Clinton and DNC Paid For Research That Led To Russian Dossier

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

Chris Steele was a UK espionage asset in Russia that also did work for the US government.

You're going to claim that all Russians everywhere are in "cahoots" with Putin? LOL. Okay whatever, Tex.

I don't pretend to know where Steele got his info, but it does seem logical that it came from his Russian contacts.

Are you trying to accuse Steele of collusion with Russians? That seems obvious.

Is there a point you're making?

My points are:

1. It's the Democrats who say all Russians work for Putin.
2. Hiring someone to get dirt on a political opponent who is being fed info from current and former Russian Govt. Officials can easily be seen as using Russian intelligence to hurt a political rival. It's an easy step from there to Russia directly trying to influence our election process via leaking certain info to Steele. And that the FBI was paying Steele for his Russian information is just icing on the cake. Is all of that kosher in your worldview?

Steele btw the way was a retired spook. Do they ever really retire?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hahaha!

Still trying!

Good job. Its entertaining, and now everyone knows exactly where you are coming from.

When you hire people to do research for you and you know they are using a foreign agent, you are responsible for that.

Btw, you keep saying factual info.

Funny that almost everyone disagrees with you.

Its been proven it was wrong about cohen and many other things, and engaged in per stories.

But I know, you want us to believe that every time another aim in it is proven false, we should still continue to believe the rest of the admittedly unverifiable document.

And again you ignore the most canning part, if paid opposition research to a foreign agent was used in part to get a for a warrant, this is corruption of the highest level and worse than anything russia was accused of.

You starngley keep skipping over that.

But we low your stance, trump people meeting with any Russian and receiving no info = collusion and crimes and a huge investigation.

Hillary's te actually paying for agents for dirt that use russians, and actually getting that dirt and spreading it around and possibly having it used for God's warrants = no problem at all.

Please keep going, this is a lot of fun.

originally posted by: fiverx313
doesn't matter who funded it if it's true, kittens

First it is not true.

Sevond, then I am sure you have no problem with trump working directly with Russians or any other country to get dirt on democrats.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

Chris Steele was a UK espionage asset in Russia that also did work for the US government.

You're going to claim that all Russians everywhere are in "cahoots" with Putin? LOL. Okay whatever, Tex.

I don't pretend to know where Steele got his info, but it does seem logical that it came from his Russian contacts.

Are you trying to accuse Steele of collusion with Russians? That seems obvious.

Is there a point you're making?

My points are:

1. It's the Democrats who say all Russians work for Putin.
2. Hiring someone to get dirt on a political opponent who is being fed info from current and former Russian Govt. Officials can easily be seen as using Russian intelligence to hurt a political rival. It's an easy step from there to Russia directly trying to influence our election process via leaking certain info to Steele. And that the FBI was paying Steele for his Russian information is just icing on the cake. Is all of that kosher in your worldview?

Steele btw the way was a retired spook. Do they ever really retire?

Correct.

So far the only proof of collusion between any candidate and the Russians is from the Democrats.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it's very clear.

You are saying that as long as the info truns out to be teue, it's ok to collude with Russians to attack your political opponent.

Well at least for hillary and her campaign.

But when trumps team does it, it is a huge deal that warrants investigations.

Thanks for clearing up just how partisan you are.

Do you have evidence that members of Clinton's campaign met with Russian agents for "dirt" or not?

Did I miss something here or are we discussing Clinton's and the DNC's attorney paying someone who used Russian government gained info for their Dirty Dossier? So using info from a Russian Official gained by a secondary party is somehow different than getting it directly from the Russians?

Nice mental gymnastics there.
The Russian and Obama Administration judges give you a 10!

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it's very clear.

You are saying that as long as the info truns out to be teue, it's ok to collude with Russians to attack your political opponent.

Well at least for hillary and her campaign.

But when trumps team does it, it is a huge deal that warrants investigations.

Thanks for clearing up just how partisan you are.

Do you have evidence that members of Clinton's campaign met with Russian agents for "dirt" or not?

Did I miss something here or are we discussing Clinton's and the DNC's attorney paying someone who used Russian government gained info for their Dirty Dossier? So using info from a Russian Official gained by a secondary party is somehow different than getting it directly from the Russians?

Nice mental gymnastics there.
The Russian and Obama Administration judges give you a 10!

Yes that is exactly what he is saying.

Now perhaps if Hillary's team had paid lawyers who then did this, and publicly called them out for using Russian sources, I could believe it was an honest mistake.

But not only did they not do that, they discussed the revelations in the document, and lied for a year saying they did not pay for it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it's very clear.

You are saying that as long as the info truns out to be teue, it's ok to collude with Russians to attack your political opponent.

Well at least for hillary and her campaign.

But when trumps team does it, it is a huge deal that warrants investigations.

Thanks for clearing up just how partisan you are.

Do you have evidence that members of Clinton's campaign met with Russian agents for "dirt" or not?

Did I miss something here or are we discussing Clinton's and the DNC's attorney paying someone who used Russian government gained info for their Dirty Dossier? So using info from a Russian Official gained by a secondary party is somehow different than getting it directly from the Russians?

Nice mental gymnastics there.
The Russian and Obama Administration judges give you a 10!

Yes that is exactly what he is saying.

Now perhaps if Hillary's team had paid lawyers you then did tjis, and publicly called them out for using Russian sources, I could believe it was an honest mistake.

But not only did they not do that, they discussed the revelations in the document, and lied for a year saying they did not pay for it.

While at the same time pretending that any connection whatsoever, direct or indirect, with anyone who had anything to do with Russia, was "collusion" and tainted the election.

Guilty by their own standards.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it's very clear.

You are saying that as long as the info truns out to be teue, it's ok to collude with Russians to attack your political opponent.

Well at least for hillary and her campaign.

But when trumps team does it, it is a huge deal that warrants investigations.

Thanks for clearing up just how partisan you are.

Do you have evidence that members of Clinton's campaign met with Russian agents for "dirt" or not?

Did I miss something here or are we discussing Clinton's and the DNC's attorney paying someone who used Russian government gained info for their Dirty Dossier? So using info from a Russian Official gained by a secondary party is somehow different than getting it directly from the Russians?

Nice mental gymnastics there.
The Russian and Obama Administration judges give you a 10!

Yes that is exactly what he is saying.

Now perhaps if Hillary's team had paid lawyers you then did tjis, and publicly called them out for using Russian sources, I could believe it was an honest mistake.

But not only did they not do that, they discussed the revelations in the document, and lied for a year saying they did not pay for it.

While at the same time pretending that any connection whatsoever, direct or indirect, with anyone who had anything to do with Russia, was "collusion" and tainted the election.

Guilty by their own standards.

Absolutely.

One of the biggest reasons I voted for trump was to show how the estblishment from both parties and the main steam media were in cahoots.

This story again illustrates that.

The media screamed over and over about how any connections to russia are evil and need to be investigated, but now with tis story and the uranium one, they are spinning full time as to why Hillary's Russian connections don't matter.

And some of our local ats people are following this cue.

Some are on this thread.

a reply to: pavil

No mental gymnastics at all on my part. Here I’ll break it down again.

What we have evidence of is that the DNC and the Clinton campaign employed an attorney to do opposition research on Trump.

That attorney employed another company, Fusion GPS, in that effort, and they employed Steele.

Now I want you to avoid a knee-jerk response here: do you know how Steele did his work and do you have evidence of that?

Second question. In your opinion, Donald Trumps son meeting directly with a Russian agent for dirt is the same getting a report from an attorney that bought it from a company that used a former US operative to provide opposition intel?

a reply to: face23785

That’s absolutely dishonest. Who did Trump Jr and Manafort meet with for “dirt” then? Who was Manafort working for before during and after the Campaign? Who was Flynn working for? Who did Sessions consult with?

The only true answer is Russian agents.

a reply to: Grambler

... and you believe that Trump isn’t “establishment”?

I don’t believe that G; you’re not that stupid or ignorant.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

... and you believe that Trump isn’t “establishment”?

I don’t believe that G; you’re not that stupid or ignorant.

I know that trump was absolutely despised by the establishment.

You know this too.

Rather he ends up being one of them or not, time will tell.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: face23785

That’s absolutely dishonest. Who did Trump Jr and Manafort meet with for “dirt” then? Who was Manafort working for before during and after the Campaign? Who was Flynn working for? Who did Sessions consult with?

The only true answer is Russian agents.

The fact you're bringing up Sessions shows how grossly uninformed you are.

A Senator met people from another country? Say it isn't so.

One of the ironies in all of this is that some time back, Glenn Simpson wrote a book about opposition research and its role in politics:

Twenty-one years ago, a Wall Street Journal reporter and a popular academic pundit issued a stark warning: The proliferation of opposition research in U.S. political campaigns was debasing American elections.

The alarm came in the form of a 339-page book, “Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics.” The journalist was Glenn R. Simpson, a respected investigative reporter; the professor was University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato. Their book detailed the “dirty tricks” that, in the two decades since, have put America’s two major political parties at each other’s throats and led to widespread disillusionment among voters.

Railing against “sleaze” in campaigns, political consultancies, and Washington journalism, the authors deplored opposition research as a “gateway to acts that are not just offensive but duplicitous and sometimes illegal.” The proliferation of mud-slinging, they wrote, had turned campaigns once fought over real issues into a “debate over irrelevancies” -- and led to blackmail and other crimes.

'Dirty Little Secrets' of a Fusion GPS Sleaze Slinger

Guess he figured if he couldn't beat them he'd join them?

Because democrats and republicans have made this so political I seriously doubt it goes anywhere but political.
So the real culprits are the democrats and GOP establishments for not taking this stuff more serious and the horrendous lousy MSM who all are totally out of control.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I will answer your questions.

1. We know that Steele himself is a foreign agent, with all questions of where he got his info aside.

Most of the claims of where he got his evidence seen to be Russian sources. I believe the dossier itself says thia, but I will have to check.

2. No trump Jr.s meeting is not the same for several reasons.

First he got no dirt. Has he received durt, and then hid it or otherwise used it, that would be like what Hillary's team did.

Sexond, having someone volunteer info, while it may be shady, is no where near actively seeking them out and paying for the info.

Lastly, you again ignore the most important factor, if this paid info from a foreign agent was used in part for fisa warrants, this is a huge scandal that dwarves anything russia was accused of.

You keep avoiding that for some reason.

Who is the GOP candidate who originally called for this research? Has that been released yet?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

No mental gymnastics at all on my part. Here I’ll break it down again.

What we have evidence of is that the DNC and the Clinton campaign employed an attorney to do opposition research on Trump.

That attorney employed another company, Fusion GPS, in that effort, and they employed Steele.

Now I want you to avoid a knee-jerk response here: do you know how Steele did his work and do you have evidence of that?

Second question. In your opinion, Donald Trumps son meeting directly with a Russian agent for dirt is the same getting a report from an attorney that bought it from a company that used a former US operative to provide opposition intel?

Steele was/is a spook. He undoubtedly has moles/ assets in the Soviet/Russian government.

Donald Trump Jr is a buffoon . He should have done more research before committing to that meeting. He would have known that there was no dirt to be given him. I'm sure Manafort was the prime player of setting that meeting up. Mueller is investigating Donny Jr and Manafort. Let the chips fall where they may. Since no money or Dirt was exchanged, it will be hard to prosecute Donald Jr most probably. But if he's guilty, he's guilty, a court will decide that.

There is a difference in the two. One side, the Democrats actually paid and got "Dirt" from ultimately Russian sources, quite probably Russian Government sources considering the info. 3 degrees of seperation still doesn't make that ok. Hillary will claim zero knowledge of her campaign attorney paying Fusion for dirt. She better hope there is no evidence to the contrary.

If you want to try Donald Jr for his stuff, then be prepared to do the same with the Democrats. Let's have the evidence and see which case is more compelling.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Who is the GOP candidate who originally called for this research? Has that been released yet?

It has not been verified, but there are rumblings it was McCain

originally posted by: matafuchs
Who is the GOP candidate who originally called for this research? Has that been released yet?

Not to my knowledge. Most probably it would be someone with ties to Fusion, that tends to limit it to Washington DC based Candidates. My guess would be Cruz. He's pulled some dirty tricks on other candidates and had the personal feud with Trump.