Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious
I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
He didn't do dick.Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious
??? Investigating Russian interference in the election was his primary task. Why do you think he indicted all those Russians.
Even the NYTimes now reluctantly admits that the Steele dossier was Russian disinformation
I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
If it hasn't yet become clear to you, Mr. Steele had an agenda.
And he certainly wasn't the hero that the NYorker tried to portray him as.
Another Media-Fueled Collusion Narrative Falls Apart
?? She paid a foreign national (Steele) for information (disinformation?) from foreign nationals (Russians)Well unless you are arguing that Hilary is a foreign national I think the difference speaks for itself.Honest question. How do you reconcile that law and Hillary paying for the Steele dossier?Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.
She paid an American law firm, dope.
They hired Fusion GPS who in turn hired Orbis, Steele's firm.
Fusion GPS knew that Steele was a Russian-British double agent and that Skirpal was a British-Russian Double Agent, and Clinton and Obama both knew the source of the material they paid $14 Million for and that is was Russian Sourced.?? She paid a foreign national (Steele) for information (disinformation?) from foreign nationals (Russians)Well unless you are arguing that Hilary is a foreign national I think the difference speaks for itself.Honest question. How do you reconcile that law and Hillary paying for the Steele dossier?Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.
She paid an American law firm, dope.
They hired Fusion GPS who in turn hired Orbis, Steele's firm.
That's what you call a "straw buyer" situation. And that's exactly what Mr. Durham is busting wide open in his investigation.
President Trump was speaking last week with the British monarch, and she is making Mr. Steele, her subject, available for questioning by American officials. He is willing to spill the beans and make a deal. Further, Mr. Durham's office has been questioning CIA agents, who will have an opportunity to avoid prison and disgrace by spilling the beans as well.
If I were Mr. Comey or Mr. Clapper I'd reach out now to my President and see what kinds of deals are available.
It is illegal to take anything of value from overseas to help in an election. It is not illegal to purchase research from overseas … so long as the expenditure is disclosed.
Probably, Trump would be ok if Putin whispered to him, so long as he told the FBI. He'd be wise to find an independent source of the information that involved him hiring a researcher.
It's not the information that's important. It's whether a foreign actor is influencing an election for his own motives that don't include his regular job of doing research of giving legal advice.
I think I'd need a direct link to the assertion the NYT found Steele's information was Russian disinformation.Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious
??? Investigating Russian interference in the election was his primary task. Why do you think he indicted all those Russians.
Even the NYTimes now reluctantly admits that the Steele dossier was Russian disinformation
I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
If it hasn't yet become clear to you, Mr. Steele had an agenda.
And he certainly wasn't the hero that the NYorker tried to portray him as.
Another Media-Fueled Collusion Narrative Falls Apart
YOU Got you Putin Bobblehead Dildo stuck in your anus again, didn't you?Are you saying that what trump said was fine?? Just would like to know before call you a corrup traitor likeTrump admits he'd take info from foreign countries to help him win elections Now, did he take help, the dirt, from Russia ?? No morals No ethics The man is a walking slime bag Defends son for not calling fbi on russian meeting
Some Germans allied with other countries to defeat the Nazi's. Oh yes I did go there.
Are you telling me you agree with the scumbag taking info from foreigners to win an election? Just like to know before I call you a traitor and scumbag like trump isTrump admits he'd take info from foreign countries to help him win elections Now, did he take help, the dirt, from Russia ?? No morals No ethics The man is a walking slime bag Defends son for not calling fbi on russian meeting
Some Germans allied with other countries to defeat the Nazi's. Oh yes I did go there.
I agree. It would be debatable whether he could be indicted in a federal court but impeachment, yes. Impeachment is a political process to remove an elected goverment official when evidence is discovered that the person is not fit to hold office. It is simply an alternative to waiting for the next election. I believe democrats should wait for the next election and let the people decide. If the people decide to put someone of his character in office, then so be it. That's how the system works.I dunno. If Trump used information from a foreign actor in a debate or … as I think you say … an ad …. that would be impeachable.The contribution must have monetary value. And that is where it does get tricky. If Putin just offers Trump damaging information about his opponent it has no monetary value then the law does not apply. If it can be shown that the information helps the campaign raise donations, the law does apply or if there is quid pro quo agreement then that can be a violation of other laws. If the person offering the information is a citizen of foreign power and it can be shown that he is acting as agent of that government then that person must be registered as agent of a foreign country. If they are not, that is a violation of law.That depends on what that help is. It's illegal for the campaign to accept contributions or anything of monetary value from a foreign source. However, if Putin calls up his old buddy in the White House and says I've got some good shit on Biden. That's perfectly legal. If a deal is struck, then that can be illegal. If that shit helps the candidate raise money for the campaign, then it can argued that's its illegal. In other words, it can get tricky.Trump is unamerican He would accept help from foreign countries and not call FBI and republicans are fn swine for not calling the pos what he is
The thing is it's ILLEGAL to take help from a foreign nation for an election.
trump; broke the law when he took Russia's help in 2016, then lied about it, and has proudly said he will break the law again.
The man belongs in prison not our White House.
The law is 52 U.S.C. 30121 and it clearly states the following, notice it says directly or indirectly money or other thing of value.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
According to the law it doesn't have to be money and they don't have to actually take it. It just has to be offered.
So it's really not that tricky and from the language of the law, trump and his campaign broke that law in 2016 and trump said today he would break that law again for the upcoming election.
The most serious crimes would likely come from a cover up, bribes, lying to federal agents, obstruction of justice, etc.
7 so far think that that was funny You see dems we know who the enemy is ,,,it's the slimebag republicans that don't give a fart in the wind that the pos they support is garbageTrump admits he'd take info from foreign countries to help him win elections Now, did he take help, the dirt, from Russia ?? No morals No ethics The man is a walking slime bag Defends son for not calling fbi on russian meeting
Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments - CNNPolitics
It would probably be political blackmail. For example, a congressmen get's evidence that Trump is getting help from a foreign power who is attempting to interfere in the election. The congressmen agrees to bury the evidence if Trump supports his bill in Congress.
Seems you're changing the scenario. We were talking about a foreign national giving a candidate opposition research and then threatening the elected office holder with revealing where he got the information from.
What you are suggesting is straight up blackmail. I have information that you've done something illegal/unethical/unseemly and I'm going to make it public unless you do X.
His partner was a Russian named Skirpal, and was a Russian Spy, so Clinton and Obama were dealing directly with Russians.Absolves her of what? The Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying for opposition research.
When Steele realized he had found far more than that, he contacted the FBI.
Do you know if either the Clinton campaign or the DNC ever acually received a completed copy of the dossier? Did they use it in any way?
I think it would have been helpful if Mueller looked into that during his investigation of Russian interference in the election. Perhaps AG Barr's new investigation will have some answers. Rumor has it that they are talking to Steele soon.
Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious.
I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
I think congress should make it a felony for any candidate to knowingly accept information or anything from a foreign state or individual UNLESS the FBI was promptly notified of the contact OR if the candidate hired a research firm that was not directly an arm of a foreign state intelligence agency and disclosed that in campaign finance.I agree. It would be debatable whether he could be indicted in a federal court but impeachment, yes. Impeachment is a political process to remove an elected goverment official when evidence is discovered that the person is not fit to hold office. It is simply an alternative to waiting for the next election. I believe democrats should wait for the next election and let the people decide. If the people decide to put someone of his character in office, then so be it. That's how the system works.I dunno. If Trump used information from a foreign actor in a debate or … as I think you say … an ad …. that would be impeachable.The contribution must have monetary value. And that is where it does get tricky. If Putin just offers Trump damaging information about his opponent it has no monetary value then the law does not apply. If it can be shown that the information helps the campaign raise donations, the law does apply or if there is quid pro quo agreement then that can be a violation of other laws. If the person offering the information is a citizen of foreign power and it can be shown that he is acting as agent of that government then that person must be registered as agent of a foreign country. If they are not, that is a violation of law.That depends on what that help is. It's illegal for the campaign to accept contributions or anything of monetary value from a foreign source. However, if Putin calls up his old buddy in the White House and says I've got some good shit on Biden. That's perfectly legal. If a deal is struck, then that can be illegal. If that shit helps the candidate raise money for the campaign, then it can argued that's its illegal. In other words, it can get tricky.The thing is it's ILLEGAL to take help from a foreign nation for an election.
trump; broke the law when he took Russia's help in 2016, then lied about it, and has proudly said he will break the law again.
The man belongs in prison not our White House.
The law is 52 U.S.C. 30121 and it clearly states the following, notice it says directly or indirectly money or other thing of value.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
According to the law it doesn't have to be money and they don't have to actually take it. It just has to be offered.
So it's really not that tricky and from the language of the law, trump and his campaign broke that law in 2016 and trump said today he would break that law again for the upcoming election.
The most serious crimes would likely come from a cover up, bribes, lying to federal agents, obstruction of justice, etc.
I think I'd need a direct link to the assertion the NYT found Steele's information was Russian disinformation.
It would probably be political blackmail. For example, a congressmen get's evidence that Trump is getting help from a foreign power who is attempting to interfere in the election. The congressmen agrees to bury the evidence if Trump supports his bill in Congress.
Seems you're changing the scenario. We were talking about a foreign national giving a candidate opposition research and then threatening the elected office holder with revealing where he got the information from.
What you are suggesting is straight up blackmail. I have information that you've done something illegal/unethical/unseemly and I'm going to make it public unless you do X.
Which was exactly the position the Trump Campaign was in throughout the campaign season. Trump was telling the American people he had no business deals ongoing in Russia, when in fact, he was in negotiations right up until the election with the Russian government. The Russians knew he was lying and so Trump was beholding to them not to reveal that lie. Furthermore, when asked, Russian government officials confirmed Trump's story, saying there were no negoitations going on at the time. This gives them further compromising information on Trump. They lied to protect him.
His partner was a Russian named Skirpal, and was a Russian Spy, so Clinton and Obama were dealing directly with Russians.Absolves her of what? The Clinton campaign and the DNC were paying for opposition research.
When Steele realized he had found far more than that, he contacted the FBI.
Do you know if either the Clinton campaign or the DNC ever acually received a completed copy of the dossier? Did they use it in any way?
I think it would have been helpful if Mueller looked into that during his investigation of Russian interference in the election. Perhaps AG Barr's new investigation will have some answers. Rumor has it that they are talking to Steele soon.
Mueller was not tasked to look at that. Why would he? A former British intel officer sharing intel with the US is neither uncommon nor suspicious.
I encourage you to gain a perspective other than the trumpian narratives.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever met Christopher Steele or any of his contacts, nor were they given the names of the researcher or his contacts. So no they were most definitely NOT "dealing directing" with any Russians.
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever met Christopher Steele or any of his contacts, nor were they given the names of the researcher or his contacts. So no they were most definitely NOT "dealing directing" with any Russians.
It's possible. But it's undeniable Trump's in hock to Russia up to his armpits, and they did feed him information … albiet indirectly.I think I'd need a direct link to the assertion the NYT found Steele's information was Russian disinformation.
I'm not a subscriber and I don't want to burn my freebies, but the link is in here.
Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier - The New ...
Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier
Apr 19, 2019 - Russian intelligence had used bribery and blackmail to try to turn Donald J. Trump ... one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. ... While The New York Times and many other news organizations ..
I realize you are a bot or nutcase, but why would Steele be in any legal jeopardy?Neither Clinton nor Obama ever met Christopher Steele or any of his contacts, nor were they given the names of the researcher or his contacts. So no they were most definitely NOT "dealing directing" with any Russians.
We'll see what Christopher Steele has to say about this.
He seems willing to make a deal and talk. I don't think Steele wants to go to prison.
My guess is that this was all just a clever straw man deal by the Deep State/Clinton campaign.
As far as any Trump's alleged dealings with Russia up to the election, the only "proof" is admitted, convicted liar and perjurer Michael Cohen. Cohen was pissed because he didn't get the big job he was hoping for the Trump Administration, a fact he lied about to Congress and may be facing additional street time on.
Which was exactly the position the Trump Campaign was in throughout the campaign season. Trump was telling the American people he had no business deals ongoing in Russia, when in fact, he was in negotiations right up until the election with the Russian government. The Russians knew he was lying and so Trump was beholding to them not to reveal that lie. Furthermore, when asked, Russian government officials confirmed Trump's story, saying there were no negoitations going on at the time. This gives them further compromising information on Trump. They lied to protect him.
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever met Christopher Steele or any of his contacts, nor were they given the names of the researcher or his contacts. So no they were most definitely NOT "dealing directing" with any Russians.
I think congress should make it a felony for any candidate to knowingly accept information or anything from a foreign state or individual UNLESS the FBI was promptly notified of the contact OR if the candidate hired a research firm that was not directly an arm of a foreign state intelligence agency and disclosed that in campaign finance.I agree. It would be debatable whether he could be indicted in a federal court but impeachment, yes. Impeachment is a political process to remove an elected goverment official when evidence is discovered that the person is not fit to hold office. It is simply an alternative to waiting for the next election. I believe democrats should wait for the next election and let the people decide. If the people decide to put someone of his character in office, then so be it. That's how the system works.I dunno. If Trump used information from a foreign actor in a debate or … as I think you say … an ad …. that would be impeachable.The contribution must have monetary value. And that is where it does get tricky. If Putin just offers Trump damaging information about his opponent it has no monetary value then the law does not apply. If it can be shown that the information helps the campaign raise donations, the law does apply or if there is quid pro quo agreement then that can be a violation of other laws. If the person offering the information is a citizen of foreign power and it can be shown that he is acting as agent of that government then that person must be registered as agent of a foreign country. If they are not, that is a violation of law.That depends on what that help is. It's illegal for the campaign to accept contributions or anything of monetary value from a foreign source. However, if Putin calls up his old buddy in the White House and says I've got some good shit on Biden. That's perfectly legal. If a deal is struck, then that can be illegal. If that shit helps the candidate raise money for the campaign, then it can argued that's its illegal. In other words, it can get tricky.
The law is 52 U.S.C. 30121 and it clearly states the following, notice it says directly or indirectly money or other thing of value.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
According to the law it doesn't have to be money and they don't have to actually take it. It just has to be offered.
So it's really not that tricky and from the language of the law, trump and his campaign broke that law in 2016 and trump said today he would break that law again for the upcoming election.
The most serious crimes would likely come from a cover up, bribes, lying to federal agents, obstruction of justice, etc.
