Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the Clinton Crime Family PAYING Russian Spies for a fake dossier is A OK? Making sure we get this straight here...don't want some hypocrisy going around now.
Steele was a private, British citizen. Where’s your proof “the Clinton crime family [was] paying Russians spies”?
That's a very valid point, but, the intelligence community is united in it's statement that the Russian's did indeed interfere in our election. Dan Coats said that the "red lights are flashing." Hillary is gone. She has nothing to do with running our country. Trump does and there are serious questions that need to be answered. Cohen is now ready to testify that Trump knew about the 2016 meeting and that other people were also aware. Does he have a tape among the one hundred or so recordings? Is he credible because now he's willing to save his own hide at other's expense? We don't know the answers....yet. Wikileaks? You might as well believe the Enquirer.
You seem unwilling to accept that Trump and Jr. may very well have conspired with a foreign geopolitical adversary to get help winning the election. Why? Why is one man more important then our country? Why were so many Oligarchs at Trump's inaugural parties? Do you find that unusual in any way? Then we have the Felix Sater email to Cohen " Our boy can become president and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin's team to buy in on this, I will manage this process." We have Don Jr's "I love it" email about the Trump tower meeting. Did Hope Hicks testify to Mueller that Trump did indeed write the narrative that it was about Russian adoptions? Did Mark Corallo really resign because he thought he had witnessed obstruction of justice aboard air force one when Trump "weighed in" (Sanders spin) on Trump dictating a response for Don Jr? Did Mueller interview him? Why was Trump so involved with Russian oligarchs and how much money does he owe to them? What are Trump's ties to the American mafia? Where is Flynn's story? There are so many questions here that are bigger and more important then one man.
One lie leads to another and another...... Someday we will know the truth but until then, innocent until proven guilty. I have to admit though that there is way too much smoke and not enough honest answers from the liar and chief.
1) you are going all over the place with unproven allegations......the Podesta's emails and the corruption in the DNC were going to be made public to the world regardless if Trump J.R. met with this Russian person at the Trump towers or not. Trump had nothing to do with the contents of those emails and how it would be made public.
2) The intelligence community hasn't provided 1 single evidence that the DNC and Podesta's emails were directly hacked by the Russians. That is a fact. It's another fact that the DNC denied the FBI to look at their servers and take 'em to investigate who hack their system.
4) Another fact is, Podesta and the Clinton campaign have declined to authenticate the emails. Which I find interesting if you are going to accuse Trump and another country of a crime.
3) WikiLeaks is on record saying that it wasn't the Russians and they have a better track record of telling the truth than our heads in our intel agencies that under Obama it has been very politicized and have been caught lying under oath in Congress.
the rest of your post it's just bias opinions and wishful thinking that has no place in court or about the law.
if you want to nail Trump with "colluding" with Russia find some other topic and evidence other than the Podesta's and DNC's emails....the DNC and the Clinton campaign closed that door when they didn't want to turn in their servers to the FBI for investigation and Podesta and Hillary refused to authenticate any of the emails made public......just like when Hillary deleted 30,000 emails and bleached her home server when she was Secretary of State, she didn't want the FBI, Congress and the public to know the contents of her emails with foreign powers. She can't turn around and blame others if her server was compromised and made public.
And the Clinton Crime Family PAYING Russian Spies for a fake dossier is A OK? Making sure we get this straight here...don't want some hypocrisy going around now.
What the Steele Dossier was Russian? I thought it was from a Russian expert from MI-6... Anywho if this did happen, what was in it? I'm fully willing to criticize said dossier of it was in fact paid for and received but there is little to no proof of it even existing.
Wait a minute...Stop the presses...You mean it was not about adoption after all?
Well, why didn't you say that in the first place Cadet Bone Spurs? This changes everything...
I am shocked, I tell you, shocked ! All along, I thought they were there to discuss mail order brides or kids to adopt. This makes me wonder if everything else Trump has been telling us is true or not !
Maybe Trump just misspoke, and meant to say "My sons meeting with Russians WAS NOT to get Clinton dirt." After all you know he gets those "woulds and wouldn'ts mixed up all the time, so maybe that is what happened here. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, because, after all, he has such a stellar track record of being honest.
What the Steele Dossier was Russian? I thought it was from a Russian expert from MI-6... Anywho if this did happen, what was in it? I'm fully willing to criticize said dossier of it was in fact paid for and received but there is little to no proof of it even existing.
The DNC contracted with a private U.S. company to do opposition research (i.e., get dirt on Trump). Actually, a republican first made the deal with the private U.S. company for dirt. Once Trump was the official nominee, he gave that up and the DNC continued the contract. This type of "opposition research" is done and it's legal. If the Trump campaign hired U.S. investigators to get dirt on Clinton, this would have been the norm. For instance, Trump did hire investigators to try to turn up dirt on Obama. Legal.
The private company was hired by first the republican and then the DNC. The private company was contacted by Christopher Steele, a U.S. ally formally of British Intelligence who had concerns about chatter he was hearing. I believe Steele raised his concerns with a number of people. The private company then paid Steele to compose a dossier and on things he heard. This was turned over to the FBI for corroboration.
While getting dirt on an opponent is nothing new, you don't cozy up to a political adversary for it. If they contact you, you report it. There is nothing neutral about the information you will get from them.
If people can't see the difference in these two scenarios than they are choosing to be obtuse.
Now, if you told me Trump when to a U.S. investigator to dig up dirt on Clinton, that'd be fine and dandy. That investigator ends up making deals with Russia to get something, it would need to be reported.
This latest revelation by Trump, that he knew about the meeting and what it was for, is a preemptive strike. He knows Cohen and Manafort are going to roll over, and he thinks he better fess up before they do. This is done strictly to try to save his ass.
Every day it is something new and dirty with Trump, there has never been an administration as full of deceit and corruption in decades, maybe forever. This makes Watergate look like a nothing burger.
This latest revelation by Trump, that he knew about the meeting and what it was for, is a preemptive strike. He knows Cohen and Manafort are going to roll over, and he thinks he better fess up before they do. This is done strictly to try to save his ass.
Every day it is something new and dirty with Trump, there has never been an administration as full of deceit and corruption in decades, maybe forever. This makes Watergate look like a nothing burger.
And with him admitting, the issue is does this make it a case of collusion now or was it always or what? These revelations in the public eye are eye opening. The lack of outcry against Trump from his sheeple isn't surprising either.
The DNC contracted with a private U.S. company to do opposition research (i.e., get dirt on Trump). Actually, a republican first made the deal with the private U.S. company for dirt. Once Trump was the official nominee, he gave that up and the DNC continued the contract. This type of "opposition research" is done and it's legal. If the Trump campaign hired U.S. investigators to get dirt on Clinton, this would have been the norm. For instance, Trump did hire investigators to try to turn up dirt on Obama. Legal.
The private company was hired by first the republican and then the DNC. The private company was contacted by Christopher Steele, a U.S. ally formally of British Intelligence who had concerns about chatter he was hearing. I believe Steele raised his concerns with a number of people. The private company then paid Steele to compose a dossier and on things he heard. This was turned over to the FBI for corroboration.
While getting dirt on an opponent is nothing new, you don't cozy up to a political adversary for it. If they contact you, you report it. There is nothing neutral about the information you will get from them.
If people can't see the difference in these two scenarios than they are choosing to be obtuse.
Now, if you told me Trump when to a U.S. investigator to dig up dirt on Clinton, that'd be fine and dandy. That investigator ends up making deals with Russia to get something, it would need to be reported.
Nice post, the problem with the "but Hillary" camp is this Donny Jr. reveal on Twitter shows that he did try to get information from a group of Russians (perhaps THE Russians) about Hillary rather than us a U.S. company like is typically done for the negative attack ads (Willie Horton anyone?)
And with him admitting, the issue is does this make it a case of collusion now or was it always or what? These revelations in the public eye are eye opening. The lack of outcry against Trump from his sheeple isn't surprising either.
Yeah.
People of low character usually are cool with ill gotten gain.
The DNC contracted with a private U.S. company to do opposition research (i.e., get dirt on Trump). Actually, a republican first made the deal with the private U.S. company for dirt. Once Trump was the official nominee, he gave that up and the DNC continued the contract. This type of "opposition research" is done and it's legal. If the Trump campaign hired U.S. investigators to get dirt on Clinton, this would have been the norm. For instance, Trump did hire investigators to try to turn up dirt on Obama. Legal.
The private company was hired by first the republican and then the DNC. The private company was contacted by Christopher Steele, a U.S. ally formally of British Intelligence who had concerns about chatter he was hearing. I believe Steele raised his concerns with a number of people. The private company then paid Steele to compose a dossier and on things he heard. This was turned over to the FBI for corroboration.
While getting dirt on an opponent is nothing new, you don't cozy up to a political adversary for it. If they contact you, you report it. There is nothing neutral about the information you will get from them.
If people can't see the difference in these two scenarios than they are choosing to be obtuse.
Now, if you told me Trump when to a U.S. investigator to dig up dirt on Clinton, that'd be fine and dandy. That investigator ends up making deals with Russia to get something, it would need to be reported.
Great post.
Clinton campaign contracted and paid for opposition research. Funds were duly accounted for in their campaign financial statements. The information provided in the dossier, much of which has been corroborated over time, was provided by an former British intelligent agent.
It did not involve any Clinton or DNC staff meeting with Russian agents, or any staff member promising help with U.S. sanctions in the future in return for help winning the election.
The dossier information was passed on to the intelligence community. As it should have been.
Anyone who thinks this is anywhere near close to meeting with Russian agents, and then lying about is not being honest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anywho if this did happen, what was in it? I'm fully willing to criticize said dossier of it was in fact paid for and received but there is little to no proof of it even existing.
