

How and why.

It does no matter if the Clinton's paid for this.  Many of the facts have been proven through other sources.  It would be impossible for the Clintons to fabricate all the things that have been proven.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-31-2018, 06:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How and why.

It does no matter if the Clinton's paid for this.  Many of the facts have been proven through other sources.  It would be impossible for the Clintons to fabricate all the things that have been proven.

Wait, what?  What exactly has been "proven"?  And, don't bog me down with bullshit over process crimes by fringe associates. 

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2018, 06:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wait, what?  What exactly has been "proven"?  And, don't bog me down with bullshit over process crimes by fringe associates. 

(08-31-2018, 02:32 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The dossier was legitimate research.  Much of it has since been corroborated by other sources.

-the dossier identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign,

-Donald Trump Jr.’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton in a meeting that included Manafort.

-phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian officials in the year before the election.

-when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoffreported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia.

- the dossier refers repeatedly to Manafort’s “off-the-books” payments from ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian party, and Russian concerns that it may be a vulnerability that could jeopardize the effort. According to the Orbis report, the Russians were concerned about “further scandals involving Manafort’s commercial and political role in Russia/Ukraine.”  

All of these claims were in the dossier before they were corroborated by other sources.

Why do you keep believing Trump when he has proven to be a liar about this over and over and over and over again?  Why do you refuse to look at the facts?

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-31-2018, 06:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wait, what?  What exactly has been "proven"?  And, don't bog me down with bullshit over process crimes by fringe associates. 

Are you calling a campaign manager, long time lawyer , his first national security advisor , son , and son in law fringe associates?