Clinton paid for the dossier. So what?

[SonOfDaedalus]

No, they wanted dirt, anything that would work or would maybe work as dirt.

What is dirt? Dirt is information. It's real information.

Dirt is Trump having an affair with a porn star and a playmate.

Steele is like a private investigator. Many private investigators are retired law enforcement.

I hope you can sit down and realize how irrational your claims are.

 

[Moderate Right]

No. I have no such worries. Now that they've arrested a nest of Russian spies, this entire DNC/Fusion GPS conspiracy has been debunked. There were real Russian spies trying to tamper with our election.

This thread is about the irrational belief that just because Christopher Steele was a paid investigator looking for dirt on Trump, that this somehow invalidates his findings. He was paid for research not to fabricate information. His reliability as a researcher should be the only question, not who funded his research.

If it is debunked then why did you make this thread?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

If it is debunked then why did you make this thread?

For those who still don't realize it's been debunked.

Trump supporters have been claiming forever that the DNC made up this Russian stuff to get FISA warrants but here we see 13 Russian spies charged. The Russian activity is real. The FBI was just doing their job--protecting us from foreign intelligence agents.

 

[Hawkeye10]

What is dirt? Dirt is information. It's real information.

Dirt is Trump having an affair with a porn star and a playmate.

Steele is like a private investigator. Many private investigators are retired law enforcement.

I hope you can sit down and realize how irrational your claims are.

It could be information, or it could be slightly plausible BS, and everything in between.

 

[Moderate Right]

For those who still don't realize it's been debunked.

Trump supporters have been claiming forever that the DNC made up this Russian stuff to get FISA warrants but here we see 13 Russian spies charged. The Russian activity is real. The FBI was just doing their job--protecting us from foreign intelligence agents.

Russian collusion between Trump and his campaign to influence the election has been debunked - by Mueller himself.

 

[SirGareth]

If everyone knew she was going to win then what was the point of spying on Carter Page?

And if our political system is corrupt then who is corrupting them? Wouldn't it be wealthy people and corporations? Would it be the same people that Republicans and Trump just gave a massive tax gift to?

I guess we liberals don't understand how you're fighting lobbyists and political corruption by the rich and corporations by giving them exactly what they wanted most--tax breaks!

No wealth does not corrupt, this is what your socialist school marms have brain washed you into believing.

Its is only stolen wealth (tax diversions and political control of markets) that corrupts.

Steve Jobs stole nothing, everything the Clintons own is from stolen money.

 

[ultmd]

And I'm sure the people Steele paid ...

This is a Jim Jordan talking point, with no basis in objective facts.

Like most of your arguments, this is a myth/lie that you know you cannot back up.

Steele didn't pay anyone. He got paid, by Fusion.

 

[KevinKohler]

This is a Jim Jordan talking point, with no basis in objective facts.

Like most of your arguments, this is a myth/lie that you know you cannot back up.

Steele didn't pay anyone. He got paid, by Fusion.

Who's Jim Jordan? Should I know him?

Yes, Steele got paid, just like the hackers got paid. Nothing is free. Steele PAID for his information, no one just decided to give it to him. That's how counter Intel works. Else, the CIA wouldn't need the budget it gets.

 

[ultmd]

Who's Jim Jordan? Should I know him?

Jordan is the Freedom Caucus back-bencher who was the first to take that BASELESS claim from the bowels of the alt-right conspiracy theory blogs.........and promote it as a "fact" to the mainstream media.

But it's a lie.

Yes, Steele got paid, just like the hackers got paid. Nothing is free. Steele PAID for his information, no one just decided to give it to him. That's how counter Intel works. Else, the CIA wouldn't need the budget it gets.

Complete Nonsense. No one cares about your personal opinions or interpretations, unless you can back them up with OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE facts and/or data. Without that, you are about as credible as source for "how counter intel 'really' works".......as the guy who manicures my lawn every week.

And again, if you could support your latest crazy conspiracy theory with ANY kind of credible information.........you'd have done so by now.

But you won't do that........because you CAN'T do that.

 

[JuiceJS]

Trump supporters make this big deal about the fact that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid Christopher Steele for his research on the dossier. But so what?

Christopher Steele is a retired MI6 agent. He takes private clients. They pay him for real information not to make stuff up. When you pay for opposition research you pay for real information you can use against your opponent. If that information is fabricated then it's worthless.

Christopher Steele's makes his income based on his reputation. Why would he fabricate information when his livelihood depends on his reputation?

But the conspiracy theory gets even crazier. Supposedly, they fabricated this dossier so they could get FISA warrants to spy on ....Carter Page. Carter Page?! Why?

So did the RNC

 

[markjs]

Russian collusion between Trump and his campaign to influence the election has been debunked - by Mueller himself.

When was this annoncement and why are you the only one privy to it? Why then does the investigation continue if Trump has been exhonerated?

 

[KevinKohler]

Jordan is the Freedom Caucus back-bencher who was the first to take that BASELESS claim from the bowels of the alt-right conspiracy theory blogs.........and promote it as a "fact" to the mainstream media.

But it's a lie.



Complete Nonsense. No one cares about your personal opinions or interpretations, unless you can back them up with OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE facts and/or data. Without that, you are about as credible as source for "how counter intel 'really' works".......as the guy who manicures my lawn every week.

And again, if you could support your latest crazy conspiracy theory with ANY kind of credible information.........you'd have done so by now.

But you won't do that........because you CAN'T do that.

Well, no, no more than you can prove the emails bore false info, lol.

 

[Moderate Right]

When was this annoncement and why are you the only one privy to it? Why then does the investigation continue if Trump has been exhonerated?

So, you are admitting that the investigation was just to go after Trump and nothing else?

 

[ultmd]

Well, no, no more than you can prove the emails bore false info, lol.

Well that's just dumb of you.

I've made no such claim. Heck, I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

Let's just both agree that you just making it up (or, more likely, just repeating the propaganda you've been hearing/watching from your "FoxNews" type sources) and that you had ZERO basis in fact for making such a claim, ok?

 

[KevinKohler]

Well that's just dumb of you.

I've made no such claim. Heck, I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

Let's just both agree that you just making it up (or, more likely, just repeating the propaganda you've been hearing/watching from your "FoxNews" type sources) and that you had ZERO basis in fact for making such a claim, ok?

I think I've watched Fox News....or any news, outside and of BBC, maybe once or twice.

I'm not making up anything, just applying logic.

 

[ultmd]

What is "logical" to you is not to be construed as "fact". And this proves it. Clearly, your partisan leaning are clouding your thinking.

You made a definitive statement (i.e. that "Steele paid Russians" for information about Trump)......yet you cannot back it up.

That's the DEFINITION of "making things up", man.

The reason you did that, obviously, was to imply (indirectly, of course) that the information in "the Dossier" is partisan in nature, and thus not reliable.....both of which are spurious implications. The fact of the matter is that it really doesn't matter if the sources were partisan, or not. All that matters to a FISA court is whether or not the information is credible and compelling enough to merit further investigation via the requested warrant.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I think I've watched Fox News....or any news, outside and of BBC, maybe once or twice.

I'm not making up anything, just applying logic.

You're not applying logic. You're applying a common logical fallacy--False Equivalence.

False equivalence

A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

Both hacking and using paid informants result in getting private information but that doesn't make them equivalent just because they have that one trait in common. Hacking is illegal. Using a paid informant is not. The paid informant is often revealing information he accesses to. For example, a bartender who is a paid informant may know that person A an alcoholic. A cleaning woman at a hotel may have seen used condoms in a hotel room.

 

[KevinKohler]

You're not applying logic. You're applying a common logical fallacy--False Equivalence.

False equivalence



Both hacking and using paid informants result in getting private information but that doesn't make them equivalent just because they have that one trait in common. Hacking is illegal. Using a paid informant is not. The paid informant is often revealing information he accesses to. For example, a bartender who is a paid informant may know that person A an alcoholic. A cleaning woman at a hotel may have seen used condoms in a hotel room.

Never said they were equal. Reread our posts. What started this was your desire that I prove he paid for info.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Never said they were equal. Reread our posts. What started this was your desire that I prove he paid for info.

This is what you said...

To the point though, his access to that information relies on violation of privacy, which is what hacking is. I'm. Sorry, but I see very little difference.

You said you don't see the difference between hacking and using informants. That's a false equivalence.

 

[KevinKohler]

This is what you said...



You said you don't see the difference between hacking and using informants. That's a false equivalence.

Fair enough. In execution, not equal...but the results are the same, no?