|
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. |
On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that.
This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more.
|
On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:17 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
^ this
We talked about Trump being potentially compromised half a year ago, you didn't care then. Why do you care now?
If we're worried about the information on Trump why are we investigating Clinton's payment to Fusion and not Trump himself to find out what is true?
Investigating whether the dossier is true necessarily includes an investigation into its origins. That's not even debatable. You just don't like the implications for partisan reasons. Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired. And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research.
That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate.
Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious.
|
On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:17 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
^ this
We talked about Trump being potentially compromised half a year ago, you didn't care then. Why do you care now?
If we're worried about the information on Trump why are we investigating Clinton's payment to Fusion and not Trump himself to find out what is true?
Investigating whether the dossier is true necessarily includes an investigation into its origins. That's not even debatable. You just don't like the implications for partisan reasons. Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired. And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven.
That she lied for a year about knowing all about the dossier. There's no evidence in either article that she knew who Steele was or even who Fusion GPS was. In fact, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS when Elias decided to retain them.
Making a bunch of claims and then saying "just go look up the article by so-and-so" when pressed for citation is already not great. But when the cited article just cites another article, and that other article doesn't even support your claim, that's really just shitty. From the WaPo article:
It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.
Undisputed, indeed. French clearly thinks the Clinton campaign knew all along, but even he doesn't think it indicates anything approximating "collusion," just that they mislead us into thinking the dossier was an intelligence document, not an oppo document. And more importantly, he gives no evidence whatsoever about what they knew.
All I can imagine is that you thought nobody would actually bother to go look up the article you were talking about, especially if you didn't provide a link.
|
On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Investigating whether the dossier is true necessarily includes an investigation into its origins. That's not even debatable. You just don't like the implications for partisan reasons. Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired. And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious.
Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard.
|
On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more.
What i don't understand is why we constantly talk about this. Even if everything is exactly as you claim, namely that Clinton knowingly paid russians for information on Trump, that is still an order of magnitude less interesting simply because Trump is president, and Clinton is not.
Stuff that incriminates the current president of the US is a lot more relevant than stuff that incriminates a failed presidential candidate. Even if Clinton were proven to be a Kremlin agent, that would still be less relevant than the possibility of Trump being tied to russia, simply because he is in a far more influential position.
It wouldn't be nice, and probably something that should be resolved in some way, but i don't see how anything Clinton-related is capable of jumping ahead of Trump in headlines if you look at it in an unbiased way.
|
On October 30 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired.
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious. Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard.
Except we don't, and you haven't shown any evidence that she was directly related. Cite or shut up.
|
On October 30 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired.
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious. Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard. Because you keep making up bullshit constantly...
Just yesterday we had you bullshitting about Uranium One and how that should totally be investigated and then ran away when asked what part of it should be investigated and why.
Why on earth would we give a known bullshitter a shred of good faith without diligent backup of verifiable facts?
The boy who cried wolf.
|
On October 30 2017 06:58 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Investigating whether the dossier is true necessarily includes an investigation into its origins. That's not even debatable. You just don't like the implications for partisan reasons. Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired. And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. That she lied for a year about knowing all about the dossier. There's no evidence in either article that she knew who Steele was or even who Fusion GPS was. In fact, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS when Elias decided to retain them. Making a bunch of claims and then saying "just go look up the article by so-and-so" when pressed for citation is already not great. But when the cited article just cites another article, and that other article doesn't even support your claim, that's really just shitty. From the WaPo article: Show nested quote +It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role. Undisputed, indeed. French clearly thinks the Clinton campaign knew all along, but even he doesn't think it indicates anything approximating "collusion," just that they mislead us into thinking the dossier was an intelligence document, not an oppo document. And more importantly, he gives no evidence whatsoever about what they knew. All I can imagine is that you thought nobody would actually bother to go look up the article you were talking about, especially if you didn't provide a link.
Did you miss the tweet that French quotes from Maggie Haberman of the NYT where she notes that "Folks involved in funding lied about it, and with sanctimony, for over a year."? Who the fuck do you think she is talking about? Santa Claus? She's very clearly referring to the Clinton campaign and Marc Elias.
EDIT: Here it is again:
A Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump 'dirty dossier' denied involvement in the project for a year as reporters pressed him for information.
Marc Elias brokered a deal between the Clinton camp, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the president while he was running for office.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
'Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,' Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Post linked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
Kennth Vogel, another Times journalist, tweeted: 'When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong".
Source.
That's TWO reporters tweeting the exact same thing.
|
On October 30 2017 07:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious. Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard. Except we don't, and you haven't shown any evidence that she was directly related. Cite or shut up.
If you're interested, this is the article he cited. I read it and the WaPo article it cites, and neither appear to support his claims, but feel free to read through yourself and decide if I missed something.
|
On October 30 2017 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious. Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard. Because you keep making up bullshit constantly... Just yesterday we had you bullshitting about Uranium One and how that should totally be investigated and then ran away when asked what part of it should be investigated and why. Why on earth would we give a known bullshitter a shred of good faith without diligent backup of verifiable facts? The boy who cried wolf.
I haven't run away from anything. I have better shit to do than hang out here all of the time and reply to people who either can't or won't read the entirety of what I post. Uranium One should be investigated too, given the amount of money that flowed to the Clinton's and their foundation from persons and entities connected with the transaction.
|
On October 30 2017 07:04 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 07:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved.
Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win.
How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form.
And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary.
You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. Clinton knowing someone would pay the Kremlin for information on Trump when she payed the lawfirm for opponent research. That's the missing bit, the bit that has absolutely 0 evidence going for it. And without any shred of evidence at all you have a US Presidential candidate paying a US investigative firm for opponent research on another US Presidential candidate. Which is not illegal or remotely suspicious. Where I have said conclusively that Hillary knew that funds were paid to Russians? I have expressly and repeatedly said we do not know that. I have only said that there is clearly a problem because we now know that Hillary has been lying about being involved at all, which warrant further investigation. Jesus Christ, you guys are making this needlessly hard. Except we don't, and you haven't shown any evidence that she was directly related. Cite or shut up. If you're interested, this is the article he cited. I read it and the WaPo article it cites, and neither appear to support his claims, but feel free to read through yourself and decide if I missed something.
Read already. Responded to it last page. Laughable opinion piece that's whines more about Buzzfeed than it talks about Clinton.
|
On October 30 2017 07:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:58 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Its origin is Steele. Not Clinton. What Clinton knew when paying the lawfirm has no bearing on its truthfulness. esp since this payment happened before any information was acquired.
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. That she lied for a year about knowing all about the dossier. There's no evidence in either article that she knew who Steele was or even who Fusion GPS was. In fact, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS when Elias decided to retain them. Making a bunch of claims and then saying "just go look up the article by so-and-so" when pressed for citation is already not great. But when the cited article just cites another article, and that other article doesn't even support your claim, that's really just shitty. From the WaPo article: It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role. Undisputed, indeed. French clearly thinks the Clinton campaign knew all along, but even he doesn't think it indicates anything approximating "collusion," just that they mislead us into thinking the dossier was an intelligence document, not an oppo document. And more importantly, he gives no evidence whatsoever about what they knew. All I can imagine is that you thought nobody would actually bother to go look up the article you were talking about, especially if you didn't provide a link. Did you miss the tweet that French quotes from Maggie Haberman of the NYT where she notes that "Folks involved in funding lied about it, and with sanctimony, for over a year."? Who the fuck do you think she is talking about? Santa Claus? She's very clearly referring to the Clinton campaign and Marc Elias. EDIT: Here is again: Show nested quote +A Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump 'dirty dossier' denied involvement in the project for a year as reporters pressed him for information.
Marc Elias brokered a deal between the Clinton camp, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the president while he was running for office.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
'Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,' Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Post linked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
Kennth Vogel, another Times journalist, tweeted: 'When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong". Source. That's TWO reporters tweeting the exact same thing.
Ah, so you weren't really citing French, that was just a proxy to look up a particular tweet from an NYT reporter who says "folks involved in funding" lied about it for a year, and cites the WaPo article (which, as mentioned previously, doesn't support your claim). From the same reporter, by the way:
Vogel's tweet specifically accuses Marc Elias, not Clinton or the rest of the campaign, of lying about it. So once again, "It's already proven that Clinton and her campaign knew all about the dossier" remains unsupported.
To be clear, I'm not saying with any certainty that she didn't know. And it might be that some reporting out there has confirmed that she did – a lot of articles come out every day, and I haven't read most of them. But you continue to repeat the assertion as though it's undisputed, without providing evidence for the claim, even though it's disputed within the original WaPo article.
|
The Elias thing is interesting. It's not clear exactly what capacity he was acting in when he went ahead with the investigation since he was GC for the Clinton campaign, a lawyer for the DNC, John Podesta's personal lawyer among other roles.
There's a formal legal definition for money laundering (see The Treasury Dept), and this doesn't fit that. It's certainly possible that funds from the campaign accounts ultimately ended up in Fusion GPS accounts, but that's both a stretch and difficult to prove. Money is fungible, so it's very hard to prove dollars were earmarked one way or another. I imagine the paper trail would have to be the monthly billings from Perkins or an email explicitly approving the spend.
|
On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more.
So, no evidence of laundering, or illegal activity, or collusion, but maybe Clinton knew about the doc and didn't say so. Certainly the campaign knew and didn't speak up.
Given that, where would even the wildest speculation bring us? Dirty but not illegal?
|
On October 30 2017 07:14 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:58 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 30 2017 06:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
And what if Steele used Clinton money to get info from the Russian sources that he cites? If Clinton knew about it, that's the type of collusion that y'all wanted to hang Junior for. Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved. Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win. How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form. And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary. You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. That she lied for a year about knowing all about the dossier. There's no evidence in either article that she knew who Steele was or even who Fusion GPS was. In fact, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS when Elias decided to retain them. Making a bunch of claims and then saying "just go look up the article by so-and-so" when pressed for citation is already not great. But when the cited article just cites another article, and that other article doesn't even support your claim, that's really just shitty. From the WaPo article: It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role. Undisputed, indeed. French clearly thinks the Clinton campaign knew all along, but even he doesn't think it indicates anything approximating "collusion," just that they mislead us into thinking the dossier was an intelligence document, not an oppo document. And more importantly, he gives no evidence whatsoever about what they knew. All I can imagine is that you thought nobody would actually bother to go look up the article you were talking about, especially if you didn't provide a link. Did you miss the tweet that French quotes from Maggie Haberman of the NYT where she notes that "Folks involved in funding lied about it, and with sanctimony, for over a year."? Who the fuck do you think she is talking about? Santa Claus? She's very clearly referring to the Clinton campaign and Marc Elias. EDIT: Here is again: A Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump 'dirty dossier' denied involvement in the project for a year as reporters pressed him for information.
Marc Elias brokered a deal between the Clinton camp, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the president while he was running for office.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
'Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,' Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Post linked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
Kennth Vogel, another Times journalist, tweeted: 'When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong". Source. That's TWO reporters tweeting the exact same thing. Ah, so you weren't really citing French, that was just a proxy to look up a particular tweet from an NYT reporter who says "folks involved in funding" lied about it for a year, and cites the WaPo article (which, as mentioned previously, doesn't support your claim). From the same reporter, by the way: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/924330861322997762Vogel's tweet specifically accuses Marc Elias, not Clinton or the rest of the campaign, of lying about it. So once again, "It's already proven that Clinton and her campaign knew all about the dossier" remains unsupported. To be clear, I'm not saying with any certainty that she didn't know. And it might be that some reporting out there has confirmed that she did – a lot of articles come out every day, and I haven't read most of them. But you continue to repeat the assertion as though it's undisputed, without providing evidence for the claim, even though it's disputed within the original WaPo article.
You realize that an attorney is legally an agent of the client, right? When an attorney speaks in that capacity, he is speaking for the client. And if you want to draw a meaningful distinction between paying for something and knowing about it, good luck with that one. Attorneys are ethically prohibited from spending their client's money without telling them what it's for and having their consent. And I can bet that the Clinton campaign was quite eager to see what their investment would return them, so there is simply no way that they did not know about the Steele dossier after they paid for it. They certainly saw it and knew that they bought it. The one thing that cannot be concluded is what the campaign knew about how the funds were used to create the dossier.
|
On October 30 2017 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more. So, no evidence of laundering, or illegal activity, or collusion, but maybe Clinton knew about the doc and didn't say so. Certainly the campaign knew and didn't speak up. Given that, where would even the wildest speculation bring us? Dirty but not illegal?
The HOPE is what they potentially have Don Jr. on the line for, soliciting contributions from a foreign national. That's the collusion. You have to make a lot of jumps to get there through, hence the drive for an investigation to turn up something.
Realistically they'll probably get fined by the FEC and that will be the end of it.
|
On October 30 2017 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more. So, no evidence of laundering, or illegal activity, or collusion, but maybe Clinton knew about the doc and didn't say so. Certainly the campaign knew and didn't speak up. Given that, where would even the wildest speculation bring us? Dirty but not illegal?
How can you say no evidence of laundering when the use of the money was misreported? You can chalk it up as a mistake if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the money was, intentionally or not, laundered through Perkins Coie to do opposition research that was kept off of the books.
|
On October 30 2017 07:28 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more. So, no evidence of laundering, or illegal activity, or collusion, but maybe Clinton knew about the doc and didn't say so. Certainly the campaign knew and didn't speak up. Given that, where would even the wildest speculation bring us? Dirty but not illegal? The HOPE is what they potentially have Don Jr. on the line for, soliciting contributions from a foreign national. That's the collusion. You have to make a lot of jumps to get there through, hence the drive for an investigation to turn up something. Realistically they'll probably get fined by the FEC and that will be the end of it.
'Someone hiring a firm that hires a guy who pays another guy for info' is a long long away from 'a guy getting mailed an offer for information by a foreign government'.
|
On October 30 2017 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 07:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 30 2017 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 04:51 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. I don't know how strict the reporting requirements are, but I could totally see classifying an invoice from a law firm as a legal expense. Still not seeing the laundering aspect - no money is dirty in need of cleaning. Nor is paying for oppo research illegal. By contrast, Russia did illegal things (hacking). We do know that Trump wanted to work with Russia in exchange for dropping sanctions. Directly tying those together hasn't happened yet. This is not that. This issue is what the money was used for and who knew about it. I'm sure that we are going to learn more. So, no evidence of laundering, or illegal activity, or collusion, but maybe Clinton knew about the doc and didn't say so. Certainly the campaign knew and didn't speak up. Given that, where would even the wildest speculation bring us? Dirty but not illegal? How can you say no evidence of laundering when the use of the money was misreported? You can chalk it up as a mistake if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the money was, intentionally or not, laundered through Perkins Coie to do opposition research that was kept off of the books.
Clinton used crime money to pay for it now?
Laundering requires dirty money to begin with.
|
On October 30 2017 07:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 07:14 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:58 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:46 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:44 ChristianS wrote:On October 30 2017 06:39 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 30 2017 06:34 xDaunt wrote:On October 30 2017 06:29 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Clinton payed before Steele ever got involved.
Junior got directly contacted by Russia to get information to help Trump win.
How the fuck are they equivalent in any way, shape or form.
And thanks for saying this has nothing to do with the truth about the content file but all about further investigating Hillary.
You should work on that. What do you mean Clinton paid before Steele got involved? Her money went right to Steele through Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. We are talking up to $6 million being at issue here. And it is undisputed that both her campaign and Perkins Coie lied about it for a year. How that raises no red flags for you is simply incredible. Again, citation needed. Because that last article you posted was a heaping pile of shit. It doesn't even talk about lies. At best it finger wags using lawyers for confidentiality, which as a lawyer you should know is not lying. I already cited it by linking to the David French article. I can't help it if you can't read. Your "undisputed" claim is something I disputed. You referred me (didn't link, I had to look it up) to French's article, which doesn't address my dispute. In fact, it doesn't say anything more than the WaPo article did, which also didn't address my dispute. I quoted you and said this, you still haven't responded. You're not doing great at crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I cited everything that I claimed. I don't even know what you are disputing. That she lied? That the money went to Steele? Both are proven. That she lied for a year about knowing all about the dossier. There's no evidence in either article that she knew who Steele was or even who Fusion GPS was. In fact, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS when Elias decided to retain them. Making a bunch of claims and then saying "just go look up the article by so-and-so" when pressed for citation is already not great. But when the cited article just cites another article, and that other article doesn't even support your claim, that's really just shitty. From the WaPo article: It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role. Undisputed, indeed. French clearly thinks the Clinton campaign knew all along, but even he doesn't think it indicates anything approximating "collusion," just that they mislead us into thinking the dossier was an intelligence document, not an oppo document. And more importantly, he gives no evidence whatsoever about what they knew. All I can imagine is that you thought nobody would actually bother to go look up the article you were talking about, especially if you didn't provide a link. Did you miss the tweet that French quotes from Maggie Haberman of the NYT where she notes that "Folks involved in funding lied about it, and with sanctimony, for over a year."? Who the fuck do you think she is talking about? Santa Claus? She's very clearly referring to the Clinton campaign and Marc Elias. EDIT: Here is again: A Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer who launched what would become known as the anti-Trump 'dirty dossier' denied involvement in the project for a year as reporters pressed him for information.
Marc Elias brokered a deal between the Clinton camp, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the president while he was running for office.
But a pair of New York Times reporters said Tuesday night on Twitter that Elias and others involved had lied about their ties to the arrangement.
'Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,' Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted after The Washington Post linked the dossier to Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie.
Kennth Vogel, another Times journalist, tweeted: 'When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong". Source. That's TWO reporters tweeting the exact same thing. Ah, so you weren't really citing French, that was just a proxy to look up a particular tweet from an NYT reporter who says "folks involved in funding" lied about it for a year, and cites the WaPo article (which, as mentioned previously, doesn't support your claim). From the same reporter, by the way: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/924330861322997762Vogel's tweet specifically accuses Marc Elias, not Clinton or the rest of the campaign, of lying about it. So once again, "It's already proven that Clinton and her campaign knew all about the dossier" remains unsupported. To be clear, I'm not saying with any certainty that she didn't know. And it might be that some reporting out there has confirmed that she did – a lot of articles come out every day, and I haven't read most of them. But you continue to repeat the assertion as though it's undisputed, without providing evidence for the claim, even though it's disputed within the original WaPo article. You realize that an attorney is legally an agent of the client, right? When an attorney speaks in that capacity, he is speaking for the client.
Indeed, but if my attorney calls his buddy for advice on the case, and I later say I had no idea his buddy had anything to do with the case, I'm not lying.
And if you want to draw a meaningful distinction between paying for something and knowing about it, good luck with that one. Attorneys are ethically prohibited from spending their client's money without telling them what it's for and having their consent.
What do you mean without their consent? Presumably Elias told the Clinton campaign and DNC that he was hiring an investigative firm to do oppo research. They said okay. At the time that decision occurred, Steele didn't even work for Fusion GPS.
And I can bet that the Clinton campaign was quite eager to see what their investment would return them, so there is simply no way that they did not know about the Steele dossier after they paid for it.
You tried to make the transition from "this is confirmed by investigative reporting and undisputed" to "Here's what I think was probably going on" and thought nobody would notice. What you bet the Clinton campaign did, and what it's proven they actually did are very different things. They certainly saw it and knew that they bought it. The one thing that cannot be concluded is what the campaign knew about how the funds were used to create the dossier.
Afaik they claim they didn't know about the dossier until Buzzfeed published it, so they easily might have seen it and known (or been told by Elias) that they bought it. That's a very different thing from having known all along about the details.
All of this is skipping the question you continue to not answer, which is what is illegal about any of this anyway. What law did they violate? Forget Clinton, what would Elias even be guilty of?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
