Collusion with Russia

[CharonY]

Also, Trump's attorney basically said that it is not against the law to obtain opposition research (though he kinda weasels out of the question what he thinks if it is offered by foreign officials),

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSHau66R-0

[iNow]

^ Feel like I just watched a talent show tap dance routine...

[waitforufo]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

So, now I have an agenda... and I ignore anything that doesn't fit it? Christ almighty, WFU... Your version of this is haunting.

I've tried hard to be respectful of your position and fair when representing it while remaining skeptical and flexible with mine. In response, you accuse me of having an agenda.

It's hard to have a mature conversation when your version of the exchange we're sharing is so warped.

 

You always know you are winning an argument on the internet when someone claims you're a Nazi.  Goebbels no less.  I must really be on to something.

The facts are that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC paid Russians for the information in the Steele dossier.  These are facts reported by the Washington Post. Paying foreign nationals to participate in campaigns is illegal.  Laws apply to Hillary and the DNC as much as they apply to anyone else.

Edited October 31, 2017 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

You always know you are winning an argument on the internet when someone claims you're a Nazi.  Goebbels no less.  I must really be on to something.

The facts are that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC paid Russians for the information in the Steele dossier.  These are facts reported by the Washington Post. Paying foreign nationals to participate in campaigns is illegal.  Laws apply to Hillary and the DNC as much as they apply to anyone else.

You're a funny/strange type of liberal...

[waitforufo]

Why do you think Hillary, John Podesta, and all other democrats are claiming ignorance regarding the Steele Dossier?  They don't think they look good in horizontal stripes.  

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

You're a funny/strange type of liberal...

Thank you.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

You always know you are winning an argument on the internet when someone claims you're a Nazi.  Goebbels no less.  I must really be on to something.

The facts are that Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC paid Russians for the information in the Steele dossier.  These are facts reported by the Washington Post. Paying foreign nationals to participate in campaigns is illegal.  Laws apply to Hillary and the DNC as much as they apply to anyone else.

 

In lieu of actual Nazis marching on our (USA's) streets and stating they support for Trump the inclusion of Nazi methods of propaganda and debate is appropriate for political discussions in 2017.

What do you feel is keeping Clinton of of prison? Trump is POTUS and his appointee runs DOJ. The House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. What partisan power structure are Democrats using to shield Clinton? I think this is all just a defection to distract from the real investigations into real crimes which is well on the way. Trump keeps askig why Clinton isn't being investigated for this that or the other but ultimately Trump has the power to make such investigations happen if in fact laws were broke. So what the h3ll are we even talking about; seems like you should be upset with Trump, Kelly, Sessions, and etc for not getting an indepth Clinton investigation going.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Thank you.

 

You're welcome, but I have to ask, what type of liberal are you?.

[waitforufo]

Another one from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-link-to-putin-is-the-underreported-dossier-bombshell/2017/10/31/0623f2f4-ba87-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.feb9fe9f56a5

Quote

Here’s the bottom line: We have congressional testimony, under oath, that Clinton hired the same firm to smear Trump that Putin reportedly used to smear Magnitsky. Moreover, we also know that the Fusion GPS dossier relied on senior Russian government officials for much of the dirt it compiled, including “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and a “former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Together, those are bombshell revelations.

Yet today, there is barely a peep in the mainstream media about the Clinton-Fusion-Putin connection. Imagine the outrage that would have ensued if we had learned that Trump had hired an opposition research firm with Putin-linked clients to dig up dirt on Clinton and that senior Russian government officials had been the sources of the unsubstantiated allegations that were leaked to the media. The left would be screaming, “Smoking gun!”

 

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're welcome, but I have to ask, what type of liberal are you?.

The funny/strange type.

[DrP]

48 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

You always know you are winning an argument on the internet when someone claims you're a Nazi. 

Yea, he didn't claim you were a Nazi though did he? He compared your double standards in the conversation with the Nazi tactic advised by their propaganda minister...  there is a big difference.  

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The funny/strange type.

 

Obviously; the type of liberal that denies freedom.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Yea, he didn't claim you were a Nazi though did he? He compared your double standards in the conversation with the Nazi tactic advised by their propaganda minister...  there is a big difference.  

Indeed. Unfortunately, it's precisely this type of sloppy thinking that regularly prevents us from recognizing where we share common goals and common understandings; where productive conversation would otherwise be much more simple and much more possible.

[waitforufo]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Obviously; the type of liberal that denies freedom.

Please try to stay on topic. If you, iNow, or DrP want to start a new topic in the lounge titled "waitforufo is a big poopy head" have at it. I won't complain.  I'm sure I would enjoy it. 

[Ten oz]

Nearly 80 percent of Trump voters said they think the president should stay in office even if collusion is proven between his campaign and Russia, according to a survey released Tuesday, even while support among all voters for his impeachment hits a new high.

According to a new poll from the Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling, 79 percent of people who voted for President Trump say he should remain even if collusion is proven, and 75 percent said the entire Russia story is "fake news."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-vast-majority-of-trump-voters-say-he-should-stay-in-office-even-if-russia-collusion-is-proven/ar-AAuheEM?li=BBnbcA1

 

 Waitforufo if collusion between Trump and Russia is proved and or obstruction of justice is proved should Trump be impeached?

If Hillary Clinton is found guilty of any crimes I how she is held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. So please answer my question about Trump with a yes or no with running on about Clinton.

[waitforufo]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

 Waitforufo if collusion between Trump and Russia is proved and or obstruction of justice is proved should Trump be impeached?

If Trump broke the law in any way with regard to the campaign or the election, of course he should be impeached.  That would be a high crime or misdemeanor.  My opinion on that however is irrelevant.  The constitution would require Trump's impeachment at that point.   

[Ten oz]

@ Mods, there are are a few different threads which deal with issues surround Donald Trump and Russia:" Mueller indictments", "which parts of the Constitution has Trump violated", "Media's made up stories about Trump", and this thread "Collusion with Russia".Would it be possible to consolidate some? I believe the Mueller indictments speak to which possible parts of the Constitution Trump may have violated and Russia collusion is part of that.  

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Mods, there are are a few different threads which deal with issues surround Donald Trump and Russia:" Mueller indictments", "which parts of the Constitution has Trump violated", "Media's made up stories about Trump", and this thread "Collusion with Russia".Would it be possible to consolidate some? I believe the Mueller indictments speak to which possible parts of the Constitution Trump may have violated and Russia collusion is part of that.  

!

Moderator Note

This thread is about the alleged collusion involving the Steele dossier. 

The situation involving the white house is complicated, though in the end it might all be tied together. But until that time, separate threads are a must.

 

[Ten oz]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

This thread is about the alleged collusion involving the Steele dossier. 

The situation involving the white house is complicated, though in the end it might all be tied together. But until that time, separate threads are a must.

 

Rgr that, thank you.

[CharonY]

As it turns out, the investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion was not kicked off by the Steele dossier. Rather it was because  Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt on Clinton (article):

Quote

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
[...]
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

 

[iNow]

A member of the Trump campaign/administration, getting drunk and bragging like a loose lipped idiot? No!! That is simply too unlikely and strains credulity! [/sarcasm]

[iNow]

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/10/16873614/trump-tweet-feinstein

Quote

The big news Republicans didn’t want you to see.

Yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) ignored the objections of her Republican colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee and released the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson’s extensive congressional testimony about Christopher Steele’s famous dossier on Donald Trump and Russia.

<...>

No law was broken here. Simpson testified in a closed session, but he wasn’t discussing classified information (he’s not a government official) or anything about anyone’s private life (there are some minor redactions to ensure this). And Simpson had already publicly called for the full release of his testimony.

What Feinstein violated was the normal rules of Senate decorum, which Republicans had been using to cover up a key point that debunks some of their own talking points about this matter.

The key takeaway is that the FBI was already investigating potential links between Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government before they got the Steele dossier. The hearing lasted for hours, and the transcript is extremely long and fairly tedious. But Simpson does clearly state that when Steele spoke to the FBI about his findings, the bureau “believed Chris’s information might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing, and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

That sounds like Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who, according to a recent report in the New York Times, accidentally kicked off the Trump–Russia investigation by telling Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that Russia had political dirt on Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, after a night of heavy drinking in May 2016.

Conservatives have recently been pushing a theory that the basis for the FBI investigation was an opposition research document compiled at the behest of Clinton’s campaign. Simpson’s testimony seems to confirm the Times account and thereby debunk a conservative counternarrative that places the dossier itself at the center of the story.

 

[iNow]

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

Trump just decided not to sanction Russia for its election meddling

Quote

Last August, Trump reluctantly signed into law the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Republican and Democratic lawmakers crafted the bill in response to Trump’s unusual warmth toward Russian President Vladimir Putin and his refusal to blame Russia for interfering in the election.

The legislation almost unanimously passed both chambers, and it was clear that Congress would override a presidential veto. It was explicitly designed to make old sanctions against Russia permanent and pressure Trump to impose new ones. The bill forced Trump to impose costs on Putin for interfering in America’s democratic process and his interventions in Ukraine and Syria.

But Trump resented Congress’s move to box him in on Russia policy. The president slammed the legislation in a written signing statement, calling it “seriously flawed,” and said that he could “make far better deals with foreign countries than Congress.” Sean Kane, a former sanctions official at the Treasury Department, told me that most presidentialadministrations balk at Congress telling them whom and what to sanction — that’s power the White House likes to wield.

So Trump missed Monday’s deadline to impose the new sanctions. 

 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/1/30/16949878/trump-russia-sanction-list-oligarch-congress

Trump just decided not to sanction Russia for its election meddling

 

"Smellier and smellier" said Alice.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

"Smellier and smellier" said Alice.

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. 

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. 

It's getting pathetic now, isn't it? Any normal president, under the current conditions  with Russia, would rightly be giving them stick but his reluctance reeks of ulterior motives. You wouldn't want to shit on someone who's helped give you the top seat , would you? Can you see him doing the full term? 

Edited January 31, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Can you see him doing the full term? 

It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.