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

[Ackmed]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

 

[cytg111]

Maybe we could crowdfund a "The Steele Dossier part II"? .. Wonder what it cost?

 

[UberNeuman]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

Lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

Can you help us understand why you think it is a big deal? Campaigns dig up dirt on each other and lie about how they get it all the time. I’m 100% positive Trump’s team paid people to get dirt on the Clintons too.

Baffling.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

Lordy

 

[yllus]

Right on cue. Can't be bothered to actually use their brains.

 

[kage69]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

If only you guys could employ a fraction of this concern towards Trump, then maybe people could take you seriously. Excusing mounds of bullshit for months, then trying to make a mountain out of this molehill is the mark of a partisan sock puppet. Don't be that guy Ackmed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anybody remember how Nunes was forced to recuse himself? Now, of course, he claims it was only temporary & that this isn't about the Russia investigation but rather about the "unmasking" nothingburger. If he's recused then his subpoenas are out of order. It's perfectly obvious that he's laying down a smokescreen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...teele-dossier-story-is-disingenuous-nonsense/

 

[brandonbull]

Trump Jr. getting that information from a foreign government would absolutely not be legal. The law prohibits donations of anything of value and dirt on your election opponent is most certainly something of value.

So no, what we have here is evidence of Trump’s campaign attempting to illegally gain access to information stolen through criminal activity by a hostile foreign power in an attempt to influence our election. There’s a reason he’s all lawyered up right now, haha.

I didn't know there was proof of information stolen by a hostile foreign power.

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

I'm sure you will get the typical labels: "Nazi","Racist","Russian Troll","Moron", and whatever the new insult of the day is..

 

[brycejones]

I didn't know there was proof of information stolen by a hostile foreign power.


I'm sure you will get the typical labels: "Nazi","Racist","Russian Troll","Moron", and whatever the new insult of the day is..

Lordy

 

[werepossum]

Trump Jr. getting that information from a foreign government would absolutely not be legal. The law prohibits donations of anything of value and dirt on your election opponent is most certainly something of value.

So no, what we have here is evidence of Trump’s campaign attempting to illegally gain access to information stolen through criminal activity by a hostile foreign power in an attempt to influence our election. There’s a reason he’s all lawyered up right now, haha.

That would certainly be an interesting prosecution, claiming that knowledge is an illegal contribution. Under that doctrine, dirt dug up by domestic entities would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution by the benefitting candidate, no?

 

[werepossum]

The guy is a liar and is consistently throws in little dishonest digs in a lot of his posts. Its what he does.

For example this is the records Obama unsealed against his opponent.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2004/06/why_unseal_ryans_divorce_papers.html

Are you making the claim that this was coincidence?

Jeez, never mind. I just realized the irony of asking you what you were thinking.

 

[fskimospy]

That would certainly be an interesting prosecution, claiming that knowledge is an illegal contribution. Under that doctrine, dirt dug up by domestic entities would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution by the benefitting candidate, no?

Knowledge has consistently been held as a ‘thing of value’ by the courts, yes. I would say in the scope of presidential campaigns it can be among the most valuable things.

I mean if I blackmailed you for information about your company that let me trade stock favorably you wouldn’t want me to get off because knowledge isn’t valuable and so you weren’t blackmailed, right?

 

[werepossum]

Not really surprised that certain people claim this isn't a big deal. Just as I wouldn't be surprised by their hypocrisy if Trumps team did the same, they'd be singing a different tune.

To those who claim it is not a big deal, then why did Hillary's team lie about it, why did those behind it plead the 5th, why did they try to block subpoenas, and why did they try to hide the payments? Which now appear to have been illegal in doing so. If it was "common knowledge" as some claim, why did CNN mock and make fun of Trump for suggesting exactly what happened? It at least warrants some in-depth looking into.

Wondering if there will be actual thoughtful posts, or just insults and avoidance.

Trump’s team did try to do it. They just aren’t very good at it. Or to be accurate, they tried to get it for free and got played. Pretty much the same thing though. If someone offers political dirt for free, it’s with the expectation of ultimately benefitting in some way. People who don’t care either way typically don’t want to get involved.

 

[kage69]

Anybody remember how Nunes was forced to recuse himself? Now, of course, he claims it was only temporary & that this isn't about the Russia investigation but rather about the "unmasking" nothingburger. If he's recused then his subpoenas are out of order. It's perfectly obvious that he's laying down a smokescreen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...teele-dossier-story-is-disingenuous-nonsense/

Disingenuous nonsense is right.

I'm getting a real laugh out the Trump and Co. response to all this too. I guess everyone is pretending this dipshit didn't have to defend his own son meeting with Russians, specifically for Clinton dirt, then tried to casually dismiss it with 'this is modern politics, I think anyone would have taken that meeting.'

People are getting desperate. Always a good sign.

 

[werepossum]

Knowledge has consistently been held as a ‘thing of value’ by the courts, yes. I would say in the scope of presidential campaigns it can be among the most valuable things.

I mean if I blackmailed you for information about your company that let me trade stock favorably you wouldn’t want me to get off because knowledge isn’t valuable and so you weren’t blackmailed, right?

So when a reporter unearths W’s expunged DUI arrest, should Kerry have reported that as a contribution? What about Deep Throat - you figure Woodward and Burstein reported those tips, that literally made both their careers, as income? Should they have?

Blackmail and extortion are crimes regardless of what is extorted. And true, knowledge can be very valuable. Care to share any cases of knowledge being considered a campaign donation?

 

[fskimospy]

So when a reporter unearths W’s expunged DUI arrest, should Kerry have reported that as a contribution? What about Deep Throat - you figure Woodward and Burstein reported those tips, that literally made both their careers, as income? Should they have?

This is not how contributions work. Similarly if I dropped a quarter in the street and John Kerry picked it up that would not be a contribution. It’s also not a contribution if you buy a Trump steak charred beyond recognition at one of Trump’s restaurants unless it was part of some larger plan to funnel money to him.

Contributions have a very specific definition. Reporters doing their job and releasing newsworthy information is not a contribution. Someone calling you to a meeting for the express purpose of giving you secret dirt on your opponent most certainly is.

Blackmail and extortion are crimes regardless of what is extorted. And true, knowledge can be very valuable. Care to share any cases of knowledge being considered a campaign donation?

I’m not sure if it’s ever been litigated in regards to campaign contributions but it has definitely been litigated in regards to other criminal activity. I don’t see any particular reason why campaigns would be special.

 

[Fern]

That would certainly be an interesting prosecution, claiming that knowledge is an illegal contribution. Under that doctrine, dirt dug up by domestic entities would have to be reported as an in-kind contribution by the benefitting candidate, no?

Yep.

Plus it would mean the foreign person in the US had no 1st amendment rights to free speech; that campaign finance laws passed by Congress supersede the Constitution.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Something else I find confusing. Hillary and the DNC undeniably paid for the Steele Dossier, an amusing fantasy concocted by a supposed British spy. On what grounds is it ethical to pay for political dirt but unethical to receive it for free? Seems to me this whole construct only works if one wholeheartedly buys the notion of Russia secretly controlling the world while simultaneously ignoring the actions of Hillary and the DNC.

 

[werepossum]

This is not how contributions work. Similarly if I dropped a quarter in the street and John Kerry picked it up that would not be a contribution. It’s also not a contribution if you buy a Trump steak charred beyond recognition at one of Trump’s restaurants unless it was part of some larger plan to funnel money to him.

Contributions have a very specific definition. Reporters doing their job and releasing newsworthy information is not a contribution. Someone calling you to a meeting for the express purpose of giving you secret dirt on your opponent most certainly is.



I’m not sure if it’s ever been litigated in regards to campaign contributions but it has definitely been litigated in regards to other criminal activity. I don’t see any particular reason why campaigns would be special.

I agree that contribution has a very specific definition. I simply disagree with the attempt to stretch it to fit the anti-Trump hysteria of the moment.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep.

Plus it would mean the foreign person in the US had no 1st amendment rights to free speech; that campaign finance laws passed by Congress supersede the Constitution.

Fern

Interesting. Citizens United ruled that monetary expenditures were speech. If foreign entities can’t have their first amendment rights superseded by election laws then I guess the Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton that Werepossum was complaining about earlier was really just big government trampling free speech.

 

[werepossum]

Disingenuous nonsense is right.

I'm getting a real laugh out the Trump and Co. response to all this too. I guess everyone is pretending this dipshit didn't have to defend his own son meeting with Russians, specifically for Clinton dirt, then tried to casually dismiss it with 'this is modern politics, I think anyone would have taken that meeting.'

People are getting desperate. Always a good sign.

So you must be getting a real hoot from Team Hillary trying to make everyone ignore that they purchased dirt, eh? Especially the way they got taken. A fool and her money . . .

 

[werepossum]

Interesting. Citizens United ruled that monetary expenditures were speech. If foreign entities can’t have their first amendment rights superseded by election laws then I guess the Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton that Werepossum was complaining about earlier was really just big government trampling free speech.

Nope. Under Citizens United, China is now free to spend as much money as they wish to make their free speech accessible to more people, but those donations remain illegal.

 

[woolfe9998]

So you must be getting a real hoot from Team Hillary trying to make everyone ignore that they purchased dirt, eh? Especially the way they got taken. A fool and her money . . .

LOL. Every single political candidate, and both political parties, pay for oppo research. Every. Single. One.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree that contribution has a very specific definition. I simply disagree with the attempt to stretch it to fit the anti-Trump hysteria of the moment.

Well let’s discuss this! Here is the FEC definition of contribution:

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-types/

A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.

That information was certainly for the purpose of influencing the election. Now the only question is if that knowledge was something of value. Knowledge has been held repeatedly to have value in other circumstances under US law. Can you explain why elections would be a special exception? If not, can you explain how this definition is being stretched?

It is also very odd to have direct written proof of Trump’s son, campaign manager, and son in law meeting with people talking about the Russian governments ‘ongoing efforts to help your campaign’ and dismiss that as hysteria. It’s just reality.