Which GOP candidate or donor started the Russian "dossier" investigation?

[Aldo Raine]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

 

[Lakhota]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

 

[tinydancer]

My money is on the Bush family because they backed Clinton big time. Jeb was only thrown into the race to drain funds away from everyone else in the primary.

 

[tinydancer]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

 

[Lakhota]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

 

[tinydancer]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

 

[Lakhota]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

 

[tinydancer]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

 

[Lakhota]

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin to influence the election in her favor? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

 

[tinydancer]

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

Collusion is not illegal. It's not a crime. As far as the so called hacking of the DNC servers. Still never been examined by any government agencies. So there is no proof that they were hacked by the Russians.

 

[Lakhota]

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

Collusion is not illegal. It's not a crime. As far as the so called hacking of the DNC servers. Still never been examined by any government agencies. So there is no proof that they were hacked by the Russians.

Colluding with a foreign government to influence a U.S. election is a CRIME. Please provide more details with "credible" proof so we may further examine your conspiracy theory that Hillary colluded with the Russian government to influence the election in her favor and she hacked the Trump and RNC private computer servers and weaponized and publicized the stolen documents.

 

[Aldo Raine]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

I am not implying that it is illegal or unethical, just giving an opinion for this conspiracy.

 

[Lakhota]

The Bush's have the money to do it and they are friendly with the Clinton's, so.......

Maybe so, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about it.

I am not implying that it is illegal or unethical, just giving an opinion for this conspiracy.

I knew that.

 

[Doc1]

Yes, let's find out. Now which Dem finished it?

 

[mudwhistle]

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

More: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Although the above Washington Post article refers to a GOP "donor" - I've also heard from various news sources that the Russian "dossier" investigation was initiated and funded by a GOP candidate or donor who contracted with Fusion GPS, who in turn subcontracted to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer. Then, after Trump won the Republican Primary Election, the GOP candidate or donor terminated the investigation. Then, apparently Fusion GPS contacted the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC - who then funded the rest of the investigation. So far, it is unknown who the GOP candidate or donor was. It is also yet unknown whether Hillary Clinton was aware of the Russian "dossier" investigation. Also, reportedly, the investigation never started out looking for Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - but pointed that way as Steele went deeper into his investigation.

Also, what would have been illegal, or even unethical, if Hillary Clinton had used any of that information in her presidential campaign? After all - wasn't that just "opposition research"?

Please correct anything that I am not understanding correctly - with only "credible" sources. I honestly want my understanding to be the correct understanding.

Paying a foreign entity for opposition research is illegal.
Lying about what the payments were used for is election fraud.
Using unvarified and false information generated from an illegal source and using it to get FISA warrants is perjury and a felony.

 

[hadit]

Why are all my right-wing friends so silent on this thread?

Because it's pure supposition. Get back to us when you have something substantive. Until then, you're just flinging poo against the wall, hoping something will stick and provide a distraction from the collusion between the Hillary campaign, the DNC and Russia to throw the election (even after all this time, it still failed).

 

[hadit]

Why did all the liberal pundits rant and rave that Don Jr. meeting at Trump Tower was borderline treason? As compared to hiring Russian informants for dirt.

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin to influence the election in her favor? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

Yeah, that really backfired on her, didn't it? If you can't trust the Russian government to have your back, who can you trust?

 

[Lakhota]

Duh, there's a big difference between "opposition research" and "collusion" with a foreign government to influence a presidential election.

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin to influence the election in her favor? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

Yeah, that really backfired on her, didn't it? If you can't trust the Russian government to have your back, who can you trust?

Huh? That doesn't make sense.

 

[tinydancer]

Please explain how paying Russian informants for unverified information to compile a dossier against a political opponent that would be used by the FBI to spy on that opponent and leaked to the media at various times differs from collusion.

And by the way there are two defamation cases currently in two countries over this dossier. Part of Steel's defense is based on the fact that the dossier because it was only based on raw intelligence aka unverified information was never to have been made public and Steel considers all those involved with the dossier to have betrayed him by making it public. His defense is pointing fingers at McCain right now.

Duh, was the Russian government involved?

Dossier keeps referring to Kremlin insiders. One of my fave parts of the dossier was the claim that Michael Cohen the Trump lawyer was actually meeting with government officials and paying them off.

Only one big fucking problem. Steel got the wrong Michael Cohen.Trump's lawyer never went to Prague.

So, are you suggesting Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russian government, i.e. Kremlin? Also, what private Trump or RNC computer servers did Hillary hack? What stolen documents did she weaponize and publicize?

Collusion is not illegal. It's not a crime. As far as the so called hacking of the DNC servers. Still never been examined by any government agencies. So there is no proof that they were hacked by the Russians.

Colluding with a foreign government to influence a U.S. election is a CRIME. Please provide more details with "credible" proof so we may further examine your conspiracy theory that Hillary colluded with the Russian government to influence the election in her favor and she hacked the Trump and RNC private computer servers and weaponized and publicized the stolen documents.

Trump didn't get any contributions so too bad, so sad. On the other hand, the Clinton campaign paid foreign nationals. Steel and the Russians. Your bitch and the DNC are in deep shit. Because not only did they "solicit, they accepted and received" foreign contribution in the form of data in the dossier.



"Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510

 

[tinydancer]

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

More: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Although the above Washington Post article refers to a GOP "donor" - I've also heard from various news sources that the Russian "dossier" investigation was initiated and funded by a GOP candidate or donor who contracted with Fusion GPS, who in turn subcontracted to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer. Then, after Trump won the Republican Primary Election, the GOP candidate or donor terminated the investigation. Then, apparently Fusion GPS contacted the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the DNC - who then funded the rest of the investigation. So far, it is unknown who the GOP candidate or donor was. It is also yet unknown whether Hillary Clinton was aware of the Russian "dossier" investigation. Also, reportedly, the investigation never started out looking for Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - but pointed that way as Steele went deeper into his investigation.

Also, what would have been illegal, or even unethical, if Hillary Clinton had used any of that information in her presidential campaign? After all - wasn't that just "opposition research"?

Please correct anything that I am not understanding correctly - with only "credible" sources. I honestly want my understanding to be the correct understanding.

Paying a foreign entity for opposition research is illegal.
Lying about what the payments were used for is election fraud.
Using unvarified and false information generated from an illegal source and using it to get FISA warrants is perjury and a felony.

Thank you cuz! Just put up the statute on foreign donations. They are in deep deep shit.