Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

http://fortune.com/2017/11/02/steele-dossier-trump-clinton-fund/

Both actually. Republicans started it off and Hillary finished off the funding so your own statement is false.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

Fake news again, Noel?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html

WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.

The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.

I know the likely response, so here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Singer_(businessman)
"Singer is active in Republican Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee."

It's pretty funny given the whole DNC/Wasserman-Schulz debacle to try and manipulate the primaries, that a very similar thing might well be what bites the Republicans in the ass in an unbelievable manner. I wonder how aware of that they are/were themselves once they immediately stopped it as it became clear Trump was winning the nomination.

Noel82

Christy42 wrote: »

http://fortune.com/2017/11/02/steele-dossier-trump-clinton-fund/

Both actually. Republicans started it off and Hillary finished off the funding so your own statement is false.

Wrong. I'm talking specifically about the dossier. Steele was only contacted by Fusion GPS under the Clinton Campaign who Perkins Cole contracted. It was their initiative to go after Trump for Russian ties.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

Fake news again, Noel?

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

JRant

C14N wrote: »

It wasn't commissioned by the DNC, it was commissioned by an anti-Trump conservative news website. But that still does not address the point I made in the last post. Just because the person doing the investigation was actively looking for bad things about Trump, does not make the information itself untrue. Right-wing Twitter personality Stephen Crowder is the one who broke the story about John Conyers sexual harassment settlement, but that didn't matter, because it was still good information that could be corroborated. The Washington Post openly endorsed Doug Jones for Alabama senate, does that mean their investigation of Roy Moore's sexual harassment should be dismissed out of hand?

By all accounts, Fusion GPS seem like a reasonably above-board research firm, and Christopher Steele seems like a reputable investigator. If the FBI used the dossier as a basis for the FISA warrant, it's highly unlikely they used it alone in isolation. Far more likely would be that it kickstarted some further investigation and information found there led to a FISA warrant.

That's partly true, it was initially commissioned by anti-Trumpers within the GOP. They dropped it and the DNC then recommissioned and funded the full dossier.

If you can't see why a campaign tool, which the dossier undoubtedly was, being used as a bases for a FISA warrant (remember this was signed off by the AG, appointment by a member of said party) is beyond the Pale then I can't help you.

Think about it for just half a second, if this was allowed to happen then imagine where it could lead. The ruling President could be seen as effectively "spying" on the opposition. That can't be allowed happen.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

...to fund the same style of research that went into the dossier? I mean just because none of the research (or so they claim anyway) made it into the final dossier. That simply says to me that none of the preliminary research made it in. They didn't stop what they were doing for the Beacon, they carried on the research as before, just the money came from a different location but the ground work for it all was certainly done with Beacon funding since they were having the same thing investigated.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about the dossier. I'm aware some Republicans used the same firm prior to the Clinton campaign.

I did read what you wrote, and it's hilarious!

Republicans started the digging for dirt on Trump, and the guys they used to do so wound up coming up with way, way more than the Republicans would have ever wanted. It's quite poetic.

Noel82

Twist all you want, Clinton's camp paid for the dossier and it had nothing to do with Republicans. You're trying to make it so because Republicans used the same firm prior. There was no "final dossier", there was one, singular - specifically paid by Clinton.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/trump-clinton-podesta-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html

Even more simply put, Republicans began this specific effort to gather dirt on Trump and, when they pulled back, Democrats took it over. It makes perfect sense if you look at a calendar. As noted above, the Democrats first started work with Fusion GPS in April 2016 -- the month in which it became undeniably clear Trump was on his way to becoming the GOP nominee.

So again, the new thing here is not that Democrats paid Fusion GPS, and so helped -- wittingly or unwittingly -- to bankroll Steele's work, but that it was, specifically, Clinton's campaign and the DNC. (Your eye-rolling friend would, right about now, pop up to ask, "Well, who else would it have been?" It's a fair question.)

JRant

oscarBravo wrote: »

What, you think Trump is a rational, sane person?

Come on. Describing Trump as "insane" isn't speculation, it's commentary. The man is utterly incoherent. He contradicts himself constantly. He has no concept of what is objectively true.

The man can't distinguish fantasy from reality. He's not sane.

Or are you going to claim that he is so clever that his entire life is one long exercise in pretending to be a textbook narcissist?

Well that didn't take long.
Take your Kafkatrap elsewhere.

I made absolutely no claims to his mental state one way or the other.

JRant

Noel82 wrote: »

That's false, the funding for the dossier was paid by the Clinton campaign. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

They did at it's outset but the DNC took up reigns once they dropped it.

Noel82

JRant wrote: »

They did at it's outset but the DNC took up reigns once they dropped it.

The Republicans paid for opposition research, they had nothing to do with the dossier or Steele. I don't get why this is so hard for people to wrap their heads around.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Twist all you want,

Explain the 'twist' in this statement: "Republicans started the digging for dirt on Trump, and the guys they used to do so wound up coming up with way, way more than the Republicans would have ever wanted."

Hint: there is none.

Republicans used the same firm for researching dirt on the same candidate, right up until the month before the Clinton campaign took over that contract for the same company to keep researching for dirt on the same candidate... and that firm came up with some considerable dirt, alright!

Unless, of course, Fusion were specifically directed by those Republicans to stay the **** away from investigating any potential ties with Russia, which obviously makes it even funnier again. Almost as funny as Georgie Boy getting slaughtered drunk in London and spilling the beans to others.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

Explain the 'twist' in this statement: "Republicans started the digging for dirt on Trump, and the guys they used to do so wound up coming up with way, way more than the Republicans would have ever wanted."

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier and who subsequently used it to spy on Trumps campaign, and who aggressively pushed it to media outlets.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier.

Why?

Does the content, if it's true not matter more?

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Why?

Does the content, if it's true not matter more?

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump's campaign or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/10/04/trump-dossier-fusion-gps-russians-lawsuit-fridman-aven-khan-243461

The Clinton campaign had no problem using it

https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/793237359508721669?lang=en

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

Billy86

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

It's different for Trump you see, and the reason for that is because

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The Clinton campaign had no problem using it

Trump had no problem saying Obama wasn't born in America....

What's your point?

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

The only thing that matters is who funded the dossier and who subsequently used it to spy on Trumps campaign, and who aggressively pushed it to media outlets.

Nope, what matters is what is in it - you just want to tell yourself "it was all Hilllllaaaaaarrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!" so you can ram your fingers in your ears and pretend it isn't real. Except it's very real.

Noel82 wrote: »

If the information can't be verified it shouldn't have been used to spy on Trump's campaign or put in the media, even Trump deserves that and most news outlets recognized that and refused to publish it.

And I hate to break it to you, but plenty of it has been corroborated, and this is just what we know, never mind what Mueller does - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-us-news-media-corroborate-christopher-steele-allegations-cia-a7617856.html

But you keep on telling yourself it's not real, it's all just a big conspiracy against The God Emperor.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. So what's your point?

Also, Trump is extremely guilty of announcing unverified statements is he not?

The point is the dossier should have never have had such an impact over the last year. Immediately claims in it were debunked such as Michael Cohen visiting Prague - and up until last week according to Andrew McCabe under oath the only thing the FBI verified was that Carter Page visited Moscow.

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that. We'll just have to see if Mueller comes up with anything pointing to "collusion", still waiting for the bombshell after 18 months of media nonsense and hysterics on here.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that. We'll just have to see if Mueller comes up with anything pointing to "collusion", still waiting for the bombshell after 18 months of media nonsense and hysterics on here.

Come on now, you're smarter than that.

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

Also, the GOP has led 828 days of investigations in to Benghazi and many want that to continue.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

The real question is how can one campaigns unverifiable research lead to the FBI spying on the other campaign. I think I know the answer to that.

I think we do Noel, I think we do.



The FBI reportedly launched its investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election after George Papadopoulos, then a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, told an Australian diplomat that Moscow had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ... Papadopoulos reportedly told Downer that Russian officials possessed thousands of emails that could harm Clinton’s candidacy.

And as for your 18 months bit, that's early days - nobody was charged for Watergate for over two years after it happened, and Georgie Boy above was not brought out for over a full year later... which we didn't find out about until months after again. Who knows who else they might already have right as we type, without our knowledge.

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Come on now, you're smarter than that.

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

It's public knowledge Clinton campaign people were working with the Ukrainian Government to dig up dirt on Trump and his associates.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You put this much intense scrutiny on any campaign or person and you'll find associates meeting and emailing people. None of it surprises me. It all comes down to the Wikileaks email dumps and there hasn't been a thread of evidence that made me think the Trump campaign were working with the Russians.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

I think we do Noel, I think we do.

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

Yes. That's what Mueller is doing. Glad to see we all now agree he should continue.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

You put this much intense scrutiny on any campaign or person and you'll find associates meeting and emailing people. None of it surprises me. It all comes down to the Wikileaks email dumps and there hasn't been a thread of evidence that made me think the Trump campaign were working with the Russians.

That's your response, but this was my question.

Tell me how wrote:

How would Fox be reacting if the Clinton family was so involved in the White House as the Trumps are with there being such evidence if meetings and emails between them and Russians before the election?

Care to answer?

Noel82

Tell me how wrote: »

Care to answer?

Fox has been going after the Clinton's since forever so nothing would have changed. I'm not duped enough to suggest Fox isn't biased, but I can say the same thing about other networks like MSNBC and CNN. Media corporations exploit their audiences to create as much money as possible, it's not some revelation to me Fox is Trumps only big media ally.

Billy86

Noel82 wrote: »

Lets see what happens, they'll have to find a crime first.

They've already found various ones, not that you'd be remotely curious why someone like Papadopolous would lie to the FBI or what the reason might be behind the Trump's repeatedly lying about their ties to and connections in Russia.

Noel82

Billy86 wrote: »

They've already found various ones, not that you'd be remotely curious why someone like Papadopolous would lie to the FBI or what the reason might be behind the Trump's repeatedly lying about their ties to and connections in Russia.

I've gone on my gut since the start that Trump wouldn't have been acting the way he has if he had something big to hide, and with Comey's testimony that Trump told him he wanted to find associates if they did anything wrong only confirming it. It's my opinion that if there was something big it would have come out already. If I end up being totally wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit it, time will tell, surely in the next few months we'll all have the answers.

Tell me how

Noel82 wrote:

I've gone on my gut since the start that Trump wouldn't have been acting the way he has if he had something big to hide, and with Comey's testimony that Trump told him he wanted to find associates if they did anything wrong only confirming it. It's my opinion that if there was something big it would have come out already. If I end up being totally wrong I'll hold my hands up and admit it, time will tell, surely in the next few months we'll all have the answers.

What about your gut leads you to believe Trump would be so honourable?

What example or incident did you see which lead you to think he would behave in this way?

I have never seen behavior which is in any way redeeming from him and reading teleprompter words which sound right but mean nothing from his mouth haven't made me change my mind.

I would love someone to argue cogently why he is honourable and show acts which demonstrate that but what is there is a landslide of evidence to the contrary.