Russian collusion hoax update

[*bfine32*]

(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.

That they paid a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. But as I said; it's just an opinion.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-31-2018, 07:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Are you calling a campaign manager, long time lawyer , his first national security advisor , son , and son in law fringe associates?

Campaign manager?  Less than 100 days.  Long time lawyer?  No, just a "fixer", a very common thing for men of wealth and power to have in the rolodex.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-31-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

You keep acting like anything in the dossier was factual, when even the composer won't swear by it.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2018, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That they paid a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. But as I said; it's just an opinion.

What happened was very common. It's why the Washington free Beacon paid the same firm to do the same thing prior to the Clinton campaign. This is a commonplace practice in campaigns both primary and general. It's unseemly, but I can guarantee you that the same thing was being done by Trump's campaign. The only difference is that Trump's life has not been one of public service and hasn't faced the public scrutiny over the years as Clinton.

(08-31-2018, 07:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You keep acting like anything in the dossier was factual, when even the composer won't swear by it.

Do you know what all was in the dossier? A lot of it has been corroborated. Everyone just focuses on some of the more explosive claims, but a good chunk has been validated and is agreed with by our intelligence community. There were things in there that were suspicions Steele had which I don't expect him to swear to, but those aren't things anyone is claiming are certain (though a lot of people on the left hope they are).

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2018, 07:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What happened was very common. It's why the Washington free Beacon paid the same firm to do the same thing prior to the Clinton campaign. This is a commonplace practice in campaigns both primary and general. It's unseemly, but I can guarantee you that the same thing was being done by Trump's campaign. The only difference is that Trump's life has not been one of public service and hasn't faced the public scrutiny over the years as Clinton.

I'm sure it's common. But in the example you provided a Newspaper (3rd party) was paying for the service; it is my view that Clinton paid for this.

So if Trump paid for a foreign agency to spy on Clinton; then it's just politics? I admit that question sounds snarky; however, that's not the intent. As I said there's been far too much spin on the Russian dossier for me to try and keep up.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2018, 08:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm sure it's common. But in the example you provided a Newspaper (3rd party) was paying for the service; it is my view that Clinton paid for this.

So if Trump paid for a foreign agency to spy on Clinton; then it's just politics? I admit that question sounds snarky; however, that's not the intent. As I said there's been far too much spin on the Russian dossier for me to try and keep up.

The Clinton campaign didn't hire a foreign agency, or even a foreign agent. They hired Fusion GPS, a well establish research firm based in Washington DC that has been doing this sort of work since 2011. They contracted Steele to look into Russian connection with Trump because of Steele's specialty in the country from his says with MI-6. Steele's research was only one part of the opposition research being done by Fusion GPS into Trump.

None of that is spin. I'm not stating my opinion on what happened, or anyone else's. These are established facts.

[GMDino]

(08-31-2018, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Clinton campaign didn't hire a foreign agency, or even a foreign agent. They hired Fusion GPS, a well establish research firm based in Washington DC that has been doing this sort of work since 2011. They contracted Steele to look into Russian connection with Trump because of Steele's specialty in the country from his says with MI-6. Steele's research was only one part of the opposition research being done by Fusion GPS into Trump.

None of that is spin. I'm not stating my opinion on what happened, or anyone else's. These are established facts.

Yes...but...


(Just wait for it.)

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2018, 08:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Clinton campaign didn't hire a foreign agency, or even a foreign agent. They hired Fusion GPS, a well establish research firm based in Washington DC that has been doing this sort of work since 2011. They contracted Steele to look into Russian connection with Trump because of Steele's specialty in the country from his says with MI-6. Steele's research was only one part of the opposition research being done by Fusion GPS into Trump.

None of that is spin. I'm not stating my opinion on what happened, or anyone else's. These are established facts.

So they hired a company that hired a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. As you said seems unseemly. Perhaps the Clinton's hands are clean.

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2018, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So they hired a company that hired a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. As you said seems unseemly. Perhaps the Clinton's hands are clean.

I don't know if I'd consider that type of research to be spying, but whatever floats your boat.

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2018, 08:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know if I'd consider that type of research to be spying, but whatever floats your boat.

No boat floating intended; just trying to understand. I suppose I consider spying; covert research.

[Vlad]

lol

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-warns-of-possible-mueller-bombshell-i-wouldnt-miss-work-tomorrow/

The only thing these any of these left wing Trump hating "journalists" ever got right was when CNN's Van Jones said the "Russian collusion" was a nothingburger….when he didn't know he was being recorded.

[Benton]

(08-31-2018, 08:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So they hired a company that hired a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. As you said seems unseemly. Perhaps the Clinton's hands are clean.

A- No candidate should look for dirt on any other candidate. Unfortunately, that's how both parties roll these days. 
B- Republicans and later Clinton's campaign hired Fusion, which hired a former British intelligence agent who was familiar with Russia. 

That's bad, even though they're an ally and we share a lot of intelligence. 

Trump and crew worked with active Russian spies. 

That's worse.

There are a litany of reasons to not like Clinton. Downplaying Trump's known and alleged Russian connections, and the implications that Russia directly intervened to elect a POTUS they felt they could blackmail, is unfortunate. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-31-2018, 11:29 PM)Benton Wrote: A- No candidate should look for dirt on any other candidate. Unfortunately, that's how both parties roll these days. 
B- Republicans and later Clinton's campaign hired Fusion, which hired a former British intelligence agent who was familiar with Russia. 

That's bad, even though they're an ally and we share a lot of intelligence. 

Trump and crew worked with active Russian spies. 

That's worse.

There are a litany of reasons to not like Clinton. Downplaying Trump's known and alleged Russian connections, and the implications that Russia directly intervened to elect a POTUS they felt they could blackmail, is unfortunate. 

This is a great answer. I must admit I'm not sure where I downplayed Trump's action. I hope if it is found that Trump knowingly colluded with Russian operatives he is subject to impeachment.

[Bengalzona]

(08-31-2018, 11:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I hope if it is found that Trump knowingly colluded with Russian operatives he is subject to impeachment.

Yeah. I make jokes about the "I" word. But at this point, haven't seen anything to support it.

I do think the investigation has reasonable cause to examine things. But as I've said before, I doubt there will be a trail of crumbs leading to Trump. That could either be because there is nothing or because the closer you get to him, the more likely his people will be to "fall on their swords" for him.

What may get Trump, however, is his own comments and actions with regard to the investigation. A wise person knows that interfering only makes them look guilty, whether they actually are or not. I think it is far more likely that he is going to say or do something in regards to the investigation that will be illegal (if he hasn't done that already).

[Millhouse]

Its hard to know exactly what to think or believe if there was actual collusion.

But it's not hard for me to think that if there wasn't, that this was done with the main intention of being an investigation into Trump's character with a legal way of accessing financial records. Basically a character assassination attempt to derail him from being a two term President. He made it clear that he was going to 'drain the swamp' aka attack the establishment. Well, this very well could be the establishment way of retaliating.

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2018, 07:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That they paid a foreign agent to spy on a political opponent. But as I said; it's just an opinion.

Still not clear what is "dirty" about that?  They went through legit channels to get the info.  

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2018, 12:48 AM)Millhouse Wrote: He made it clear that he was going to 'drain the swamp' aka attack the establishment. Well, this very well could be the establishment way of retaliation.

You have to be kidding.  Trump has done the exact opposit of "draining the swamp".
It is now undisputed that the trump campaign team attempted to work with the russians to get information to infulence the election.  How in the hell could you justify NOT investigating that?

[fredtoast]

(08-31-2018, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I suppose I consider spying; covert research.

Typical Trump supporter logic.

"Why would anyone want any more information on Donald than what he tells them.  All we need to know is what he tells us."

[Belsnickel]

(08-31-2018, 08:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No boat floating intended; just trying to understand. I suppose I consider spying; covert research.

Is it covert? Opposition research is a reported campaign expense. Not sure how covert that could be.

[Millhouse]

(09-03-2018, 10:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You have to be kidding.  Trump has done the exact opposit of "draining the swamp".
It is now undisputed that the trump campaign team attempted to work with the russians to get information to infulence the election.  How in the hell could you justify NOT investigating that?

Think you misread what I wrote. 

Part of me thinks that this investigation was started with the main intent as a character assassination investigation, hoping to find as much legal dirt as they could. And it came from the established folks (or swamp) who Trump campaigned and railed against to get votes. If there was actual evidence between Trump himself and Russians, huge win. If there was dirt which there was bound to be and has been shown, wins as well.