Testimony: Trump dossier not made-up; not politically motivated

  • Thread starter Thread starter HCTC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HCTC

Guest
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ontradicted-trump/?nid&utm_term=.ae941dc13184

Excerpt:
It’s not made up. It wasn’t politically motivated. And it did not set out with the intention to smear President Trump.

That’s what the co-founder of a research firm, Fusion GPS, told Congress about a dossier his firm produced during the presidential campaign. Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for 10 hours in August about research that was originally started by a conservative news site, and that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for to continue. Ultimately, the dossier claimed Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia, something Trump has vigorously denied but also something neither special counsel Robert S. Mueller III nor Congress have ruled out.

Against a backdrop of Trump and Republicans claiming the dossier was politically motivated, Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein released the transcript, without Republican support, on Tuesday.
 
It was paid opposition research. By definition it was POLITICAL,
the motivation clearly to provide dirt on the opposition.

I don’t know enough to comment on whether it’s true or not.
.
 
Steele himself said his information was raw & unverified. Comey said the same thing. So, what did Obama officials and the Dems do with it? Spread it around, leaked it & maybe used it to get a warrant…
 
From Newsweek, on the veracity


Here are first 3 of 13 things that don’t add up in the Trump-Russia ties report.

From: “Company Intelligence Report 2016/080” 20 June 2016
  1. “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by Putin, has been to encourage splits and divisions in the Western alliance.”
If true, this makes the Russian regime pretty much psychic, since in 2011 there was little hint that Trump would pursue a political career …
  1. “So far TRUMP has declined serious sweetheart real estate business deals offered him in Russia…”
Really? If Trump declined the deals, why did he push so hard to meet with Russian business leaders after the Miss Universe competition? And why did he try and fail to push his Trump Tower deal in Moscow and St. Petersburg as late as 2013, as reported in Newsweek?
  1. “However he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on Democratic and other political rivals.”
A regular flow of intelligence on Clinton? —but there’s no evidence that Trump or his campaign used any kind of secret intelligence in their campaign. The controversial online break-ins at the Democratic National Committee, thought to be the work of two Russian hacking groups, APT 28 and APT 29, were communicated to Wikileaks, not to the Trump campaign. And furthermore, the leaked DNC emails didn’t contain anything particularly explosive or damaging.

…
 
Perhaps you could respond to what I said, I don’t read every megabyte file people post, especially without a summary that makes your point.
 
Theo520 said:
Perhaps you could respond to what I said, I don’t read every megabyte file people post, especially without a summary that makes your point.
Click to expand...
I like like reading source documents that allow the reader to make their own judgments. However, here is an excerpt of testimoney summary from Jennifer Rubin who is a conservative & may even still be.a Republican:

You can understand why the Republicans were furiously trying to suppress the transcript, which contains no classified information.

First, it makes clear that Steele was engaged because of his expertise and contacts. He was not told to find anything in particular, but just to research the totality of Trump’s involvement in Russia.
Second, according to Simpson, Trump was doing business all over the former Soviet states of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Interestingly, Trump repeatedly denied having financial ties in Russia itself but never publicly denied operations in states in which Russians exercised substantial influence.
Third, in investigating Trump’s finances they found his properties were not as highly valued as he suggested and, in the case of several golf courses, weren’t making money.
Fourth, Steele took it upon himself to report his finding to the FBI because he believed there was a “crime in progress” and matter of national security. He later relayed to Simpson that the FBI already had information from a campaign source.
Fifth, Trump lied about not knowing who Felix Sater is. Simpson testified, “This was something he didn’t want to talk about and testified under oath he wouldn’t know Felix if he ran into him in the street. That was not true. He knew him well and, in fact, continued to associate with him long after he learned of Felix’s organized crime ties. So, you know, that tells you something about somebody.” We do not know if Sater was in fact tied to organized crime. Trump Associate Boasted That Moscow Business Deal ‘Will Get Donald Elected’ - The New York Times

Sixth, Simpson called it a reasonable “interpretation” that the Trump Tower meeting was designed by Russian officials to reach out to and cooperate with the Trump team.
Seventh, far from interfering in the election to benefit Hillary Clinton, the FBI did not publicly disclose during the campaign the wealth of information it was learning about Trump and Russia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...transcript/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.ca14f558dd9a
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
If true, this makes the Russian regime pretty much psychic, since in 2011 there was little hint that Trump would pursue a political career …
Click to expand...
He began investigating a run for the presidency in the 1980s.

edit: “the 1980s” is maybe a little too broad, he started thinking about a run around the time of the 1988 election.
 
Last edited:
You are projecting, nothing you’ve said would make Republicans furious.
  1. Obviously Steele was engaged because of his opposition research expertise and contacts, that’s not in dispute. By definition they asked him to find negative facts that could be used against the opponent. Nothing wrong with that, if done with integrity.
  2. So you admit Trump was honest, since he never claimed not to do business in countries where Russia ‘had influence’. In reverse you could say the US has influence over most of the Globe. This is fabricating an issue.
  3. Assessing the value of real estate is highly subjective. You don’t know the value till you try sell it. I certainly don’t doubt Trump would use high estimates.
  4. I’m pretty sure Steele’s motivations were political, he’s not a Boy Scout. But I find his motivations irrelevant, what matters is the veracity of what he shared.
  5. Trump denied being close to Sater, he never said he didn’t know him. Maybe Trump knows him better than he let on but this would be highly subjective. If he’s denying it, he’s clearly not a close friend.
  6. So the reasonable interpretation is an unsubstantiated guess. It’s just a possibility.
  7. What’s your point? The stuff on Hillary wasn’t disclosed by the FBI, it was on Wikileaks or obtained via normal required disclosures.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
If true, this makes the Russian regime pretty much psychic, since in 2011 there was little hint that Trump would pursue a political career …
Click to expand...
Even if in their wildest dreams the Russians had not considered that Trump would become POTUS, they would have viewed him as a valuable asset.
 
Theo520 said:
You are projecting, nothing you’ve said would make Republicans furious.

Obviously Steele was engaged because of his opposition research expertise and contacts, that’s not in dispute. By definition they asked him to find negative facts that could be used against the opponent. Nothing wrong with that, if done with integrity.

So you admit Trump was honest, since he never claimed not to do business in countries where Russia ‘had influence’. In reverse you could say the US has influence over most of the Globe. This is fabricating an issue.

Assessing the value of real estate is highly subjective. You don’t know the value till you try sell it. I certainly don’t doubt Trump would use high estimates.

I’m pretty sure Steele’s motivations were political, he’s not a Boy Scout. But I find his motivations irrelevant, what matters is the veracity of what he shared.

Trump denied being close to Sater, he never said he didn’t know him. Maybe Trump knows him better than he let on but this would be highly subjective. If he’s denying it, he’s clearly not a close friend.
Click to expand...
First, if you don’t want someone else’s evaluation, read the testimony yourself.

Second, what you read is not my evaluation, but rather that of Jennifer Rubin. If you dispute her opinion, take it up with her:

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. Follow @JRubinBlogger
 
One of the more interesting claims from Wolff’s book is that most of the leaks coming out of the White House were by Bannon and the Kushners, with Trump himself allegedly doing some leaking of his own to friends he’d call. Trump’s sound like just general complaints, but it Wolff is to be believed, some of the more serious leaks were part of a war between Bannon and the Kushners as they tried to discredit each other in the President’s eyes. The notion that there were all these Democrat hangers-on tipping the press seems a little supportable now.
 
I am more curious as to why you and so many others want it to be true…🤔
 
7_Sorrows said:
I am more curious as to why you and so many others want it to be true…🤔
Click to expand...
I think that for the “so many others” that you are wondering about the truth - whatever it is - has become a big issue because Trump himself is so untruthful. I expect that he would on occasion be mistaken. I even expect that on occasion he might misrepresent something. However, his lying is way, way beyond anything even close to acceptable. He tells lies that can be easily debunked. It is the primary reason that I am concerned that he may have neurological issues.
 
HCTC said:
First, if you don’t want someone else’s evaluation, read the testimony yourself.

Second, what you read is not my evaluation, but rather that of Jennifer Rubin. If you dispute her opinion, take it up with her:

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. Follow @JRubinBlogger
Click to expand...
I respond to what is posted. Perhaps I could have referred to the author instead of saying “you”
If you are just summarizing Rubin’s work, don’t take my critique personally.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
I respond to what is posted. Perhaps I could have referred to the author instead of saying “you”

If you are just summarizing Rubin’s work, don’t take my critique personally.
Click to expand...
“HCTC said:
I like reading source documents that allow the reader to make their own judgments. However, here is an excerpt of testimoney summary from Jennifer Rubin who is a conservative & may even still be.a Republican:
Click to expand...
.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...transcript/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.2e727584fb22

I hope that you understand now that I posted an EXCERPT from the article that I linked in the post.
 
Last edited:
Finally had some time to skim through the transcript and oh man, this thing is going to be way bigger than I thought.
 
I haven’t gotten as far as you have, but i think it’s really a fascinating window into how a high level, professional investment works,
 
HCTC said:
40.png
7_Sorrows:
I am more curious as to why you and so many others want it to be true…🤔
Click to expand...
I think that for the “so many others” that you are wondering about the truth - whatever it is - has become a big issue because Trump himself is so untruthful. I expect that he would on occasion be mistaken. I even expect that on occasion he might misrepresent something. However, his lying is way, way beyond anything even close to acceptable. He tells lies that can be easily debunked. It is the primary reason that I am concerned that he may have neurological issues.
Click to expand...
Can you give me an example of his lying and and a list of these untruths he is so famous
for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top