Here's what I see so far...
1. GOP and Dems paid for this dossier
2. Nothing illegal or unethical about doing so.
3. No parts of the dossier have been shown to be untrue or fake.
So, until the contents of the dossier are released or shown to be made up where is the story?
I thought this was common knowledge..?
Misleading title by the OP? I think so.
Thread title is correct and therefore not misleading.
The article says Steele, who created the dossier, was only involved after the DNC and Clinton began funding the oppo research.
Fern
Russia! RUSSIA!! R-U-S-S-I-A!!!
Also framing this as where Trump's Russia story came from. You don't see the value in that? Maybe that's cause you don't know the story being told by Republicans on this.
In addition, thanks to Drudge:
FLASHBACK: Media Hysterical Over Don Jr Russia Dirt Meeting...
'Treason,' 'Collusion,' 'Jail'...
Lol, people who purchase oppo research on political parties don't care or specify how the data is collected. The fact remains that a Republican asked for the research and it was them continued after they lost. The title is misleading as every other news source was able to make the distinctions.
Helped fund
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/24/politics/fusion-gps-clinton-campaign/index.html
Helped pay for
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/...-dossier.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Helped fund
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...esearch-became-infamous-trump-dossier-n814011
Funded in part
https://www.vox.com/2017/10/24/16539676/trump-dossier-funded-hillary-clinton
Its an important distinction because weasels like to spread bullshit.
After the DNC and the Clinton campaign started paying, Fusion GPS hired former British spy Christopher Steele to do the dirt-digging. His work later resulted in the dossier.
The Daily Mail? The UK equivalent of the Enquirer?
Whatever dude.
I've seen that factoid reported all over. If you don't like the source, google it and find one you do like.
Fern
Heh. It's your contention that Steele was hired after the Repubs bowed out & your obligation to attempt to verify it.
Itt's just convenient gossip for the Repubs at this point. We can't really know the truth of it.
Whatever dude.
I've seen that factoid reported all over. If you don't like the source, google it and find one you do like.
Fern
I'm struggling to understand why anyone gives a shit about who funded its creation. If the Pope had funded it I wouldn't trust details in it without verification considering how sketchy the sourcing is and if the Democrats funded it from the start it doesn't matter if the stuff in it is true.
So far large parts of it have been verified as true but the most salacious claims haven't been. Only time will tell but this seems like a useless distraction.
I'm struggling to understand why anyone gives a shit about who funded its creation. If the Pope had funded it I wouldn't trust details in it without verification considering how sketchy the sourcing is and if the Democrats funded it from the start it doesn't matter if the stuff in it is true.
So far large parts of it have been verified as true but the most salacious claims haven't been. Only time will tell but this seems like a useless distraction.
Meh. Trump's Republican opposition was paying for dirt on him, and when he cinched the nomination his Democrat opposition was paying for dirt on him. That's just politics. The only thing unique this cycle is the hysteria of the left over the Russians.
I mean . . . THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!
Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, sent an email to several people including top Donald Trump donor Rebekah Mercer, relaying that he had emailed Assange seeking access to emails from Clinton's private server to turn them into a searchable database for the campaign or a pro-Trump political action committee
Don't remember that email exchange, but I doubt it. This is just politics. Hell, Obama TWICE had sealed divorce records made public to destroy political opponents, and you don't find much more vitriolic unsupported accusations than by spouses in bitter divorces. Some Democrat had W's expunged DUI arrest made public. Frankly, I generally approve of this behavior as I believe that rich and powerful people are far too able to suppress damaging information. If a politician beats his wife, or gets arrested for DUI, or is fixing a primary, I want to know about it. (Conversely, I don't particularly care if he pees on prostitutes or vice versa - as long as he tips them well.)I have a feeling if there was a President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton had an email exchange just like the one Don Jr had with the Russian chick you'd be pretty damn outraged and that is rightfully so.
More news:
Below is an analytics company the Trumps used
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/25/polit...n-assange-wikileaks-clinton-emails/index.html
Don't remember that email exchange, but I doubt it. This is just politics. Hell, Obama TWICE had sealed divorce records made public to destroy political opponents, and you don't find much more vitriolic unsupported accusations than by spouses in bitter divorces. Some Democrat had W's expunged DUI arrest made public. Frankly, I generally approve of this behavior as I believe that rich and powerful people are far too able to suppress damaging information. If a politician beats his wife, or gets arrested for DUI, or is fixing a primary, I want to know about it. (Conversely, I don't particularly care if he pees on prostitutes or vice versa - as long as he tips them well.)
Unfortunately well funded opposition research is a lot like torture. You're going to get something juicy - whether it exists or not. But in general, I'm fine with one Pubby primary opponent paying for dirt on Trump, and I'm fine with Team Hillary paying for dirt on Trump. Just remember as always that extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof.