TrumPutinGate

#22,055
#22,055
Velo Vol said:
Leaks can come from multiple sources.
Click to expand...

true. if the continually flow one could ask are they always coming from the defense side across multiple and unrelated targets of investigation or is it more likely that they are coming from the constant side of the equation.

I know what common sense tells me but I wouldn't state it as fact.
 
#22,056
#22,056
Mick said:
Your assumption that the information in the dossier that was given to Steele was government sanctioned or false.
Click to expand...

It was from Russian officials - that's known. Are we supposed to now believe these people are freelancing? The part about people giving their lives across Europe; well I don't even know what that refers to.

Part of the case against Team Trump is they had contact with Russian officials. Using your logic how do we know they were "government sanctioned"?

Why is it so hard to admit Team Hillary paid for information from the Russians? It's a known fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#22,057
#22,057
volinbham said:
true. if the continually flow one could ask are they always coming from the defense side across multiple and unrelated targets of investigation or is it more likely that they are coming from the constant side of the equation.

I know what common sense tells me but I wouldn't state it as fact.
Click to expand...

I never stated it as fact and even called it speculation. I gave my reasoning for it. And it makes most sense the leaks would be coming from the Mueller camp. Especially given the nature of the leaks.
 
#22,058
#22,058
volinbham said:
you think the Russian government is dumb enough to provide "obviously false" information?

We do know that his primary sources are Russian government officials and people connected to the Russian government. The funders and users of that information knew that to. There is no doubt that Team Clinton and surrogates used information in the campaign that was sourced from the Russian government and connected people.

I'm half stunned and half not at all surprised that anti-Trumpers act like this was all on the up and up and was nothing but legit information. The Clintons were smart enough to put several degrees of separation between themselves and the information.

Here's another puzzler - if Putin and the Russian government was so dead set on Trump becoming President why would they provide Steele with 100% true information that was negative about him? Odd don't you think?
Click to expand...

Are you maintaining that asking for and receiving information from foreign contacts (who, to my knowledge had no knowledge that it was Clinton seeking the Intel) is on all fours with sharing information with a foreign power and then that foreign power using the information to directly influence the election?
 
#22,059
#22,059
volinbham said:
It was from Russian officials - that's known. Are we supposed to now believe these people are freelancing? The part about people giving their lives across Europe; well I don't even know what that refers to.

Part of the case against Team Trump is they had contact with Russian officials. Using your logic how do we know they were "government sanctioned"?

Why is it so hard to admit Team Hillary paid for information from the Russians? It's a known fact.
Click to expand...

Are they investigating team hillary for collusion? If not, your comparative if fatally flawed.
 
#22,060
#22,060
evillawyer said:
Are you maintaining that asking for and receiving information from foreign contacts (who, to my knowledge had no knowledge that it was Clinton seeking the Intel) is on all fours with sharing information with a foreign power and then that foreign power using the information to directly influence the election?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that a campaign knowingly paying for info that was being sourced from hostile foreign contacts is principally problematic. The contention that people talking to Steele had no idea why he was seeking the information is not only unconfirmed but naive.

We know what one campaign did vis a vis accepting information from a foreign hostile that was used in the election (Team Clinton). We still do not know what if anything the other campaign did but for some reason the former is given a complete pass while the latter is taken as a matter of fact.

Do you honestly believe that Russia sharing information via Steele did not think it would be used in the election? You believe they had no idea why Steele was asking and what he was doing with the information?

The Clinton advantage is being in government long enough to know how to hide your tracks. That doesn't change the underlying action.
 
#22,062
#22,062
Mick said:
Are they investigating team hillary for collusion? If not, your comparative if fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

All you care about is if she'll get caught for it? I've said they were smart enough to launder the information.

If you really care about collusion with a foreign hostile you'd have a problem with it.

If it turns out that Team Trump was colluding I'll have a problem with it. I already have a problem with one side doing it.
 
#22,066
#22,066
volinbham said:
I'm saying that a campaign knowingly paying for info that was being sourced from hostile foreign contacts is principally problematic. The contention that people talking to Steele had no idea why he was seeking the information is not only unconfirmed but naive.

We know what one campaign did vis a vis accepting information from a foreign hostile that was used in the election (Team Clinton). We still do not know what if anything the other campaign did but for some reason the former is given a complete pass while the latter is taken as a matter of fact.

Do you honestly believe that Russia sharing information via Steele did not think it would be used in the election? You believe they had no idea why Steele was asking and what he was doing with the information?

The Clinton advantage is being in government long enough to know how to hide your tracks. That doesn't change the underlying action.
Click to expand...

I'd need to see what the statute provides.

I have a hard time believing that info received from a foreign national is per se verboten, especially if no payment was made and the person providing the information did not know what it was being provided for. For example, could Clinton use something published by a British writer on the BBC website?

Do you acknowledge any difference between information gathering (Clinton) and sharing internal polling data with a foreign power so that they could conduct a more successful social media campaign (if that's what was done with the data Manafort shared)?
 
#22,067
#22,067
luthervol said:
How will you know if what he reports is the truth? Let me guess, if you agree, it's true; if you disagree, it's false.
Mueller will report the truth. Doubting that shows your whole hand.
Click to expand...

You're as deep as a puddle Luther. At least you're consistent.

Have you ever considered that the report shows the investigation either followed or strayed from the original reasons Mueller was appointed?

What will you say if Mueller's report shows that his team was able to dig up more process crimes like lying to the FBI, lying to congress, etc with ZERO evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign?

Will the FBI / DOJ have overstepped their bounds?

As I stated before, I will wait for the report.
 
#22,068
#22,068
volinbham said:
All you care about is if she'll get caught for it? I've said they were smart enough to launder the information.

If you really care about collusion with a foreign hostile you'd have a problem with it.

If it turns out that Team Trump was colluding I'll have a problem with it. I already have a problem with one side doing it.
Click to expand...

Steele was a trusted member of the intelligence community of one of our allies so are you saying he colluded with the russians to give the FBI bogus information? Or are you saying Clinton colluded with the Russians? Where is the collusion with the hostile foreign power known as Russia?
 
#22,069
#22,069
evillawyer said:
I'd need to see what the statute provides.

I have a hard time believing that info received from a foreign national is per se verboten, especially if no payment was made and the person providing the information did not know what it was being provided for. For example, could Clinton use something published by a British writer on the BBC website?

Do you acknowledge any difference between information gathering (Clinton) and sharing internal polling data with a foreign power so that they could conduct a more successful social media campaign (if that's what was done with the data Manafort shared)?
Click to expand...

It all depends on whether or not the gathered information was then presented to a FISA court as the bulk of "verified evidence" to issue a secret warrant to spy on American citizens.

Especially when the information was later confirmed by the sitting FBI director to be "salacious and unverified".

Seems pretty difficult to defend if you're being objective.
 
#22,070
#22,070
volinbham said:
Doesn't change that he was sourcing from the Russians does it? Do you think HC didn't know the sourcing?
Click to expand...

What do you propose the rules should be for campaigns looking to find information on opponents? What did the Clinton campaign do that was "wrong" (even if legal)?
 
#22,071
#22,071
Mick said:
Steele was a trusted member of the intelligence community of one of our allies so are you saying he colluded with the russians to give the FBI bogus information? Or are you saying Clinton colluded with the Russians? Where is the collusion with the hostile foreign power known as Russia?
Click to expand...
Steele got paid to use his access plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and Orange_Vol1321
#22,072
#22,072
evillawyer said:
I'd need to see what the statute provides.

I have a hard time believing that info received from a foreign national is per se verboten, especially if no payment was made and the person providing the information did not know what it was being provided for. For example, could Clinton use something published by a British writer on the BBC website?

Do you acknowledge any difference between information gathering (Clinton) and sharing internal polling data with a foreign power so that they could conduct a more successful social media campaign (if that's what was done with the data Manafort shared)?
Click to expand...

First, I'm less concerned with was it legal or not and more with the principle. As we know "collusion" per se is not illegal and what people are most bent about is cooperation in some form with a hostile foreign power to impact an election. I'd argue we've established that Team Clinton knowingly did (whether they broke the law or not) and are still waiting to find out if Team Trump did.

Second, I find the hypothetical of comparing something from a British writer being used to the sourcing Steele used (again fully acknowledged in the dossier) and the hypothetical that all those Russian government officials he talked to were completely unaware of why he was asking questions about Trump is a complete waste of discussion. If you really believe that then I'm wasting my time.

I do accept that there can be differences in degree of cooperation with Russia. We don't yet know if and what such cooperation might have been.

My point is why do you and others completely give what Team Clinton did a pass? If you are concerned about the principle of collaboration with foreign hostiles in an election (rather than the legality) why aren't you critical about what your team did?
 
#22,073
#22,073
Mick said:
Steele was a trusted member of the intelligence community of one of our allies so are you saying he colluded with the russians to give the FBI bogus information? Or are you saying Clinton colluded with the Russians? Where is the collusion with the hostile foreign power known as Russia?
Click to expand...

1) Steele is a foreign national.
2) Steele was on the record that he hated Trump.
3) Steele was fired by the FBI for leaking to the press.
4) Steele was funneling information into the FBI via Bruce Ohr (#4 in charge at DOJ) after he was fired by the FBI

How are you defending this guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, tennvols77 and DC_Vol
#22,074
#22,074
Velo Vol said:
What do you propose the rules should be for campaigns looking to find information on opponents? What did the Clinton campaign do that was "wrong" (even if legal)?
Click to expand...

I'm not proposing rules - I'm asking for some consistency in outrage. Are you okay with getting help from a foreign hostile to win an election whether legal or not?

Knowingly used information provided from a hostile government to attack a campaign opponent. Isn't that what we're upset about here? I mean collusion isn't a crime. People have lost their minds that somehow Russia helped Trump win. There's no doubt Russia provided information to Team Clinton to use against Trump in the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and 1972 Grad
#22,075
#22,075
ajvol01 said:
1) Steele is a foreign national.
2) Steele was on the record that he hated Trump.
3) Steele was fired by the FBI for leaking to the press.
4) Steele was funneling information into the FBI via Bruce Ohr (#4 in charge at DOJ) after he was fired by the FBI

How are you defending this guy?
Click to expand...
Easy. They both hate Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top