Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

[Ridgerunner]

OK. So let’s say that is a crime. That would mean the actual false dirt used to smear Trumo was a violation of the law. If that is what the issue is then why isn’t crooked Hillary being investigated? Hillary didn’t just plan a meeting she actually used dirt received from a foreigner.

It’s not a crime to receive opposition research information connected to a campaign even from a foreigner. It is, however, illegal to pay foreigners for it. As to Trump Jr, there’s no evidence that he received foreign-generated opposition research information, let alone that he paid anything for it. We can speculated as to whether he would have paid if Veselnitskaya had anything to sell. But she didn’t, so it never came up.

On the other hand, the “dossier” information was actually received and was used by the Clinton campaign. And from what the information is so far, the Clinton campaign paid for it through a law firm. Of interest, if paying for it was a crime, then paying for it in a way that was not transparent was “money laundering”.

What I am saying in this post is not necessarily how the evidence will turn out. But at present, it seems so according to the consensus of information.

Now, as to why Hillary Clinton was not investigated for the “dossier” information, that’s easy enough. The FBI was using it too and apparently either paid for it in part or planned to do so. If Hillary Clinton and the DNC are guilty of any crime in connection with the dossier, then so are people in the FBI.

 

[dvdjs]

On the other hand, the “dossier” information was actually received and was used by the Clinton campaign. And from what the information is so far, the Clinton campaign paid for it through a law firm. Of interest, if paying for it was a crime, then paying for it in a way that was not transparent was “money laundering”.

Is this a vetted legal opinion or just partisan wishful thinking?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Is this a vetted legal opinion or just partisan wishful thinking?

What part? All but the “money laundering” part is just information in the public realm. You have opined on what might or might not be “money laundering”, so I guess I can too, understanding, of course, that neither of us is a legal scholar.

 

[Ridgerunner]

He’s being treated differently because Trump is trying to advance the narrative that if he gets indicted, if Jared gets indicted, it was all a plot by Deep State actors like McCabe, who was a “bad actor”.

But is he? Trump is the person who fired him. But the firing recommendation came from the FBI itself. What non-speculative reason is there to think Trump somehow manipulated that?

 

[ProVobis]

Now, as to why Hillary Clinton was not investigated for the “dossier” information, that’s easy enough

Well, if you want to go down that road, better start with Republican organization(s) who supposedly initiated that project.

 

[ProVobis]

As to Trump Jr, there’s no evidence that he received foreign-generated opposition research information, let alone that he paid anything for it.

Supposedly the Russians were looking to get their sanctions lifted once Trump got elected. But that’s only what I heard. There may or may not be cash involved.

I don’t think Russians would have stolen the emails and plan on releasing them at the appropriate time came without some compensation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well, if you want to go down that road, better start with Republican organization(s) who supposedly initiated that project.

Different project then. It didn’t contain the Russian-purchased information at the time. But no mater what, the Dems are the ones who paid the Russian sources for the bogus information.

 

[ProVobis]

So why didn’t they release the information before the election?

No more bogus than Weiner’s laptop.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Supposedly the Russians were looking to get their sanctions lifted once Trump got elected. But that’s only what I heard. There may or may not be cash involved.

I don’t think Russians would have stolen the emails and plan on releasing them at the appropriate time came without some compensation.

There’s no actual proof the Russians stole the emails. Twice Comey asked the DNC to allow the FBI experts to examine the DNC computer for Russian “fingerprints”. Twice the DNC refused. And that is where it sits today.

There is no independent evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC computer. Assange says it wasn’t them or any “state actor”, so who? Some disgruntled Sanders supporter at the DNC most likely.

 

[Theo520]

They aren’t allowed to take something of value to support a campaign. That’s what Trump Jr’s meeting with an agent of the Russian government was supposed to do. It wasn’t a deal to make Trump, Jr. some money, it was a deal to get dirt from the Russian government on Trump’s opponent in the election.

So you are saying Hillary and the DNC were allowed to pay for dirt on their opponent, but the GOP candidate is not ? ! ? ! ? !

That is crazy talk.

 

[ProVobis]

The supposed dirt on Clinton was obtained through criminal activity, Was the dossier information obtained the same way?

 

[Theo520]

No, I didn’t say anything about the Clinton campaign. I don’t completely understand what the story is and hence do not have an opinion if her campaign broke the law. I probably would be more concerned about this if she were in power. She’s not, so I’ll let the Justice Department look at it and see what they come up with.

Paying for opposition research is not against the law, assuming it is drawn from an appropriate budget account.

Nothing was wrong with the DNC paying for their Trump dossier, all valid criticism is about what was done with it after they paid for it. A candidate would be an idiot not to do opposition research.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t honestly know if what Clinton’s campaign did was illegal as I did not attempt to study it carefully.

It’s not illegal to pay someone to do research and write up their findings. The report may be well researched and factual, or filled with rumor and outright slander. It’s not illegal to hire an incompetent or even dishonest researchers - buyer beware.

The risk is in what you do with the research. If you then publicize unverified rumors as facts, you open yourself up to libel or slander charges as a risk.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Trump not only knew about the meeting but he went on to ask in a public rally the Russians to release the emails they stole. Trump supporters of course claimed that he was joking. That’s a very poor defense if you ask me.

It might be a poor defense but they do seem entertained by him.

 

[Theo520]

Trump not only knew about the meeting but he went on to ask in a public rally the Russians to release the emails they stole. Trump supporters of course claimed that he was joking. That’s a very poor defense if you ask me.

You are mixing things up.

Trump asked them to find her deleted work emails. Nobody has surreptitiously released these Dept of State emails, so maybe her flawed security was good enough.

You are think of the DNC emails, completely different. Getting your facts right does matter.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You see, you are ignoring the fact that Trump Jr thought he was getting the information from the Russian government, because that’s what the email said. And that is illegal.

Even if what you say is true (which it’s not) it’s not illegal. Trump was told there was information that came from the Russian government. Doesn’t mean it was to be given to him by the Russian government. The Democrat media gets leaks from the government all the time, but that doesn’t mean they’re given to the media by the government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Nothing was wrong with the DNC paying for their Trump dossier, all valid criticism is about what was done with it after they paid for it

I don’t think we know “nothing was wrong” with it. It is my understanding that if the DNC paid a foreign source for it, it was illegal. Seems that is what the DNC and Clinton campaign did. But it’s something that needs to be investigated further, as I understand it.

 

[Theo520]

Trump Jr thought he was getting the information from the Russian government, because that’s what the email said. And that is illegal.

Really think about what you said.

How can it possibly be illegal to get information from a foreign Govt ? ! ? !

Are you arguing that anyone who visits a foreign government’s web site is breaking the law, or is getting information just illegal for republicans

 

[Ridgerunner]

Does anybody really doubt that “Russia Today” is a government mouthpiece?

 

[Theo520]

It is accepting something of value for a campaign from a foreign government. It’s illegal.

Where did you pick up this crazy idea?
Please cite a source that supports your belief, that you can only get information of no value from a foreign government