FOX "Newsification" of Trump and the new Republican Party

[Seawytch]

Was my "rant" too long because it had to explain all of the work that the Clinton campaign did to smear Trump before the election? I'm so sorry! The next time I need to expose that level of corruption and sleaziness I'll try to give you the condensed version! (eye roll)

Isn't it weird that the Clinton campaign never used the dirt?

Not as weird as the FBI having to inform us about Hillary's emails found on a laptop but not inform us that the Trump campaign was under counterintelligence investigation...

You really can't seem to grasp what took place...can you, Seawytch! The Clinton campaign paid for MADE UP "dirt" about Donald Trump to smear him before the election. The Obama Administration used that MADE UP "dirt" about Donald Trump's campaign to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Trump's political opposition used that MADE UP "dirt" as the basis for appointing a Special Counsel to investigate a duly elected President of the United States!

As for Hillary's emails found on Weiner's lap top? We would have found out about THOSE weeks earlier except Strozak was sitting on them at the FBI while he pushed for an investigation into Russian collusion. The reason we weren't informed about the FBI's counterintelligence investigation is that saner heads at the FBI were trying to discover if what they were investigating was real or whether it was a hoax perpetrated by those looking to derail the Trump campaign! Guess what? That concern by some at the FBI turned out to be spot on because it WAS a hoax perpetrated by the Clinton campaign!

Wrong. The Steele Dossier is not “made up”, “fake” or a “hoax”. How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in. Nothing in the Dossier has been disproven. None. Some has been verified. Glen Simpson testified before Congress that Steele was told by the FBI that his notes independently verified some of what they already knew.

Wrong. Comey broke protocol in commenting publicly on an ongoing investigation. Why didn’t they do that for the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign? Hmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

 

[Oldstyle]

Steele's job was pretty straight forward. He was paid to create a bunch of "dossiers" in which he accused the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia by embellishing facts with things that were total fiction! Then those dossiers had to go public before the election which is why Steele contacted the 5 media outlets they felt would love to have a negative story on Trump. They wanted the Steele dossier story to go public because Hillary needed a diversion from her email scandal and the scandal over how her minions at the DNC screwed over Bernie Sanders. Amazingly...none of the 5 would run the unsubstantiated charges that made up the dossiers. Steele then went to the FBI telling them that the Russians were in possession of things they could blackmail a major candidate for President with. The FBI began to look into what Steele was alleging but AGAIN they weren't making that investigation public which is what the Clinton camp desperately needed to happen!
The answer? Give the dossiers to Harry Reid who then DEMANDS that James Comey make it public that Trump is being investigated! Again Comey declines and so Steele goes to John McCain with copies of the dossiers and gets McCain to DEMAND that the FBI go public that they are investigating the Trump campaign for collusion. So you've got Steele peddling his dossiers all over Washington trying desperately to get someone to go public with the story and then lo and behold David Corn with Mother Jones decides to publish the story even though the information contained in the dossiers has not been verified.

Richard Steele was almost completely the reason for the FBI investigation and the subsequent naming of a Special Council. Without his work behind the scenes pushing the narrative the story would have died on the vine because the allegations in the dossiers were by and large totally unsubstantiated. Steele didn't CARE however if the dossiers were later found to be full of holes so large you could drive a Mack truck through them...the only thing he (and the Clinton camp!) were after was for the story to go public so that Trump would be smeared right before the election!

Well that way too long rant perfectly encapsulates the title of this thread. You are Fox News fact free and you don't care.

I think you're in for a few earth shattering shocks in the coming months...

Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting - CNNPolitics

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did they pay FOR, Seawytch? For an English retired secret agent for hire to fabricate "dossiers" that were then used to smear a political opponent running for President of the United States? To have him work behind the scenes to have those "dossiers" released to the media, high ranking members of Congress and the FBI without telling them that they were paid for by the Clinton campaign?

How in the world is taking a meeting with someone who's promising you dirt on your opponent somehow worse than what the Clinton campaign did? Not using the information they promised...because they didn't have it to give!...but simply wanting to look at it? What "crime" was that? Even suggesting it's one is laughable!

 

[Oldstyle]

Was my "rant" too long because it had to explain all of the work that the Clinton campaign did to smear Trump before the election? I'm so sorry! The next time I need to expose that level of corruption and sleaziness I'll try to give you the condensed version! (eye roll)

Isn't it weird that the Clinton campaign never used the dirt?

Not as weird as the FBI having to inform us about Hillary's emails found on a laptop but not inform us that the Trump campaign was under counterintelligence investigation...

You really can't seem to grasp what took place...can you, Seawytch! The Clinton campaign paid for MADE UP "dirt" about Donald Trump to smear him before the election. The Obama Administration used that MADE UP "dirt" about Donald Trump's campaign to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Trump's political opposition used that MADE UP "dirt" as the basis for appointing a Special Counsel to investigate a duly elected President of the United States!

As for Hillary's emails found on Weiner's lap top? We would have found out about THOSE weeks earlier except Strozak was sitting on them at the FBI while he pushed for an investigation into Russian collusion. The reason we weren't informed about the FBI's counterintelligence investigation is that saner heads at the FBI were trying to discover if what they were investigating was real or whether it was a hoax perpetrated by those looking to derail the Trump campaign! Guess what? That concern by some at the FBI turned out to be spot on because it WAS a hoax perpetrated by the Clinton campaign!

Wrong. The Steele Dossier is not “made up”, “fake” or a “hoax”. How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in. Nothing in the Dossier has been disproven. None. Some has been verified. Glen Simpson testified before Congress that Steele was told by the FBI that his notes independently verified some of what they already knew.

Wrong. Comey broke protocol in commenting publicly on an ongoing investigation. Why didn’t they do that for the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign? Hmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/fbi-leaks-hillary-clinton-james-comey-donald-trump

Read what you just posted there, Seawytch! "Some has been verified." What, exactly does that mean? "Glen Simpson testified before Congress that Steele was told by the FBI that his notes independently verified some of what they already knew." Some of what? Does that mean 10% of the dossiers were factual and 90% was total bullshit? Was the ratio 50/50? Any con man worth his salt will tell you the best hoaxes are sprinkled liberally with true facts but that's only to hide the lies that are being told! Steele compiled his "dossiers" by taking known facts...like Carter Page meeting with Russians and then built the lie that Page had been offered huge amounts of money to act as a go between with the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. The first part of that is completely factual...the second part is total fiction!

Which brings us to the REASON that the Clinton campaign wanted to hide their involvement in the Steele dossiers! They didn't want it to be traceable to them when the story broke before the election! Why? Because if it were...then reasonable people would immediately view the entire thing with well deserved doubt. They used the law firm as a "cut out" to make it harder to trace who was behind the dossiers. It shows their intent to deceive right from the start of this.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Steele's job was pretty straight forward. He was paid to create a bunch of "dossiers" in which he accused the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia by embellishing facts with things that were total fiction! Then those dossiers had to go public before the election which is why Steele contacted the 5 media outlets they felt would love to have a negative story on Trump. They wanted the Steele dossier story to go public because Hillary needed a diversion from her email scandal and the scandal over how her minions at the DNC screwed over Bernie Sanders. Amazingly...none of the 5 would run the unsubstantiated charges that made up the dossiers. Steele then went to the FBI telling them that the Russians were in possession of things they could blackmail a major candidate for President with. The FBI began to look into what Steele was alleging but AGAIN they weren't making that investigation public which is what the Clinton camp desperately needed to happen!
The answer? Give the dossiers to Harry Reid who then DEMANDS that James Comey make it public that Trump is being investigated! Again Comey declines and so Steele goes to John McCain with copies of the dossiers and gets McCain to DEMAND that the FBI go public that they are investigating the Trump campaign for collusion. So you've got Steele peddling his dossiers all over Washington trying desperately to get someone to go public with the story and then lo and behold David Corn with Mother Jones decides to publish the story even though the information contained in the dossiers has not been verified.

Richard Steele was almost completely the reason for the FBI investigation and the subsequent naming of a Special Council. Without his work behind the scenes pushing the narrative the story would have died on the vine because the allegations in the dossiers were by and large totally unsubstantiated. Steele didn't CARE however if the dossiers were later found to be full of holes so large you could drive a Mack truck through them...the only thing he (and the Clinton camp!) were after was for the story to go public so that Trump would be smeared right before the election!

Well that way too long rant perfectly encapsulates the title of this thread. You are Fox News fact free and you don't care.

I think you're in for a few earth shattering shocks in the coming months...

Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting - CNNPolitics

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

 

[Oldstyle]

Well that way too long rant perfectly encapsulates the title of this thread. You are Fox News fact free and you don't care.

I think you're in for a few earth shattering shocks in the coming months...

Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting - CNNPolitics

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

 

[Oldstyle]

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

 

[Seawytch]

Well that way too long rant perfectly encapsulates the title of this thread. You are Fox News fact free and you don't care.

I think you're in for a few earth shattering shocks in the coming months...

Cohen claims Trump knew in advance of 2016 Trump Tower meeting - CNNPolitics

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did they pay FOR, Seawytch? For an English retired secret agent for hire to fabricate "dossiers" that were then used to smear a political opponent running for President of the United States? To have him work behind the scenes to have those "dossiers" released to the media, high ranking members of Congress and the FBI without telling them that they were paid for by the Clinton campaign?

How in the world is taking a meeting with someone who's promising you dirt on your opponent somehow worse than what the Clinton campaign did? Not using the information they promised...because they didn't have it to give!...but simply wanting to look at it? What "crime" was that? Even suggesting it's one is laughable!

They paid for opposition research. Why is that so difficult to understand? Maybe this will help.

Both Campaigns Sought Russian Dirt. Clinton's Way Was Legal.

"There is a real meaningful distinction," said Noti, who is now senior director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that monitors election law. "The Clinton campaign, based on what has been reported, paid for opposition research, which included paying people to dig up dirt in foreign countries." Unsavory? Perhaps. But not illegal.

Compare that to what we know about George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The plea agreement, released Monday by Mueller, says Papadopoulos emailed a Russian professor and another Russian contact who promised to turn over Clinton's emails free of charge.

Or consider the meeting in the summer of 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian nationals who reportedly offered to hand over dirt on Clinton. Noti said that if the Trump officials solicited the information, "the act itself was unlawful."[...]

What has surfaced is that the Democrats in this instance played it smarter than Trump's associates. The Clinton campaign had the good sense to pay a contractor for Russian info besmirching the opponent (even if they do eventually get in trouble for failing to disclose it). Trump Jr. and Papadopoulos, on the other hand, may have violated the law by agreeing to receive Russian dirt that was never delivered.
​

 

[Seawytch]

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

 

[Oldstyle]

You'll have to explain how this works to me, Wytch! It's OK for Hillary Clinton to PAY big money to have foreign players concoct a series of "dossiers" to smear Trump but it's NOT OK for Trump to simply meet with someone who claims to have dirt on Clinton? I've never understood the liberal OUTRAGE over this! I mean seriously...how do you rationalize that?

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did they pay FOR, Seawytch? For an English retired secret agent for hire to fabricate "dossiers" that were then used to smear a political opponent running for President of the United States? To have him work behind the scenes to have those "dossiers" released to the media, high ranking members of Congress and the FBI without telling them that they were paid for by the Clinton campaign?

How in the world is taking a meeting with someone who's promising you dirt on your opponent somehow worse than what the Clinton campaign did? Not using the information they promised...because they didn't have it to give!...but simply wanting to look at it? What "crime" was that? Even suggesting it's one is laughable!

They paid for opposition research. Why is that so difficult to understand? Maybe this will help.

Both Campaigns Sought Russian Dirt. Clinton's Way Was Legal.

"There is a real meaningful distinction," said Noti, who is now senior director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that monitors election law. "The Clinton campaign, based on what has been reported, paid for opposition research, which included paying people to dig up dirt in foreign countries." Unsavory? Perhaps. But not illegal.

Compare that to what we know about George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The plea agreement, released Monday by Mueller, says Papadopoulos emailed a Russian professor and another Russian contact who promised to turn over Clinton's emails free of charge.

Or consider the meeting in the summer of 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian nationals who reportedly offered to hand over dirt on Clinton. Noti said that if the Trump officials solicited the information, "the act itself was unlawful."[...]

What has surfaced is that the Democrats in this instance played it smarter than Trump's associates. The Clinton campaign had the good sense to pay a contractor for Russian info besmirching the opponent (even if they do eventually get in trouble for failing to disclose it). Trump Jr. and Papadopoulos, on the other hand, may have violated the law by agreeing to receive Russian dirt that was never delivered.
​

Once again...you're here arguing that the Trump campaign attempting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is worse than Clinton actually paying someone to create phony "dossiers" to smear a political opponent right before the election...dossiers that were then used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on that same political opponent in the middle of a race! To be quite blunt...THAT'S ABSURD!!! With all due respect...the Director of the Campaign Legal Center is an IDIOT!

 

[ColonelAngus]

Maybe if the left didn’t lie.


“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 

[Oldstyle]

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

Seriously? You're quoting a CNN opinion piece? The same network that conspired with the Clinton campaign to provide her with the questions that would be asked in the debate hosted by CNN? You get more ridiculous with each subsequent post in this string, Seawytch!

 

[Seawytch]

Your misunderstanding of laws isn't my problem. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between legally hiring a company to dig up opposition research on a candidate and conspiring with an adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them.

So scheduling a meeting with a lawyer who's from Russia and says she has dirt on Clinton is conspiring with an "adversarial country to steal documents and weaponize them"? How exactly did you make that leap of logic?

I'm amused by your continuing attempts to characterize what the Clinton campaign did as "opposition research", Seawytch! They paid to have Trump smeared before the election. They hid how they financed that smear job behind a law firm that they used as a "cut out" to keep their involvement secret. Now why would anyone feel the need to do THAT if what they were doing was on the up and up?

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did they pay FOR, Seawytch? For an English retired secret agent for hire to fabricate "dossiers" that were then used to smear a political opponent running for President of the United States? To have him work behind the scenes to have those "dossiers" released to the media, high ranking members of Congress and the FBI without telling them that they were paid for by the Clinton campaign?

How in the world is taking a meeting with someone who's promising you dirt on your opponent somehow worse than what the Clinton campaign did? Not using the information they promised...because they didn't have it to give!...but simply wanting to look at it? What "crime" was that? Even suggesting it's one is laughable!

They paid for opposition research. Why is that so difficult to understand? Maybe this will help.

Both Campaigns Sought Russian Dirt. Clinton's Way Was Legal.

"There is a real meaningful distinction," said Noti, who is now senior director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that monitors election law. "The Clinton campaign, based on what has been reported, paid for opposition research, which included paying people to dig up dirt in foreign countries." Unsavory? Perhaps. But not illegal.

Compare that to what we know about George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The plea agreement, released Monday by Mueller, says Papadopoulos emailed a Russian professor and another Russian contact who promised to turn over Clinton's emails free of charge.

Or consider the meeting in the summer of 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian nationals who reportedly offered to hand over dirt on Clinton. Noti said that if the Trump officials solicited the information, "the act itself was unlawful."[...]

What has surfaced is that the Democrats in this instance played it smarter than Trump's associates. The Clinton campaign had the good sense to pay a contractor for Russian info besmirching the opponent (even if they do eventually get in trouble for failing to disclose it). Trump Jr. and Papadopoulos, on the other hand, may have violated the law by agreeing to receive Russian dirt that was never delivered.
​

Once again...you're here arguing that the Trump campaign attempting to get dirt on Hillary Clinton is worse than Clinton actually paying someone to create phony "dossiers" to smear a political opponent right before the election...dossiers that were then used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on that same political opponent in the middle of a race! To be quite blunt...THAT'S ABSURD!!! With all due respect...the Director of the Campaign Legal Center is an IDIOT!

It may be "absurd" but it's fact. And it's not really that absurd. The Clinton campaign paid money in exchange for information in a legal transaction. The Trump Crime Syndicate tried to receive stolen information in exchange for favors.

 

[Seawytch]

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

Seriously? You're quoting a CNN opinion piece? The same network that conspired with the Clinton campaign to provide her with the questions that would be asked in the debate hosted by CNN? You get more ridiculous with each subsequent post in this string, Seawytch!

The final bastion of the failed argument, attacking the source. #sad.

You probably aren't even aware that the Clinton/Obama race was closer than the Clinton/Sanders race, are you?

Sanders wasn't robbed or cheated of anything. He was on every ballot in all 50 states.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Russian Collusion Conspiracy just shows everyone that the Dem voters are total knuttjobs.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No they didn’t. The took over opposition research started by a Republican. They paid money in a legal transaction and listed that as a campaign expenditure. All perfectly legal. What Crooked Donnie Jr did was illegal. Trump knowing in advance and approving it, makes him an accomplice in a crime.

What did he do that was illegal?

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

Hillary bought the DNC nomination after Obama bankrupt the DNC , Debbie had to step down, it was all riggedand the US tax payers paid for part of it.



.

 

[Oldstyle]

Somehow, Seawytch thinks that having a meeting with a private sector lawyer who promised dirt on Clinton and then cutting the meeting short when it became obvious that was nothing more than a bait and switch by the lawyer so that she could pitch something else to Trump is illegal. It's absurd...it's always been absurd and for the life of me I can't fathom why liberals keep trotting it out there like it's this HUGE thing!

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

Seriously? You're quoting a CNN opinion piece? The same network that conspired with the Clinton campaign to provide her with the questions that would be asked in the debate hosted by CNN? You get more ridiculous with each subsequent post in this string, Seawytch!

The final bastion of the failed argument, attacking the source. #sad.

You probably aren't even aware that the Clinton/Obama race was closer than the Clinton/Sanders race, are you?

Sanders wasn't robbed or cheated of anything. He was on every ballot in all 50 states.

Of course he was cheated! He went toe to toe with someone in a debate who knew what the questions were going to be before they were asked! Sanders didn't have that huge advantage. It gave Clinton the opportunity to look like she was well versed on subjects...which went along with her claim of being the most qualified candidate ever to run for the Presidency! Of course what anyone with a brain should be asking themselves is why someone who's supposedly so well qualified...felt the need to cheat?

 

[Seawytch]

Get used to it... they'll be prattling on about this and everything else until Trump's departure, which btw, won't be due to impeachment.

It's astounding to watch they "prattle" on about the Trump Tower meeting...which is nothing...while doing their level best to ignore what the Clinton campaign did throughout that race. You've got Clinton using "donations" made to a non profit foundation made by foreign interests dealing with the State Department to pay part of the salaries of people who worked for her campaign...you've got Clinton minions in the DNC conspiring to deprive Bernie Sanders of a fair shot in the primaries...you've got supposedly "neutral" debates being held by main stream media outlets where Clinton was given the questions prior to the debate...and you've got Clinton paying a foreign national to write a series of "dossiers" that smeared Trump's reputation and release them just prior to the election in a classic "November Surprise"!

So go after Clinton for these alleged transgressions (you provided no links for). That doesn't change the potential crimes committed by the Trump admin.

Nobody robbed Sanders of anything.

Could Sanders have won primary that wasn't 'rigged'? - CNNPolitics

Clinton won three of the first four contests. She won the entire South. The whole thing. She won most of the Northeast. (Sanders' performed best in the upper Midwest and in states with caucuses, which are a better measure of the intensity of a candidate's support than its breadth.) And she won the Democratic coalition of minorities and women -- the people Democrats thought then and still believe they need to show up to win in November.
Go back and check out the map.
The other way Clinton dominated the race in 2016 was through her accrual of "superdelegates," the party elders from each state that also get a say in the nominee. Partly because of the 2016 race, Democrats are already looking, through a "unity commission," at scrapping that system going forward. (Don't count on it.) Clinton had 602 superdelegates to Sanders' 47, by the way. If 426 of those superdelegates had sided with Sanders, he could have won. But she still had a clear advantage in pledged delegates.
Do the math; it's all still online.​

Seriously? You're quoting a CNN opinion piece? The same network that conspired with the Clinton campaign to provide her with the questions that would be asked in the debate hosted by CNN? You get more ridiculous with each subsequent post in this string, Seawytch!

The final bastion of the failed argument, attacking the source. #sad.

You probably aren't even aware that the Clinton/Obama race was closer than the Clinton/Sanders race, are you?

Sanders wasn't robbed or cheated of anything. He was on every ballot in all 50 states.

Of course he was cheated! He went toe to toe with someone in a debate who knew what the questions were going to be before they were asked! Sanders didn't have that huge advantage. It gave Clinton the opportunity to look like she was well versed on subjects...which went along with her claim of being the most qualified candidate ever to run for the Presidency! Of course what anyone with a brain should be asking themselves is why someone who's supposedly so well qualified...felt the need to cheat?

Sanders was on every Democratic ballot in all 50 states. Voters could have chosen him, they did not. The DNC is under no obligation to go out of their way for somebody who isn't a member off their party except when it is convenient for him.

Clinton got advance notice of two questions. If Clinton looked more prepared during debates, it's because she was. She is a policy wonk.

Bernie lost because 3 million more primary voters liked her better than Sanders.

Again, Clinton was closer to Obama in 2008 than Sanders was to Clinton in 2016. It just seemed to go on longer because California had their primary in February in 2008 and June in 2016.

 

[bripat9643]

The only way a republican can become Potus, is by lying and making up lies. They did it will Clinton, and did it with Gore , who by the way the cheating going on in Florida was fact, and they did it to Kerrry, none of the stores about swift boat were true, and they tried to do it to Obama. The only way Trump was with the Russian help and remember none of the Republicans backed him till he became the nominee, save a few like Sessions.

I can sit and listen to Rush (for an hour, it hurts by the way) and he says nothing , not a darn thing.

Gee, you liberals would NEVER do something underhanded like paying someone to make up a phony dossier and then paying someone else to put it out to the public...right, Penny?

What I find most amusing about the modern day liberal is that you now make a habit of accusing others of what you are guilty of. Trump didn't do anything even remotely approaching what Clinton and the DNC did but you wouldn't know it from the accusations flying from the left these days!

BS, Trump is as crooked as they come. He is lucky he stayed out of prison as long as he has, he is going to go down, also in the vote.

Did Trump pay someone to put out a phony dossier? Clinton did. Your bluster is just that...bluster.

List the parts of the Dossier that have been disproven.

List the parts that have been proven. We aren't required to demonstrate that an admitted work of fiction is not fiction.

 

[bripat9643]

Gee, you liberals would NEVER do something underhanded like paying someone to make up a phony dossier and then paying someone else to put it out to the public...right, Penny?

What I find most amusing about the modern day liberal is that you now make a habit of accusing others of what you are guilty of. Trump didn't do anything even remotely approaching what Clinton and the DNC did but you wouldn't know it from the accusations flying from the left these days!

BS, Trump is as crooked as they come. He is lucky he stayed out of prison as long as he has, he is going to go down, also in the vote.

Did Trump pay someone to put out a phony dossier? Clinton did. Your bluster is just that...bluster.

List the parts of the Dossier that have been disproven.

That's not the way it works! When you make stuff up...and Steele did EXACTLY that...the person you smeared isn't obligated to "prove" what you created was false! The dossiers were bullshit and you can tell they were bullshit by what Steele did when he was sued in British courts for defamation! When he was finally compelled to testify he claimed that the dossiers were never supposed to be made public and were only presented as "possible scenarios" of what might have happened! If they were factual he would have said so and stood behind what he created. He didn't. He ran from those dossiers like a man runs from a burning building!

Nope...the Dossier is a collection of unverified field notes...some of which HAVE NOW BEEN verified. None, I say again, none has been disproven.

They aren't "field notes." They're made-up horseshit. The dossier is a work of fiction.