Some Republicans wait for guidance

  • Thread starter Thread starter IQ170
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Christopher Steele dossier I believe was paid for by the Clinton campaign thru fusion gps. Christopher Steele is a former British intelligence officer. From my understanding, Britain is a foreign country and the dossier he put together wasn’t so friendly to Mr. Trump. It is also rumored Mr. Steele could not confirm the accuracy of any of the information in this dossier, though that is not relevant to this question.

Is this an example of having a foreign entity dig up dirt on a political rival? If it is not, how so?

Without insinuating that if it is proven that Trump did indeed use his position to coerce Ukraine into digging up dirt on opponents it would be OK, I would like to understand why what Biden or Clinton are suspected of doing are not worth investigating with the same urgency and intensity given to Trumps investigation? They both held positions of power within the government.

Basically, I say investigate them all.

@dvdjs - yes, its @Woodyl57 again. I swear I am not purposely following you around, lol. 👋. You continually exasperate me which is probably a good thing. Forces me to think in different directions. 👍
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
An entity. Not a nation, an entity.
That is something to think about.
Click to expand...
I see where your going. As to criminality it may be a good point and something to think about.

Do you believe then, that there is any culpability of the parties involved in this dirt gathering to verify they accuracy of the information? I speak mainly here of the Steele dossier used to obtain FISA warrents and which information in was doubted even by its author
 
Not sure what the problem is here. If I am a political party and I hire a German polling expert or a French advertising executive or an Australian research agency to help my party in an election campaign, fine. If the German or French or Australian governments use their skills to try to effect a particular result in that election campaign, not fine — or rather it may be fine from their point of view, but it’s not from mine.

Is the difference so difficult to see?

Mr Steele’s work is not equivalent to Russia’s covert campaign.
 
Last edited:
Woodyl57 said:
would like to understand why what Biden or Clinton are suspected of doing are not worth investigating with the same urgency and intensity given to Trumps investigation?
Click to expand...
They’re not being investigated? That’s news to me. What about the Weiner laptop? What about Giuliani?
 
Last edited:
I believe they are, you are correct. Let me rephrase. Do you think they should be?
 
Theo520 said:
What we do know from the transcript is Trump didn’t ask for them to manufacture evidence. This is the complete opposite of the Trump dossier
Click to expand...
No evidence that the UK was carrying out a covert operation to influence the election, then?
 
PickyPicky said:
But if what you are saying is that the UK carried out a covert campaign to affect the result of the 2016 election, it would be good to see a scintilla of evidence.
Click to expand...
I am not say the UK government carried out anything. I am saying a British citizen put together a bogus dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and used as ‘verifiable’ evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the opposition campaign.

So this is considered legal? Or moral?
 
Last edited:
Woodyl57 said:
Do you believe then, that there is any culpability of the parties involved in this dirt gathering to verify they accuracy of the information?
Click to expand...
Let’s suppose that LEO, in general, gets a tip about a crime. That tip may provide in the judfgement of LEO, provide sufficient information to begin an investigation. It may, depending on the view of the court, alslo provide sufficient information to allow strong investigative powers. Int is in the course of the investigation the information can be stringently tested.

BTW, some like to refer to the dossier as the discredited dossier. The discrediting is more myth than substance.
 

Viktor Shokin was Prosecutor General from Feb 2015- Feb 2016, so I think the title in the first card has a typo-- not 2006, but 2016.

But this particular sound byte was in the news back in… May? this year. They were talking about it in conjunction with Hunter Biden’s rental car that got returned with the crack pipe, the drivers’ licenses, the Secret Service business card, and the AG badge. But this time around, the focus is on the China and Ukraine business dealings.

If all of us ordinary people found out about it in the spring of 2019, about something that had happened in Feb of 2016— and it gets referred to in a phone call in August, and gets plastered all over the news in September/October… yeah, it’s manufactured outrage, because you bet everyone who matters already knew all that stuff 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and it’s merely an offhand reference to common knowledge.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
BTW, some like to refer to the dossier as the discredited dossier. The discrediting is more myth than substance.
Click to expand...
I not sure I follow here. You are saying the Steele dossier is not discredited but true?
 
Woodyl57 said:
I am not say the UK government carried out anything. I am saying a British citizen put together a bogus dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and used as ‘verifiable’ evidence to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the opposition campaign.

So this is considered legal? Or moral?
Click to expand...
I’m not keen on getting into a wide debate about these subjects in this place because I’ve tried it in the past and found it unproductive for both sides. I came in to the discussion, as a Briton, simply to affirm that the work of an employed foreign (in this case British) expert is not equivalent to the campaign of a hostile foreign power.

Briefly, though, I will of course decline to accept the word “bogus”, and the rest of your first paragraph is a matter of debate among Americans, and you are welcome to it.

As to your second paragraph, I’ve no doubt you are more closely acquainted with US law than I am, but I doubt there is anything illegal in employing an investigator, even an overseas one. As to Mr Steele, I am confident of the legality and morality of his work, and of the sincerity of his belief that the Russian campaign during the election should be brought to the attention of US counter-intelligence.
 
Woodyl57 said:
You are saying the Steele dossier is not discredited but true?
Click to expand...
As raw intelligence, it had quite a bit of information that was was affirmed through the investigation.
The investigations uncovered criminal activity and at least should have provided an impetus for hte US to secure its elections. Sadly, we are instead whistling pass the graveyard of foreign interference in our elections.

www.lawfareblog.com

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.
www.lawfareblog.com www.lawfareblog.com

www.businessinsider.com

Grading the Steele dossier 2 years later: what’s been corroborated and what's still unclear

Two years later after the Steele dossier was published, several allegations have proven, at least in part, to have held up.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

…
 
Employing the investigator is certainly legal. The problem is using an verified sources as means to get approvals to spy on people. That abuse is currently being investigated by the DOJ. Thanks
 
IG report comes out we will know more. None of has been disproven sounds suspect to me particularly when using the information to obtain authority to spy on Trumps campaign. That FISA warrant was signed off on as verified.

Basically I assume you have no issues with determining if the government abused its power in respect to this? Please don’t tell me if it isn’t Trump suspicion surrounding it is just crazy? Is that what you are saying?

I mean come one! James Comey comes out and tells us no reasonable prosecutor would go after Clinton and then signs a FISA warrant on a this dossier to spy on Trump and your telling me I am crazy to suspect the government might not be applying the law equally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top