HRC paid a British spy with a long Russian history millions of dollars to travel to Russia and produce a salacious dossier from Russian sources. By doing this, she conspired with Russia with the sole intention of subverting a US election. How do you not see this?

Add on top the fact that HRC calling this “legal fees” is illegal and you have laws that were actually broken.

Where’s the special prosecutor?

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

If HRC did anything illegal wrt the dossier she should be held to account.

But the FBI has confirmed many parts of the dossier, and you should also understand that the words salacious and unverified do not mean false.

The Russians have a file on Trump going back to 1991 when Russian money started to help him out of his then bankruptcy. Do you really think with Trump holding the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow there are no salacious details in that file? Do you have any idea how things work in Russia and how Putin has held power for so long?

Meh. In this case “hacked” is a term that matters, at least to me. Also, if you think this is the ONLY time a foreign entity put an effort in to getting a political position in power in another country but their own, AND ESPECIALLY here in the US: you’re daft. They have a vested interest, and i always assume they “assist” just like any political contributor (personal or corporate) that would prefer “their side” to win. And it doesn’t bother me or shock me. They’re looking out for their interest...and if the “dirt” they dig up is the truth, i’m Glad to have seen it.

While I"m sure that you so desperately, passionately and deeply want everything in the dossier to be true...you need to come back to earth. You say the FBI has confirmed many parts of the dossier...um, no. They confirmed that Carter Page went to Russia? SHOCKING! CONSPIRACY!!! If there's anything even close to what you're saying, i.e. confirmed parts of the dossier, and they matter please enlighten me.

I don't know how anyone can find the inuendo surrounding Trump and the dossier as "evidence" and then totally disregard the actual breaking of laws wrt HRC. She bleached her harddrives after they were subponead. She hired a British spy to go to Russia and fabricate a dossier. She lied about the dossier and called it legal fees with the FEC. Her "foundation" was a thinly veiled pay to play scheme (the original focus of this thread). None of these have been objectively investigated due to extreme bias within the DOJ.

It is hypocrisy at its best. They're both crooks. For HRC, there's plenty, TONS of evidence but the FBI changed "Grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" so that she could get elected. FBI chases the "Dossier" the genesis of which has been shown to be at a minimum tangentially related to its own employees (and their spouses).

And yes you're right about something...the Russians have a file on Trump. They do on everyone! Or do you not know how things work in intelligence? They have files on Bill, Hillary, heck they probably knew about Weiner's sexting before CNN. I'm sure they have dirt on Huma and Kushner too.

Quit watching Maddow and apply the same logic and objective perspective to everyone and you'll see they're all crooks and idiots. The Clintons though...about 10x as bad.

Follow the evidence and you'll see Trump's an idiot and folks in his orbit are probably going down for money laundering. Follow the evidence and you'll see Hillary's a power hungry, treasonous (hiring foreign spies??) wretched human being who is the definition of hubris and corruption.

I highly doubt anyone will objectively pursue her for the reasons stated above. So we're all going to have to depend on our own thought boxes to see the obvious.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

You seem to be the one getting passionate. For the record I've never watched Maddow and am no fan of the Clintons. Who started this thread?

The elements of the dossier that have been confirmed, at a minimum, are that the Russians meddled in the election process, and that the Trump camp knew more than they initially admitted to. There may be other elements that are true too, and there may be elements that are not. We don't know.

By the way, is it illegal to pay a foreign national to try to get dirt on your political opponents?

Here is a pretty balanced analysis of the Steele dossier by an ex CIA officer, someone who has far more credibility than you or me.

http://www.slate.com/...en_corroborated.html

A link to Slate? LOL!

Next up someone posts a "pretty balanced analysis" published by Breitbart or Infowars.

Did you even read the article?

No, I guess not. Ex CIA agent not credible enough for you. You stick to Fox I guess, right?

Hardly anyone gets "hacked." Look up phishing. People set up fake websites that look identical to other sites. Typically you'll get an email to log into your account and the email includes a link to the their fake site. The moment you log in on the fake a third party has your log in credentials for the genuine site.


I think everyone is in agreement that we do not want other countries meddling in our election. I understand that your bias makes this hard to understand but we have yet to see any evidence that Trump and the Republicans did collude with Russia. We know Russia paid $100k to run facebook ads and illegally obtained DNC emails. Wikileaks offered those emails to the Trump campaign on September 14th AFTER the emails were already in the public sphere. CNN released a correction confirming the September 14th date.

Do you honestly believe $100k in facebook ads and a few DNC emails had any measurable impact on the election?

This article in interesting and one of the best I’ve read on the subject. My takeaway is this investigation is very important if for no other reason than to understand what occurred or likely occurred and implement actions to prevent or minimize future Russian efforts to undermine our election processes.

Hardly means they swing the election to Trump and that Trump himself will be directly implicated. There is already enough to implicate some of his associates.

The Clinton investigation(s) are an entirely separate matter.

Are you intentionally vague with your comments? What exactly has been verified?

"When pushed for examples of what was verified in the anti-Trump dossier, (FBI Deputy Director) McCabe was only able to identify the fact that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page traveled to Moscow — McCabe could not even verify anything about the meetings that Page supposedly had."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24938/report-mccabe-contradicts-himself-testimony-unable-ryan-saavedra


You sound like CNN. You're so hellbent that Trump is in bed with the Russians that you don't even need facts to come to that conclusion. At the same time you turn a blind eye to the evidence that exists with Clintons.

I don't need to read anything by Slate just as I don't need to read anything by Breitbart. Those are extremely biased media that cherry pick facts and sources that support their slant. They are not news media. They cannot even be classified as infotainment anymore. They are propaganda. The fact that you consider Slate a source of news says everything.

Find a story that does a side by side comparison between Clinton and Trump campaign links to Russia then get back to me. None of the leftist news you rely on will do that because it clearly shows what a farce the whole thing is.

This. (And glad you actually read the article, as others seem frightened to do.)

How any Americans think there should not be a thorough investigation into what Russia managed to do during the election is beyond me. Lindsay Graham gave a good interview this morning saying as much. I'm not inherently anti Trump. I just think, a) he's been proven to be incompetent, and b) some on his team may have acted improperly vis a vis Russia. Per the latter, we need to understand who and what was involved. Like Rod Rosenstein and Lindsay Graham, I have confidence in the job Mueller is doing to that end.

Follow the evidence and you'll see Trump's an idiot and folks in his orbit are probably going down for money laundering. Follow the evidence and you'll see Hillary's a power hungry, treasonous (hiring foreign spies??) wretched human being who is the definition of hubris and corruption.


How is it that these two people ended up facing off, for election to the most important political position in the U.S., and one of the most influential and important in the world?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

//How is it that these two people ended up facing off, for election to the most important political position in the U.S., and one of the most influential and important in the world? //

At the end of the day, this is THE issue. This must be resolved, no doubt about it.

At the end of the day, this is THE issue. This must be resolved, no doubt about it.


Indeed, I don't want to preach as an outsider, but I think that Americans, in general need to get more engaged in what's going on politically at all levels in their country. I know this will be hard, because I the other thing I sense is general distrust and dislike for politicians and the political process or a disengagement going in the opposite direction of what is really needed - but it is the democratic system we have of one-person-one-vote. So you get what you get!

More need to get engaged. and more people need to vote.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But it’s not one person one vote, really. The electoral college moderates that. I live in CA and this state will always be Blue. Therefore, my vote against Dems really does not count.

To exacerbate the issue was the Supreme Court ruling allowing virtually unlimited financial contributions which means it’s about money which takes us down a rathole.

It’s a big and diverse country and politics in Washington are corrupt. By money.

I hear all that, and these are common complaints, from both side of the political spectrum in the U.S. - so, something has to change.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I’ve always thought term limits for Congress would greatly help. However, I was discussing this with an Economics professor who has advised Presidents and his view was that members of Congress are basically there to create wealth and money grab as evidenced by their wealth-growth whilst in Office. Because of this, his biew was we are more protected if they have many years to money-grab instead them them trying to do so in shorter periods of time. He believed the latter would cause exponential corruption.

He had no answer to the main issues and he’s a hell of a lot smarter than I so I just accept our system. Like most Americans who have more to worry about day to day.

So lets have campaign contributions be publicly funded. Each congressperson gets a 100k to set up a website. The presidential candidates get twice that. It's on them how they make that shoestring budget work. Not a single additional private dollar goes into the effort.

That should kill the quid pro quo that, of course, is behind all, big direct and indirect, campaign contributions.

Also....the bar is way too high for proving quid pro quo in politics. There shouldn't need to be "proof". The mere appearance should be punishable. Look what happened to the Clinton Foundation after HC lost her bid for the big seat. It instantly dried right up. What does that tell you? I mean as a general point, not about HC.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

-
And here's a guy that claims to know stuff and says don't believe it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gradsoflife/2017/12/12/the-road-to-diversity-and-inclusion-defining-the-problem/#b87f3da6e005
-
The article you linked ends with the guy saying that there is lots that we can't be sure of, but should be able to be verified by those still in govt. I'd hope that Mueller has just the team to do so, but for now all we can do is waste time arguing dogmatically about things we don't know.

ps. did you see today's:
http://www.latimes.com/...-20180106-story.html

Hard to imagine there will be collusion, not to say certain folks (Manafort) didn’t act improperly. I’m interested in the Russian game and preventing it in the future.

Obstruction, to me, starts a grasping at straws narrative.

For the ST record, I’m also very interested in the Clinton pay to play, etc. They’re criminals.

Want to make a bet nothing really happens to Trump or the Clinton’s regardless the exposed corruption/crimes/vile behavior?

I disagree with that. Votes always count, and a vote for the losing issue/candidate is not a "wasted vote."

You have to take the longview. Dramatic shifts in electoral voting (or any representative-type vote) can happen quickly and dramatically. We don't have to look for back for evidence of that. Same with popular votes (look even less far back). And the groundwork for those shifts isn't magic. It's the result of persistence and consistency. A vote always contributes to relevance.

Right now you have to convince people to fund your campaign. In other words, you have to have enough credibility that people (or organizations) are willing to reach into their wallets and give you some dough. Those who can gather the most financial support have a huge advantage and generally win out. With total public funding, the road will be open to all sorts of crackpots and nutters who would not have otherwise had a chance.

There has already been a progressive decline in the quality of presidential candidates. Public financing would take us down another few levels.

Just to be clear: you got those two quotes wrong. I am the first, not the second...