Sen. Dianne Feinstein Releases Fusion GPS Transcript

a reply to: rnaa

When you learn to read get back to us. Those arent my points. They are the points in the article that I linked to in the same post. Apparently you didnt read it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In your opening statement you make those points your own, and anyway, how do we know you aren't the same shill that wrote the article?

Seems the Fusiongps guy talked himself into a perjury scenario and the left apparently, but not surprisingly, distorted the facts - again.

Democrats released the testimony because Republicans have been lying about it. YOU are accusing 'the Fusiongps guy' of perjury because he didn't say in his sworn testimony what Grassley said he said in his sworn testimony. How does that work exactly?

Lets tease this know a little more. Grassley ensures the testimony is given in a closed session, so no 'outsiders' can hear what went on. Then the witness says 'apple' in sworn testimony in that closed session. Then Grassley publicly says the witness said 'orange' and no one not in the room can point out the 'error' in Grassley's statement.

So then the transcript is released to demonstrate the disingenuousness of the entire charade, and YOU are calling 'the Fusiongps guy' a perjurer because GRASSLEY LIED about the testimony that 'the Fusiongps guy' gave?

Get back to us when you have returned your royalty check for incompetent shilling.

I told you, I didn't read the article because there was so much fail in the opening point I wouldn't waste my time.

a reply to: rnaa

No I didnt. As I said read it again and this time read the article I linked to. If you arent going to read it then why are you even commenting in this thread from a position of ignorance?

Secondly as for Feinstein leaking this info she is in trouble. She is not starting to give conflicting reasons as to why she did it, like claiming she was pressured to release it only to deny she was pressured and instead blamed it on a cold affecting her mental facility.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Stop deflecting and own your opinion for crying out loud.

Feinstein is not the story and she is not in trouble in anyway shape or form. Why she released it is irrelevant. Whether she was 'pressured' (by who exactly?) or simply had a brain fart is irrelevant. The only possible 'trouble' Feinstein could be in is from a Censure motion for going around the Committee Chairman and Grassley would get in a whole lot more political trouble than he is already in if he pushed that idea. It is absolutely common for "Minority Reports" to be issued when the minority party thinks the majority has got it wrong.

The FACT is that YOU are accusing 'the fusiongps guy' of perjury - that was your sole purpose for linking and quoting the article. If it isn't your opinion, why didn't you make that clear in your opening sentence instead of asserting it as fact.

It is Grassley that is in trouble and who is doing the lying here - and he is free to lie through his teeth and cannot be charged with perjury or even Contempt of Congress. Grassley has an agenda and is ruthlessly running the committee in order to ensure that that agenda is the only one that is heard. Feinstein made a small move to set the record straight.

The 'fusiongps guy' on the other hand has a lot to lose by lying. Reputation, money, even his freedom. It seems extremely unlikely that he would perjure himself and then encourage (pressure?) Feinstein to release that testimony to public scrutiny where that perjury could be exposed.

I am NOT going to read that article and give site the benefit of a mouse click. You published more than enough of the article to know what it is about.

a reply to: rnaa

No the bullet points are from the article, which you apparently still have not read.

Simpson did lie in his testimony. For instance no one was killed over the dossier as he claimed and there was no informant from inside the Trump camp.

If you cant be bothered to read the article or educate yourself on the topic then what is the point of you even posting (aside from derailing the thread).

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: rnaa
When you learn to read get back to us. Those arent my points. They are the points in the article that I linked to in the same post. Apparently you didnt read it.

Just for you. For each point I am quoting YOUR WORDS, not the article

Point 1:

There was no inside source in the TRump campaign. The person they are referring to was the Australian diplomat

As stated in my first reply, the Australian Diplomat was not the 'inside source', Papadopolous was - he boasted to Alexander Downer that he knew that the Russians had hacked Clintons emails. Papadopolous was a major campaign insider.

From Wikipedia:

This revelation by Papadopoulos happened two months before the DNC emails were actually released by WikiLeaks on July 4, 2016. After the leaks appeared, Australian officials alerted the Americans about Papadopoulos' remarks.

Papadopoulos knew about the theft BEFORE they were leaked - he knew about a Federal Crime and DID NOT REPORT IT. It took the Australian Government to do the job the presumably 'patriotic' campaign officials should have done.

Point 2:

No shock here. Even today it is still debunked yet the left has deluded itself into thinking its not.

NO ONE (not from the Left, not from the Right, not from the Middle) has ever suggested that Fusion GPS verified anything or that such a verification from Fusion GPS should count for a hill of beans.

The FACT is that much of the dossier HAS been verified by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. In fact, the whole reason that the FBI gave it any credence at all was because much of it 'tracked' with the information they already had from other independent sources.

Point 3:

Of course... They needed a way to undermine this President

He wasn't President you silly person, and it was the Republicans that paid for the opposition research that produced the pee-pee tape allegations. Of course, the existence of the tapes have not been publicly verified, but the 'rumor' did not start with the dossier, and frankly who cares what Trump does in the privacy of his own bedroom?. This tape, while certainly the most salacious part of the dossier is hardly the most important part except for the likelihood that if it does exist, the Russians are blackmailing the President of the United States.

Point 4:

Yeah no conflict of interest here. Why would the FBI share information with a person who is bringing them the information?

Where did the idea that the FBI was giving Steele information come from? Steele found evidence of ILLEGAL discussions between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government. He reported his findings to the FBI. If you have evidence of a Federal crime, you too are, by law, supposed to report it to the FBI. I don't know what the protocol is for such informants but if you believe the movies, some informants are sometimes reimbursed for expenses incurred in reporting it. I do not know if any payment was made and cannot judge whether any such payment was justified. But there is no suggestion anywhere that the FBI was feeding information back to Steele. Period.

Point 5:

An interesting view to be sure and the answer depends on your political allegiance / hatred of Trump and the Trump derangement syndrome of the left who thinks it is acceptable to destroy the country because they lost an election they rigged and wasted $1.2 billion dollars, violated numerous federal / FEC laws all for Clinton.

The USA has interfered in other countries since the day it was founded. We went to war in 1812 in order to take over Canada. We have assassinated democratically elected Presidents, engineered coups, encouraged uprisings, funded opposition candidates all over the world including in Russia. We played a big hand in the Ukraine. Why would anybody be surprised that Russia would do the same? Are charges that the Clinton campaign has violated federal laws is an extremely lame attempt to hide an outrageous cooperation between Trump and the Russians, the USA's main political opposition in the world for the last 70 years (in the 1950's McCarthy would have put Trump on death row already) behind cheap lies.

Point 6:

Yeah nothing suspicious here at all...

Nope, nothing suspicious here about Don Jr. changing his story every 5 minutes. Nothing suspicious about anything in that meeting at all. Listen, I got a great bridge I'd like to sell you, make me an offer.

Point 7:

Again not a shock they would lie about this. It seems to be the name of the game since Trump became the Republican nominee.

What lie? He declined to answer about his sources or his methods. That is why his sources trust him. Journalists don't reveal their sources. 'Spies' don't reveal their sources. Private Investigators don't reveal their sources. Political Research Consultants don't reveal their sources. What do you think? These people are playing a game? The Congress has to ask, maybe, but they don't expect an open answer to that kind of question and neither should you. And by not answering the question he is not lying and that is a stupid, disingenuous, assertion.

Claiming that the opinions in the article are not yours and are not endorsed by you is a lie however. A direct, disingenuous, pointless lie - just like all of Trump's direct, disingenuous, pointless lies.

Point 8:

Yup - setting up 2 meetings with various media outlets to push them to push the dossier

What? I thought the talking point was that 'collusion is not illegal'? Did I miss something here? To be honest I don't know what the Fusion GPS' motivation for going public with it was, other than to inform people of things they needed to know to make up their minds. After all, what is opposition research for? Why did the Trump Campaign encourage Russia to give the emails to Wikileaks?

Point 9:

Translation - Clinton broke the law and got caught and the FBI / FusionGPS / DNC / Clinton camp did all they could to change the narrative to TRump. Just as we are seeing every day with the media.

Really drawing a long bow on this one. Your 'translation' is complete gibberish and has nothing at all to do with the quote. It is flabbergasting in its falsity. Clinton broke no law - you know it - I know it - the FBI knows it - everyone knows it. And in case you forgot, those emails hacked from the GOVERNMENT servers, NOT Clinton's private server. She wasn't the criminal here, she wasn't even the victim!

Point 10:

What was Feinstein thinking?

Who cares? Feinstein is NOT the story. The story is the worthlessness of the Grassley led hearings pushing an agenda to protect Trump at all costs. The story is the outright lies Grassley has stated about the testimony given in closed session. The story is Grassley holding the closed sessions, in spite of the expressed willingness of the witness to testify in open session, specifically so he can then lie about what that testimony was. Even Darrel Issa wasn't that blatant.

Every point was a lie or a misdirection. Either you twisted the article to your agenda, or the article was bull feces from start to finish. I will not read it, and you are a lousy shill. Return your royalty check.

a reply to: rnaa

Read the article then get back to me.

If you cant be bothered to read the article, again, why are you even commenting in the thread then?

Lets try this - Why is Feinstein now giving conflicting reasons for releasing the transcript?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lets try this - Why is Feinstein now giving conflicting reasons for releasing the transcript?

For the umpteenth time... who cares 'why' she did it? And she is not, in fact, giving 'conflicting' reasons.

According to Feinstein:

“We were written to by the lawyers of the company asking that it be released, and the reason, of course, is because it has been used by rumor and innuendo and falsity so much that the time came for people to see exactly what was said,” Feinstein said.

The only thing that is even vaguely 'controversial' about her actions is that she did not inform Grassley before the release - something which she regrets. It would have been courteous to have given him a heads up.

Never-the-less, the story is that Grassley is exposed as a lying piece of crap with an agenda to protect another lying piece of crap because party and ideology are more important than country and self respect.

I know you want to keep trying to bend it to discredit Feinstein to somehow take the heat off Grassley, but you really should give it up. Even Grassley's most rusted on constituents are seeing though his immoral and anti-democratic tactics and are giving him no end of grief back in his home state.

a reply to: rnaa

So you are going to ignore facts you cant defend - check.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.