quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

You two do realize that you are both battling over something one of WD's socks pulled out of his God-only-knows-why addled mind, right?

Very few of you little leftist howler trolls are any better than WD

You're certainly not

Be sure to pucker up when you kiss my howler ass cheeks, Princess. Stick to the skills in your wheelhouse and you will always be able to scrounge up a nickel to eat, love

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.


“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.
The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.

The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.

“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.

Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”

The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.

Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.

“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.

Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip.

A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.

“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”

Current and former Clinton aides told The Hill that the list of proposed business executives the former president planned to meet raised some sensitivities after Bill Clinton’s speaker bureau got the invite for the lucrative speech.

Hillary Clinton had just returned from Moscow and there were concerns about the appearance of her husband meeting with officials so soon after.

In addition, two of the Russians on the former president’s list had pending business that would be intersecting with State.

The first was Dvorkovich, who was a chief deputy to Medvedev and one of the Russian nuclear power industry’s cheerleaders. He also sat on the supervisory board of Rosatom, the state owned atomic energy company that was in the midst of buying a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One

The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an intergovernmental panel represented by 14 departments and offices that approve transactions and investments by foreign companies for national security purposes. Approval meant that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production would be shifting to the Russian-owned Rosatom’s control.

CFIUS approved the transaction in October 2010, saying there was no national security concerns. Hillary Clinton has said she did not intervene in the matter and instead delegated the decision to a lower official, who said he got no pressure from the secretary on any CFIUS matters. Any one of the participating offices and departments could have sought to block the deal by requesting intervention by the president.

The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approved the deal, raising new questions in Congress and drawing attention from President Trump. Uranium “is the real Russia story,” he told reporters, accusing news media of ignoring the new developments reported in The Hill.

The second person on the list that caught attention was Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.

Two days after Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, Vekselberg was named by Medvedev to oversee a new technology investment project called Skolkovo, designed to be Russia’s new Silicon Valley, according to media reports.

Hillary Clinton had directly discussed the Skolkovo project with Medvedev, and her State Department was whipping up support for it among U.S. companies, creating the potential appearance for a conflict. She even attended a major event with the Russians in 2010 to promote the project.

“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” she was quoted as saying at the time.

A third issue that emerged was Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank that actually paid the $500,000 speaking fee to the former president for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.

MORE

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.


“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.
The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.

The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.

“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.

Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”

The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.

Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.

“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.

Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip.

A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.

“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”

Current and former Clinton aides told The Hill that the list of proposed business executives the former president planned to meet raised some sensitivities after Bill Clinton’s speaker bureau got the invite for the lucrative speech.

Hillary Clinton had just returned from Moscow and there were concerns about the appearance of her husband meeting with officials so soon after.

In addition, two of the Russians on the former president’s list had pending business that would be intersecting with State.

The first was Dvorkovich, who was a chief deputy to Medvedev and one of the Russian nuclear power industry’s cheerleaders. He also sat on the supervisory board of Rosatom, the state owned atomic energy company that was in the midst of buying a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One

The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an intergovernmental panel represented by 14 departments and offices that approve transactions and investments by foreign companies for national security purposes. Approval meant that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production would be shifting to the Russian-owned Rosatom’s control.

CFIUS approved the transaction in October 2010, saying there was no national security concerns. Hillary Clinton has said she did not intervene in the matter and instead delegated the decision to a lower official, who said he got no pressure from the secretary on any CFIUS matters. Any one of the participating offices and departments could have sought to block the deal by requesting intervention by the president.

The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approved the deal, raising new questions in Congress and drawing attention from President Trump. Uranium “is the real Russia story,” he told reporters, accusing news media of ignoring the new developments reported in The Hill.

The second person on the list that caught attention was Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.

Two days after Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, Vekselberg was named by Medvedev to oversee a new technology investment project called Skolkovo, designed to be Russia’s new Silicon Valley, according to media reports.

Hillary Clinton had directly discussed the Skolkovo project with Medvedev, and her State Department was whipping up support for it among U.S. companies, creating the potential appearance for a conflict. She even attended a major event with the Russians in 2010 to promote the project.

“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” she was quoted as saying at the time.

A third issue that emerged was Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank that actually paid the $500,000 speaking fee to the former president for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.

MORE

So... When proven wrong... You change the subject....

Please cite where ANY of this is mentioned in the dossier????

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Nothing about Trump or his campaign whatsoever

(Carry the stench of crazed desperation around with you much)

Remember, it was HILLARY who collaborated

And it was Bill, who made the millions on the Russian speeches while Hillary was SoS

Why do you keep repeating that after being proven wrong?

Just curious...

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Why doesn’t Hillary’s ‘dossier’ trick count as treason?

What’s the difference between the infamous Russian dossier on Donald Trump and that random fake-news story you saw on Facebook last year? The latter was never used by America’s intelligence community to bolster its case for spying on American citizens nor was it the foundation for a year’s worth of media coverage.

quote:


Then again, you get what you pay for. We now know Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited dossier on Trump.

According to The Washington Post, a lawyer named Marc Elias, who represented both the 2016 Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, had hired Fusion GPS, a DC firm working on behalf of the Russian government to soften sanctions at the time, to provide opposition research for them. The firm then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele who reportedly purchased salacious rumors about Trump from the Russians.

quote:


Now, you might expect that the scandalous revelation of a political campaign using opposition research that was partially obtained from a hostile foreign power during a national election would ignite shrieks of “collusion” from all patriotic citizens.

quote:



After all, only last summer, when it was reported that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer who claimed to be in possession of damaging information about Clinton, there was widespread condemnation.

Finally, we were told, a smoking gun tied the Trump campaign to Vladimir Putin. Former Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine went as far as to suggest that the independent counsel begin investigating treason.

Treason! Trump Jr. didn’t even pay for or accept research.

quote:


The Clinton crew, on the other hand, did. They didn’t openly push the contents of the dossier — probably because they knew it was mostly fiction. Instead, Fusion GPS leaked it to their friends in the media.

The dossier ended up in the possession of most major news outlets. Many journalists relied on Fusion GPS to propel coverage. BuzzFeed even posted the entire thing for Americans to read, even though it was more than likely its most scandalous parts were hatched by a foreign government.

The memo dominated newsrooms that were convinced Trump was a Manchurian candidate. No fake-news story came close to having this kind of impact.

Democrats in Washington are now pushing the “Honest Ads Act,” which creates a raft of new regulations and fines for Web sites that don’t do enough to combat fake news. Attempting to control the flow of information into our screens is the hobbyhorse of would-be censors. But since they’re at it, when do we get a bill that fines institutional media organizations that readily embrace bogus foreign dossiers?

Because the dossier didn’t just awaken the Russia-stole-our-democracy narratives in the media. It’s just as likely that the dossier was used by Clinton’s allies in the government.

The Obama administration reportedly relied on the dossier to bolster its spying on US citizens. We know of at least one case where the information was used to justify a FISA warrant on a Trump adviser. And let’s not forget that Steele had reached an agreement to be compensated for his efforts by the FBI.

None of this excuses the actions of Paul Manafort and others who may have benefitted from their relationship with the Russians. Yet, using the very standards Democrats have constructed over the past year, the Fusion GPS story is now the most tangible evidence we possess of Russian interference in the American election.

And at some point, Democrats will have to decide whether it’s wrong for a political campaign to work with foreigners when obtaining opposition research or whether it’s acceptable. We can’t have different standards for Democrats and Republicans.

Otherwise people might start to get the idea that all the histrionics over the past year weren’t really about Russian interference at all, but rather about Hillary losing an election that they assumed she’d win.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

You two do realize that you are both battling over something one of WD's socks pulled out of his God-only-knows-why addled mind, right?

Very few of you little leftist howler trolls are any better than WD

You're certainly not

Be sure to pucker up when you kiss my howler ass cheeks, Princess. Stick to the skills in your wheelhouse and you will always be able to scrounge up a nickel to eat, love

Seriously, you post almost exactly like WD does.

Not kidding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Nothing about Trump or his campaign whatsoever

(Carry the stench of crazed desperation around with you much)

Remember, it was HILLARY who collaborated

And it was Bill, who made the millions on the Russian speeches while Hillary was SoS

Why do you keep repeating that after being proven wrong?

Just curious...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Nothing about Trump or his campaign whatsoever

(Carry the stench of crazed desperation around with you much)

Remember, it was HILLARY who collaborated

And it was Bill, who made the millions on the Russian speeches while Hillary was SoS

Why do you keep repeating that after being proven wrong?

Just curious...

It’s long been the Republican playbook and a staple of the “alternative facts” alt-right universe:

The belief that if you keep repeating something, it becomes true.

quote:

After being caught red handed this week by the House Intelligence Committee of being behind the funding that produced the infamous Fusion GPS Russian dossier on Donald Trump, two time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is claiming she knew nothing about the payments or the existence of the dossier at all. Further, she's using Barack Obama's excuse of "I learned about it through news reports."

Hillary Clinton was unaware of the now-infamous dossier of allegations about Donald Trump and Russia prior to Buzzfeed's publishing of the document earlier this year, a source familiar with the matter has told CNN.

Clinton was disappointed that the research from the document was not made public before she lost the 2016 election, the source said.

The New York Times first reported on Wednesday that Clinton didn't know about the dossier until it was published, citing two associates who discussed the matter with her.

The news comes a day after the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee acknowledged it helped fund opposition research on President Donald Trump that ultimately resulted in the dossier.

Meanwhile, her former campaign spokesperson is calling the dossier basic and typical opposition research, despite the campaign and DNC denying for a year they had anything to do with it at all.

Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is also pleading ignorance.

Current and past leaders of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) say they had no knowledge that the national party was helping to fund a dossier compiled by a British spy that contained scandalous accusations about President Trump.

The big question is whether the Clinton campaign used the dossier, which they paid for, to spark an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill will certainly want to know.

quote:

Talk about burying the lead. A day after the revelation by the Washington Post that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for the Russia dossier, the NY Times buried Clinton’s denial of any knowledge of the arrangement in the 12th paragraph of a story titled “What to Know About the Dossier of Trump Research and Who Paid for It.” The denial comes from two anonymous sources who claim Clinton first learned her campaign had funded the dossier after Buzzfeed published it in January:

Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton only found about Mr. Steele’s research after Buzzfeed published the dossier, according to two associates who discussed the matter with her. They said that she was disappointed that the research — as well as the fact that the F.B.I. was looking into connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia — was not made public before Election Day.

Clinton’s denial isn’t even the opener of the 12th paragraph. It is actually buried within the paragraph? Why would author Kenneth Vogel do this? It’s not as if this isn’t by far the biggest news in the story. Within hours of the story going up at the NY Times, the Hill had made Clinton’s denial a headline. And early this morning CNN published a story titled, “Hillary Clinton unaware of dossier before it was published.” So why did the NY Times go for the soft splash on this?

Putting aside the question of whatever bias or incompetence led the Times to bury the lede here, there are questions to ask about the denial itself. Why didn’t Hillary just tweet this explanation herself? Why didn’t she speak for herself on the record? Why are her associates saying this anonymously? As Ed noted earlier today, this followed 24-hours of silence from Clinton world in which Hillary, Robby Mook and John Podesta all refused to say anything when asked by the Washington Post. It all looks like Clinton world circling the wagons to protect Hillary. She certainly had plenty to say about Russia and collusion prior to this week.

And that raises another point about this. As Callum Borchers pointed out yesterday, Hillary’s book “What Happened” mentions the dossier but does not state that her campaign paid for it. Why is that? If she knew her campaign was behind it since January, she had months to fit that fact into her manuscript. Why didn’t she?

The answer, of course, is that Hillary only tells the complete truth when forced to do so. At the time she wrote the book she knew who had paid for the dossier but she wasn’t going to tell readers that because she didn’t have to and it didn’t help her to do so. There was no need to be completely honest at the time because it seemed this awkward fact was going to remain buried. Now, in retrospect, we see Hillary was withholding the truth, as she so often does.

Hillary’s track record of being extremely stingy with the truth makes it hard to take any announcement she makes at face value, especially one she won’t even make with her own face. Clinton has been trying to connect Trump to Russian mischief since at least July 2016, coincidentally that’s the same month Christopher Steele was turning the first parts of what became the Russia dossier over to Fusion GPS. Presumably, Fusion GPS was sharing those results with their client Marc Elias who also happened to be the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Steele says the findings were so explosive that he felt obligated to share them with the FBI on his own accord (again, in July 2016). But we’re now asked to believe Elias never shared these explosive findings with any of the people paying for them. Does that make any sense at all?

Fusion GPS also had Steele share his findings with reporters at several outlets in October, in an effort to get the oppo-research out to the public before election day. Most of the outlets refused to publish his claims because they couldn’t back them up, but Mother Jones did publish a story on Oct. 31, 2016. Again, does it seem plausible that Fusion GPS was doing this without the permission of their client, Marc Elias? Is it plausible that Elias told Fusion to take the dossier to the NY Times and others without even telling Clinton the dossier existed? Was the plan to surprise her with the publication of these damning accusations against Trump a week before the election?

Hillary withheld the truth about the dossier in her tell-all book so it’s not an unreasonable assumption she’s still withholding the truth now. It’s just what she does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

another version:

"Hillary Clinton didn’t know who funded the dossier until January…of course"

quote:

Talk about burying the lead. A day after the revelation by the Washington Post that Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for the Russia dossier, the NY Times buried Clinton’s denial of any knowledge of the arrangement in the 12th paragraph of a story titled “What to Know About the Dossier of Trump Research and Who Paid for It.” The denial comes from two anonymous sources who claim Clinton first learned her campaign had funded the dossier after Buzzfeed published it in January:

Officials from the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. have said they were unaware that Perkins Coie facilitated the research on their behalf, even though the law firm was using their money to pay for it. Even Mrs. Clinton only found about Mr. Steele’s research after Buzzfeed published the dossier, according to two associates who discussed the matter with her. They said that she was disappointed that the research — as well as the fact that the F.B.I. was looking into connections between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia — was not made public before Election Day.

Clinton’s denial isn’t even the opener of the 12th paragraph. It is actually buried within the paragraph? Why would author Kenneth Vogel do this? It’s not as if this isn’t by far the biggest news in the story. Within hours of the story going up at the NY Times, the Hill had made Clinton’s denial a headline. And early this morning CNN published a story titled, “Hillary Clinton unaware of dossier before it was published.” So why did the NY Times go for the soft splash on this?

Putting aside the question of whatever bias or incompetence led the Times to bury the lede here, there are questions to ask about the denial itself. Why didn’t Hillary just tweet this explanation herself? Why didn’t she speak for herself on the record? Why are her associates saying this anonymously? As Ed noted earlier today, this followed 24-hours of silence from Clinton world in which Hillary, Robby Mook and John Podesta all refused to say anything when asked by the Washington Post. It all looks like Clinton world circling the wagons to protect Hillary. She certainly had plenty to say about Russia and collusion prior to this week.

And that raises another point about this. As Callum Borchers pointed out yesterday, Hillary’s book “What Happened” mentions the dossier but does not state that her campaign paid for it. Why is that? If she knew her campaign was behind it since January, she had months to fit that fact into her manuscript. Why didn’t she?

The answer, of course, is that Hillary only tells the complete truth when forced to do so. At the time she wrote the book she knew who had paid for the dossier but she wasn’t going to tell readers that because she didn’t have to and it didn’t help her to do so. There was no need to be completely honest at the time because it seemed this awkward fact was going to remain buried. Now, in retrospect, we see Hillary was withholding the truth, as she so often does.

Hillary’s track record of being extremely stingy with the truth makes it hard to take any announcement she makes at face value, especially one she won’t even make with her own face. Clinton has been trying to connect Trump to Russian mischief since at least July 2016, coincidentally that’s the same month Christopher Steele was turning the first parts of what became the Russia dossier over to Fusion GPS. Presumably, Fusion GPS was sharing those results with their client Marc Elias who also happened to be the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Steele says the findings were so explosive that he felt obligated to share them with the FBI on his own accord (again, in July 2016). But we’re now asked to believe Elias never shared these explosive findings with any of the people paying for them. Does that make any sense at all?

Fusion GPS also had Steele share his findings with reporters at several outlets in October, in an effort to get the oppo-research out to the public before election day. Most of the outlets refused to publish his claims because they couldn’t back them up, but Mother Jones did publish a story on Oct. 31, 2016. Again, does it seem plausible that Fusion GPS was doing this without the permission of their client, Marc Elias? Is it plausible that Elias told Fusion to take the dossier to the NY Times and others without even telling Clinton the dossier existed? Was the plan to surprise her with the publication of these damning accusations against Trump a week before the election?

Hillary withheld the truth about the dossier in her tell-all book so it’s not an unreasonable assumption she’s still withholding the truth now. It’s just what she does.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/26/hillary-clinton-didnt-know-funded-dossier-january-course/

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustOneWay

Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier

US President Donald Trump has seized on reports that Hillary Clinton's team bankrolled a sleazy dossier of allegations linking him to Russia.
Unfounded claims that Mr Trump had been filmed with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel surfaced in the closing stretch of last year's White House race.
Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly helped fund the research.
"The victim here is the President," Mr Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Except... this "sleezy dossier" is turning out to be true...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/08/the-steele-dossier-is-increasingly-being-corroborated/

Well, except that your own source mentions none of the sleazy stuff ha been corroborated. If you find these two sources to be corroborating that more and more of the dossier is being corroborated, well, then, all I can say before I laugh is keep your fingers crossed and don't step on any cracks.

Except that it mentions nothing of the sort. You have no idea what you are reading. (See post above)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustOneWay

Clinton team and Democrats 'bankrolled' Trump dirty dossier

US President Donald Trump has seized on reports that Hillary Clinton's team bankrolled a sleazy dossier of allegations linking him to Russia.
Unfounded claims that Mr Trump had been filmed with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel surfaced in the closing stretch of last year's White House race.
Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) reportedly helped fund the research.
"The victim here is the President," Mr Trump tweeted on Wednesday.

Except... this "sleezy dossier" is turning out to be true...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/03/08/the-steele-dossier-is-increasingly-being-corroborated/

Well, except that your own source mentions none of the sleazy stuff ha been corroborated. If you find these two sources to be corroborating that more and more of the dossier is being corroborated, well, then, all I can say before I laugh is keep your fingers crossed and don't step on any cracks.

Except that it mentions nothing of the sort. You have no idea what you are reading. (See post above)

First sentence, second paragraph, CNN. Read your own posts pops. Jees, the other link takes a damn Rachel Madow piece and makes that into a breathless mystery. I'm just saying, pops, if that's what you're counting on to back in the horse race, keep your finger crossed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

When one party pays $9 million dollars for a report on the opposition you can be sure that the Russians
will produce something to make them look bad, even if they have to make it up.