Clinton and DNC Paid For Research That Led To Russian Dossier

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have evidence that Clinton “pushed” the U1 deal through?

Please share.

We know that Hillarys assistant voted for the deal.

Would an underling do that vote without consulting their superior about it first? Any evidence of that Happening?

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have evidence that Clinton “pushed” the U1 deal through?

Please share.

We know that Hillarys assistant voted for the deal.

Would an underling do that vote without consulting their superior about it first? Any evidence of that Happening?

Most of the actual members on CFIUS are assistants.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have evidence that Clinton “pushed” the U1 deal through?

Please share.

We have proof that the podesta group, which not only was founded by Hillarys campaign manager John but whose leader Tony had vast connections to Hillary, lobbied extensively for the Uranium one deal. We know that Hillarys assistant voted for the deal.

And anyone who thinks Clinton didn't know is simply mistaken. Leaders in such positions may not be present at every meeting but they are kept abreast of what's going on in their sphere of influence. There's no way she didn't know, and she should have questioned the entire deal because of her financial ties. Even if it was legit it should've been scrapped just because it looks corrupt, at least that's how you're trained to think in government ethics training.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: DBCowboy

There is DEFINITIVE proof Hillary/DNC PAID FOR THE HOAX DOSSIER.

And?

What GOP Nominee or ORG originally funded it?

And how does either make the Dossier less or more factual.

Some of the information in the Dossier is also reported by multiple international intelligence agencies.

Corroborated/confirmed info from the dossier was used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, who has now refused to testify and taken the 5th.

The Dossier claimed Trump agreed minimize US opposition to Russia's invasion in Ukraine and that was confirmed when JD Gordon and Manafort, presumably at Trump's direction, stripped US Opposition to the invasion from the RNC platform statement.

Apart from that, at least one source for the Dossier has turned up dead, with several other murders suspected of being linked to the Dossier.

We will see, but much of the Dossier appears valid enough to be continued to be investigated.

You named 2 things and those aren't even "proven", yet you say much of it appears valid. Give me a break. What has the FBI or NSA or CIA confirmed?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

What were the vast links between Clinton and Tony Podesta again?

1. John Podesta founded the group with his brother.

2. Tony campaigned for a donated heavily to Hillary (no kidding its his brother campaign). he even had fund raisers at his house.

3. Hllary has personally used the Podesta group in her dealings. Remember when Bill met with a Saudi prince, and 2 weeks later the Podesta group was representing the same prince?

4. If someone on Trumps campaign, say Steve Bannon, had a brother that he funded a lobbying frim with, and that brother was representing and getting paid huge amounts of money by the Russians, are you honestly telling me you would say, "well thats just Bannons brother, he has no connection to Trump.

Here is an article by the liberal Huffington post decrying Hillarys connections to the Podesta group.

If I told you that Democratic Party lobbyist Tony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta chairs Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, is a registered foreign agent on the Saudi government’s payroll, you’d probably think I was a Trump-thumping, conspiratorial nutcase. But it’s true.

The lobby firm created by both Tony and John Podesta in 1988 receives $140,000 a month from the Saudi government, a government that beheads nonviolent dissidents, uses torture to extract forced confessions, doesn’t allow women to drive, and bombs schools, hospitals and residential neighborhoods in neighboring Yemen.

The Podesta Group’s March 2016 filing, required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, shows that Tony Podesta himself oversees the Saudi account. At the same time, Tony Podesta is also a top campaign contributor and bundler for Hillary Clinton. So while one brother runs the campaign, the other brother funds it with earnings that come, in part, from the Saudis.

John and Tony Podesta have been heavyweights in DC insider politics for decades. John Podesta served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, founded the influential DC think tank Center for American Progress (which regularly touts Saudi “reforms”), and was counselor to President Obama. Tony Podesta was dubbed by the New York Times as “one of Washington’s biggest players“ whose clients “are going to get a blueprint for how to succeed in official Washington.”

The brothers seem to have no problem mixing their roles into the same pot. Tony Podesta held a Clinton campaign fundraiser at his home featuring gourmet Italian food cooked by himself and his brother, the campaign chairman. The fundraiser, by the way, came just days after Tony Podesta filed his Saudi contract with the Justice Department, a contract that included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have evidence that Clinton “pushed” the U1 deal through?

Please share.

We know that Hillarys assistant voted for the deal.

Would an underling do that vote without consulting their superior about it first? Any evidence of that Happening?

Most of the actual members on CFIUS are assistants.

Copenhagen, so they would do that without approval from above? They would follow orders.

a reply to: Grambler

Liberal press has always gone back and forth on Clinton.

Thanks for the info!

a reply to: pavil

No they wouldn't. That's not how government works. Clinton knew. It's not like this was just some random thing that came up during a meeting and they had to vote on right there, this thing was in the works for a while. Leaders get briefed about stuff like this going on.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have evidence that Clinton “pushed” the U1 deal through?

Please share.

We know that Hillarys assistant voted for the deal.

Would an underling do that vote without consulting their superior about it first? Any evidence of that Happening?

Most of the actual members on CFIUS are assistants.

Copenhagen, so they would do that without approval from above?

LOL yeah my phone typed in the name of a club in ATL.

I’ve told you what I know. Are you working toward Hillary telling her second how to vote?

/shrug Possible of course.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh, at least I haven't spent the last year trying to twist and contort highly specific/technical legal definitions.

(See definitions of: treason, sedition, collusion, 25th amendment, "election do-over?", et al)

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gryphon66

Meh, at least I haven't spent the last year trying to twist and contort highly specific/technical legal definitions.

(See definitions of: treason, sedition, collusion, 25th amendment, "election do-over?", et al)

I’m sure you got a lot of other things done though ... good for you!

What will the russiaphobe anti-trump-tards do now , there are quite a few members on here that are going to go EXTREMLY quiet loool...... a reply to: burntheships

Let's all keep pursuing the truth. We all want to get to the bottom of all the truth regarding this dossier. The most important aspect being, not who paid the former MI6 agent who authored it--- but how much of the report is true.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: DBCowboy

There is DEFINITIVE proof Hillary/DNC PAID FOR THE HOAX DOSSIER.

And?

What GOP Nominee or ORG originally funded it?

And how does either make the Dossier less or more factual.

Some of the information in the Dossier is also reported by multiple international intelligence agencies.

Corroborated/confirmed info from the dossier was used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page, who has now refused to testify and taken the 5th.

The Dossier claimed Trump agreed minimize US opposition to Russia's invasion in Ukraine and that was confirmed when JD Gordon and Manafort, presumably at Trump's direction, stripped US Opposition to the invasion from the RNC platform statement.

Apart from that, at least one source for the Dossier has turned up dead, with several other murders suspected of being linked to the Dossier.

We will see, but much of the Dossier appears valid enough to be continued to be investigated.

You named 2 things and those aren't even "proven", yet you say much of it appears valid. Give me a break. What has the FBI or NSA or CIA confirmed?

Uhhh..How about a concerted cyber campaign at the direction of Vladimir Putin aimed at hurting HRC's campaign and helping Donald trump win? Might seem obvious now, but the Dossier outlined it first.

The Rosneft transaction that was down to the detailed numbers?

all you have to do is look. Like this

The BBC has learned that US officials "verified" a key claim in a report about Kremlin involvement in Donald Trump's election - that a Russian diplomat in Washington was in fact a spy.

Dossier:
...
"A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation… would be exposed in the media there."
...

There was no diplomat called Kulagin in the Russian embassy; there was a Kalugin.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said Kalugin was head of the embassy's economics section.

A retired member of a US intelligence agency told me that Kalugin was being kept under surveillance before he left the US.

Last month, the McClatchy news website said he was under "scrutiny" by the FBI as he left the US. They did not report, as my sources say, that he was a member of one of Russia's spying organisations, the SVR or GRU.

www.bbc.com...

Honestly..

The Steele Dossier is a long document with a lot of it verified.

I can do a dedicated thread explaining sources and corroboration if you like?

Hm, interesting intersection of current players nearly a decade ago:

A consultant to John McCain hired a public-relations firm last year to burnish the U.S. image of a Ukrainian political party backed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to documents filed with the Justice Department.

A consultant to John McCain hired a public-relations firm last year to burnish the U.S. image of a Ukrainian political party backed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin, according to documents filed with the Justice Department.

The lobbying firm of Davis Manafort Inc. arranged through an affiliate for the public-relations firm’s work last spring, at the same time Davis Manafort was being paid by the Republican presidential candidate’s campaign. The firm is co-owned by lobbyist Rick Davis, manager of Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign, and longtime Republican strategist Paul Manafort.

McCain consultant hired firm that represented Putin-backed Ukraine faction

Check the byline

By Mary Jacoby and Glenn R. Simpson
Posted May 14, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Looking back more recently:

March 29, 2016: Manafort joins the Trump campaign

The Trump campaign announced it had brought on Manafort, a veteran political strategist, to help the real estate mogul prevent delegates from bolting and choosing another nominee at the Republican National Convention in July. Although Trump led the Republican field in both votes and delegates, he was still unpopular among many Republicans, and it was unclear if he would end up with the necessary delegates to prevent a floor fight at the convention. Manafort was picked in part because he was instrumental in Gerald Ford’s successful floor fight in at the 1976 convention.

“Paul is a great asset and an important addition as we consolidate the tremendous support we have received in the primaries,” Trump said in a statement on March 29, 2016.

Manafort quickly got to work, ensuring the Trump campaign had a presence during the selection process and showing up to the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting in April.

Fortune

I wonder who suggested Manafort to the Trump campaign.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did Hitler's "assistants" get any kind of special treatment at the Nuremberg trials? No, the court held that they should have known the difference between right and wrong regardless of the situation and the players involved. Just following orders isn't good enough, and it never has been.

Anyone involved, regardless of their personal actions, should have known better. And those who fed into the mass-hysteria we've witnessed up until this week (for almost two years now) are just as guilty as those who peddle the propaganda and false information.

I must digress. Unfortunately peddling lies and innuendo isn't a crime. Attempting to overthrow the lawfully installed and duly elected POTUS is, however. Those who align themselves with communists and other psychopathic liars should be forced to answer in a court of law for their crimes against the American people. Once again, it is fortunate for them that we have freedom of association in this great nation. Although try telling the ultra-alt-left activist crowd that. They're fighting "fascism" to install true fascism (communism/socialism).

Of course, this isn't a thread to rant about failed forms of government so I will leave it at this: Clinton and co. stink to high heaven, and as more facts come out it is very likely we could see some type of prosecution or administrative action (ie: permanent revocation of security clearance eligibility)
. Judging by the links in your signature, there is no evidence that will convince you of Clinton's guilt so I won't bother trying. It is your constitutional right to bury your head in the sand as deeply as you'd like, and that is OK too.

Luckily you are the minority opinion. Besides, if Trump is as unpopular as you claim, how did he beat Clinton? Wouldn't that mean she was even less popular? Of course you could figure this out based on her past successes at the ballot box. I don't suppose Russia was involved when she lost to Obama, right?

As I wrote in another thread several weeks ago, the Steele Dossier has been thoroughly debunked. And by debunked, I mean that none of its accusations have been proven (some can't even be tested) and therefore it is not true. It is always the burden of the accuser to present evidence of their claims, not the other way around. And since you're innocent until proven guilty (common sense, not just the law), Trump is totally & entirely innocent of the baseless and malicious anti-American propaganda statements.

If you can prove me wrong, I welcome it. Otherwise, my original OP stands:

THE STEELE DOSSIER IS BUNK

a reply to: soberbacchus

So what.

There is this foreign agent, and he goes to russia and gets info from all of these other foreign agents.

And he says he can't confirm much of it or reveal his sources by name, but he gves us this info.

Right out of the gate, we can see that some of the claims are ridiculous.

We see stories about hookers peeing on Trump, and yet we are still to believe this is a serious document.

We see proven falsehoods such as Trumps lawyer cohen meeting russians in prague.

Now keep in mind, we are just taking this document as serious based on Steeles word. So sure, maybe he gets a few things that are right.

But why in gods name, knowing that some of this is just blatantly false and scandlaous, should we take it serious just on his own word?

How insane is this?

But fine.

Oh guess what?

Alex Jones reported a while ago that sources told him that Hillarys camp did pay for the dossier. Therefore we need a full fledge investigation into everything Jones has claimed against Hillary.

Now I know, he has been proven wrong many times. But just throw that out like you are with the parts of the steele dossier that were wrong. Jones has been proven right on some issues, so get those fisa warrants ready, time to survey all democrats that he has had info on.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Let's all keep pursuing the truth. We all want to get to the bottom of all the truth regarding this dossier. The most important aspect being, not who paid the former MI6 agent who authored it--- but how much of the report is true.

Right just like you no doubt want to know if all of the allegations against hillary are true, and you don't care where those allegations come from.

So we need to keep investigating.

Right?

It's interesting in the dossier that 3 sources confirmed the Ritz Carlton incident where Trump allegedly hired prostitutes to perform a golden shower (urination) show to defile a bed the Obama's had slept in.

The claimed sources are a close associate of Trump who managed his visits to Moscow, another source who said many of the staff were aware of the incident and believe it happened in 2013, who also introduced the author to the third source, a female staff member of the Ritz Carlton who also confirmed the incident.

Is any of that true? Who knows, but it sounds like Trump.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
It's interesting in the dossier that 3 sources confirmed the Ritz Carlton incident where Trump allegedly hired prostitutes to perform a golden shower (urination) show to defile a bed the Obama's had slept in.

The claimed sources are a close associate of Trump who managed his visits to Moscow, another source who said many of the staff were aware of the incident and believe it happened in 2013, who also introduced the author to the third source, a female staff member of the Ritz Carlton who also confirmed the incident.

Is any of that true? Who knows, but it sounds like Trump.

And there we have it. The per story.

What were these associates named?

Are they the same sources that falsely claimed in the dossier that Cohen was in Prague meeting Russians?