Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

I think it's quite embarrassing for the attorney involved to have apparently denied involvement.

But it was reported at the time the dossier became public that Democrat-linked entities, then unknown, had picked up the oppo project after the as-yet unknown Republican campaign dropped it. And, that the FBI found it credible and alarming enough to offer to pay Steele to keep working, until his name became public.

So, do carry on LOL'ing about that denial while being apparently unperturbed about the fact that the Trump campaign lied for months about having no contact with Russians.
 
Were there any laws broken ?

Was the Clinton Campaign involved in illegality ?

like accepting meetings with Russians offering aid during Presidential campaign
or lying to Congress under oath
or obstructing an ongoing investigation
or falsifying Security Clearance documents
money laundering

looked for those instances -- must have missed that

or fraud in connection with a for pay college scheme ---- my bad, that doesn't have anything to do with Russia
 
Hawk said:
Embarrassing? That's not an intentionally benign characterization at all.
Click to expand...

It certainly leads to a "why." Which may have some kind of distressing answer...which is not at all clear at this point.

But, while we're on the subject of oppo reasearch. Two campaigns:

1) A law firm working for the DNC contracted with a research firm to perform opposition research.

2) The Flynns pere et fils reportedly ran an operation outside the campaign that contacted Russian hackers to try to obtain HRC's deleted State Dept emails.

3) The CEO of Cambridge Analytica, contracted to the Trump campaign (and part-owned by Steve Bannon and the Mercer family) contacted Wilileaks (characterized by Trump's CIA director as a "hostile intelligence service") in order to try to obtain same.

4) Trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign manager met with an, er, well-connected Russian lawyer and a lobbyist who's twice been accused of orchestrating corporate hacking, upon the promise of receiving oppo research material.

5) Roger Stone, Guccifer 2.0, Podesta, etc.

Now, the first example, whatever we DON'T know about it, at least reflects a comprehensible business relationship, and doesn't seem particularly remarkable in the context of these things. If further scrutiny is required, investigators will have access to billing records, etc., that can show what services were paid for, and what services were rendered.

On the flipside--and in the context of one campaign having had internal documents stolen and released online--there's potentially a "quid," but no obvious "quo."

But your hair is now on fire about item 1, after having dismissed all of the others.
 
It's pretty amusing to see you preach caution and urge for clarity to avail itself (all the while downplaying the magnitude of potential wrongdoing). Seems like a familiar tact.

For the record, not one of 1-5 severely concerns me. My hair is fine (and just barely receding).
 
Hawk said:
It's pretty amusing to see you preach caution and urge for clarity to avail itself (all the while downplaying the magnitude of potential wrongdoing). Seems like a familiar tact.

For the record, not one of 1-5 severely concerns me. My hair is fine (and just barely receding).
Click to expand...

I will look to you to as my touchstone as an honest arbiter for the urging of restraint and the seeking of clarity.
 
The Trump campaign has issued a statement distancing themselves from Cambridge Analytica.

They paid them $5.9M between July and December of 2016.
 
unless Mueller team indicts Trump, even if (D) wins mid terms in 2018 I doubt there will be impeachment. If it is so bad Ryan is backed into an impeachment corner Trump will resign (declare bankruptcy) and should (D) win Pelosi won't impeach.

In 1996 with grounds, her first move as Speaker was to take impeachment off of the table.
She'd rather have a wounded/compromised POTUS to deal with than an energized Pence. Who ideologically makes Trump look like Howard Zinn

Plus (D) has a legislative agenda that impeachment would suck all of the air out of the room.
.............................

If the evidence on Trump is compelling enough it warrants indictment - my guess today is he retires to Sinclair Broadcasting.
I doubt there would be a 25th Amendment solution
 
Julio3000 said:
I think it's quite embarrassing for the attorney involved to have apparently denied involvement.

But it was reported at the time the dossier became public that Democrat-linked entities, then unknown, had picked up the oppo project after the as-yet unknown Republican campaign dropped it. And, that the FBI found it credible and alarming enough to offer to pay Steele to keep working, until his name became public.
Click to expand...

From an old article published a year ago (October 31, 2016):

In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump’s dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. This was for an opposition research project originally financed by a Republican client critical of the celebrity mogul. (Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top