[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[j-mac]

It’s funny how so many trump supporters have reading comprehension issues. Nope try again and this time without lying as you are wrong since I said no such thing. There is a reason CON is in CONservative.

Considering this insulting, and rancorous post, I can see why you have little success at actual discussion...

 

[Athanasius68]

Once again, we see the conflation of getting something that originated from People that happened to be Russians with getting something from the Russian government. Steele apparently got information, in secret, from Russians who had information. He didn’t disclose their identities. Trump got information from the Russian government and knew it. The Russian government didn’t do it because they wanted better government in America. They did it to curry favor with Trump, should he win. They undisclosed Russians who provided Steele with information were in no position to receive favors.

Thus, what Steele did on behalf of the DNC was neither illegal nor unethical. What Trump did was illegal and unpatriotic.

Yet again, we don't know Steele's sources. Neither does Steele. Why we are assuming that his sources were 'legit' and not part of the Russian plot, remains mysterious.

Also-- yet again-- Trump DID NOT receive information from Russia. Why this fact continues not to be understood is bizarre.

In the larger issue, the argument seems to be that it would be okay to receive info from Russia if it was funneled through Americans. I am not understanding the ethics of that, if-- yet again--- the concerns are of the evilness and rotteness of Putin and the Russian government.

 

[Athanasius68]

You are intentionally leaving specific word or words out and those particular words change everything as far as context and meaning. By omitting either the word "adversarial" or "hostile" you're changing the intention. If you're referring to sources of Christopher Steele who is a Brit from Britain that is a ally and friend to the US, then the circumstances are entirely different. Christopher Steele was paid for his dossier, he didn't want something other than to be paid with money. He had no personal vendetta, he had no particular preference for candidates, he was doing a job that he was paid to do.

Being a former British Intelligence officer for many years, he had many foreign sources and contracts from countries that were either hostile or sympathetic with the US. But the bottom line here is what was Christopher Steele's goal? His goal was to produce a result, a dossier. This is what he was paid to do and I'm sure he was paid quite well. The suggestion that this type of intelligence gathering is in any way the same as taking information directly from a hostile, adversarial foreign government offering their information solely to help one specific presidential candidate win the presidency, is not even close to being the same thing.

People believe that Trump hated John McCain because he gave a 'thumbs-down no' vote on the skinny repeal of the ACA. This was only partially the reason. Trump hated McCain for many reasons, including the fact that he was always more of a man and patriot than Trump will ever be considering his imprisonment in Vietnam. John McCain played a key role in the report becoming a highly important part of the Russia inquiry. John McCain met Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow, who had spent 10 years in Russia and is highly respected for his knowledge of Russian affairs, at a security conference in Halifax, Canada.

The Steele dossier was discussed. Sir Andrew stressed to McCain that he had not read the dossier, but vouched for Steele’s professionalism and integrity. McCain then sent an emissary to London who picked up the dossier from an intermediary acting on behalf of Steele. The senator then personally took the material to James Comey, the head of the FBI.

Ok-- well Trump specifically said Norway, not Russia.
Meanwhile Steele received his information from Russian, not English sources. It is ok to funnel Russian info through a national from an allied country?

 

[Athanasius68]

Like I said, prove that.

Regardless, the Clinton Campaign did not hire Steele, and Steele did not offer to give anything directly to the campaign. He did offer his information to the FBI, however.

It's on the dossier.

 

[Praxas]

Considering this insulting, and rancorous post, I can see why you have little success at actual discussion...

Just calling out your lies when I see them. Sorry you don’t like it. And do you need a safe space? :lamo

 

[HumblePi]

Ok-- well Trump specifically said Norway, not Russia.
Meanwhile Steele received his information from Russian, not English sources. It is ok to funnel Russian info through a national from an allied country?

He wouldn't dare say 'Russia' to George Stephanopoulis. That's why he named Norway, a country that's an ally to the US, not Russia, which is a hostile adversary that committed an act of war when they hacked our election to help Trump win. As I have explained in painful (for you) detail, the two are not even close to being the same. What Steele did was interview multiple sources he had when he was MI6, they were not the Kremlin intentionally trying to hack our election.

 

[Athanasius68]

He wouldn't dare say 'Russia' to George Stephanopoulis. That's why he named Norway, a country that's an ally to the US, not Russia, which is a hostile adversary that committed an act of war when they hacked our election to help Trump win. As I have explained in painful (for you) detail, the two are not even close to being the same. What Steele did was interview multiple sources he had when he was MI6, they were not the Kremlin intentionally trying to hack our election.

Steele was hired because he knew people in the Kremlin. Again-- why do we keep insisting that Russian sources are 'legit' when they are anti-Trump?

 

[j brown's body]

Steele was hired because he knew people in the Kremlin. Again-- why do we keep insisting that Russian sources are 'legit' when they are anti-Trump?

Steele had a vast array of Russian contacts, and he had performed investigations into Russian interference in elections throughout Europe. He has also always made it very clear that his dossier was nothing but raw intelligence that needed to be looked into further in order to be verified. He also went to the FBI, something the Trump campaign never did. They just lied about it.

 

[j brown's body]

Yet again, we don't know Steele's sources. Neither does Steele. Why we are assuming that his sources were 'legit' and not part of the Russian plot, remains mysterious.

Also-- yet again-- Trump DID NOT receive information from Russia. Why this fact continues not to be understood is bizarre.

In the larger issue, the argument seems to be that it would be okay to receive info from Russia if it was funneled through Americans. I am not understanding the ethics of that, if-- yet again--- the concerns are of the evilness and rotteness of Putin and the Russian government.

Not for his lack of trying. although trump did disseminate and embellish information that he knew Russia had stolen. He was their "useful idiot."

 

[SLC]

He wouldn't dare say 'Russia' to George Stephanopoulis. That's why he named Norway, a country that's an ally to the US, not Russia, which is a hostile adversary that committed an act of war when they hacked our election to help Trump win. As I have explained in painful (for you) detail, the two are not even close to being the same. What Steele did was interview multiple sources he had when he was MI6, they were not the Kremlin intentionally trying to hack our election.

He also said he would take to the FBI. Trump was playing the hysterical media. And it worked. :lol: You are correct they aren't the same. HRC buying dirt from our adversary is far far worse.

 

[SLC]

Yet again, we don't know Steele's sources. Neither does Steele. Why we are assuming that his sources were 'legit' and not part of the Russian plot, remains mysterious.

Also-- yet again-- Trump DID NOT receive information from Russia. Why this fact continues not to be understood is bizarre.

In the larger issue, the argument seems to be that it would be okay to receive info from Russia if it was funneled through Americans. I am not understanding the ethics of that, if-- yet again--- the concerns are of the evilness and rotteness of Putin and the Russian government.

Let's face it the Steele dossier is nothing more than Russian disinformation likely from Putin controlled operatives. Putin just found a lot of useful idiots with TDS that pinned there hopes to Russian disinformation. Much like birthers pinned their hope on Obama being born outside of the US.

 

[Athanasius68]

He wouldn't dare say 'Russia' to George Stephanopoulis. That's why he named Norway, a country that's an ally to the US, not Russia, which is a hostile adversary that committed an act of war when they hacked our election to help Trump win. As I have explained in painful (for you) detail, the two are not even close to being the same. What Steele did was interview multiple sources he had when he was MI6, they were not the Kremlin intentionally trying to hack our election.

The other thing here is that even allies don't agree on all things. So for example Trump campaigned on being tougher on NATO. Perhaps our allies didn't want to pay the higher costs Trump would demand of them. We know that several of our allies sent to Washington information about Trump. The Obama Admin didn't respond by complaining that they were interfering with an election. They investigated Trump.

 

[Athanasius68]

Steele had a vast array of Russian contacts, and he had performed investigations into Russian interference in elections throughout Europe. He has also always made it very clear that his dossier was nothing but raw intelligence that needed to be looked into further in order to be verified. He also went to the FBI, something the Trump campaign never did. They just lied about it.

And it wasnt vetted and it was used in court proceedings and in intelligence assessments for this country.
Remove the dossier from the equation, and there is no reason to think Trump and Russia conspired in the 2016 election.

 

[Athanasius68]

Let's face it the Steele dossier is nothing more than Russian disinformation likely from Putin controlled operatives. Putin just found a lot of useful idiots with TDS that pinned there hopes to Russian disinformation. Much like birthers pinned their hope on Obama being born outside of the US.

That's a good bet. Remove it from the equation and there is no reason to think Trump and Russia conspired.

 

[HumblePi]

Steele was hired because he knew people in the Kremlin. Again-- why do we keep insisting that Russian sources are 'legit' when they are anti-Trump?

You should stop insisting that the sources were 'anti-Trump' and consider the fact the Trump was indeed mixed up with some bad actors and dirty deals with the Kremlin itself. Steele reported what he was learning to the FBI. This was long before the “dossier”, and the “dossier” was leaked AFTER the election. What's more, that was paid information from a former US intelligence operative, not a bribe from a hostile for favor or to influence the election. Clinton paid Fusion GPS for opposition research. That is perfectly legal. Accepting free information from the former KGB, with the intent of undermining an election, is not.

Oh, and since many of the major claims in the collection of memos collectively referred to as the “dossier” HAVE been confirmed (particularly with regard to the Trump campaigns contacts with the Russians and his dependence on Russian money laundering), the “dossier” was not fraudulent, no matter how many times Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson says it was.

 

[Athanasius68]

You should stop insisting that the sources were 'anti-Trump' and consider the fact the Trump was indeed mixed up with some bad actors and dirty deals with the Kremlin itself. Steele reported what he was learning to the FBI. This was long before the “dossier”, and the “dossier” was leaked AFTER the election. What's more, that was paid information from a former US intelligence operative, not a bribe from a hostile for favor or to influence the election. Clinton paid Fusion GPS for opposition research. That is perfectly legal. Accepting free information from the former KGB, with the intent of undermining an election, is not.

Oh, and since many of the major claims in the collection of memos collectively referred to as the “dossier” HAVE been confirmed (particularly with regard to the Trump campaigns contacts with the Russians and his dependence on Russian money laundering), the “dossier” was not fraudulent, no matter how many times Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson says it was.

The dossier is not confirmed or verified. Never has been.
Look-- if you wish to believe Russia is great Satan Jr. that's ok. But don't turn around and put your trust in them when it is politically convenient. It just makes things look silly.

 

[pamak]

That's a good bet. Remove it from the equation and there is no reason to think Trump and Russia conspired.

It is a stupid bet to believe that Steele's dossier was a result of a Russian government's disinformation campaign for the reasons that have already been explained. Meaning that it makes no sense to have the Russian government trying to help Tump win the elections and at the same time give misleading information that could cost Trump. But I am not surprised that you want to make such bets instead of facing common sense and accept the facts. You just want to find excuses. The good bet is to believe in the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence services which tell us that the Russian government through middle-men passed Clinton's dirty laundry to Wikileaks. And the use bet for the fact that we already know is that Trump asked the Russians in public to lend a hand and find Clinton's dirty laundry!

 

[Athanasius68]

It is a stupid bet to believe that Steele's dossier was a result of a Russian government's disinformation campaign for the reasons that have already been explained. Meaning that it makes no sense to have the Russian government trying to help Tump win the elections and at the same time give misleading information that could cost Trump.
But I am not surprised that you want to make such bets instead of facing common sense and accept the facts. You just want to find excuses

Who says that was their objective? The intelligence agencies who also thought Trump conspired in those efforts?

 

[pamak]

Who says that was their objective? The intelligence agencies who also thought Trump conspired in those efforts?

Common sense. My quote explained it. You do not pass disinformation against someone you want win the elections. Making a "bet" based on such logic is nuts! As I said, the good bet is to believe in the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence services which tell us that the Russian government through middle-men passed Clinton's dirty laundry to Wikileaks. And the use bet for the fact that we already know is that Trump asked the Russians in public to lend a hand and find Clinton's dirty laundry!

 

[Athanasius68]

Common sense. My quote explained it. You do not pass disinformation against someone you want win the elections. Making a "bet" based on such logic is nuts! As I said, the good bet is to believe in the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence services which tell us that the Russian government through middle-men passed Clinton's dirty laundry to Wikileaks. And the use bet for the fact that we already know is that Trump asked the Russians in public to lend a hand and find Clinton's dirty laundry!

But again-- who says Russia wanted Trump to win? Yes. The same intelligence agencies who thought Trump conspired with Russian efforts.

You cite the anti-Clinton Wikileaks release.
I cite the anti- Trump dossier.
What's the connection? They are both from Russia!

 

[SLC]

That's a good bet. Remove it from the equation and there is no reason to think Trump and Russia conspired.

Exactly It was a Democrats dirty trick hit job all the way. As the onion gets peeled back all the way we will see exactly how bad this thing was.

 

[SLC]

Common sense. My quote explained it. You do not pass disinformation against someone you want win the elections. Making a "bet" based on such logic is nuts! As I said, the good bet is to believe in the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence services which tell us that the Russian government through middle-men passed Clinton's dirty laundry to Wikileaks. And the use bet for the fact that we already know is that Trump asked the Russians in public to lend a hand and find Clinton's dirty laundry!

Why didn't the DNC let the FBI examine their server so we would have more conclusive evidence the Russians had accessed the server?

 

[eohrnberger]

Exactly It was a Democrats dirty trick hit job all the way. As the onion gets peeled back all the way we will see exactly how bad this thing was.

Indeed it was.

All that was missing was an annoying OMG text exclamation punctuating the unfounded claims that Trump might violate the law in 2020 by accepting intelligence on a political rival from a foreign country. The inference, of course, is that it would come from a hostile power such as Russia or North Korea or Iran.

Actually, what Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos was that he’d consider taking intelligence dirt about a rival from a friendly ally. (Norway was the actual example he used.)

Sound familiar? That is EXACTLY what the Obama administration did in 2016. It’s something no one in the media or the political space grasped during the tsunami of breathless reaction that followed the interview.

In July 2016, the Obama administration accepted unsolicited information from Alexander Downer, an Australian diplomat who just happened to have helped arrange a $25 million government donation to the Clinton Foundation years before. Downer said that he had witnessed a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, bragging about some dirt that the Russians supposedly had on Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Though Downer’s claim was reported two-plus months after the alleged event, and was only hearsay gathered at a London tavern, the Obama administration gave it to the FBI which, in turn, thought it was weighty enough to justify opening a counterintelligence case against the lawfully elected Republican nominee for president.

In other words, the Democratic administration accepted dirt from a foreign friendly and used it to justify investigating its GOP rival.

And then, OMG, they did it again just a few weeks later.

In October 2016, less than three weeks from Election Day, the Obama Justice Department approved a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on the Trump campaign through its former adviser, Carter Page. The primary evidence supporting the warrant? A dossier written by a foreign friendly named Christopher Steele, a retired MI6 intelligence agent from Great Britain. Of course, the Justice Department and the FBI forgot to tell the courts that Steele actually was working on behalf of the Clinton campaign, but that’s a small detail for the purpose of this column.

For the second time in three months, the Obama administration took dirt on Trump from a foreign ally — this time, from one in Europe — and weaponized it for a criminal investigation.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-democrats-now-accusing-team-obama-of-treason

Screams of "Treason!" and "Traitor!", "Impeach!" over something that hasn't taken place, actions not taken, a hypothetical, yet, when it comes to their own, and clearly the same actions actually have been taken, not a single peep.

Where were, or where are all the screams of "Treason!" and "Traitor!" "Impeach!" over what the Obama administration ACTUALLY DID do?

Not a peep.

 

[pamak]

But again-- who says Russia wanted Trump to win? Yes. The same intelligence agencies who thought Trump conspired with Russian efforts.

You cite the anti-Clinton Wikileaks release.
I cite the anti- Trump dossier.
What's the connection? They are both from Russia!

I explained it in numerous posts.

All the intelligence assessments say it together with the fact that Trump' s position which fit the Russian objectives perfectly!

When one admirer Putin AFTER the latter gave orders to invade Crimea and intervene in Ukraine

and when one is criticizing EU at a time when Ukraine was thinking to join the EU

and when one criticizes the fact that the US spends money to defend other nations at a time when US radars for antiballistic defense were spreading to countries near Russia,

and when the name "Clinton" is associated with the period of the Russian humiliation by a Clinton administration at a time where they were very weak and could not oppose the US in anything (recall the Clinton campaign against Serbia which was a traditional ally of Russia)


then you do not need a PHD in political science to see that from the Russian interests point of view, it was obvious that "it was a good bet" (to use your expression) that Trump was much better for POTUS than Hillary

 

[SLC]

It is a stupid bet to believe that Steele's dossier was a result of a Russian government's disinformation campaign for the reasons that have already been explained. Meaning that it makes no sense to have the Russian government trying to help Tump win the elections and at the same time give misleading information that could cost Trump. But I am not surprised that you want to make such bets instead of facing common sense and accept the facts. You just want to find excuses. The good bet is to believe in the unanimous assessment of the US intelligence services which tell us that the Russian government through middle-men passed Clinton's dirty laundry to Wikileaks. And the use bet for the fact that we already know is that Trump asked the Russians in public to lend a hand and find Clinton's dirty laundry!

It makes perfect sense if Russia's true motive was to sew chaos and mistrust in the election and the elective process. You are assigning what you "think" their motives were to them and you may be wrong.