https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Well worth the read.

Interesting read. But other than the conspiracy stuff common all over, this is fairly vanilla. I forget which phrases you (Spence) commonly use to minimize importance of whatever. Sure wish I could use "Enthusiasm Gap" as I love that one :cheers:

I have (and have had for the year up to the election) serious concerns about Trump's connections to Moscow:

Business dealings
Possible money laundering (lots of Russian money in Trump businesses)
Why is he tough on everyone but as weak as Obama when it comes to Putin??

I also have tons of concerns with Russian money in Hillary, Bill, and many of their Party Guard.

Frankly in most areas Putin is running circles around Trump as badly as he did with Obama. My suspicion is because he has crap on Trump. As for Obama wilting to Putin, O thought it would be a foreign policy victory to reduce American influence elsewhere .

And while all this squabble goes on, China has become a peer in the Global Scheme and is essentially a SuperPower now. The Tectonic Plates of the Great Powers Game have shifted much recently, prepare for an earthquake.

John mentioned Hillary and Obama more in discussing the article than the actual article did.

John mentioned Hillary and Obama more in discussing the article than the actual article did.

True. An overall balanced look would lay praise and criticism on both parties, where it should lay. But this is an opinion piece which only seeks to protect Fusion GPS (with some likely legitimate claims).

I also mentioned my some of my long standing concerns WRT Trump and Russia. I guess the point I am not properly making with Putin is that he is manipulating / influencing things on the World Stage well above his where he perhaps should be (Mexico GDP with 10k nukes). He is influencing and bribing both sides as well as making both look like fools.

My Enthusiasm Gap (thanks Spence ; ) ) for Trump is well known.

John would rather chase rabbits than hunt bears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John would rather chase rabbits than hunt bears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Ohhh bother, dear Nebe doesn't realize the Bear is out hunting us all and this is a game the Bear has played since pushing back the Mongols.

John would rather chase rabbits than hunt bears.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile the rabbits are eating everything in your vegetable garden.

Meanwhile the rabbits are eating everything in your vegetable garden.

Bears wipe their asses with rabbits.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting read. But other than the conspiracy stuff common all over, this is fairly vanilla. I forget which phrases you (Spence) commonly use to minimize importance of whatever. Sure wish I could use "Enthusiasm Gap" as I love that one :cheers:

I have (and have had for the year up to the election) serious concerns about Trump's connections to Moscow:

Business dealings
Possible money laundering (lots of Russian money in Trump businesses)
Why is he tough on everyone but as weak as Obama when it comes to Putin??

I also have tons of concerns with Russian money in Hillary, Bill, and many of their Party Guard.

Frankly in most areas Putin is running circles around Trump as badly as he did with Obama. My suspicion is because he has crap on Trump. As for Obama wilting to Putin, O thought it would be a foreign policy victory to reduce American influence elsewhere .

And while all this squabble goes on, China has become a peer in the Global Scheme and is essentially a SuperPower now. The Tectonic Plates of the Great Powers Game have shifted much recently, prepare for an earthquake.

You read my mind and each time I hear Trump state no collusion, I have to think you protest too loudly for that to be true. Even if Trump personally had no involvement, which I find almost impossible to believe for such a control freak; I think he is guilty of obstructing justice.

You read my mind and each time I hear Trump state no collusion, I have to think you protest too loudly for that to be true. Even if Trump personally had no involvement, which I find almost impossible to believe for such a control freak; I think he is guilty of obstructing justice.


I think I am misunderstanding you or you are misunderstanding me.

I believe there are issues with Trump WRT Russia.

We don't know for fact (and neither does anyone else here) but I would not be surprised if some of the scuttlebutt is true: Trump Laundered Dirty Russian Money and has been doping it for years - long before any political thing happened.

I have seen good arguments on both sides on whether or not he is/was obstructing justice.

But we need to see if from a just and ethical FBI/Justice Department investigation. Fast and accurate. Additional problem is that the reputation and reliability of the FBI/Justice Department is questionable now (as it was 2 years ago).

To me it's a natural assumption to suspect Trump or his campaign were involved with the Russians to affect the election process, because of his financial ties to Russia; not to mention him applauding Wikileaks for cyber crimes.

Just as natural to assume Hillary or her campaign were involved with the Russians to affect the election process because of her dealings with them with uranium. And why wouldn't Trump applaud Wikileaks for exposing her cyber crimes, it helped him win?

To me it's a natural assumption to suspect Trump or his campaign were involved with the Russians to affect the election process, because of his financial ties to Russia; not to mention him applauding Wikileaks for cyber crimes.


But the FBI needs to find proof of collusion, of actively soliciting help from RUS to change results of election.

Maybe FBI will interview Bannon now (hahahaha)

I haven't seen collusion yet but we certainly know that Don Jr. was willing to collude.

I haven't seen collusion yet but we certainly know that Don Jr. was willing to collude.


Maybe, maybe not. Did he actually DO something with Russia?

Maybe, maybe not. Did he actually DO something with Russia?

He agreed to meet w/the Russians as they had dirt on Hillary. Who knows what happened after that - maybe Mueller knows?

The question is what was agreed upon that the Trump administration would do in exchange for the dirt on Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I think the answer is to back off on sanctions my
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He agreed to meet w/the Russians as they had dirt on Hillary. Who knows what happened after that - maybe Mueller knows?

Proof.

And I think the answer is to back off on sanctions my
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proof.

Proof.

Are you saying he didn't meet with Russians?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proof.



Proof.
Before the poo hit the fan trump publicly mentioned easing tensions with Russia and lifting sanctions.
Proof enough for me to know a sleaze bag move was in the works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proof.
We know that very senior members of the campaign met with Russians hoping to get dirty emails...

And as for Trump's love fest for mother Russia. Occam's Razor.

We know that very senior members of the campaign met with Russians hoping to get dirty emails...

And as for Trump's love fest for mother Russia. Occam's Razor.


Proof. People are talking about impeaching a President of the United States, Congress (one party anyway) is pressing to impeach Trump.

If you do not see real hard concrete everyone agrees proof you will have a Civil War and then Putin really does win. Stakes are to high for anything other than solid, irrefutable proof.

Proof. People are talking about impeaching a President of the United States, Congress (one party anyway) is pressing to impeach Trump.

If you do not see real hard concrete everyone agrees proof you will have a Civil War and then Putin really does win. Stakes are to high for anything other than solid, irrefutable proof.

Republicans wanted and impeached Clinton for lying under oath about a BJ let me say again lying about a BJ ...trump lying no big deal ..

But the current Republicans and Trump supporters proclaim where's the proof ... when its Crystal clear they will only wont accept the Truth rather only the truth they want to see ...

it shows here all the time Benghazi, the uranium deal , the Clinton foundation .. over and over... each one has been de bunked at every turn .. but still breath life on the right .. facts dont matter

now Bannon book is out .. this is what happens when you dont pay your bills

We know that very senior members of the campaign met with Russians hoping to get dirty emails...

And as for Trump's love fest for mother Russia. Occam's Razor.

I want a fair and very, very thorough investigation.

That being said, if Hilary wasn't actually dirty, there would have been no dirt for Wikileaks to reveal. So while part of the story is looking for evidence of collusion, another part of the story (which no one, especially you, ever talks about), is asking Hilary and the Democrats why they acted so "dirty" in the first place? If liberals claim that finding out what she did changed the outcome of the election, then that necessarily means that what she did, was deeply immoral. No one talks about that. Why is that?

If revealing the truth about what Hilary was doing actually changed the outcome of the election...then to me, the bigger story is what she did and why, and it's secondary to find out how we found out the truth.

I want a fair and very, very thorough investigation.

That being said, if Hilary wasn't actually dirty, there would have been no dirt for Wikileaks to reveal. So while part of the story is looking for evidence of collusion, another part of the story (which no one, especially you, ever talks about), is asking Hilary and the Democrats why they acted so "dirty" in the first place? If liberals claim that finding out what she did changed the outcome of the election, then that necessarily means that what she did, was deeply immoral. No one talks about that. Why is that?

If revealing the truth about what Hilary was doing actually changed the outcome of the election...then to me, the bigger story is what she did and why, and it's secondary to find out how we found out the truth.
What did Wikileaks reveal about Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans wanted and impeached Clinton for lying under oath about a BJ let me say again lying about a BJ ...trump lying no big deal ..

But the current Republicans and Trump supporters proclaim where's the proof ... when its Crystal clear they will only wont accept the Truth rather only the truth they want to see ...

it shows here all the time Benghazi, the uranium deal , the Clinton foundation .. over and over... each one has been de bunked at every turn .. but still breath life on the right .. facts dont matter

now Bannon book is out .. this is what happens when you dont pay your bills

This is why I am no longer a Democrat; "standards are for thee not for me"

What did Wikileaks reveal about Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not much - we already knew she was a horrible candidate, a miserable person, and a not so smart mob boss. But it did put more reference in for the True Believers like you

Not much - we already knew she was a horrible candidate, a miserable person, and a not so smart mob boss. But it did put more reference in for the True Believers like you
Not the best candidate I'd agree. I know someone who has worked with her extensively and says she's an amazing leader, more like an elite CEO than a politician. If she's really a mob boss I'd say she must be brilliant to not get pinned down with all the scandals thrown at her.

Republicans wanted and impeached Clinton for lying under oath about a BJ let me say again lying about a BJ ...trump lying no big deal ..

Uh, oh, this is a whataboutism . . . according to you, whastaboutisms are not valid or not something good or something.

But the current Republicans and Trump supporters proclaim where's the proof ... when its Crystal clear they will only wont accept the Truth rather only the truth they want to see ...

Pretty much sounds like the current Republicans are a lot like you.

it shows here all the time Benghazi, the uranium deal , the Clinton foundation .. over and over... each one has been de bunked at every turn .. but still breath life on the right .. facts dont matter

See, there you go again . . . bringing up Benghazi. You just can't let it go. It still has a breath of life for you.

now Bannon book is out .. this is what happens when you dont pay your bills

A Washington Post review pretty much says that it should be read with a grain of salt . . . that a lot of the stuff in it is literally unbelievable. But it will probably have a long breath of life for you.

Uh, oh, this is a whataboutism . . . according to you, whastaboutisms are not valid or not something good or something.
I'd say he made a very valid comparison. If the standard for impeachment is lying about a consensual (if unethical) little tryst I'd say Trump has likely reached far, far beyond.

Not the best candidate I'd agree. I know someone who has worked with her extensively and says she's an amazing leader, more like an elite CEO than a politician.

There are those who say the same thing about Trump.

Not the best candidate I'd agree. I know someone who has worked with her extensively and says she's an amazing leader, more like an elite CEO than a politician. If she's really a mob boss I'd say she must be brilliant to not get pinned down with all the scandals thrown at her.


Hahaha - the Wikileak emails quote her top staff saying she is her own worst enemy and her ideas suck. Terrible Instincts.

'Terrible instincts'

On the same day that news of a private email server broke, John Podesta, who later became her campaign chairman, emailed Neera Tanden, who worked for the Clinton campaign in 2008 and has remained a close adviser, to complain about Mrs Clinton's "instincts".

"We've taken on a lot of water that won't be easy to pump out of the boat", he wrote in September 2015 as Clinton staff feared that Vice President Joe Biden would join the Democratic primary race.

"Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts," he wrote, to which Mrs Tanden responded: "Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible."

In the email exchange, Mr Podesta also complained that Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall, and former State Department staffers Cheryl Mills and Philippe Reines "sure weren't forthcoming here on the facts here". Mrs Tanden responds "Why didn't' they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy."

She later answered her own question saying, "I guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it."

Quote is from BBC, clearly worse than FREEP http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370






AWKWARD

There are those who say the same thing about Trump.


I am still not convinced who was the worst candidate

I'd say he made a very valid comparison. If the standard for impeachment is lying about a consensual (if unethical) little tryst I'd say Trump has likely reached far, far beyond.

Valid or not, it's still a whataboutism. WDMSO scoffs at what others consider valid comparisons and calls them whataboutisms. I like to remind him of his hypocrisy.

The difference, so far, is the "under oath" bit. It wasn't about the tryst, it was about lying under oath. I don't know if Trump has even reached that far yet.

I am still not convinced who was the worst candidate

Here's the thing for me, it is not about the character of either one. It is about which one would be the better or worse regarding the nature of how we are governed. About the character of the system of government we have. About whether we live in a constitutional republic, or under an unassailable administrative state.

A republic, under our Constitution, can survive bad characters. It has already done that several times. Bad characters don't go away. And the power hungry ones drift into politics. A strong system of checks and balances protects our freedom from their usurpation of it.

And no matter how "good" the character of a politician is, if he or she is about instilling a system of governance in which those who are "good," in their own estimation, have the power to direct and control our lives because they know better than us, I don't want them near the levers of power.

Republicans wanted and impeached Clinton for lying under oath about a BJ let me say again lying about a BJ

Proof

"Did you have Sexual Relations with that girl"

"No"

"Then what's this on her dress"

"Doh!!!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have always thought Lewinski was a plant or at the very least paid to get that spunk on her dress. Who in their right mind would archive something like that and not clean it? A momento ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have always thought Lewinski was a plant or at the very least paid to get that spunk on her dress. Who in their right mind would archive something like that and not clean it? A momento ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They pop up now and then. It's up to the recipient of the plant to say yes or no. Neither choice is easy but the yes has potential consequences.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Wikileaks reveal about Clinton?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it didn't reveal much, how could it have changed the course of the election?

Talk about wanting to have it both ways! According to your side, she did nothing wrong, but revealing what she did, helped turn the election to Trump.

It showed that she worked with the DNC to cut Sanders' legs off, and that she got debate questions ahead of time, among other things.

I am still not convinced who was the worst candidate

You can debate who is the more disgusting person. In terms of running the country? No comparison. Neil Gorsich in the Supreme Court, stock market up, wages up, unemployment down. Major tax reform that will let people keep more of their money, as opposed to Obama, who passed a trillion dollar stimulus bill that did nothing that I can see.

They pop up now and then. It's up to the recipient of the plant to say yes or no. Neither choice is easy but the yes has potential consequences.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I find confusing ...
It is said the John jr. willingness to take a meeting with the Russian Lawyer to get dirt on Hillary is characterized as collusion.
But the hiring of GPS and Steele to get dirt on Trump from the Russians is not.
Is it not the same? Does twice removed change it.....
Isn’t Steele a foreign national.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I find confusing ...
It is said the John jr. willingness to take a meeting with the Russian Lawyer to get dirt on Hillary is characterized as collusion.
But the hiring of GPS and Steele to get dirt on Trump from the Russians is not.
Is it not the same? Does twice removed change it.....
Isn’t Steele a foreign national.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nobody coordinated with Steele, he was just a consultant and had no idea who was sourcing the information. Quite different from Don Jr who appears to have known exactly what he was doing.

Nobody coordinated with Steele, he was just a consultant and had no idea who was sourcing the information. Quite different from Don Jr who appears to have known exactly what he was doing.

Steele would not be shaking trees in Russia without knowing who was paying the expense check.

The proper rebuttal would have been there is little similarity between campaign people making and acting on arrangements in a quid pro quo with a foreign power (which is what still needs to be proven) to actively influence an election versus opposition research.

There is plenty of smoke around Clinton (and CGI) to be concerned of payments for policy. Clinton hands are rarely ever clean.

Steele would not be shaking trees in Russia without knowing who was paying the expense check.

The proper rebuttal would have been there is little similarity between campaign people making and acting on arrangements in a quid pro quo with a foreign power (which is what still needs to be proven) to actively influence an election versus opposition research.

There is plenty of smoke around Clinton (and CGI) to be concerned of payments for policy. Clinton hands are rarely ever clean.
Steele was a hired consultant by Fusion GPS to do research. It's supposed to be a very credible firm, I'd think they have strict policies in place to specifically prevent him from knowing.

As for Clinton and payments for policy. I haven't seen anything other than crack conspiracy theories.

Steele was a hired consultant by Fusion GPS to do research. It's supposed to be a very credible firm, I'd think they have strict policies in place to specifically prevent him from knowing.

As for Clinton and payments for policy. I haven't seen anything other than crack conspiracy theories.

I'd like to see the Fusion GPS folks testify publicly for the Senate committee.

I'd like to see the Fusion GPS folks testify publicly for the Senate committee.

Well, they did in private and have asked for the full transcripts to be released.

just more of the same... Republicans demanding proof and evidence
against Trump ...

however Republicans do not demanding proof or evidence against a democrat or any investigation or hearing they lead ... the love painting an Impressionism portrait 1st.. then try to get the pieces to fit

why is that ?



why are they trying to discredit Muller at every turn? if they support MAGA

If it didn't reveal much, how could it have changed the course of the election?

Talk about wanting to have it both ways! According to your side, she did nothing wrong, but revealing what she did, helped turn the election to Trump.

It showed that she worked with the DNC to cut Sanders' legs off, and that she got debate questions ahead of time, among other things.

isn't that what Donald Jr was trying to do.. but via the Russians

and you support the release of stolen information because you like the content ?

Talk about wanting it both ways

Well, they did in private and have asked for the full transcripts to be released.
I am aware. I don’t know if Grassley will release them however
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am aware. I don’t know if Grassley will release them however
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good question from Andy McCarthy

"If Simpson and Fritsch have evidence of criminal or otherwise corrupt Trump-Russia contacts, why don’t they just tell us what it is. Why do they write a lengthy NY Times column caterwauling about how the Republican-controlled committees are supposedly withholding the information they’ve provided? We are not talking about classified information here; we are talking about Fusion’s own investigation. They say the Republicans refuse to release their testimony. Why wait for the Republicans? There’s nothing stopping Simpson and Fritsch from fully disclosing what their testimony was. Why don’t they tell the story instead of complaining about its not being told? Could it be that the story is not what they purport it to be?"

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455105/fusion-gps-steele-dossier-collusion-narrative-falls-apart

Steele was a hired consultant by Fusion GPS to do research. It's supposed to be a very credible firm, I'd think they have strict policies in place to specifically prevent him from knowing.

As for Clinton and payments for policy. I haven't seen anything other than crack conspiracy theories.


Sure, if you are doing research on Denmark or Uruguay. Someone that is smart and greatly experienced former member of a FiveEyes country (and wants to live a long life) does not conduct research on Ruissia without knowing who is paying.

Sure, if you are doing research on Denmark or Uruguay. Someone that is smart and greatly experienced former member of a FiveEyes country (and wants to live a long life) does not conduct research on Ruissia without knowing who is paying.
Sounds like you're solidifying the credibility of his research.

Republicans urge investigation into Trump dossier author
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42586855


The Steele dossier - which became public in January 2017 - was drawn together after an investigation funded by Republicans trying to block Mr Trump from becoming the party's presidential candidate.

funny how this has been left out here ?

but the part below hasn't

Democrats then took over funding the investigation after he was nominated.

Clinton Foundation investigated by Justice Departmenthttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42579732

The Attorney General and FBI will reportedly investigate claims Hillary Clinton engaged in so-called "pay-to-play" politics for donations.

Mrs Clinton's spokesman on Friday labelled the inquiry a "sham".

He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions was doing President Trump's bidding to distract from the Russia probe.


^^^^^painting an Impressionism portrait 1st.. then try to get the pieces to fit .... as if i had a Crystal ball :rotflmao:

Sounds like you're solidifying the credibility of his research.

I am reasonably confident some is legit, other parts sensationalized, wrapped in parts that are pure disinformation.

Some people say the guy is good, some folks say he is a sky is falling.

I am reasonably confident some is legit, other parts sensationalized, wrapped in parts that are pure disinformation.

Some people say the guy is good, some folks say he is a sky is falling.
Steele says it's 70-90% accurate. Hell, even at 30% it's pretty damning.

The Fusion GPS leadership spent 21 hours before congress and claim they ripped the conspiracy theories to shreds. They are demanding congress release the full transcripts.

This obstruction of justice case seems to have engulfed most of the GOP.

It's my understanding that parts of it have been confirmed and that nothing has been disapproved.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And on a related note I learned today that President Trump is a "stable genius".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And on a related note I learned today that President Trump is a "stable genius".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps that's why he seems to have so much disdain for the rule of law? He's too smart and stable for it.

I'm going to give him props for keeping me safe when I'm flying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm going to give him props for keeping me safe when I'm flying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The stable genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

F GPS Testimony - redacted

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3/9/3974a291-ddbe-4525-9ed1-22bab43c05ae/934A3562824CACA7BB4D915E97709D2F.simpson-transcript-redacted.pdf

Have not read yet

The stable genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

his dog and pony show yesterday was genius....

Steele says it's 70-90% accurate.

Fusion GPS leadership claim they ripped the conspiracy theories to shreds.

This obstruction of justice case seems to have engulfed most of the GOP.

:hihi:

"When you look at it hard, two conclusions are impossible to escape: First, at the height of the 2016 campaign, Obama intelligence officials anxiously adopted Christopher Steele’s allegations of traitorous conduct by then-candidate Donald Trump rather than first subject his “dossier” to rigorous investigation — even though Steele himself admits that his “raw,” “unverified” reports might not be true. Second, at the same time the FBI was receiving Steele’s reports — which were based on multiple-hearsay from anonymous Russian sources, and paid for by the Clinton campaign — Obama intelligence officials were briefing congressional leaders about them, thereby ensuring that they’d be publicized just six weeks before Election Day."

....you know...it's a shame clinton and obama & co went to such lengths and still lost....:doh:....

"When you look at it hard, two conclusions are impossible to escape: First, at the height of the 2016 campaign, Obama intelligence officials anxiously adopted Christopher Steele’s allegations of traitorous conduct by then-candidate Donald Trump rather than first subject his “dossier” to rigorous investigation — even though Steele himself admits that his “raw,” “unverified” reports might not be true. Second, at the same time the FBI was receiving Steele’s reports — which were based on multiple-hearsay from anonymous Russian sources, and paid for by the Clinton campaign — Obama intelligence officials were briefing congressional leaders about them, thereby ensuring that they’d be publicized just six weeks before Election Day."

....you know...it's a shame clinton and obama & co went to such lengths and still lost....:doh:....


The Steele dossier - which became public in January 2017 - was drawn together after an investigation funded by Republicans trying to block Mr Trump from becoming the party's presidential candidate. then once he was nominated the republicans walked away and the dem's step in Facts all the facts :huh:

The Steele dossier - which became public in January 2017 - was drawn together after an investigation funded by Republicans trying to block Mr Trump from becoming the party's presidential candidate. then once he was nominated the republicans walked away and the dem's step in Facts all the facts :huh:

The Republicans who wanted to block Trump from becoming the Party's candidate are just as capable of dirty tricks as the Democrats are. They and the Democrats were both anti-Trump. Once he won the nomination, the dirty trick Republicans had to step aside and let the dirty trick Democrats take over.

Ooooo the “dirty trick Democrats” you might as well say “crooked hillary” or “crazy Bernie”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Steele dossier - which became public in January 2017 - was drawn together after an investigation funded by Republicans trying to block Mr Trump from becoming the party's presidential candidate. then once he was nominated the republicans walked away and the dem's step in Facts all the facts :huh:

if it's a fact...which republicans?

Washington Free Beacon

Washington Free Beacon

October 27, 2017 7:02 pm

Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton. All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.

Representatives of the Free Beacon approached the House Intelligence Committee today and offered to answer what questions we can in their ongoing probe of Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier. But to be clear: We stand by our reporting, and we do not apologize for our methods. We consider it our duty to report verifiable information, not falsehoods or slander, and we believe that commitment has been well demonstrated by the quality of the journalism that we produce. The First Amendment guarantees our right to engage in news-gathering as we see fit, and we intend to continue doing just that as we have since the day we launched this project.

Matthew Continetti
Editor in Chief

Michael Goldfarb
Chairman



got any other "republicans"?

if it's a fact...which republicans?

ask them
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42586855


or ask Trump he claimed he knew who the republican was


this is what an authoritarian leader looks like

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42642305/trump-calls-for-tougher-us-libel-laws

He made the comments on the day that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, filed a defamation lawsuit against Fusion GPS and Buzzfeed in relation to a disputed dossier on alleged ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

got any other "republicans"?

Don't need any other Rebulicans. They hired Fusion GPS and stopped the funding before the Steele doc. bc Trump was going to win the Rep. nomination. Then the Dems. paid for the continued research which included the Steele doc.

Who paid for it is irrelevant. What was in it is the important thing and whether it can be proven. Trump is not going to be found guilty of anything based on a doc.

ask them
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42586855

It seems BBC doesn't know either. Nor does it seem that they have been able to verify any allegations of collusion in the Dossier.

or ask Trump he claimed he knew who the republican was

But Trump is a liar.

this is what an authoritarian leader looks like

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-42642305/trump-calls-for-tougher-us-libel-laws

He made the comments on the day that his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, filed a defamation lawsuit against Fusion GPS and Buzzfeed in relation to a disputed dossier on alleged ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Sounds like a typical politician calling for a study or an investigation.

this is amusing isn't it?

the "republicans" = Washington Free Beacon

and

"Facts all the facts" = "ask them"

good grief....

this is amusing isn't it?

the "republicans" = Washington Free Beacon

and

"Facts all the facts" = "ask them"

good grief....

It is a conservative website hired by Rubio. Do you think they don't vote Repub?

It is a conservative website hired by Rubio. Do you think they don't vote Repub?

a. how would you know how "they" vote? how does BBC vote?

b. I guess by that standard we can consider the mainstream media "democrat"?

Trump has really sent you guys over the deep end:spin:

a. how would you know how "they" :rollem:vote? how does BBC vote?

b. I guess by that standard we can consider the mainstream media "democrat"?Their own website says "conservative".

Trump has really sent you guys over the deep end:spin:

I think the only people who have gone off the deep end are trying to make a case that bc GPS was paid for by the Dems, the doc. isn't credible.

I think the only people who have gone off the deep end are trying to make a case that bc GPS was paid for by the Dems, the doc. isn't credible.

I don't think anyone said it's not credible "because the dems paid for it"...it's credibility has come under question for other reasons mentioned below...the fact that the dems paid for it and worked in conjunction with the highly politicized obama justice department and FBI to undermine the American election process is what is truly troubling...

if you replace "republicans" with "democrats"...you guys would be screaming FASCISM!!!

again, since you guys can't seem to process ...

"Obama intelligence officials anxiously adopted Christopher Steele’s allegations of traitorous conduct by then-candidate Donald Trump rather than first subject his “dossier” to rigorous investigation — even though Steele himself admits that his “raw,” “unverified” reports might not be true. Second, at the same time the FBI was receiving Steele’s reports — which were based on multiple-hearsay from anonymous Russian sources, and paid for by the Clinton campaign — Obama intelligence officials were briefing congressional leaders about them, thereby ensuring that they’d be publicized just six weeks before Election Day."

"none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."

b. I guess by that standard we can consider the mainstream media "democrat"?Their own website says "conservative".



are there no conservative democrats left?

I think the biggest problem is that people confuse an intelligence dossier with facts.
An intelligence dossier is the reason you investigate further. The special prosecutor is investigating and we will see what he finds.
My opinion is that Trump has always pushed the legal envelope in business and I don't think he sees politics any differently.
Few of us are not guilty of that in some way.

I think the biggest problem is that people confuse an intelligence dossier with facts.
An intelligence dossier is the reason you investigate further.

to be clear...this is not an American or British Intelligence dossier...this is a PRIVATE dossier...written by a former intelligence officer contracted by Clinton and the DNC as part of a dirt digging mission...of which.."Parts of the dossier have been confirmed, while others have yet to be proved or disproved,[8][9] including, as 2017 drew to a close, the dossier's allegations of collusion.[10][11] The media, intelligence community, as well as most experts have therefore treated the dossier with caution"


from wiki

After Trump emerged as the probable Republican nominee, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research about Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS later contracted Steele to compile the dossier.[13] Following Trump's election as president, Steele continued working on the report, with funding from Democrats ceasing and financing finally coming directly from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS.

...and of course we know that the Clinton campaign and the Obama justice dept used this to try to sway an election that they were fully confident of winning.....:rotf2:

to be clear...this is not an American or British Intelligence dossier...this is a PRIVATE dossier...written by a former intelligence officer contracted by Clinton and the DNC...of which.."Parts of the dossier have been confirmed, while others have yet to be proved or disproved,[8][9] including, as 2017 drew to a close, the dossier's allegations of collusion.[10][11] The media, intelligence community, as well as most experts have therefore treated the dossier with caution"


from wiki

After Trump emerged as the probable Republican nominee, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research about Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS later contracted Steele to compile the dossier.[13] Following Trump's election as president, Steele continued working on the report, with funding from Democrats ceasing and financing finally coming directly from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS.

...and of course we know that the Clinton campaign and the Obama justice dept used this to try to sway an election that they were fully confident of winning.....:rotf2:
You should read the Simpson testimony released this week. It's credible and very damning.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the biggest problem is that people confuse an intelligence dossier with facts. exactly
An intelligence dossier is the reason you investigate further. The special prosecutor is investigating and we will see what he finds.
My opinion is that Trump has always pushed the legal envelope in business and I don't think he sees politics any differently.
Few of us are not guilty of that in some way.

That is exactly correct. Word is that what was in the doc. confirmed what the FBI had already heard -maybe from their source in the Trump admin. if those reports are true.

to be clear...this is not an American or British Intelligence dossier...this is a PRIVATE dossier...written by a former intelligence officer contracted by Clinton and the DNC as part of a dirt digging mission...of which.."Parts of the dossier have been confirmed, while others have yet to be proved or disproved,[8][9] including, as 2017 drew to a close, the dossier's allegations of collusion.[10][11] The media, intelligence community, as well as most experts have therefore treated the dossier with caution"


from wiki

After Trump emerged as the probable Republican nominee, attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research about Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion GPS later contracted Steele to compile the dossier.[13] Following Trump's election as president, Steele continued working on the report, with funding from Democrats ceasing and financing finally coming directly from Glenn R. Simpson of Fusion GPS.

...and of course we know that the Clinton campaign and the Obama justice dept used this to try to sway an election that they were fully confident of winning.....:rotf2:

Most people know it was not created by the US or British intelligence service but rather by the former head of the Russian desk of MI6 (I believe).

No one here claimed that. WDMSO said in post 66 "The Steele dossier - which became public in January 2017 - was drawn together after an investigation funded by Republicans trying to block Mr Trump from becoming the party's presidential candidate."[/COLOR] The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."

You seem to be stuck on the point that the free beacon was no longer paying for GPS' work at this point. Again, who paid for it makes no difference.

You seem to be stuck on the point that the free beacon was no longer paying for GPS' work at this point.


I don't think I've mentioned Free Beacon as an issue...read what you copied..Free Beacon says they're not connected to Steele or the dossier ...they're not relevant to the story as far as i'm concerned...you brought them into the conversation

Word is that what was in the doc. confirmed what the FBI had already heard -maybe from their source in the Trump admin. if those reports are true.

yeah..."word"

you sound like Spence now

I don't think I've mentioned Free Beacon as an issue...read what you copied..Free Beacon says they're not connected to Steele or the dossier ...they're not relevant to the story as far as i'm concerned...you brought them into the conversation

So what is bothering you then that caused you to make 12 posts on this page? Is it that wdmso said "republicans"?

Most people know it was not created by the US or British intelligence service but rather by the former head of the Russian desk of MI6 (I believe).
I believe a part of it was corroborated by an inside source.

Steele wasn't just a Russian expert, according to the testimony he was hired party leaders because his expertise was spotting russian propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what is bothering you then that caused you to make 12 posts on this page? Is it that wdmso said "republicans"?

there's nothing bothering me...do i need to be "bothered" to post?:hee:

I believe a part of it was corroborated by an inside source.

Steele wasn't just a Russian expert, according to the testimony he was hired party leaders because his expertise was spotting russian propaganda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

indeed

there's nothing bothering me...do i need to be "bothered" to post?:hee:

Not at all. Post away. It is not my website.

democrats should really just refocus their effort on undermining the Trump economy...that will be their biggest enemy going forward

democrats should really just refocus their effort on undermining the Trump economy...that will be their biggest enemy going forward

Kind of like what the republicans did with Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of like what the republicans did with Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes, but it looks like they'll have to work twice as hard :hihi:

democrats should really just refocus their effort on undermining the Trump economy...that will be their biggest enemy going forward

Yes, what a waste of $s looking into possible collusion w/the Russians or obstruction of justice. That money can be used for another committee to look into Bengazi.

democrats should really just refocus their effort on undermining the Trump economy...that will be their biggest enemy going forward

And it's going to be a very formidable enemy. I would love to be the campaign manager of any Republican challenger running against a democrat opponent. All you have to do is run commercials saying that the democrat vote against the voters being able to keep more of their money. It's going to be effective.

There's that old saying that politics "is about the economy, stupid". If it was that simple, the GOP would make huge gains. But Trump is the most obnoxiously offensive POTUS I have seen, so that will have an effect. As will the fact that the liberals and the media never, ever stop bashing him long enough to take a breath. That's also effective.

Kind of like what the republicans did with Obama ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Democrats got absolutely demolished in both of Obama's midterms. People like Obama personally (for reasons that escape me), but they don't like his policies.

Trump is helping the economy in broader ways. The stock market is up (which Obama also deserves credit for), but he didn't cut taxes. 80% of us might see a net pay increase thanks to Trump, and every single democrat in DC voted against it. They are, and should be, scared of that fact.

The Democrats got absolutely demolished in both of Obama's midterms. People like Obama personally (for reasons that escape me), but they don't like his policies.

Trump is helping the economy in broader ways. The stock market is up (which Obama also deserves credit for), but he didn't cut taxes. 80% of us might see a net pay increase thanks to Trump, and every single democrat in DC voted against it. They are, and should be, scared of that fact.

the stock market is in fantasy land ... every one should be scared :kewl:

How much did the market go up last year? I wonder how much it went up in Obama's first year?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the stock market is in fantasy land ... every one should be scared :kewl:

Did you say that when it went up under Obama? Would you have said that if Hilary had won? I don't know a single financial advisor telling clients to short the market, or to cash out and put money in cash. The consensus is that the market will increase again in 2018. But no on knows for sure...

How much did the market go up last year? I wonder how much it went up in Obama's first year?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I give Obama credit for that. But it's also true, that when the market just crashed, it's easier to get increases, then when it is already high. It's like trying to reduce your golf handicap, it's easier when you are hitting 125 than it is when you are hitting 90.

Trump, unlike Obama, is putting money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, the ones Democrats claim to care so much about. Walmart is raising the company minimum wage to $11/hour, a raise of about $1.50 an hour in CT, $3,000 a year if you are full time. Combined with the tax cuts (reduction in tax rates, doubling of standard deduction, increased child tax credits), that's a real, meaningful boost to these people. And every single democrat voted against it. They may be at a complete loss explaining why.

Of course, if Trump makes inexcusable comments like the "sh*thole country" monstrocity, maybe people won't care about the economy. He may be such an ass, that people don't care about a booming economy. We'll see in November.

I give Obama credit for that. But it's also true, that when the market just crashed, it's easier to get increases, then when it is already high. It's like trying to reduce your golf handicap, it's easier when you are hitting 125 than it is when you are hitting 90.

Trump, unlike Obama, is putting money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, the ones Democrats claim to care so much about. Walmart is raising the company minimum wage to $11/hour, a raise of about $1.50 an hour in CT, $3,000 a year if you are full time. Combined with the tax cuts (reduction in tax rates, doubling of standard deduction, increased child tax credits), that's a real, meaningful boost to these people. And every single democrat voted against it. They may be at a complete loss explaining why.

Of course, if Trump makes inexcusable comments like the "sh*thole country" monstrocity, maybe people won't care about the economy. He may be such an ass, that people don't care about a booming economy. We'll see in November.

Walmart is also laying off thousands as it closes stores and has been under a massive PR onslaught for years for how little it pays employees.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you say that when it went up under Obama? Would you have said that if Hilary had won? I don't know a single financial advisor telling clients to short the market, or to cash out and put money in cash. The consensus is that the market will increase again in 2018. But no on knows for sure...

your confusing a slow and steady under Obama ,,,with guns a blazing under Trump.... you think its sustainable ? I dont

Financial advisors get paid up or down they are not required to look out for the interest of their clients (some may) but its easy money now

Also when Obama was in office most conservatives said the stock market didn't count... now its all Trump has

I give Obama credit for that. But it's also true, that when the market just crashed, it's easier to get increases, then when it is already high. It's like trying to reduce your golf handicap, it's easier when you are hitting 125 than it is when you are hitting 90.

Trump, unlike Obama, is putting money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, the ones Democrats claim to care so much about. Walmart is raising the company minimum wage to $11/hour, a raise of about $1.50 an hour in CT, $3,000 a year if you are full time. Combined with the tax cuts (reduction in tax rates, doubling of standard deduction, increased child tax credits), that's a real, meaningful boost to these people. And every single democrat voted against it. They may be at a complete loss explaining why.

Of course, if Trump makes inexcusable comments like the "sh*thole country" monstrocity, maybe people won't care about the economy. He may be such an ass, that people don't care about a booming economy. We'll see in November.

enjoy your kool aid comrade .. whats the saying If it Sounds Too Good to Be True, it Probably Is

I picked a really good time to retire. Even on a risk level of 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, my Fidelity accounts are doing almost 13%, can't imagine how the younger risk takers are doing. So while I absolutely loath the man, I love the economy right now and no I don't think he can claim all the credit.

Walmart is also laying off thousands as it closes stores and has been under a massive PR onslaught for years for how little it pays employees.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Might be because Americans are beginning to realize purchasing junk made in China that breaks or fails quickly or is inadequate is not the way to go, it is about choices and quanity is not always better than quality. You get what you pay for. Everyone likes a good deal, I'm not sure buying trash is a good deal, not that some of their products are not useful because there are, but most of the stuff is crap. Same with Christmas Tree shops, Ocean State Job Lot etc.
As the economy improves, people want better stuff not crap

your confusing a slow and steady under Obama ,,,with guns a blazing under Trump.... you think its sustainable ? I dont

The rising stock market during Obama was fueled by government stimulus fiat money, not by growth in the economy. The QE stimulus money went into stocks rather than actual market growth because the market was so sluggish that there was more to gain from an inflated stock market than from an anemic business market.

Stock growth under Trump may actually be fueled by economic growth combined with an already bloated stock value.

Also when Obama was in office most conservatives said the stock market didn't count... now its all Trump has

I didn't care for the artificial growth of stock value under Obama, nor am I comfortable with its continuing and meteoric growth now even though some (maybe most) is due to an actual expanding economy. I suspect too much "value" is in inflated worth. We'll see how it eventually shakes out.