Author
Topic: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report
(Read 3262 times)

harvestalvol · « **Reply #42 on:** October 28, 2017, 11:08:57 PM »

Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs

Abstract
Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points).
Carl, N. (2014). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence, 44, 142-148.

ATexasVol · « **Reply #43 on:** October 29, 2017, 12:07:57 AM »

Quote from: fuzzynavol on October 26, 2017, 10:32:25 AM

It's only a matter of time until you all turn on him. He won't have a solitary defender left on this board in 10 years - that's guaranteed. I doubt it'll take 5. His name will be mud to every single last one of you. It's going to be a joy to watch.

Why should we? You never turned on Obama. He gave almost $12 billion cash to Iran, foisted an unpopular medical insurance act on the country, lied about the ACA, used the IRS to persecute Tea Party groups, doubled the national debt, created ISIS, weakened the military, and divided the country along racial lines. Other than that, he was great.
But Trump tweets.
By any objective standard, Trump is a far better president than Obama. But I understand you liberals don't like him because he tweets?

HK_Vol · « **Reply #44 on:** October 29, 2017, 09:05:24 AM »

Sorry Fuzz - the news keeps getting worse.....

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/279505/#respond

WELL, HOW ABOUT THAT? Obama’s Campaign Paid $972,000 To Law Firm That Secretly Paid Fusion GPS In 2016. “Former president Barack Obama’s official campaign organization has directed nearly a million dollars to the same law firm that funneled money to Fusion GPS, the firm behind the infamous Steele dossier. Since April of 2016, Obama For America (OFA) has paid over $972,000 to Perkins Coie, records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show. The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump.”

If the parties were reversed, Perkins Coie would be radioactive now. People would be targeting their clients, students protesting their recruiting presence at law schools, complaints to nonprofits with Perkins partners on the board: The full Koch treatment.

From the comments:

Conte435 •
Another thing April 2016 ...... Same time that DNC and Hillary campaign began paying Fusion for the "dossier".
Obama used Fusion GPS in 2012 for op research on Romney.

Drew4UTk · « **Reply #45 on:** October 29, 2017, 10:45:54 AM »

Meanwhile, the headlines in Yahoo read yesterday eve "group with GOP ties worked with Russians to produce the Steele dossier"

It's not that fuzz is dumb. It's that he's gullible. It's that he's victimized by the leftist machine who wants him and those like him for their votes solely... well, they want to mobilize them into violent protest, now, but it uses to be just for their vote. They've done nothing for their voting base whatsoever. And still, they keep giving them purpose.

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #46 on:** October 29, 2017, 11:10:59 AM »

Quote from: ATexasVol on October 29, 2017, 12:07:57 AM

Why should we?

He's a brand that's going down in flames - you're all going to jump ship. Corker and Flake are right.

You never turned on Obama. He gave almost $12 billion cash to Iran

Returned money that was their's and got a deal on nukes. Trump said it was the worst deal he's ever seen. He thinks because he used to bully the Arab immigrant at the local deli that he can push other countries around. He can't.

foisted an unpopular medical insurance act on the country

So repeal and replace. Or was Trump right when he famously said, "no one knew how complicated healthcare is."

lied about the ACA

A lie is an intentional misstatement of facts. He never did that. You are so psychologically engrossed in partisan delusion that you can't even allow for the possibility that Obama might be a human capable of simply saying something that's incorrect.

"If he's wrong - it must be a lie!" Go back to your cave.

used the IRS to persecute Tea Party groups

Now that's lie - he wasn't complicit in that.

doubled the national debt

Not his fault. Again, you don't have the integrity to mention his consistent progress on the deficit. The impact on the deficit of Trump's proposed tax plan is devastating - I wonder how you phony deficit hawks will spin that?

created ISIS

Trump has stated that lie, although he famously included the word "literally"

weakened the military

Oh, please - what a desperate baseless, shallow accusation. Typical remark from someone who pretends to care about his country, but only really cares about vindication and winning.

and divided the country along racial lines

That's another lie.

he was great.

Agreed. Still is.

But Trump tweets.

Do you think that's the worst thing he does?

By any objective standard, Trump is a far better president than Obama.

Maybe by your standards...

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #47 on:** October 29, 2017, 11:29:47 AM »

Dan started this thread with a link to the Washington Post, so me must consider it a credible source on this story. Here's the latest:

As a service to readers bound to be confused by an increasingly tangled story, here’s a brief guide to the latest developments in the tangled allegations involving Russia, President Trump and Hillary Clinton.

The Dossier
Background: The “dossier” is a collection of 17 memos concerning President Trump and Russia written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, between June 20 and Dec. 13, 2016. Steele produced his memos under a contract with Fusion GPS, a strategic intelligence firm run by former journalists.

The memos are written as raw intelligence, based on interviews Steele had with unidentified Russian sources (identified, for instance, as “Kremlin insider”), some of whom he paid for information. Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified.
The memos, among other things, allege the Russian government had been seeking to split the Western alliance by cultivating and supporting Trump and also gathering compromising information — “kompromat” — on him in an effort to blackmail him. The memos, among other allegations, claim the Russian government fed the Trump campaign “valuable intelligence” on Clinton.
Why It’s Important: The dossier mirrors a separate conclusion by U.S. intelligence agencies that the Russian government intervened in the U.S. election in an effort to bolster Trump and harm Clinton, such as through hacking the Democratic National Committee and distributing materials to WikiLeaks to publish at key moments. As the official declassified report stated:

Quote

“We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin intensely disliked Clinton because he was convinced that when she was secretary of state she had promoted anti-Putin, pro-democracy efforts in his country. The FBI considered the information gathered by Steele to be of sufficient importance that it considered paying him for his research, although it later dropped the idea.
What’s New: The DNC and Clinton campaign were revealed as the “Democratic donors” who paid Fusion GPS for Steele’s research. (Technically, Perkins Coie, the law firm of Marc Elias, an attorney representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, funded the research.)
Separately, a “Republican donor” who had earlier hired Fusion GPS for information on Trump was revealed to be the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website. But that earlier effort is unrelated to the Democratic-funded research that yielded the dossier.
We should note that, in another assignment, Fusion had been hired by a U.S. law firm in early 2014 to assist on the defense against a civil action filed by the U.S. government alleging fraud by Prevezon Holdings. Prevezon is owned by Denis Katsyv, the son of a senior Russian government official.
Why is that relevant? Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was also working for the law firm on the Prevezon case, met with Trump campaign officials at the Trump Tower in June 2016, including Donald Trump Jr., campaign manager Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, the husband of Ivanka Trump. Donald Trump Jr. agreed to meet with Veselnitskaya after an intermediary promised dirt on Clinton. She arrived with a memo containing talking points that had been previously shared by Yuri Chaika, Russia’s prosecutor general who is known as a master of kompromat.
What’s controversial: The Trump White House has tried to use the connection between the dossier and Clinton to claim that this shows that rather than Trump colluding with Russia, Clinton colluded with Russia. (The theory appears to be that because Steele was getting information from Russian officials in part with funds provided by the Clinton campaign, the Russians were helping Clinton.) But that ignores the fact that DNC emails — as well as the email account of the Clinton campaign chairman — were hacked and then published by WikiLeaks as part of the pro-Trump Russian operation identified by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Steele started producing his memos in June 2016, about the same time that intelligence agencies began investigating possible ties between Russia and people close to Trump. The connection between Steele’s research and official government investigations is murky, but for some Republicans it raises questions about whether the official probe begun in the Obama administration was influenced by information gathered by someone being paid by Democrats.
CNN, for instance, reported that the FBI used information in the Steele memos to obtain approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who Trump had said was a key adviser on national security issues. Presumably, the FBI had verified the information before it could cite it in court. Steele had quoted an “ethnic Russian close associate” of Trump as saying Page was an intermediary in “a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership. Page has adamantly denied any wrongdoing.
Steele, during the campaign, at Fusion’s direction also briefed reporters from some U.S. news organizations, including The Washington Post, on his findings, according to court filings. Only one publication, Mother Jones, published information based on the briefing before the election.
The Uranium deal
Background: In 2010, Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, acquired a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company that had mining licenses for about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity. The agreement was approved by the Obama administration when Clinton was secretary of state.
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, had sold a company, UrAsia, to Uranium One in 2007. Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. Meanwhile, in 2010, Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank to give a speech at a conference in Moscow.
Trump, during the campaign, tossed all of these separate facts together to falsely claim that Clinton “gave 20 percent of our uranium — gave Russia for a big payment.” But numerous fact checks have found no evidence for this claim. The original suggestion of wrongdoing was first raised in a book underwritten by an organization headed by Stephen K. Bannon, a key adviser to Trump.
Why It’s Important: Whenever news about the Russia investigation heats up, the Trump White House cites the uranium deal in an effort to muddy the waters and suggest that Russia had gained something from Clinton in exchange for money. Trump himself has claimed the case is “Watergate, modern age.”
But there is no evidence Clinton even was informed about this deal. The Treasury Department was the key agency that headed the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which approved the investment; Clinton did not participate in the CFIUS decision. The deal was also approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ultimately, only the president could have blocked or suspended the arrangement.
Moreover, no uranium produced at U.S. mines may be exported, except for some uranium yellowcake which is extracted and processed in Canada before being returned to the United States for use in nuclear power plants.
What’s New: The Hill newspaper on Oct. 22 reported the FBI had gathered evidence at the time of the sale that a Russian Rosatom official had conducted a massive bribery scheme, compromising an American trucking company that shipped uranium for Russia. The official eventually was convicted in 2015, but Republicans have said the case should have raised alarms about the Rosatom investment in Uranium One and possibly blocked the deal. But there is no evidence that U.S. officials weighing the transaction knew about the FBI investigation.
The reporting prompted House Republicans to announce they would launch an investigation. With the apparent urging of President Trump, the Justice Department gave a former FBI informant in the case approval to testify before Congress. The informant’s lawyer claimed he would discuss his work “uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with [former president Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”
What’s controversial: Any suggestion that Russian money was directed to influence Clinton’s decisions would be explosive. But the fatal flaw in this allegation is Hillary Clinton, by all accounts, did not participate in any discussions regarding the Uranium One sale which — as we noted — does not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/analysis-the-‘dossier’-and-the-uranium-deal-a-guide-to-the-latest-allegations/ar-AAubnuL?li=BBnb7Kz

roadvol · « **Reply #48 on:** October 29, 2017, 02:07:39 PM »

Want to know what's really incredible?
Not that you knew nothing of the exploding scandal directly tied to the DNC and Hiliary Clinton.
That's not surprising since you are so insulated from what's going on outside of what you see on the Comedy Network and selected blogs.
Heck...even CNN has reported on it!
What is truly incredible is that you would admit to this board how uninformed and naive you really are!!!
It's not that most this board wasn't aware of how little you know.It's the fact that you finally admitted it!!!
Incredible!!!!

highVOLtage · « **Reply #49 on:** October 29, 2017, 03:15:42 PM »

lied about the ACA
fuzzy wrote: "A lie is an intentional misstatement of facts. He never did that."

"...For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named President Obama's claim "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice. (PolitiFact first announced its selection on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper.)

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #50 on:** October 29, 2017, 03:45:15 PM »

Quote from: roadvol on October 29, 2017, 02:07:39 PM

Want to know what's really incredible?

What - how irrelevant your post is to the WaPo article? Do you have any quarrel with the article?

Not that you knew nothing of the exploding scandal directly tied to the DNC and Hiliary Clinton.

It's all in the WaPo article above - I suggest you read it. You'll even find a factoid that contradicts something I've said in this forum, so it's a good chance at a gotcha if you're clever enough (don't worry, I'm happy to cop to it if you call me on it).

That's not surprising since you are so insulated from what's going on outside of what you see on the Comedy Network and selected blogs.

I don't read any blogs, and don't get Comedy Central since I "cut the cord" and got rid of cable.

Heck...even CNN has reported on it!

So did Wapo!

What is truly incredible is that you would admit to this board how uninformed and naive you really are!!!

I didn't say anything about being naive.

It's not that most this board wasn't aware of how little you know.It's the fact that you finally admitted it!!!
Incredible!!!!

You've lost me here - is it that hard for you to fathom that someone would be honest in a political conversation? Is that what you were referring to that's "really incredible?" It's better to be temporarily uninformed, as I was when the OP started this thread, then to be permanently misinformed, as is your preferred state of delusion.

roadvol · « **Reply #51 on:** October 29, 2017, 04:14:04 PM »

Typical Fuzzy diversion after inserting your foot in your mouth trying to CYOA
This is what my post was referring to:

"I haven't heard or read anything about this anywhere but in this thread, so here's a rational assessment of the situation from a purely factual standpoint - I'll leave my personal opinions out of it (for now). " Fuzz

If you hadn't noticed the OP was simply a cut and paste of the Wapo article.
I was simply commenting with amazement that you would admit you knew nothing about the article and about a subject that that every credible news source in the country had been commenting on for days.
.No need to embarrass yourself further,

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #52 on:** October 29, 2017, 05:00:42 PM »

Quote from: roadvol on October 29, 2017, 04:14:04 PM

I was simply commenting with amazement that you would admit you knew nothing about the article and about a subject

Again, it's a shame that you find an honest admission of being uninformed on a topic to be so "amazing." People do it all the time - you should try it yourself some time - a little humility might do you good.

that that every credible news source in the country had been commenting on for days.

Since when do you care whether or now a "news source" is credible?

No need to embarrass yourself further

Embarrassed? I'm proud not to be so insecure that I feel the need to pretend that I know everything. Proud not to be misinformed as you were on this topic. And proud to have provided you some clarity with the follow-up WaPo article.

You're welcome, by the way.

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #53 on:** October 29, 2017, 05:02:37 PM »

Quote from: ATexasVol on October 26, 2017, 09:19:50 PM

If he's not a defense attorney, he should be one. If I was guilty as sin and wanted someone that could blow smoke up the jury's a$$ like nobody's business, I would hire fuzz.

HK_Vol · « **Reply #54 on:** October 29, 2017, 07:15:09 PM »

https://twitchy.com/jacobb-38/2017/10/29/sharyl-attkisson-poses-the-question-to-the-fbi-concerning-last-years-dnc-hack/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

Sharyl Attkisson ✔ @SharylAttkisson
If Democratic National Committee DNC had turned its server(s) over for FBI exam after alleged Russia hacking of emails, I wonder what would have been found. Why didn't FBI didn't just take servers if national security were at stake? Permission not needed for matters so important.
4:23 AM - Oct 29, 2017

Surely Adam Schiff is working eagerly to haul Comey in to provide testimony on this.

WrongthinkDeetz @tahDeetz
Democrat Privilege.

Linda Lee White @LindaLeeWhite
Yes! This is KEY. They sure don't have a problem seizing servers & computers from everyone else!

fuzzynavol · « **Reply #55 on:** October 29, 2017, 07:21:12 PM »

twitchy.com

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

harvestalvol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

ATexasVol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

HK_Vol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

Drew4UTk

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

roadvol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

highVOLtage

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

roadvol

Typical Fuzz Dodge

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

HK_Vol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report

fuzzynavol

Re: Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid for Bogus Russia Dossier on Trump: Report