Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
She 's the White House correspondent for the New York Times. If she had inserted her tweet in an article in the newspaper, that would have been as good documentation as we have ever gotten on any of this Russia stuff. She has claimed (as well as Ken Vogel - another reporter for the New York Times, formerly of Politico) that Elias and others associated with the Clinton campaign explicitly denied claims that Perkins Coie funded Fusion GPS's research into the Trump dossier.
Click to expand...

Which means it is a claim without presenting the evidence.
 
sunmaster14 said:
She 's the White House correspondent for the New York Times. If she had inserted her tweet in an article in the newspaper, that would have been as good documentation as we have ever gotten on any of this Russia stuff. She has claimed (as well as Ken Vogel - another reporter for the New York Times, formerly of Politico) that Elias and others associated with the Clinton campaign explicitly denied claims that Perkins Coie funded Fusion GPS's research into the Trump dossier.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you aren't explicitly saying that the NYT correspondent lied. It could be that she lied, or it could be that "Elias and others" lied. In the former case, that's egg on the face of the New York Times. In the latter, it is not, since she honestly reported what was said.
 
phiwum said:
Ah, so you aren't explicitly saying that the NYT correspondent lied. It could be that she lied, or it could be that "Elias and others" lied. In the former case, that's egg on the face of the New York Times. In the latter, it is not, since she honestly reported what was said.
Click to expand...

I can't parse what you wrote. Can you try again?
 
quadraginta said:
What I find interesting is that it is apparently unimportant that the research was originally contracted for by Republican opponents of Trump, but when Democrats were willing to continue to fund it it somehow became reprehensible.
Click to expand...

What does it even matter who paid for it?
 
sunmaster14 said:
I can't parse what you wrote. Can you try again?
Click to expand...

Pardon me, I thought it was clear.

There are two possibilities I see.

(1) Maggie Halberman lied about whether Elias or others were involved in the creation of the dossier.

(2) She didn't lie, but she was lied to about the same facts. In reporting what others had told her, she spoke the truth.

There is, of course, the possibility that Elias and others weren't involved, but let's leave that aside at this point.

I thought your point was that the Times lied (i.e., option (1)), but you certainly didn't give evidence for (1) over (2).
 
BobTheCoward said:
What does it even matter who paid for it?
Click to expand...

Because whoever paid for it, owned it. And whoever owned it controlled its distribution. And given that it was the Clinton campaign who owned it, by proxy at a minimum, then it raises the possibility that the entire Russian blackmail/Russian interference/Russian collusion narrative was completely fabricated and promoted by Clinton and her posse, including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and various and sundry other deep staters who were horrified by the idea of handing over the reins of government to a bloviating rube.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Because whoever paid for it, owned it. And whoever owned it controlled its distribution. And given that it was the Clinton campaign who owned it, by proxy at a minimum, then it raises the possibility that the entire Russian blackmail/Russian interference/Russian collusion narrative was completely fabricated and promoted by Clinton and her posse, including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and various and sundry other deep staters who were horrified by the idea of handing over the reins of government to a bloviating rube.
Click to expand...
That highlighted bit doesn't follow.

Were Clinton to have profited from this research, it's remarkable she didn't do so before the election. (It's also remarkable that you talk about her posse, but by that point in the post, you'd kinda gone off the rails.)
 
phiwum said:
Pardon me, I thought it was clear.

There are two possibilities I see.

(1) Maggie Halberman lied about whether Elias or others were involved in the creation of the dossier.

(2) She didn't lie, but she was lied to about the same facts. In reporting what others had told her, she spoke the truth.

There is, of course, the possibility that Elias and others weren't involved, but let's leave that aside at this point.

I thought your point was that the Times lied (i.e., option (1)), but you certainly didn't give evidence for (1) over (2).
Click to expand...

No, my point was not that the New York Times lied. My point is that, effectively, the New York Times is reporting that Marc Elias (and other important people to the Clinton campaign) lied to reporters from the New York Times. That was my explanation for why we hadn't know about this before Oct. 23, 2017.

And then of course Bob started onto one of his philosophical digressions into the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know, etc. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I will not take the bait (although perhaps you don't know that, and maybe I don't either).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Because whoever paid for it, owned it. And whoever owned it controlled its distribution. And given that it was the Clinton campaign who owned it, by proxy at a minimum, then it raises the possibility that the entire Russian blackmail/Russian interference/Russian collusion narrative was completely fabricated and promoted by Clinton and her posse, including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and various and sundry other deep staters who were horrified by the idea of handing over the reins of government to a bloviating rube.
Click to expand...

How does it raise the possibility of fabrication? If I pay for research to be conducted, my selfish use of the results doesn't change the results of the research.
 
phiwum said:
That highlighted bit doesn't follow.

Were Clinton to have profited from this research, it's remarkable she didn't do so before the election. (It's also remarkable that you talk about her posse, but by that point in the post, you'd kinda gone off the rails.)
Click to expand...

What was my claim?
 
quadraginta said:
What I find interesting is that it is apparently unimportant that the research was originally contracted for by Republican opponents of Trump, but when Democrats were willing to continue to fund it it somehow became reprehensible.
Click to expand...


Well, the shillaries are wanting us to be outraged by some brief meeting of Don Jr in Trump Tower with a random Russian that promised him dirt on Killary, so there's that.

And do you understand that this is not the end of that story? From my link in #2290:

Publius Tacticus said:
[...] Here is the key takeaway. After the Clinton Campaign and the DNC ended their relationship with Fusion GPS, why did John McCain and his staffer enter the picture and start receiving derogatory information about Donald Trump? Was there any communication or coordination between John McCain and Hillary Clinton's people regarding the findings of Fusion GPS? Or was this a unilateral move by McCain?

The Washington Post reporters claim that, "After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified." Who told the FBI about the Fusion GPS effort and the Steele reports? Was it McCain? Was it the Clinton campaign? Was it someone connected with the CIA or the NSA? There are some significant unanswered questions. [...]
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Well, the shillaries are wanting us to be outraged by some brief meeting of Don Jr in Trump Tower with a random Russian that promised him dirt on Killary, so there's that.

And do you understand that this is not the end of that story? From my link in #2290:
Click to expand...

Why are those questions significant?
 
BobTheCoward said:
How does it raise the possibility of fabrication? If I pay for research to be conducted, my selfish use of the results doesn't change the results of the research.
Click to expand...

Well, first, there's the tendency for oppo researchers to produce research that their clients want. It's an exercise in confirmation bias right? Fusion GPS is not going to put exculpatory information in the dossier. It was explicitly created to make Trump look bad, since Fusion GPS knew who was paying for the research and (presumably) how it would be used. So that's the cherry-picking problem.

Second, by hiding its provenance (and explicitly denying responsibility for funding it), the Clinton posse made it seem more credible. The FBI probably would have been more skeptical if it came from the Clinton campaign directly. Since nobody seemed to know where it came from (the FBI, including Comey, denied such knowledge, but I suppose they could have been lying too), the Clintonites must have passed it on by way of a cut-out.

Third, if I were in the Clinton camp, I would relish the thought of making allegations and then using the oppo research to lay out bread crumbs for the FBI/CIA/NSA to find and get them ever more suspicious. One of Vogel's twitter interlocutors lays out a plausible scenario (although I would eliminate Step 3 below):

Step 1) Clinton campaign pays for Trump dossier based on info from Russian gov't sources

Step 2) Dossier is shopped in DC by Fusion GPS

Step 3) Trump dossier is published by Buzzfeed, taking it public

Step 4) FBI uses Trump dossier to apply for FISA warrants

Step 5) FISA warrants are granted based on disinformation from Russian sources

Step 6) Trump campaign chairman/others are wiretapped

Step 7) Trump wins election, FBI offers to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence on Trump

Step 8) Steele outed, FBI backs out

Step 9) 10 months of DNC Media/Dems frantically trying to find evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russians to influence election

Step 10) Media finally gets around to admitting Steps 1-8, everybody realizes they've been wasting their time.

RUSSIAN RESET!
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Your memory is wrong. A GOP primary opponent first commissioned Fusion GPS to start investigating Trump. The DNC picked up the tab after Trump secured the nomination. They've even been passing around altered news stories to deny their original involvement.
Click to expand...
Yes, I recalled that today after more reading that the GOP opponents commissioned the investigation. But wasn't it still reported at the time that the DNC and/or the Clinton camp took over the financing or purchase of it.

I don't recall any DNC denials, I thought it was well established the DNC and/or Clinton took over. I'm going to have to go back and look at that.
 
sunmaster14 said:
No, my point was not that the New York Times lied. My point is that, effectively, the New York Times is reporting that Marc Elias (and other important people to the Clinton campaign) lied to reporters from the New York Times. That was my explanation for why we hadn't know about this before Oct. 23, 2017.

And then of course Bob started onto one of his philosophical digressions into the nature of knowledge and how we know what we know, etc. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I will not take the bait (although perhaps you don't know that, and maybe I don't either).
Click to expand...
thanks for the clarification.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, first, there's the tendency for oppo researchers to produce research that their clients want. It's an exercise in confirmation bias right? Fusion GPS is not going to put exculpatory information in the dossier. It was explicitly created to make Trump look bad, since Fusion GPS knew who was paying for the research and (presumably) how it would be used. So that's the cherry-picking problem.

Second, by hiding its provenance (and explicitly denying responsibility for funding it), the Clinton posse made it seem more credible. The FBI probably would have been more skeptical if it came from the Clinton campaign directly. Since nobody seemed to know where it came from (the FBI, including Comey, denied such knowledge, but I suppose they could have been lying too), the Clintonites must have passed it on by way of a cut-out.

Third, if I were in the Clinton camp, I would relish the thought of making allegations and then using the oppo research to lay out bread crumbs for the FBI/CIA/NSA to find and get them ever more suspicious. One of Vogel's twitter interlocutors lays out a plausible scenario (although I would eliminate Step 3 below):

Step 1) Clinton campaign pays for Trump dossier based on info from Russian gov't sources

Step 2) Dossier is shopped in DC by Fusion GPS

Step 3) Trump dossier is published by Buzzfeed, taking it public

Step 4) FBI uses Trump dossier to apply for FISA warrants

Step 5) FISA warrants are granted based on disinformation from Russian sources

Step 6) Trump campaign chairman/others are wiretapped

Step 7) Trump wins election, FBI offers to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence on Trump

Step 8) Steele outed, FBI backs out

Step 9) 10 months of DNC Media/Dems frantically trying to find evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russians to influence election

Step 10) Media finally gets around to admitting Steps 1-8, everybody realizes they've been wasting their time.

RUSSIAN RESET!
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not sure what the story is. I thought it was the veracity of the Steele dossier. I don't care what the FBI falls for, I care what skeptics fall for. Anything about the veracity of the dossier can be handled by skepticism and the dossier itself. The fact others are dumb does not seem worthy of debate. What am I missing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom