Why the Dossier may be the most serious political scandal the US has ever seen.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Ok let's start with the Russian Collusion part. It was Steele who gathered the information from his contacts in Russia and Steele is MI6 or something right??? That seems more like Intelligence gathering that collusion. He's an agent of our ally who's getting info from his supposed good contacts within Russia, not colluding with Russia. I mean isn't that how spy intel is gathered??? We don't consider gathering intel to be collusion.

Which I think is a main difference between Steele and Don Jr. Because Steele is an actual agent with trusted contacts (at least as far as he's concerned) and is accountable for the intel he gets. He also has other departments to verify it and stuff like that. I don't imagine Don Jr. qualifies as trusted spy or has the training to do so.

What I'm getting at is I don't know if you can consider Steele to be colluding with Russia by getting intel from his Russian sources. Collusion would be more about us giving them info or exchanging info wouldn't it??

First off, what did don jr. give them for the supposed info he was getting? So I guess that wouldnt have been collusion.

Also, it is being suggested that Steele actually did pay his kremlin sources, so this would be collusion.

And the fact that Steele was an agent for a different country means absolutely nothing.

he has no more legal authority than Don Jr.

a reply to: Pyle

I see. Let's suspect the team that had the most to lose by the 'shocking' revelations.

Btw, Trump and Obama were briefed by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers in what was supposed to be a classified meeting.

a reply to: loam

So you're saying Fusion isn't allowed to hire an outside investigator to find out if there were any links between Russia and Trump at all???

Because the idea that Trump might have a connection to Russia isn't anything new. Going back to at least the 90's he's had dealings with Russian Mob and Oligarchs and stuff from Russia. I don't know of any Russian State dealings he's had but the other stuff is well documented and has been for a while. That could easily be why they decided to look in that direction.

Especially since his casino days and his trouble with American Banks not lending him money because of him being a risk, he had to look to outside lenders some of which were banks with Russian ties. Then there's the fact that Don Jr. also is quoted saying that a large part of their holdings were with Russia or something along those lines. There are various reasons to look there besides getting orders from Hilary.

a reply to: introvert

Is it ok to get dirt from russians on your political opponent?

If its not, is it ok to pay an american company to pay someone to get dirt from russians on your pollitical opponent?

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Pyle

I see. Let's suspect the team that had the most to lose by the 'shocking' revelations.

Btw, Trump and Obama were briefed by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers in what was supposed to be a classified meeting.

Trump's Transition and early tenure in the White House was constantly leaking. They were not able to patch many of the leaks until Kelly came on board. So it is just as likely to be coming from that side.

a reply to: Grambler

Then why don't we consider any and all intel that we sent people to gather as collusion and have them all on trial for it???

There has to be a difference between intel from a Gov. Agent and intel from just anyone.

a reply to: mOjOm

Um. Going to Steele alone is a problem....as he is a foreign agent. Do we really want our politicians to use ANY foreign agent to investigate election opponents?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: loam

So you're saying Fusion isn't allowed to hire an outside investigator to find out if there were any links between Russia and Trump at all???

Because the idea that Trump might have a connection to Russia isn't anything new. Going back to at least the 90's he's had dealings with Russian Mob and Oligarchs and stuff from Russia. I don't know of any Russian State dealings he's had but the other stuff is well documented and has been for a while. That could easily be why they decided to look in that direction.

Especially since his casino days and his trouble with American Banks not lending him money because of him being a risk, he had to look to outside lenders some of which were banks with Russian ties. Then there's the fact that Don Jr. also is quoted saying that a large part of their holdings were with Russia or something along those lines. There are various reasons to look there besides getting orders from Hilary.

Of course an outside investigator can be hired.

But every reason in the OP, all five of them, are why this situation was uniquely bad, including that hiring someone to collude with russia to prove collusion with russia is a bad idea, lying about paying them is bad, and then having that info possibly be used for fisa warrants is bad.

As is having the FBI use tax money to pay for someone to collude with russia for oppo research on a candidate for president is bad.

a reply to: mOjOm

Not just any outside investigator....they hired a foreign agent. It doesn't matter that he wasn't Russian.

a reply to: loam

I don't know. That's not what I'm actually asking though. That's a policy argument about what to do. I'm asking what the policy currently is regarding such things.

Because it's not a matter of whether we should be doing that or not at this point because it's already been done. I'm wondering if doing that was technically and legally allowed. It may be shady as hell and highly unethical but we're talking Politics here which is the dirtiest game in town and we all know that.

I'm trying to figure out if this is actually something which was clearly illegal to do or not.

In 2020, 2019 actually, Trump will be able to use the FBI and foreign agents, even foreign governments like Russia to get supposed dirt on the democrat(s) running and it will be okay because the leftists don't see anything wrong with it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Then why don't we consider any and all intel that we sent people to gather as collusion and have them all on trial for it???

There has to be a difference between intel from a Gov. Agent and intel from just anyone.

yes there is a difference between a FBI agent that can be held accountable getting intel from russians, vs the fbi paying a person that is being paid by one of the candidates to get info from russian agents.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
In 2020, 2019 actually, Trump will be able to use the FBI and foreign agents, even foreign governments like Russia to get supposed dirt on the democrat(s) running and it will be okay because the leftists don't see anything wrong with it.

That is the precedent I saw rolled out the day that dreadful dossier hit.

Many of us immediately called BS.

When pressed I lost count how many around here that week ran with 'yeah well so what you Obama haters deserve it because of that whole Birther BS'.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's against the law now. Add the fact they tried to hide the payments makes this even worse for them.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
In 2020, 2019 actually, Trump will be able to use the FBI and foreign agents, even foreign governments like Russia to get supposed dirt on the democrat(s) running and it will be okay because the leftists don't see anything wrong with it.

yep look at my reply to introvert.

All Trump has to do is

A) make sure he hires a lawfirm that pays for the dirt from russia.

B) make sure that dirt includes at least some truth.

And viola, he can legally use that for Fisa warrants to spy on his opponent. And what more, he can use tax money to pay the agent getting the dirt.

a reply to: Grambler

Ok, that's what I was wondering.

Because personally I don't even like the idea of Opposition Research. That's nothing more than a fancy name for Digging up and Pushing Propaganda and Dirt on someone to ruin them.

That stuff leaves a bad taste in mouth just as it is and you know it's a dirty business to be in. But it's allowed and I can see why in some cases it might be justified if it's true and accurate and needed. But I imagine most of it is just throwing mud.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Isn't it funny how precedent is being set and no one realizes it?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Ok, that's what I was wondering.

Because personally I don't even like the idea of Opposition Research. That's nothing more than a fancy name for Digging up and Pushing Propaganda and Dirt on someone to ruin them.

That stuff leaves a bad taste in mouth just as it is and you know it's a dirty business to be in. But it's allowed and I can see why in some cases it might be justified if it's true and accurate and needed. But I imagine most of it is just throwing mud.

Absolutely oppo research in itself i queasy, and Trump and everyone else are guilty of doing that.

But this situation is above and beyond that.

a reply to: Grambler

In other words, one has a fiduciary responsibility for impartiality, the other has a commercial interest.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grambler

In other words, one has a fiduciary responsibility for impartiality, the other has a commercial interest.

Very well said.