Hillary paid for notorious 'golden showers' dossier on Trump

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

21 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Oppo research is standard, what laws or ethics were breached?  In reality Trump should have done the research on himself, standard practice, but he refused.

These

 

FEC complaint accuses Clinton campaign, DNC of violating campaign finance law with dossier payments

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/

 

[eieio 1,594]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

These

 

FEC complaint accuses Clinton campaign, DNC of violating campaign finance law with dossier payments

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/

 

Tip of the iceberg.

 

But...on a humorous note....notice how “collusion “ is now “opposition research”?  Now it is “ completely normal”.                                  When Trump jr. thought about doing it.....it was treason,collusion,illegal etc..   How do lefties keep a straight face when they talk about this stuff?

 

 

 

 

[Dashinka 24,488]

14 hours ago, Jacque67 said:

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.

Are you sure about your first two points?  You have to remember that the DNC has no problems lying to their supporters in big ways (reference the Bernie charade).

[eieio 1,594]

9 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are you sure about your first two points?  You have to remember that the DNC has no problems lying to their supporters in big ways (reference the Bernie charade).

No problem lying? 

 

Heck , I would say it is standard operating procedure for the DNC to lie.  It might even be a requirement.

[bcking 3,157]

11 hours ago, eieio said:

Tip of the iceberg.

 

But...on a humorous note....notice how “collusion “ is now “opposition research”?  Now it is “ completely normal”.                                  When Trump jr. thought about doing it.....it was treason,collusion,illegal etc..   How do lefties keep a straight face when they talk about this stuff?

 

 

 

 

Opposition Research would be when you are hiring an independent group to investigate your opponent, primarily to look for information that can discredit them.

 

Collusion would be illegal cooperation and conspiracy. In this case it would be with a foreign government.

 

To my knowledge it is not illegal to hire an private investigative firm to investigate someone. You aren't "colluding" with that group if it is a legal relationship.

 

I admit though I don't know much about campaign politics and investigations. If it is illegal to do so, then yes she colluded. It is my understanding though that it is not. It's bad that she denied it for so long, but I don't believe it was illegal. Again I could be wrong.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Let me break it down for all of you

 

Trump might have used the Russians during the campaign.. Impeachment

 

Hillary DID use the Russians===No big deal 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Let me break it down for all of you

 

Trump might have used the Russians during the campaign.. Impeachment

 

Hillary DID use the Russians===No big deal 

Hillary used/helped pay for an independent investigative firm to hire whatever his name was (the former spy) to dig up the dirt.

 

She did not "use the Russians". She wasn't working with or cooperating with a foreign government. She was working with an American business that investigated Trump.

 

This distinction seems fairly obvious and not very complicated.

Edited October 26, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,488]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

Hillary used/helped pay for an independent investigative firm to hire whatever his name was (the former spy) to dig up the dirt.

 

She did not "use the Russians". She wasn't working with or cooperating with a foreign government. She was working with an American business that investigated Trump.

 

This distinction seems fairly obvious and not very complicated.

When a person pays for abother person to do research, aren’t they acting as an authorized agent of the first person?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

When a person pays for abother person to do research, aren’t they acting as an authorized agent of the first person?

The former British spy was acting as an authorized agent of Hillary Clinton. I guess that is true. I don't know all the details but that sounds reasonable.

 

He was an independent consultant essentially. He isn't a representative of the Russian Government, or even the British one at that point.

[Dashinka 24,488]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

The former British spy was acting as an authorized agent of Hillary Clinton. I guess that is true. I don't know all the details but that sounds reasonable.

 

He was an independent consultant essentially. He isn't a representative of the Russian Government, or even the British one at that point.

I agree with that, but it is clear that this appears to be a much closer tie to Russian involvement then anything anyone has found regarding Trump/Russian collusion.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with that, but it is clear that this appears to be a much closer tie to Russian involvement then anything anyone has found regarding Trump/Russian collusion.

I think it depends how the British agent obtained the dossier. Was it through collusion with the Russian government?

 

If so, then you could say Hillary may be responsible for some collusion. She could easily come back and say hiring the independent group was intended to obtain information through legal, non-conspiratorial means. They, or their agent, violated that expectation. You would have to investigate whether she knew they would conspire with the foreign government in order to obtain information.

 

As of right now as far as I'm aware all we know is she hired a group to dig up dirt on her opponent. I highly doubt that is unusual.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

50 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with that, but it is clear that this appears to be a much closer tie to Russian involvement then anything anyone has found regarding Trump/Russian collusion.

Yes and it's really that brief and simple Kudos

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree with that, but it is clear that this appears to be a much closer tie to Russian involvement then anything anyone has found regarding Trump/Russian collusion.

What is the "Russian involvement" exactly?

 

Do we know how the British Spy guy got his information? To me "Russian involvement" implies "Russian government involvement", at least that is what it implies in the Trump/Russian investigation. Do we know that the British Spy used a Russian government agent to obtain the information?

 

If you just mean "Russian involvement" to mean "Something that happened while in Russia", then yes of course there is "Russian involvement" here because Trump (allegedly) committed the embarassing acts while in Russia.

 

The key is how they discovered that information. If it was a coordinated effort with Russian government officials, which is what has been suggested in the Trump/Russia investigation, then I completely agree it warrants equal attention. If a former British spy used independent contacts in Russia to obtain copies of video surveillance then I wouldn't say that is "collusion" with the Russian government.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

What is the "Russian involvement" exactly?

 

Do we know how the British Spy guy got his information? To me "Russian involvement" implies "Russian government involvement", at least that is what it implies in the Trump/Russian investigation. Do we know that the British Spy used a Russian government agent to obtain the information?

 

If you just mean "Russian involvement" to mean "Something that happened while in Russia", then yes of course there is "Russian involvement" here because Trump (allegedly) committed the embarassing acts while in Russia.

 

The key is how they discovered that information. If it was a coordinated effort with Russian government officials, which is what has been suggested in the Trump/Russia investigation, then I completely agree it warrants equal attention. If a former British spy used independent contacts in Russia to obtain copies of video surveillance then I wouldn't say that is "collusion" with the Russian government.

 

 

Trump did not allegedly do anything. 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Trump did not allegedly do anything. 

Sorry you're right.

 

He did have a prostitute urinate on him.

 

My bad.

Edited October 26, 2017 by bcking