They didn't know.....

[MNMikeW]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/hillary-clinton-dossier-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN102617hillary-clinton-dossier-buzzfeed1223PMVODtop

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.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357240-dnc-wasserman-schultz-say-they-were-unaware-of-dossier-payments

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.


So let me get this straight. Someone in the Hillary campaign/DNC made a
$9 million expenditure, and nobody at the top knew about it? LOLOLOLOLOL!!

[Carbon]

Wow, talk about stupid. If Hillary's campaign had colluded with an enemy state to get dirt on the opposition in exchange for lifting sanctions once elected, they probably could have got it for nothing.

[Dene]

Wow, talk about stupid. If Hillary's campaign had colluded with an enemy state to get dirt on the opposition in exchange for lifting sanctions once elected, they probably could have got it for nothing.

So what do you think happened?

[Carbon]

On 10/26/2017 09:49 PM, Dene wrote:

>> Wow, talk about stupid. If Hillary's campaign had colluded with an enemy state to get dirt on the opposition in exchange for lifting sanctions once elected, they probably could have got it for nothing.
>
> So what do you think happened?

It sounds like Hillary's campaign spent a boatload of cash digging up dirt on the Orange One. Everyone does opposition research, so I don't see what the problem is--aside from the amount they paid.

But one has to draw the line somewhere.

And collusion with an enemy state in exchange for favors once elected? Yeah, that's way over it.

[Dene]

It sounds like Hillary's campaign spent a boatload of cash digging up dirt on the Orange One. Everyone does opposition research, so I don't see what the problem is--aside from the amount they paid.

It’s one thing to do research. It’s entirely another thing to deliberately spread a dossier full of lies.

But one has to draw the line somewhere.

And collusion with an enemy state in exchange for favors once elected? Yeah, that's way over

All smoke. Not one shred of evidence. But there could be evidence that Clinton was bribed in the uranium deal. Are you concerned what the informant it’s going to reveal? Are you nervous about a coverup? Somebody in lefty-land ain’t sleeping well.

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> I will have to look for a cite, but seems like I recall reports
> that the Hillary was pissed that nobody was reporting on the
> dossier after was leaked. Buzzfeed finally took the bait after
> the election.
>
> She knew.

She said that in a recent interview when she claimed she didnt know a
thing. Typical crooked Hillary.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 09:49 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>>> Wow, talk about stupid. If Hillary's campaign had colluded with
>>> an enemy state to get dirt on the opposition in exchange for
>>> lifting sanctions once elected, they probably could have got it
>>> for nothing.
>>
>> So what do you think happened?
>
>
> It sounds like Hillary's campaign spent a boatload of cash digging up
> dirt on the Orange One. Everyone does opposition research, so I don't
> see what the problem is--aside from the amount they paid.

LOL! You certainly had a problem when Don Jr. attempted it. And it just
so happens that the entire cruxt of the Russing investigation hinges on
the infamous "dossier".....That Hillary paid for.

>
> But one has to draw the line somewhere.
>
> And collusion with an enemy state in exchange for favors once
> elected? Yeah, that's way over it.
>

Like giving Russia control over 20% of our uranium for "donations" to
the Clinton slush fund?

[Alan Baker]

That's a fantasy, Mikey.

[michae...@gmail.com]

That's a fantasy, Mikey. You got that straight from the hoses ass's mouth. Didn't you know, IT is privy to top secret info.

[Dene]

Clearly Federal election laws were broken.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/

If she is responsible for the coverup, she just might get indicted. No White House...just the Big House. Maybe Martha Stewart will come visit.

[Alan Baker]

"innocent until proven guilty" only applies if you're not a Democrat, then?

:-)

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

> They got nothing for $9M.

They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.

--
Trump ***Irresponsible, unprofessional and sending the wrong message.***

[Dene]

> They got nothing for $9M.

They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.

You honestly believe this?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

If you don't you're in the same class.

[DumbedDownUSA]

If you are typical of his support it is confirmed. You have never said
anything negative about his unpresidiential behaviour, his bigotry, his
sexism. You can't possibly claim you care that he pays for golden
showers.

[Dene]

You believe that dossier spoke the truth. That Trump had whores piss on him? C'mon!!!

[Dene]

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:45:36 PM UTC-8, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Dene wrote:
>
> > > They got nothing for $9M.
> >
> > They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
> > whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
> > care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.
> >
> > You honestly believe this?
>
> If you are typical of his support it is confirmed. You have never said
> anything negative about his unpresidiential behaviour, his bigotry, his
> sexism. You can't possibly claim you care that he pays for golden
> showers.

Last reply ever, dumber than dumb. You are in the same category as the RAT.

[Alan Baker]

Why don't you believe it, Greg?

Lots of people have kinks. I bet you have a few of your own.

[Alan Baker]

Meaning he's someone who can beat you at ever turn, so you've got to run
away.

:-)

[Carbon]

Not one shred of evidence? Have you lost your mind?

[Alan Baker]

Nope! Just his integrity!

[Dene]

Let's see it.

[Alan Baker]

Donald Trump Jr. denying meeting with any Russians...

...and then having to amend that...

...and amend that...

...and amend that...

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:08:23 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> They got nothing for $9M.
>> >
>> >They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
>> >whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
>> >care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.
>> >
>> >You honestly believe this?
>>
>> If you don't you're in the same class.
>
>You believe that dossier spoke the truth. That Trump had whores piss on him? C'mon!!!

I have steadfastly ignored the dossier flap. The golden shower story
has been around well before the delectation.

[Alan Baker]

You should look at this:

<http://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-russia-timeline-2017-10>

Note the correlations between what's in the dossier, and what we know
for certain.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 19:44:20 -0500, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
<clip>

>
>I have steadfastly ignored the dossier flap. The golden shower story
>has been around well before the delectation.

Of course that should be election...

[Carbon]

I personally think he's trolling, for his own amusement if nothing else. Unlike some of the other Trump fanboys here he's not an idiot.

[Alan Baker]

I know a little too much of him to think that, I'm afraid.

He's a user who doesn't really care about much other than himself.

Have you noticed that literally the only thing he's taken issue with
that Trump has done is the one thing that might take money out of his
pocket?

[Dene]

Wrong. I meant the question. What evidence do you have that Trump colluded with Russia?

[Dene]

Don't blame you. HRC and her cronies are not looking good.

The golden shower story
> has been around well before the delectation.

Only a hater would believe a story like that.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> They seem like the same person. Liars and morons. They know
> nothing in the report has been collaborated.

Ironic that you should call others liars and morons and then follow up
with a lie in the next sentence. You know full well that parts of the
dossier were easily *corroborated*.

That's right... this moron knows the difference between your
incorrectly used "collaborated" and "corroborated" which I am sure you
meant.

Consult a mirror.

[Carbon]

Surely you remember Donnie Jr openly conspiring with Russian agents to get dirt on Hillary, and then of course Trump himself intervening to concoct a lie for the investigators? Yeah, that's obstruction of justice. So is Trump admitting in a TV interview that the fired the FBI director to derail the Russia investigation. And so it is with conspiracies--the crimes committed in the cover-up are not only evidence of the original crime but are often the things that bring whole works down.

That said, the Mueller investigation has just started handing out indictments and we are going to see the bit players scrambling for lesser charges in exchange for testimony. So there will undoubtedly much more to come.

[Carbon]

On 10/28/2017 12:57 AM, Dene wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:44:23 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:08:23 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> They got nothing for $9M.
>>>>>
>>>>> They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
>>>>> whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
>>>>> care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.
>>>>>
>>>>> You honestly believe this?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't you're in the same class.
>>>
>>> You believe that dossier spoke the truth. That Trump had whores piss on him? C'mon!!!
>>
>> I have steadfastly ignored the dossier flap.
>
> Don't blame you. HRC and her cronies are not looking good.

https://goo.gl/dNFFbg

>> The golden shower story has been around well before the delectation.
>
> Only a hater would believe a story like that.

Why? So far every provable claim in the dossier has panned out.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

What is it going to take to get through your bubble that no one here
has even suggested that Trump, himself, has colluded with Russia?
Some of his staff but not him.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:57:56 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 4:44:23 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:09:46 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 1:08:23 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> They got nothing for $9M.
>> >> >
>> >> >They did Trump a favour. He can't get blackmailed about his peeing
>> >> >whores now it's in the public domain. His supporters are they type to
>> >> >care what kind of person he is no matter who pisses on him.
>> >> >
>> >> >You honestly believe this?
>> >>
>> >> If you don't you're in the same class.
>> >
>> >You believe that dossier spoke the truth. That Trump had whores piss on him? C'mon!!!
>>
>> I have steadfastly ignored the dossier flap.
>
>Don't blame you. HRC and her cronies are not looking good.
>
> The golden shower story
>> has been around well before the delectation.
>
>Only a hater would believe a story like that.

I guess that only a hater would believe that he once said that women
could be pulled by the pussy if he wanted?

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

Surely you remember Donnie Jr openly conspiring with Russian agents to get dirt on Hillary, and then of course Trump himself intervening to concoct a lie for the investigators? Yeah, that's obstruction of justice. So is Trump admitting in a TV interview that the fired the FBI director to derail the Russia investigation. And so it is with conspiracies--the crimes committed in the cover-up are not only evidence of the original crime but are often the things that bring whole works down.

I remember Donnie Junior hearing a Russian attorney out and leaving quickly when nothing was relevant. That doesn’t mean collusion. Also there is no connection between Comey and collusion.

That said, the Mueller investigation has just started handing out indictments and we are going to see the bit players scrambling for lesser charges in exchange for testimony. So there will undoubtedly much more to come.

We’ll see.

[Dene]

I guess that only a hater would believe that he once said that women
could be pulled by the pussy if he wanted?

Nice try....That had nothing to do with dossier.

[Dene]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

- show quoted text -

What is it going to take to get through your bubble that no one here
has even suggested that Trump, himself, has colluded with Russia?
Some of his staff but not him.

You are on record with that assertion but your liberal friends in here are not.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>I guess that only a hater would believe that he once said that women
>could be pulled by the pussy if he wanted?
>
>Nice try....That had nothing to do with dossier.

It has everything to do with your not thinking that anyone could
believe the golden shower.

Nice try to get around your statement.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Who? I don't remember anyone here saying that. Point to a post that
shows it.

[Alan Baker]

That would take honesty...

...and that's something Greg lacks.

[Dene]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>I guess that only a hater would believe that he once said that women
>could be pulled by the pussy if he wanted?
>
>Nice try....That had nothing to do with dossier.

It has everything to do with your not thinking that anyone could
believe the golden shower.

Only a hater would believe that.

[Carbon]

On 10/28/2017 04:13 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>> Surely you remember Donnie Jr openly conspiring with Russian agents to get dirt on Hillary, and then of course Trump himself intervening to concoct a lie for the investigators? Yeah, that's obstruction of justice. So is Trump admitting in a TV interview that the fired the FBI director to derail the Russia investigation. And so it is with conspiracies--the crimes committed in the cover-up are not only evidence of the original crime but are often the things that bring whole works down.
>
> I remember Donnie Junior hearing a Russian attorney out and leaving quickly when nothing was relevant. That doesn’t mean collusion.

Noted leftist Charles Krauthammer disagrees with you. https://goo.gl/7WYdEJ

> Also there is no connection between Comey and collusion.

Right. That is obstruction of justice, which is also an indictable offence.

>> That said, the Mueller investigation has just started handing out indictments and we are going to see the bit players scrambling for lesser charges in exchange for testimony. So there will undoubtedly much more to come.
>
> We’ll see.

We certainly will. And soon.

[Carbon]

Direct collusion between Trump and the Russians hasn't been proven, yet. But if it is proven, I will not be the least bit surprised.

[Carbon]

Are these alleged haters as full of hate as you?

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

You confuse hate with disgust....and I’m disgusted with the DNC and HRC.
So should you.

[Alan Baker]

LOL!

The deflection is strong with this one!

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 14:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

Nope. Anyone that has followed Trump at all. Note the number of
sexual assault cases brought against him and his language. Greg, he's
not a nice man.

[-hh]

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 6:01:28 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>
> You confuse hate with disgust....and I’m disgusted with the DNC and HRC.
> So should you.

Just curious, this includes anyone who deliberately wipes government records
when they're the subject of a lawsuit ... right?

Just asking, because of the Republicans in Georgia who deliberately destroyed
official US Government records:

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/days-after-activists-sued-georgias-election-server-was-wiped-clean/>


-hh

[Dene]

He's definitely not a saint but he is on the RIGHT side of most issues.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 16:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 2:38:54 PM UTC-8, B...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 14:45:45 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 13:14:40 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>I guess that only a hater would believe that he once said that women
>> >>could be pulled by the pussy if he wanted?
>> >>
>> >>Nice try....That had nothing to do with dossier.
>> >
>> >It has everything to do with your not thinking that anyone could
>> >believe the golden shower.
>> >
>> >Only a hater would believe that.
>>
>> Nope. Anyone that has followed Trump at all. Note the number of
>> sexual assault cases brought against him and his language. Greg, he's
>> not a nice man.
>
>He's definitely not a saint but he is on the RIGHT side of most issues.

Correct. The FAR right.

[Carbon]

Trump doesn't know or care about right-wing ideology. https://goo.gl/HJNLK8


“When I was the editor of the New York Observer, Kushner and I were going back and forth about how the paper should cover him,” Elizabeth Spiers wrote in a post on Twitter.

“I told Jared that I was particularly appalled by his father-in-law’s birtherism stance, which I viewed as cynical and racist.

“He rolled his eyes and said ‘He doesn’t really believe it, Elizabeth. He just knows Republicans are stupid and they’ll buy it’”.

[DumbedDownUSA]

I don't read most of the posts on here but I don't recall anyone saying
that Trump himself would be found to have coluded directly with the
Russians. The allegations have always been with respect to members of
the Trump campaign.

Having said that he does seem to have lied about contacts and business
interests in Russia and have taken steps to prevent people being
properly investigated so when it all comes out in the wash, whether by
stupidity or design I doubt he'll be seen as clean.

[MNMikeW]

Too bad it's mainly unprovable claims that are in it.

[MNMikeW]

You mean like Hillary and the DNC did with the "dossier"?

[Alan Baker]

No. Because compiling the dossier didn't involve the Russians at all.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 9:39 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>> On 2017-10-30 8:48 AM, MNMikeW wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You mean like Hillary and the DNC did with the "dossier"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No. Because compiling the dossier didn't involve the Russians at all.
>>
>

> That is a complete lie.
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ycvjwq9e
>

If you have an argument, make it.

Don't provide a bare link.

[Alan Baker]

> Liar!
>

You've provided a bare link, not an argument.

That is not a lie.

Either make your argument, or implicitly admit you don't really have one.

[MNMikeW]

> Liar!

The ABC is in total denial. And clueless about current events as usual.

[Alan Baker]

I see you can't advance an actual argument either...

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> Worse than that. Caught with the lie on his lips he tries to
> shift the conversation.
>
> His game remains the same. He will never smarten up.

Yes, pretty rich that the pipsqueak of the north would say "if you have
an argument, make it. Don't provide a bare link." Pretty much all of his
trolls do this.

[B...@onramp.net]

Not true Mike. No matter what you think of him he does back up his
claims with specific links.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 11:27 AM, Moderate wrote:
> MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

> Worse than that. Caught with the lie on his lips he tries to
> shift the conversation.

I haven't lied.

There is no collusion with Russia if the Democrats worked with an
outside firm to gather information on Trump

[Alan Baker]

No, actually.

I almost always provide the text that makes my point.

[Alan Baker]

And the text from those links that I believe is relevant.

:-)

[John B.]

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 4:38:25 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/politics/hillary-clinton-dossier-buzzfeed/index.html?sr=twCNN102617hillary-clinton-dossier-buzzfeed1223PMVODtop
>
> 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.
>
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357240-dnc-wasserman-schultz-say-they-were-unaware-of-dossier-payments
>
> 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.
>
>
> So let me get this straight. Someone in the Hillary campaign/DNC made a
> $9 million expenditure, and nobody at the top knew about it? LOLOLOLOLOL!!

Maybe I'm being obtuse, I'm not sure I understand what's wrong with
a campaign buying scandalous information about an opponent. This
happens all the time.

[Alan Baker]

The right wing nuts want to turn buying information from a research
group ABOUT Trump and his Russian activities into collusion WITH Russia.

They are THAT dishonest.

[John B.]

On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> It sounds like Hillary's campaign spent a boatload of cash digging up dirt on the Orange One. Everyone does opposition research, so I don't see what the problem is--aside from the amount they paid.
>
> It’s one thing to do research. It’s entirely another thing to deliberately spread a dossier full of lies.

How do you know they're lies?

>
> But one has to draw the line somewhere.


>
> And collusion with an enemy state in exchange for favors once elected? Yeah, that's way over
>
> All smoke. Not one shred of evidence. But there could be evidence that Clinton was bribed in the uranium deal. Are you concerned what the informant it’s going to reveal? Are you nervous about a coverup? Somebody in lefty-land ain’t sleeping well.

Wow, what a fertile imagination you have.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 1:10 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> You are being obtuse.
>
> When a Republican is accused of doing it we need a special
> council. When we find out that Hillary actually did it. It
> becomes a nothing burger.
>

The Republicans are being investigated for what they offered a FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT in return for information.

> So here we are a year later with nothing on Trump, because the
> genesis of the investigation is just fabrications Hillary paid
> the Russians for.

Two words:

George Papadopoulos

>
> Hillary did not file this as opposition research as the law
> requires, but laundered the money through an attorney.
>
> That is a crime and a lawsuit has been filed.
>

LOL!

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> You are being obtuse.
>
> When a Republican is accused of doing it we need a special
> council. When we find out that Hillary actually did it. It
> becomes a nothing burger.
>

> So here we are a year later with nothing on Trump, because the
> genesis of the investigation is just fabrications Hillary paid
> the Russians for.
>

> Hillary did not file this as opposition research as the law
> requires, but laundered the money through an attorney.
>
> That is a crime and a lawsuit has been filed.

As if you don't know there is a difference between directly colluding
with a foreign state and indirectly paying an informant.

I can't recall the last post of yours that I read that didn't contain
misrepresentations and/or lies.

Are you auditioning for a job in the White House press room?

[B...@onramp.net]

No. He's just dumber than dirt.

[Carbon]

On 10/30/2017 03:35 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>
>>> It sounds like Hillary's campaign spent a boatload of cash digging up dirt on the Orange One. Everyone does opposition research, so I don't see what the problem is--aside from the amount they paid.
>>
>> It’s one thing to do research. It’s entirely another thing to deliberately spread a dossier full of lies.
>
> How do you know they're lies?

Clearly he doesn't.

>>> But one has to draw the line somewhere.
>>>
>>> And collusion with an enemy state in exchange for favors once elected? Yeah, that's way over
>>
>> All smoke. Not one shred of evidence. But there could be evidence that Clinton was bribed in the uranium deal. Are you concerned what the informant it’s going to reveal? Are you nervous about a coverup? Somebody in lefty-land ain’t sleeping well.
>
> Wow, what a fertile imagination you have.

This is just the opening salvo. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance from the far right as the revelations continue.

[Carbon]

It does happen all the time, but these chickenheads seem completely unaware. In fact, the research into Trump was initially financed by right-wing interests opposed to Trump's candidacy. It was only dropped after it became clear that he was going to get the nomination.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

It does happen all the time, but these chickenheads seem completely unaware. In fact, the research into Trump was initially financed by right-wing interests opposed to Trump's candidacy. It was only dropped after it became clear that he was going to get the nomination.

So that justifies HRC and her cronies spending 12 million on a contrived dossier with roots from Russia?

[Carbon]

On 10/30/2017 09:57 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>> It does happen all the time, but these chickenheads seem completely unaware.. In fact, the research into Trump was initially financed by right-wing interests opposed to Trump's candidacy. It was only dropped after it became clear that he was going to get the nomination.

>
> So that justifies HRC and her cronies spending 12 million on a contrived dossier with roots from Russia?

I don't know how much they paid, but I do know that opposition research is a thriving and legal business.

Of course, conspiring with an enemy state on order to get dirt on your opponents in exchange for favors once elected, well that's a completely different story.


I find it interesting that Flynn wasn't indicted as well. Since he also got caught perjuring himself, I can only assume that he is cooperating with the Mueller investigation. I have no doubt that everyone involved in the conspiracy that Papadopoulos pled guilty to are shitting bricks right now.

I'm honestly curious as to how long you're going to stay with this Heil Trump business.

[Dene]

I’m waiting for a relevant indictment. Until then, he is the signature on some legislature that I think the country needs.

[Alan Baker]

I love the way you torture the language (that's lie).

The dossier doesn't have "roots from Russia", Greg: the dossier is ABOUT
TRUMP's ties to Russia.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 8:19 PM, Dene wrote:

In short, you don't care if he's corrupt so long as you think he'll put
money in your pocket.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-30 5:41 PM, Moderate wrote:
> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> You are being obtuse.
>>>
>>> When a Republican is accused of doing it we need a special
>>> council. When we find out that Hillary actually did it. It
>>> becomes a nothing burger.
>>>
>>> So here we are a year later with nothing on Trump, because the
>>> genesis of the investigation is just fabrications Hillary paid
>>> the Russians for.
>>>
>>> Hillary did not file this as opposition research as the law
>>> requires, but laundered the money through an attorney.
>>>
>>> That is a crime and a lawsuit has been filed.
>>
>> As if you don't know there is a difference between directly colluding
>> with a foreign state and indirectly paying an informant.
>

> He wasn't an informant he was a paid contractor. Hillary expects
> you to believe she paid an attorney $9M and doesn't know why or
> who authorized it.

Who do you think authorized it?

>
> Don't pretend to be that stupid. Or maybe you aren't pretending.
>

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Moderate wrote:
> >>

> >> You are being obtuse.
> >>
> >> When a Republican is accused of doing it we need a special
> >> council. When we find out that Hillary actually did it. It
> >> becomes a nothing burger.
> >>
> >> So here we are a year later with nothing on Trump, because the
> >> genesis of the investigation is just fabrications Hillary paid
> >> the Russians for.
> >>
> >> Hillary did not file this as opposition research as the law
> >> requires, but laundered the money through an attorney.
> >>
> >> That is a crime and a lawsuit has been filed.
> >
> > As if you don't know there is a difference between directly
> > colluding with a foreign state and indirectly paying an informant.
>

> He wasn't an informant he was a paid contractor.

A Russian paid contractor... contracted directly by Hillaryu Clinton?

You are taking your lies to a differnt level way beyond simple credible
stupidity...

> Hillary expects
> you to believe she paid an attorney $9M

Does she? Where does she say that? You have proof *she* paid an
attorney?

> and doesn't know why or
> who authorized it.
>

> Don't pretend to be that stupid. Or maybe you aren't pretending.

Pot, kettle... stupid asshole.

Look fuckwit, I don't know what the full truth of this story is but I
do know you continue to fabricate nonsense. You lack the self control
to let the truth come out preferring to attempt to muddy the waters
with a litany of falsehoods.

It's as if habitual lying is a Trumpet contagion.

You're FAKE.

[MNMikeW]

Yes, except when Don Jr. attempted it, the libtards lost their fucking
minds. The Free Beacon was doing opo research on all GOP candidates.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-31 7:32 AM, Moderate wrote:
> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Moderate wrote:
>>>
>>> He wasn't an informant he was a paid contractor.
>>
>> A Russian paid contractor... contracted directly by Hillaryu Clinton?
>>
>> You are taking your lies to a differnt level way beyond simple credible
>> stupidity...
>>
>>> Hillary expects
>>> you to believe she paid an attorney $9M
>>
>> Does she? Where does she say that? You have proof *she* paid an
>> attorney?
>>
>

> In her FEC filing. She incorrectly listed opposition research as
> attorney fees. That is a crime and a lawsuit has been
> filed.
>

She can just file a correction to it, can't she?

Like the dozens upon dozens of "corrections" members of the Trump
campaign and administration have had to file about meetings with Russians.

:-)

[John B.]

Im waiting for my $20.

[Dene]

Im waiting for my $20.

Cite the thread and I will gladly pay it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-31 11:00 AM, Dene wrote:
>
> Im waiting for my $20.
>
> Cite the thread and I will gladly pay it.
>

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/messageid$3A2e0df950-6075-48a...@googlegroups.com%7Csort:date/rec.sport.golf/x4xB5HZEgWU/IqGrmwtdAQAJ>

Conveniently opened right to your post, Greg-the-weasel!

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > Moderate wrote:
> >>
> >> He wasn't an informant he was a paid contractor.
> >
> > A Russian paid contractor... contracted directly by Hillaryu
> > Clinton?
> >
> > You are taking your lies to a differnt level way beyond simple
> > credible stupidity...
> >
> >> Hillary expects
> >> you to believe she paid an attorney $9M
> >

> > Does she? Where does she say that? You have proof she paid an

> > attorney?
> >
>
> In her FEC filing. She incorrectly listed opposition research as

> attorney fees. That is a crime and a lawsuit has been
> filed.

Really.

It seems you have a very corrupt political system if a tenth of what
you claim is true and what is clearly the truth about Trump and the
White House. I guess you get what you deserve.

Is a tenth of what you claim true though; you don't have a good record.

I note you have no answer to the rest... admission by ommission?

[DumbedDownUSA]

> http://tinyurl.com/y7wkgmmo

Call me wise, but I don't follow blind links fron dishonest cretins.
Try again.

[MNMikeW]

We call you a lot of things. Wise is never one of them.

CLC filed a complaint with the FEC alleging the Democratic National
Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign committee violated
campaign finance law. They failed to accurately disclose the purpose and
recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections
between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these
payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law.

[Alan Baker]

Funny how when you talk about things Clinton is supposed to have done,
it's always without a shadow of doubt.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-10-31 1:50 PM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>>> Committee and Hillary Clinton?s 2016 campaign committee violated

>>> campaign finance law. They failed to accurately disclose the purpose and
>>> recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections
>>> between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these
>>> payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Funny how when you talk about things Clinton is supposed to have done,
>> it's always without a shadow of doubt.
>>
>

> It is a quote from the cite that you crave so much.
>

And you didn't provide it.

But now that it's out there...

....why do you object to this so much when you've dismissed so many
misleading filings by members of Trump's administration?

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> >>>>>>>> He wasn't an informant he was a paid contractor.
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>> A Russian paid contractor... contracted directly by Hillaryu
> >>>>>>> Clinton?
> > > > > > > >
> >>>>>>> You are taking your lies to a differnt level way beyond simple
> >>>>>>> credible stupidity...
> > > > > > > >

> >>>>> I note you have no answer to the rest... admission by ommission?
> > > > > >

>

> It is a quote from the cite that you crave so much.

Got any quotes about the lies you are accused of and are avoiding
answering, still?

[John B.]

Punishable by a fine.

[Alan Baker]

Unless she/they are allowed to correct the record in the same manner
Trump's campaign and administration members have had to do... ...dozens
of times.