It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie

[Darth Omar]

you sure about that donation?

FBI was surprised but took no action after Bill Clinton took $500,000 from Russian bank while Hillary decided on American uranium deal
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...00-Russia.html

The FBI was 'surprised by the timing and size' of a check given to Bill Clinton to give a speech in Moscow in 2010, the Hill newspaper reported
The ex-president collected the check the day after a Russian spy ring was outed in the U.S., taken down because one spy got too close to a Clinton donor
The spying efforts and the money to Bill Clinton were seen as evidence Russia had unleashed an influence campaign designed in getting access to Hillary

A day after the ring of Russian spies was arrested, Bill Clinton accepted the $500,000 check, which caught the FBI's attention, the Hill learned.

Clinton gave a 90-minute speech to Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin connected bank that was promoting the Uranium One Deal's stock.

All while Hillary was Sec State?

What’s that smell? Smells a bit like Russian collusion lol.

[dukkha]

All while Hillary was Sec State?

What’s that smell? Smells a bit like Russian collusion lol.

"pay for play" is a nice way of saying influence peddling

[Darth Omar]

How many Russian oligarchs are connected to the bank which funneled money into the Clinton Foundation through the Arkansas grifters?

Are the Russian oligarchs connected to Putin? Did Putin ok it? What was Putin’s interest in it?

Pardon the dumb questions lol. Actually, the last question is interesting.

[dukkha]

How many Russian oligarchs are connected to the bank which funneled money into the Clinton Foundation through the Arkansas grifters?

Are the Russian oligarchs connected to Putin? Did Putin ok it? What was Putin’s interest in it?

Pardon the dumb questions lol. Actually, the third question is interesting.

RUSSIAN CONNECTION!!!

[rjhenn]

you sure about that donation?

FBI was surprised but took no action after Bill Clinton took $500,000 from Russian bank while Hillary decided on American uranium deal
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...00-Russia.html

The FBI was 'surprised by the timing and size' of a check given to Bill Clinton to give a speech in Moscow in 2010, the Hill newspaper reported
The ex-president collected the check the day after a Russian spy ring was outed in the U.S., taken down because one spy got too close to a Clinton donor
The spying efforts and the money to Bill Clinton were seen as evidence Russia had unleashed an influence campaign designed in getting access to Hillary

A day after the ring of Russian spies was arrested, Bill Clinton accepted the $500,000 check, which caught the FBI's attention, the Hill learned.

Clinton gave a 90-minute speech to Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin connected bank that was promoting the Uranium One Deal's stock.

The flaw in that theory is that Hillary didn't decide the Uranium One deal.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

RUSSIAN CONNECTION!!!

And no evidence that the Russians got anything in return.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Oneuli]

so in summary, no solicitation, no conspiracy, no collusion, no campaign violations, nothing illegal......

You misunderstood. Keep trying.

[Getin the ring]

obviously it's all been a waste of time,
and as soon as someone tells me what Obama meant when he leaned over and whispered to the Russian diplomat on an unintended open mic "I'll have more leverage after the election",

then we can have a serious conversation about your concern that our president had secret conversations with foreign powers

[PostmodernProphet]

You misunderstood. Keep trying.

you misunderstand........stop......

[Oneuli]

obviously it's all been a waste of time,
and as soon as someone tells me what Obama meant when he leaned over and whispered to the Russian diplomat on an unintended open mic "I'll have more leverage after the election",

then we can have a serious conversation about your concern that our president had secret conversations with foreign powers

Sure, that's easy. It was 2012. Obama expected (and ended up getting) reelection and a seat gain in the Senate. That gave him more leverage on foreign policy matters. Also, with Romney running an anti-Russia campaign, any concessions to Russia before that wouldn't have played well for Obama in the campaign. So, again, more leverage after the election. There's no big mystery about this. And there's certainly no great scandal about a sitting president cluing a diplomat into his internal political timeline. Now if, for example, top people in the Obama campaign agreed to a secret meeting with Russian agents in order to get valuable information against Romney, expressly as part of Russia's efforts to help Obama be reelected, I think we can all agree that would be a very serious crime. But that's not what happened.

[Frank Apisa]

Sure, that's easy. It was 2012. Obama expected (and ended up getting) reelection and a seat gain in the Senate. That gave him more leverage on foreign policy matters. Also, with Romney running an anti-Russia campaign, any concessions to Russia before that wouldn't have played well for Obama in the campaign. So, again, more leverage after the election. There's no big mystery about this. And there's certainly no great scandal about a sitting president cluing a diplomat into his internal political timeline. Now if, for example, top people in the Obama campaign agreed to a secret meeting with Russian agents in order to get valuable information against Romney, expressly as part of Russia's efforts to help Obama be reelected, I think we can all agree that would be a very serious crime. But that's not what happened.

Beautifully worded.

MY GUESS: It went way over her head like a supersonic jet.

[Darth Omar]

Sure, that's easy. It was 2012. Obama expected (and ended up getting) reelection and a seat gain in the Senate. That gave him more leverage on foreign policy matters. Also, with Romney running an anti-Russia campaign, any concessions to Russia before that wouldn't have played well for Obama in the campaign. So, again, more leverage after the election. There's no big mystery about this. And there's certainly no great scandal about a sitting president cluing a diplomat into his internal political timeline. Now if, for example, top people in the Obama campaign agreed to a secret meeting with Russian agents in order to get valuable information against Romney, expressly as part of Russia's efforts to help Obama be reelected, I think we can all agree that would be a very serious crime. But that's not what happened.

What if someone uses one or two cut-outs to approach the Russians for campaign dirt or dirt that can be used against a president once he gets into office lol?

Isn’t dirt from Russians—still dirt from Russians, no matter how you spin it?

[Oneuli]

What if someone uses one or two cut-outs to approach the Russians for campaign dirt or dirt that can be used against a president once he gets into office lol?

Isn’t dirt from Russians—still dirt from Russians, no matter how you spin it?

No. The problem isn't getting dirt from Russians. That can be completely legal. The problem is getting a donation from Russians. That's a key difference.

The distinction is easier to spot of you think of something tangible, instead of information. For example, say you're running a campaign and you rent space for a campaign headquarters in DC. The owner of the building is a Russian oligarch, but you pay fair market value for the rent, and report it as a campaign expense as normal. Have you committed any crime? No. The fact you got that space from a Russian is a red herring in that example, because it's simply a market rent, not a donation. You would expect you are getting the space for the same reason anyone else would get it for the same rent: because the guy is in the business of renting out space.

But what if we change things a bit? Now the Russian oligarch offers to give you use of the space without rent for the duration of the campaign, as part of the Putin government's efforts to help you campaign win. Have you committed a crime? Yes. You've knowingly accepted something of value from a foreigner for the campaign. You would understand you were getting the space as part of a foreigner's effort to influence an American election.

The same holds true for information. If you pay someone a fair value to do opposition research for you, that information is fine, even if it ultimately came from Russian sources -- unless you had some reason to think it was being provided as a donation to the campaign. If, on the other hand, you solicit Russians to donate valuable information for purposes of helping the campaign, that's a crime.

Now, it's conceivable that, say, Steele could have committed a crime. For example, if he got the information by telling Russian nationals that donating that information was a way to help get Clinton elected, he may have crossed the line into soliciting a donation of something of value for a political campaign. But generally work like that is intentionally done anonymously, with regard to the ultimate employer -- neither Steele nor his employer wanted the fact he was working for the campaign to be known. So, there's little practical risk that he dug up that information by way of "campaign donations" of that sort. If, instead, he got the information by paying for it, or taking advantage of gossip or public sources, or calling in favors, etc., that wouldn't be information provided for purposes of a campaign and wouldn't be a problem.

[Darth Omar]

No. The problem isn't getting dirt from Russians. That can be completely legal. The problem is getting a donation from Russians. That's a key difference.

The distinction is easier to spot of you think of something tangible, instead of information. For example, say you're running a campaign and you rent space for a campaign headquarters in DC. The owner of the building is a Russian oligarch, but you pay fair market value for the rent, and report it as a campaign expense as normal. Have you committed any crime? No. The fact you got that space from a Russian is a red herring in that example, because it's simply a market rent, not a donation. You would expect you are getting the space for the same reason anyone else would get it for the same rent: because the guy is in the business of renting out space.

But what if we change things a bit? Now the Russian oligarch offers to give you use of the space without rent for the duration of the campaign, as part of the Putin government's efforts to help you campaign win. Have you committed a crime? Yes. You've knowingly accepted something of value from a foreigner for the campaign. You would understand you were getting the space as part of a foreigner's effort to influence an American election.

The same holds true for information. If you pay someone a fair value to do opposition research for you, that information is fine, even if it ultimately came from Russian sources -- unless you had some reason to think it was being provided as a donation to the campaign. If, on the other hand, you solicit Russians to donate valuable information for purposes of helping the campaign, that's a crime.

Now, it's conceivable that, say, Steele could have committed a crime. For example, if he got the information by telling Russian nationals that donating that information was a way to help get Clinton elected, he may have crossed the line into soliciting a donation of something of value for a political campaign. But generally work like that is intentionally done anonymously, with regard to the ultimate employer -- neither Steele nor his employer wanted the fact he was working for the campaign to be known. So, there's little practical risk that he dug up that information by way of "campaign donations" of that sort. If, instead, he got the information by paying for it, or taking advantage of gossip or public sources, or calling in favors, etc., that wouldn't be information provided for purposes of a campaign and wouldn't be a problem.

You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance laws, so rather than waste my time on that, I’ll point out another problem with your explanation.

Mullet is on record claiming the Russians intended to sow discord in our country. What better way to do that than by feeding Steele misinformation—with the intent that he passes it onto either to Hillary or our own government officials. It’s easy to get the idea some people are a little selective about when Russians are to be trusted lol.

At any rate, imagine the glee within the Kremlin when they found out that their scheme worked better than they ever hoped it would: not only was a duly elected president being sullied by it, tens of millions of useful idiots questioned the legitimacy of the election itself.

And the Russian glee gets even better: the misinformation, given to Steele, provided the basis for an investigation into ANY possible crime that was committed by DJT within the last decade. Think about it: overturning election results—from the Kremlin!

And THAT is what you call a home run ball, if they wanted to sow discord.

[Oneuli]

You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance laws

No. You're stuck on arguing that there's some unwritten part of campaign finance laws that popped into secret existence the moment Trump needed it, saying that "thing of value" doesn't include information. As you know, there's no statutory language nor precedent carving out information from the rule. And, as we've discussed, if a court were to invent that exception, to let Trump off the hook, it would open the gate wide to foreigners to influence our elections, since the lion's share of services a campaign needs are information services.

Mullet is on record ...

Who is Mullet?

What better way to do that than by feeding Steele misinformation

Work to elect a radically unqualified and temperamentally unhinged racist.

At any rate, imagine the glee within the Kremlin when they found out that their scheme worked better than they ever hoped it would...

Exactly! They probably only had a longshot hope that their compromised politician would win the election. Mostly they were just hoping he'd damage Clinton a lot in the process of the campaign. But then he actually won, and started following Putin's orders, even as he destroyed any sense of community and common purpose within the US. They must have been overjoyed. They know how to use useful idiots like you, but even they didn't realize how easy you were to use.

And the Russian glee gets even better: the misinformation, given to Steele, provided the basis for an investigation into ANY possible crime that was committed by DJT within the last decade. Think about it: overturning election results—from the Kremlin!

First, it's unclear how much, if any, of the information Steele gathered was misinformation. Second, the Steele dossier didn't provide the basis for investigating any crimes DJT has committed in that time. There are different bases for investigating different crimes he's committed, and most have had no connection to anything Steele dug up.