old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:11 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 10:51 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 9:57 am
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 3:33 am
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:26 am
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:11 am
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:57 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:28 pm
Meanwhile, the FEC found that the DNC & HRC Campaign violated election law & fined them > $100k for funding the Steele Dossier.
They didn't fine them for "funding the Steele Dossier."
But I'm sure that's how FoxNation will make the same "whoopsie" you just did.
...yeah, just Fox Nation.
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq ... =617&dpr=1
Yes. Just FoxNation. Not one of those headlines read "fined them for FUNDING the Steele Dossier."
Your wording makes it sound like the Dossier itself, and paying for it, is illegal.....and the Dems were caught breaking the law to go after Trump.
So guess what the headlines are for Fox...
Hillary Clinton, DNC fined for Steele dossier
https://fox8.com/news/hillary-clinton-d ... e-dossier/
Hillary Clinton's campaign 'broke federal law': Kash Patel
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-c ... kash-patel
DNC, Clinton campaign agree to pay FEC fines over Fusion GPS payments for Trump dossier
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-cl ... fusion-gps
Boy, what a coincidence that Fox would use three separate headlines that......like your wording......try and make it sound like the purchase of the Dossier itself was illegal. What a lucky day, right?
Now how many folks are going to walk away claiming the act of purchasing the Dossier broke Federal law?
I'm sure all of you slipped on a banana peel, and made this in error.
...yeah, it was just an administrative oversight, like lying in a FEC filing to hide it.
Too bad your social media news sources didn't protect you from this story, like they did for the Hunter lap top story.
hmmm, they paid a law firm for work and reported on a form that it was for legal services.
But the law firm did investigation...hiring an investigation firm...and thus, it should have been listed under another category other than "legal services". The $ were accurately reported. Ohh my, the horror.
No illegality of the work done, no illegality by the law firm, no illegality of the Campaign... other than misclassifying the work on a form that did report the expenditure...but ok, a fine for misreporting.
Why exaggerate this into more?
oh yeah, that's the game.
Everything's "equivalent"...
It was fraud. Hiding the funding of "opposition research", which was, in fact, a disinformation operation using foreign spies & Russian agents.
It was done to cover up HRC's funding of the Steele dossier, to make it easier to feed it to the media & deep state allies within the govt.
Just admit what it was. No need to perpetuate the fraud. They were caught violating campaign funding disclosure law. It worked. They got away with it. Trump got elected anyway, but they perpetuated the fraud long enough to undermine his presidency. Very elegant.
yeah, I don't buy that narrative. Might have an element of truth, might not. But wholesale "fraud" is a stretch.
And no, the Steele Dossier had very little impact on public perception of Trump's corruption and gross behaviors, much less his bootlicking of Putin, before, during, and after his Presidency. Did it have little bit of influence? mebbe a tiny amount, but we do know that it had nothing to do with why the FBI was investigating Trump and his Campaign, nor did it have anything to do with Trump's disastrous decision to fire Comey.
Trump's problems were entirely self-inflicted.
so, were Clinton's IMO, BTW.
...talk about not getting it. The Steele dossier had "mebbe a tiny amount" of influence.
Yup, if you didn't know that Trump was a corrupt POS and had deep relationships with Russians, admired a brutal war criminal like Putin, had openly asked Putin to meddle in the election...BEFORE we ever heard anything about the Steele Dossier, you were a dope.
The dossier had some additional salacious claims, but were they really so wild, given everything we already KNEW about Trump? I mean, seriously, who didn't know that Trump cheated on his wives crazily, grabbed P---whenever and wherever he could, so why would it be any surprise that he'd been plied with hookers when in Russia and such would/could be used as kompromat...now the wet stuff sounded a bit far fetched, and who cares really?, but most of that salacious stuff was merely in character, consistent with what we already knew...or sure as heck should have known.
And let's not ignore how many times Trump lied about what was indeed true for sure, he had a long and extensive set of business relationships with Russians and had been seeking Putin's approval for a business deal, even deep into the Campaign...and of course the stuff we didn't know, the welcoming of a visit by a Russian agent purporting to have dirt, the Manafort sharing of campaign data with a Russian agent...
and then how Trump bootlicked, publicly, at every turn.
Yeah, the Steele Dossier, the Steele Dossier...without that, there's nothing to see here!
Hilarious...does he even 'get it'?