• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:26
CEST 21:26
KST 04:26
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80Weekly Cups (Sept 29-Oct 5): MaxPax triples up3
StarCraft 2
General
The New Patch Killed Mech! Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy herO joins T1 Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW caster Sayle BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET
Tourneys
Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [ASL20] Semifinal B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
[I] TvZ Strategies and Builds Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread Sex and weight loss
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2026 Football Thread MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1514 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9080

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9078 9079 9080 9081 9082 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 29 2017 19:54 GMT
#181581
On October 30 2017 03:27 Slaughter wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 03:02 Danglars wrote:
On October 30 2017 01:45 Slaughter wrote:
The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though.

Your gripe is really with the people that sent him to office despite his tweeting habits. Half the country already wants to exile the other half from what I can tell.


Not really. Unlike the caricature of the left that the right peddles most people don't think everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable like Trump himself is

You should really visit California.

You also won't personally call them deplorable (though I cop comments like that all the time), but you want to exile their Presidential choice. Right.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 19:56 GMT
#181582
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Okay, back up a few steps. What Russian agent did the Democrats meet with?

Part of my confusion here is that they're simultaneously claiming "The Dems paid the Russians to give them a bunch of information," and "none of the information was true." If none of the information was true, then why did the Dems need to pay Russians to make some shit up? Can they not just do that themselves?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
October 29 2017 19:56 GMT
#181583
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.


Last time people asked you to explain your conspiracy theories you said everyone else was posting in bad faith and left in a huff. Are you going to prove up your assertion? Or stick to insults this time? I am wagering on insults.

Do realize that you have to show collaboration with the Kremlin to make your assertion work. And you have to somehow show that Steele's efforts to get information that the Kremlin wanted hidden to protect their favored candidate (Trump) is somehow equivalent to the Kremlin offering information in connection with actual Kremlin officials (see Chaika below) to damage the candidate the Kremlin opposed (HRC).


Natalia V. Veselnitskaya arrived at a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016 hoping to interest top Trump campaign officials in the contents of a memo she believed contained information damaging to the Democratic Party and, by extension, Hillary Clinton. The material was the fruit of her research as a private lawyer, she has repeatedly said, and any suggestion that she was acting at the Kremlin’s behest that day is anti-Russia “hysteria.”

But interviews and records show that in the months before the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya had discussed the allegations with one of Russia’s most powerful officials, the prosecutor general, Yuri Y. Chaika. And the memo she brought with her closely followed a document that Mr. Chaika’s office had given to an American congressman two months earlier, incorporating some paragraphs verbatim.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 20:01 GMT
#181584
On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

This wouldn't be laundering.. I don't know of any reporting requirement that would make this mis-categorizing an expense either. Care to elaborate?

FEC regs require campaigns to report who they pay money to and why. Sending money to a law firm under the guise of "legal services" when the law firm then pays that money from its trust account to a third party for another purpose is money laundering -- i.e. Hiding the source and payment of the funds from regulatory oversight. This could be strictly accidental. But given that the law firm lied about all of this for a year, I highly doubt it.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 20:02 GMT
#181585
On October 30 2017 04:56 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Okay, back up a few steps. What Russian agent did the Democrats meet with?

Part of my confusion here is that they're simultaneously claiming "The Dems paid the Russians to give them a bunch of information," and "none of the information was true." If none of the information was true, then why did the Dems need to pay Russians to make some shit up? Can they not just do that themselves?

The relevant issues are who is Christopher Steele, who are his sources in the Kremlin that he cited, did Steele pay them anything, and what did the Clintons know.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 29 2017 20:10 GMT
#181586
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
October 29 2017 20:10 GMT
#181587
On October 30 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 03:27 Slaughter wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:02 Danglars wrote:
On October 30 2017 01:45 Slaughter wrote:
The more Trump tweets the more I kind of wish societies still exiled people, not sure who would take Trump and his shitty family though.

Your gripe is really with the people that sent him to office despite his tweeting habits. Half the country already wants to exile the other half from what I can tell.


Not really. Unlike the caricature of the left that the right peddles most people don't think everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable like Trump himself is

You should really visit California.

You also won't personally call them deplorable (though I cop comments like that all the time), but you want to exile their Presidential choice. Right.


I almost got robbed by the rural people of California, about two hours north of San Fransisco, and I can tell 100% the person trying to rob me was a farm boy republican. Kept talking about he had no where to go, and he would kill some one if he has to in order to live. I acted like I had a gun on me, and he backed the fuck up, but really I didn't and this guy was easily two times my size, and had a buddy circling me.

I've seen more hate, and violence out of the right first hand that it's scary the rabbit hole the current executive branch is going through. And if you remember, only 24% of the country voted for Trump. Not half.
Life?
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 20:12 GMT
#181588
On October 30 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:56 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Okay, back up a few steps. What Russian agent did the Democrats meet with?

Part of my confusion here is that they're simultaneously claiming "The Dems paid the Russians to give them a bunch of information," and "none of the information was true." If none of the information was true, then why did the Dems need to pay Russians to make some shit up? Can they not just do that themselves?

The relevant issues are who is Christopher Steele, who are his sources in the Kremlin that he cited, did Steele pay them anything, and what did the Clintons know.

So let me see if I have the allegation straight: the DNC pays Marc Elias to fund some oppo research. Elias pays Fusion GPS to do oppo research on Trump. Fusion GPS pays Steele to investigate Trump's ties with Russia. Steele has sources in the Kremlin, whom he pays in exchange for information about Trump. But the Russians take his money and feed him a bunch of lies.

Is that even illegal? More to the point, do you get how that doesn't really look equivalent to a person contacting a member of the Trump campaign and saying "hey, I'm a representative of the Russian government and I want to offer you info on Hillary as part of Putin's support for your campaign," to which the Trump campaign member responds "yes, excellent, I want all of this"?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 20:14 GMT
#181589
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 29 2017 20:19 GMT
#181590
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
October 29 2017 20:20 GMT
#181591
On October 30 2017 05:12 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:56 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Okay, back up a few steps. What Russian agent did the Democrats meet with?

Part of my confusion here is that they're simultaneously claiming "The Dems paid the Russians to give them a bunch of information," and "none of the information was true." If none of the information was true, then why did the Dems need to pay Russians to make some shit up? Can they not just do that themselves?

The relevant issues are who is Christopher Steele, who are his sources in the Kremlin that he cited, did Steele pay them anything, and what did the Clintons know.

So let me see if I have the allegation straight: the DNC pays Marc Elias to fund some oppo research. Elias pays Fusion GPS to do oppo research on Trump. Fusion GPS pays Steele to investigate Trump's ties with Russia. Steele has sources in the Kremlin, whom he pays in exchange for information about Trump. But the Russians take his money and feed him a bunch of lies.

Is that even illegal? More to the point, do you get how that doesn't really look equivalent to a person contacting a member of the Trump campaign and saying "hey, I'm a representative of the Russian government and I want to offer you info on Hillary as part of Putin's support for your campaign," to which the Trump campaign member responds "yes, excellent, I want all of this"?


I suggest reading a proper analysis of Steele's work before leaping to this framing. The big points in the memo: Russia work cultivating Trump, Russia providing dirt on HRC to Trump, Trump's extensive efforts at getting Russian business going, and certain predictions of certain business deals going down were very accurate.


I spent almost thirty years producing what CIA calls “raw reporting” from human agents. At heart, this is what Orbis did. They were not producing finished analysis, but were passing on to a client distilled reporting that they had obtained in response to specific questions. The difference is crucial, for it is the one that American journalists routinely fail to understand. When disseminating a raw intelligence report, an intelligence agency is not vouching for the accuracy of the information provided by the report’s sources and/or subsources. Rather it is claiming that it has made strenuous efforts to validate that it is reporting accurately what the sources/subsources claim has happened. The onus for sorting out the veracity and for putting the reporting in context against other reporting – which may confirm or deny the new report – rests with the intelligence community’s professional analytic cadre.



Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate. The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July 2017 published Don Jr’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?


https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 20:21 GMT
#181592
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 20:23 GMT
#181593
On October 30 2017 05:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:12 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:02 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:56 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Okay, back up a few steps. What Russian agent did the Democrats meet with?

Part of my confusion here is that they're simultaneously claiming "The Dems paid the Russians to give them a bunch of information," and "none of the information was true." If none of the information was true, then why did the Dems need to pay Russians to make some shit up? Can they not just do that themselves?

The relevant issues are who is Christopher Steele, who are his sources in the Kremlin that he cited, did Steele pay them anything, and what did the Clintons know.

So let me see if I have the allegation straight: the DNC pays Marc Elias to fund some oppo research. Elias pays Fusion GPS to do oppo research on Trump. Fusion GPS pays Steele to investigate Trump's ties with Russia. Steele has sources in the Kremlin, whom he pays in exchange for information about Trump. But the Russians take his money and feed him a bunch of lies.

Is that even illegal? More to the point, do you get how that doesn't really look equivalent to a person contacting a member of the Trump campaign and saying "hey, I'm a representative of the Russian government and I want to offer you info on Hillary as part of Putin's support for your campaign," to which the Trump campaign member responds "yes, excellent, I want all of this"?


I suggest reading a proper analysis of Steele's work before leaping to this framing. The big points in the memo: Russia work cultivating Trump, Russia providing dirt on HRC to Trump, Trump's extensive efforts at getting Russian business going, and certain predictions of certain business deals going down were very accurate.

Show nested quote +

I spent almost thirty years producing what CIA calls “raw reporting” from human agents. At heart, this is what Orbis did. They were not producing finished analysis, but were passing on to a client distilled reporting that they had obtained in response to specific questions. The difference is crucial, for it is the one that American journalists routinely fail to understand. When disseminating a raw intelligence report, an intelligence agency is not vouching for the accuracy of the information provided by the report’s sources and/or subsources. Rather it is claiming that it has made strenuous efforts to validate that it is reporting accurately what the sources/subsources claim has happened. The onus for sorting out the veracity and for putting the reporting in context against other reporting – which may confirm or deny the new report – rests with the intelligence community’s professional analytic cadre.


Show nested quote +

Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate. The U.S. government only published its conclusions in January 2017, with an assessment of some elements in October 2016. It was also apparently news to investigators when the New York Times in July 2017 published Don Jr’s emails arranging for the receipt of information held by the Russians about Hillary Clinton. How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton? How could Steele and Orbis have known about the Russian overtures to the Trump Team involving derogatory information on Clinton?


https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/

Oh, to be clear, I wasn't saying the dossier was nothing but lies. I was just trying to clarify what the right-wing position on this stuff is. I still haven't bothered to read up on what's actually in the memo or how inaccurate it even is, but at the very least it was part of the bundle of evidence that resulted in investigations of Flynn, Manafort, Page, etc. which already validates it at least somewhat.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 20:24 GMT
#181594
On October 30 2017 05:21 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.

Is it even proven that the campaign was involved? Marc Elias was the client, but is there any evidence he told the campaign about it?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
October 29 2017 20:32 GMT
#181595
House Republicans are so desperate for a win on taxes that they’re agreeing to proposals that would have caused internal party warfare just a year or two ago.

They’re considering forgoing a big cut in the top income tax rate on the rich, offering moderate-income Americans so many tax breaks that many would be excused from paying taxes entirely and passing a potentially 1,000-page tax bill few have seen within a matter of weeks. Last week, they agreed to a budget that ignored their demands for deep cuts in federal spending just so they could pass a tax bill using a special procedure that enables them to move forward without any Democratic votes.

It’s an open question whether Republicans will be as flexible when party leaders release their entire tax bill, due Nov. 1, and everyone can see exactly who will be the losers under their plan. They already have some internal battles, with Republicans from high-tax states fighting a proposal to dump a long-standing deduction for state and local taxes.

But for now, once-controversial proposals are barely causing a stir, a sign lawmakers are willing to move beyond their party’s orthodoxy on taxes and into a more freewheeling debate on how to rewrite the code.

“The American people want us to get to ‘yes’ on tax reform,” said Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), who sits on the tax and budget committees.

It’s an indication of the pressure lawmakers feel to produce a win ahead of next year’s midterm elections after spending seven fruitless months trying to rescind the Affordable Care Act. Many are terrified at the prospect of facing voters next year with nothing to show for their time in power.

Even notoriously balky House conservatives are making nice.

“We’ve got to get the economy going — it’s all about wages going up — and if I can endure some short-term pain for long-term benefits, I’m willing to do that,” said Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), head of the chamber’s staunchly conservative Freedom Caucus.

The latest flexibility came with Thursday’s House adoption of a Senate budget plan. The annual fiscal blueprint used to be a big deal for House Republicans — Speaker Paul Ryan made his name as chairman of the Budget Committee, writing plans calling for drastic cuts in federal spending. And for years, House conservatives had demanded budgets balance the government’s books.

But the fiscal blueprint they adopted Thursday does no such thing, and some lawmakers question the importance of the budget, saying they agreed to it only in order to tap the all-important reconciliation process they intend to use to move tax legislation through the Senate.

“We don’t follow budgets anyway — it’s really just a mechanism to get tax reform done,” said Renacci.

They are also willing to compromise on their long-standing calls to cut the top income tax rate.

Just a few years ago, House Republicans walked away from a tax reform plan written by then-Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp in part because he cut the top rate only to 35 percent, from 39.6 percent. At the time, Republicans had been promising to cut the top rate to 25 percent — something they had pledged since they took over the House in 2011 — but Camp was unable to make the numbers work.

Now, Republicans are planning an even higher top rate. Their plans are still to be determined, but they may leave the top rate where it is, which President Barack Obama raised as part of the 2013 fiscal cliff agreement.

“I don’t think there’s anybody out there that is talking about NFL players needing a tax cut — I don’t think high-powered doctors and lawyers need a tax cut,” said Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), who emphasized Republicans' plans to instead cut taxes on small and large businesses.

At the same time, they’re willing to take millions of Americans off the tax rolls entirely with their plans to double the standard deduction and expand a child tax credit. Just a few years ago, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lamented that, at the time, 47 percent of Americans did not pay federal income taxes.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 20:33 GMT
#181596
On October 30 2017 05:24 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:21 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.

Is it even proven that the campaign was involved? Marc Elias was the client, but is there any evidence he told the campaign about it?

Yep. The funds came from the Hillary campaign and the DNC. Attorneys don't front costs for their clients in these situations. And they aren't allowed to spend client money without authority to do so. Perkins Coie isn't a bush league outfit that would break these basic rules.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 29 2017 20:34 GMT
#181597
On October 30 2017 05:21 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 03:15 Introvert wrote:
Wait, has it been reported how much the DNC (or whoever) spent directly or indirectly on the dossier? Maybe I missed it.

I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.

I don't see anything saying the law firm (or, more accurately, the lawyer) lied. It looks like no one even asked, and I'm sure client-lawyer privileges means he didn't even need to answer, at least not before it went all public.

Clinton campaign didn't even have to lie, I'm sure. If they had any information at all during the campaign, it would've been used for sure (or they had the integrity to know not to use it, hah), and after the campaign Clinton's involvement dropped to zero.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
October 29 2017 20:35 GMT
#181598


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 20:39:15
October 29 2017 20:36 GMT
#181599
On October 30 2017 05:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:21 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. The Hillary campaign and DNC sent $12 million combined to the attorney, but I don't think anyone has gotten the bank records from either the attorney, Fusion GPS, or Steele, so we don't know where that $12 million went. I'd expect most of it to be legit, however.

What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.

I don't see anything saying the law firm (or, more accurately, the lawyer) lied. It looks like no one even asked, and I'm sure client-lawyer privileges means he didn't even need to answer, at least not before it went all public.

Clinton campaign didn't even have to lie, I'm sure. If they had any information at all during the campaign, it would've been used for sure (or they had the integrity to know not to use it, hah), and after the campaign Clinton's involvement dropped to zero.

You need to get up to speed. A bunch of reporters -- including the NYT -- noted the lies. I'm on my phone, so I can't easily pull the articles.

Edit: here is a good summary: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453104/russia-dossier-story-clinton-lies-media-irresponsibility-democratic-moral-blindness
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 20:38 GMT
#181600
On October 30 2017 05:33 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 05:24 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:21 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:14 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 05:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:45 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:36 ChristianS wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
On October 30 2017 04:18 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
What are the non-"legit" possibilities here? Considering what a fuss the right is making, I sincerely hope the Democrats are accused of more than just paying an investigative firm for oppo research?

We already know that they failed to report the expenditure on the opposition research and only listed the payments to the attorney as legal services -- i.e. They laundered the funds through the trust account.

Okay, so they failed to report (to who? the IRS?) the expenditure on oppo research as expenditure on oppo research, they said it was spending on legal services. I assume that's at least illegal somehow (is it a tax thing or something?).

Anything else? Because the right's frenzy on this one seems to go a lot further than "they didn't fill out the proper forms."

Remember the stink over Donald Junior meeting with a Russian agent? This is that, but we know that money actually changed hands.

Donald Junior met with a Russian agent specifically about information on the opposition.

As far as I've read on the dossier thing, the DNC paid a UK firm to do research. And that firm hired someone who then found the stuff in the dossier (who then reported it to the FBI).

Hence why this is such a non-starter. A foreign agent got the information after money had changed hands, with a couple of degrees of separation from the initial payments, and then went through all the correct US channels after that.

If it was all above board, why all of the lying about it?

What "all"? As has been mentioned in the last few posts, the most that's even been mentioned is that it wasn't filled out as "Opposition Research", or whatever the election regulations require.

I'm pretty sure it was confirmed that Steele contacted the FBI. Along with some US Senators, including McCain.

The law firm and Hillary campaign both lied about their involvement.

Is it even proven that the campaign was involved? Marc Elias was the client, but is there any evidence he told the campaign about it?

Yep. The funds came from the Hillary campaign and the DNC. Attorneys don't front costs for their clients in these situations. And they aren't allowed to spend client money without authority to do so. Perkins Coie isn't a bush league outfit that would break these basic rules.

But they are a law firm that does a ton of different work for the DNC, no? So if the law firm requested money for "oppo research" or even said it was for something even more vague, and the campaign sent the money, that would hardly prove "the campaign knew all along that Fusion GPS was paying Steele to pay foreign nationals for Russian lies."

I'm not saying it's implausible that the campaign knew more, but especially since the oppo didn't really turn up anything verifiable, it's also not crazy to think that Elias wasn't gonna tell them anything until he found something concrete. Especially recently, you don't have a lot of credibility when you talk about this stuff, so you're going to have to cross your t's and dot your i's.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Prev 1 9078 9079 9080 9081 9082 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#27
WardiTV1561
TKL 515
IndyStarCraft 332
BRAT_OK 147
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
TKL 515
IndyStarCraft 332
BRAT_OK 147
UpATreeSC 119
Codebar 59
MindelVK 27
JuggernautJason14
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 16203
Calm 3543
Mini 556
EffOrt 269
Larva 175
Soulkey 123
Dewaltoss 120
Hyun 64
Aegong 30
Movie 13
[ Show more ]
HiyA 10
SilentControl 9
NaDa 7
Shine 4
Dota 2
Dendi1488
BananaSlamJamma355
Counter-Strike
pashabiceps694
Stewie2K88
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu318
Khaldor222
Other Games
FrodaN2576
Grubby2015
ScreaM1600
fl0m1415
Beastyqt704
mouzStarbuck276
ToD242
Mlord194
C9.Mang0161
Skadoodle158
KnowMe118
ArmadaUGS113
Trikslyr52
Mew2King51
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL548
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 164
• Adnapsc2 12
• Reevou 5
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2029
Other Games
• imaqtpie1445
• Shiphtur281
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
3h 34m
Wardi Open
15h 34m
Wardi Open
19h 4m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 4h
Replay Cast
1d 14h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
OSC
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Online Event
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.