• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 10:16
CEST 16:16
KST 23:16
  • 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
[ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN
Strategy
Current Meta BW - ajfirecracker Strategy & Training Relatively freeroll strategies Siegecraft - a new perspective
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Dawn of War IV Nintendo Switch Thread 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: 1578 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9084

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9082 9083 9084 9085 9086 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.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
October 29 2017 22:36 GMT
#181661
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.

Because that's no definition of laundering that I'm familiar with. All clean money all the way through. Nothing to launder.

Money needs to be dirty to be laundered... Totally legal money used for totally legal things. One league thing was labeled as another legal thing. Still all clean - nothing to launder.
NewSunshine
Profile Joined July 2011
United States5938 Posts
October 29 2017 22:41 GMT
#181662
All this business continues to be much ado about nothing until xD actually articulates why this is significant. And he still has yet to do so.
"If you find yourself feeling lost, take pride in the accuracy of your feelings." - Night Vale
Gahlo
Profile Joined February 2010
United States35160 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 22:44:20
October 29 2017 22:42 GMT
#181663
On October 30 2017 03:11 Nevuk 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.

No one wants to exile all Trump voters. I'm sure the majority of farmers voted for him, and I like having food.

I've actually never seen anyone call to exile the KKK or white supremacists either.

I have seen some people that think non-whites should at least be exiled from the ethnostate, though.
Tachion
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada8573 Posts
October 29 2017 22:42 GMT
#181664
On October 30 2017 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 07:28 Tachion wrote:
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:
[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.

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'.

Yes but what if Hillary knew she was paying Steele to work with Russian diplomats to create the dossier but never used it till after the election in a conspiracy to commit libel?
I dunno dude, I didn't say it made sense.
i was driving down the road this november eve and spotted a hitchhiker walking down the street. i pulled over and saw that it was only a tree. i uprooted it and put it in my trunk. do trees like marshmallow peeps? cause that's all i have and will have.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 22:56 GMT
#181665
On October 30 2017 07:34 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 07:26 xDaunt wrote:
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:
[quote]
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:



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.


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.


But that's not what happened here. Elias spent Clinton's campaign funds. That doesn't happen without informed consent from the client.

Show nested quote +
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.


What outfit okays the expenditure of (at a minimum) tens of thousands of dollars (potentially a helluva lot more) without knowing what they are investing in? That never happens in the legal world. Not once. All of my clients want to know why I want to spend that kind of money on their behalf.

Show nested quote +
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.
Show nested quote +
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.


I haven't made the transition out of anything. The reporters cited above are the ones who noted that the Clinton team lied and denied knowledge of the funding. And I can guarantee you that they used the term "lie" because they are aware of the very same circumstances that I have been pointing out here regarding how the attorney/client relationship works and how ridiculous it is to presume that the Clinton campaign did not know what they were spending money on.

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.


The Clinton campaign has been mum on the details regarding what they knew and when (gee, I wonder why....). If I were them, I would come clean and admit to knowingly paying for the opposition research but not knowing how the funds would be applied. They're going to get tagged with the first part, so no point denying it. And there's nothing inherently wrong with paying for opposition research anyway as y'all have been all to keen to point out.

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?


Like I said earlier, the potential illegality is here is whether the Clinton campaign funds were being paid to Russian sources to acquire information about Trump, and whether the Clinton campaign knew about it. It's the same thing that Trump Junior was accused of for meeting with that Russian.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 22:57 GMT
#181666
On October 30 2017 07:41 NewSunshine wrote:
All this business continues to be much ado about nothing until xD actually articulates why this is significant. And he still has yet to do so.

Read harder.
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
October 29 2017 23:16 GMT
#181667
I have no idea what kind of lawyer you are, but Marc Elias was specifically used to create a layer of separation. He certainly wasn't hired to represent them in court.

And the reporters saying the Clinton campaign lied both link to the same article with the same information: that the lawyer knew. Which, yes, we've established the lawyer knew. And was used so there would be several layers of confidentiality.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
October 29 2017 23:16 GMT
#181668
On October 30 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 07:41 NewSunshine wrote:
All this business continues to be much ado about nothing until xD actually articulates why this is significant. And he still has yet to do so.

Read harder.


Everything you post here is based on utterly bogus premises that you know are lies. The reason collusion sticks on Trump is that the Kremlin wanted him to win and tried to help him (Veselnetskya, Assange, Chaika, DonJR, Manafort, Flynn, Agalarov). The collusion charge doesn't stick on Steele/HRC because the Kremlin wanted her to lose (see every last intelligence agency conclusion that didn't come from Trump's toady Pompeo). Collusion requires some alignment of goals and you are willfully pretending that you don't need to show this alignment.

And on top of all this we already know HRC didn't know about the memo. Elias kept the whole thing closely held and didn't even see the raw dossier.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-lawyer-kept-russian-dossier-project-closely-held/2017/10/27/e7935276-ba68-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4da8cf2feb1a
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
October 29 2017 23:17 GMT
#181669
I suspect that the right's attempt to divert attention from the fact that Russia sought to help Trump win the election will not be successful. Fusion's oppo research, which (shock) was paid for (originally by a Republican primary opponent of Trump, and then the tab was picked up by Clinton/the DNC. There's also a reason the FBI independently wanted to pay for further research), and the dossier had no effect prior to the election. The research was passed to the FBI for them to independently investigate.

Russia conducted a hacking campaign against Clinton/the DNC. Russia wanted Trump to win. Any argument of collusion between Clinton and Russia is based on shoddy reasoning.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
October 29 2017 23:18 GMT
#181670
On October 30 2017 08:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I have no idea what kind of lawyer you are, but Marc Elias was specifically used to create a layer of separation. He certainly wasn't hired to represent them in court.

And the reporters saying the Clinton campaign lied both link to the same article with the same information: that the lawyer knew. Which, yes, we've established the lawyer knew. And was used so there would be several layers of confidentiality.

The legal duties and principles that I have been referring to have nothing to do with litigation and court appearances. They are universal.
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 23:22:43
October 29 2017 23:20 GMT
#181671
How does who paid for the dossier and what they knew even matter? All that matters is whether any of its claims are true, and many of those aren't even part of the main thrust of Mueller's investigation.

Or is it again pure coincidence all this pops up right around Mueller doing something major and it's not intended to discredit the dossier or his investigation in any way and it's just angry Republicans trying to pin something on Clinton for the 10 millionth time as if it will ever be successful? Podesta (or his brother or whatever) already went down after all.
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
October 29 2017 23:25 GMT
#181672
Jesus Christ, I'm not gonna do this parallel point-by-point thing again. I just got done with doing that with Danglars, and that was probably a mistake, and this time I'm on mobile.

It's only confirmed that the "Clinton team" knew if you count Elias as part of the "Clinton team." Your guesses about how much the campaign probably would have known are not the same as "undisputedly proven by current reporting." So when you say "they definitely would've wanted lots of details on what they were getting for their money" that's worth very little. It's just as plausible that they had a presidential campaign to run and were letting their lawyers sift through the oppo material and let them know about anything good. You're talking like Fusion GPS was the only research firm they hired, when in fact the Clinton campaign had a shit ton of money. Your anecdotes about what your clients would want are useless because your clients don't have a shit ton of money and they aren't running for President.

For those trying to follow along: xDaunt claimed it was "undisputed" that the whole Clinton team has lied for more than a year about knowing about the dossier. Asked for evidence he cited people saying that Marc Elias knew, which we all knew already. From there he offered his personal opinion that if Elias knew the rest probably knew too, and tried to act like that's the same thing.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9711 Posts
October 29 2017 23:30 GMT
#181673
And everyone's talking about Clinton again.
Say what you want about Trump but he's effective at trying to control the narrative in desperate circumstances.
RIP Meatloaf <3
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 23:34:55
October 29 2017 23:32 GMT
#181674
If you really want to hang your hat on this is no big deal because only the general counsel for the campaign lied, good luck.

Here's what one guy says that is on point:

Their claim that nobody in the campaign or the DNC knew anything about the deal doesn’t pass the smell test. When as much as $12 million goes out the window for a document that aimed to win the election — and failed — everybody knows something
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3229 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 23:38:15
October 29 2017 23:35 GMT
#181675
On October 30 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:
If you really want to hang your hat on this is no big deal because only the general counsel for the campaign lied, good luck.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything! Like I said, there's a very good chance they knew about all of it. We're just calling you on claiming stuff is absolutely proven when it's not, then saying bullshit like "I cited it, learn to read" when people dispute it.

Edit:
Here's what one guy says that is on point:

Show nested quote +
Their claim that nobody in the campaign or the DNC knew anything about the deal doesn’t pass the smell test. When as much as $12 million goes out the window for a document that aimed to win the election — and failed — everybody knows something


Ah, "some guy" said it. I see you're still into the insinuation and anonymous citations. This has been quite a week for you
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Dangermousecatdog
Profile Joined December 2010
United Kingdom7084 Posts
October 29 2017 23:36 GMT
#181676
I'm not sure I can trust your opinion on what is a big deal or not since you consider Russian collusion from various Trump campaign and administration is not a big deal
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-10-29 23:58:21
October 29 2017 23:56 GMT
#181677
On October 30 2017 08:35 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 30 2017 08:32 xDaunt wrote:
If you really want to hang your hat on this is no big deal because only the general counsel for the campaign lied, good luck.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything! Like I said, there's a very good chance they knew about all of it. We're just calling you on claiming stuff is absolutely proven when it's not, then saying bullshit like "I cited it, learn to read" when people dispute it.

Edit:
Show nested quote +
Here's what one guy says that is on point:

Their claim that nobody in the campaign or the DNC knew anything about the deal doesn’t pass the smell test. When as much as $12 million goes out the window for a document that aimed to win the election — and failed — everybody knows something


Ah, "some guy" said it. I see you're still into the insinuation and anonymous citations. This has been quite a week for you

Maybe someday you'll learn how to properly contextualize information. What I'm quoting is irrelevant. It's just an opinion that I very easily could have presented as my own. But hey, keep working that double standard of yours. I look forward to continuing to not see you call out every poster who pushes assertions suggesting that Trump colluded with the Russians beyond what is actually known.

And again, I can't help it if y'all refuse to read what is right in front of you. I didn't say that the Clinton campaign lied. The reporters did. It's really obvious to me why they used that word. It should be obvious to you as well, but y'all would rather pretend to be ostriches and keep your heads in the sand.
warding
Profile Joined August 2005
Portugal2394 Posts
October 29 2017 23:57 GMT
#181678
"But Clinton" is merely a tool to solve cognitive dissonance among thinking conservatives who voted for Trump. It follows that the lower Trump goes, the worse the Clinton "scandals" have to become. Otherwise they'd be forced to come to terms with the fact they betrayed their principles in helping elect a grossly incompetent conman to the WH.

For instance, Fox News isn't a bastion of conservative values, it's a safe space to insulate Trump voters from coming to terms with what an this administration is.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
October 29 2017 23:58 GMT
#181679


The last four pages show that the only thread objection part of “Trump campaign-Russia collusion” is “Trump campaign.” When Clinton campaign figures lie about financing the dossier, no fucks are given. I mean they even throw the NYT reporting under the bus (Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel were previously esteemed). You might deny that collusion with Russia is a one-way Street, but your actions show differently. Next time, play up some angle you wouldn’t mind criticizing a Democrat campaign on. You’ll emerge with more credibility that way.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23426 Posts
October 30 2017 00:05 GMT
#181680
Every time this gets rehashed I'm desperate to understand why this instance in particular is so significant for people. It's not like we don't collude with foreign political groups to influence elections regularly.

It really seems like everyone is freaking out about 21st century technology lowering the economic barriers to entry and a country that doesn't have our best interest being able to use it against us.

Like there isn't an actual principled stand people are taking, it seems completely driven by self-interest and political point scoring on all sides.

The irony of it all being Russia seems to have a better grasp of what's wrong with our politics than we do.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Prev 1 9082 9083 9084 9085 9086 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 44m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 523
LamboSC2 94
sas.Sziky 24
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 36366
Calm 10464
Hyuk 4952
GuemChi 3260
Bisu 3237
Horang2 2502
Flash 1921
Jaedong 985
Larva 675
Soma 612
[ Show more ]
EffOrt 479
Light 436
actioN 328
Soulkey 303
Mong 293
Snow 269
Mini 263
Hyun 212
hero 170
Pusan 96
TY 89
JYJ89
ggaemo 75
Barracks 66
JulyZerg 64
Mind 55
Sea.KH 53
Killer 48
scan(afreeca) 47
Rush 37
Aegong 33
sorry 32
ToSsGirL 24
Noble 23
soO 21
Sharp 19
Terrorterran 18
Bale 14
Sacsri 13
Movie 13
SilentControl 12
yabsab 9
HiyA 8
Shine 6
Rock 2
Dota 2
Gorgc6231
qojqva3533
Dendi968
420jenkins418
XaKoH 371
Counter-Strike
byalli253
oskar112
markeloff100
edward37
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor189
Other Games
singsing2447
hiko1178
B2W.Neo835
Sick389
Hui .352
Lowko311
XcaliburYe145
ArmadaUGS76
Mew2King38
Liquid`VortiX11
trigger4
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL433
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 53
• poizon28 8
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 28
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2366
League of Legends
• Nemesis8708
• TFBlade318
Upcoming Events
Monday Night Weeklies
1h 44m
Replay Cast
8h 44m
WardiTV Invitational
20h 44m
WardiTV Invitational
1d
PiGosaur Monday
1d 9h
Replay Cast
1d 19h
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
OSC
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
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
6 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.