[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

[pamak]

A politically motivated member of the FBI could not control whether or not a judge okayed the application, but he might've put his thumb on the scale by not mentioning the provenance of the Steele Dossier (i.e. who paid for it).

But I cannot accept as reasonable the idea that the FBI did not have employees who were NOT politically motivated and who would not say anything. It is one thing to say that a certain FBI had perhaps a political motivation and it is another thing to believe that there was some type of FBI collective conspiracy to mislead a judge. Plus, I think one of the most obvious questions for anybody who would examine the validity of the application would have been the source of the information. Also, from what I recall Nunes' claim that the Steele file was very important in the FISA applications proved to be misleading.

 

[pamak]

I don't think the status of a given Trump employee makes any difference to the Left, since they've gone out of their way to tar Trump through the actions of numerous individuals like Manafort, even though Manafort left the campaign in August, before Trump was elected.

My point in mentioning Page was to emphasize that the Dossier could be used for political purposes even if it was not made public.

I do not understand how the first part of your quote is linked as some type of argument for the point.

Can a file be used for political purposes even if it is not public knowledge? Temporarily this can happen, but the intention will be to publicize the "fruits" of such labor at some point. This is how politicians in democratic countries win the public opinion and the votes, and because of this, I do not find any reasonable explanation for why a politically motivated president would not decide to reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections. That was the best time to do it.

Politicians often choose to keep opposition research files private up until a few weeks before the election. This is why we have the term "The October surprise" which often comes with outrageous claims against the political opponent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

 

[dixon01767]

I do not understand how the first part of your quote is linked as some type of argument for the point.

Can a file be used for political purposes even if it is not public knowledge? Temporarily this can happen, but the intention will be to publicize the "fruits" of such labor at some point. This is how politicians in democratic countries win the public opinion and the votes, and because of this, I do not find any reasonable explanation for why a politically motivated president would not decide to reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections. That was the best time to do it.

Politicians often choose to keep opposition research files private up until a few weeks before the election. This is why we have the term "The October surprise" which often comes with outrageous claims against the political opponent

October surprise - Wikipedia

And then there is the real world where the existence of the dossier and its content was made public in October. And the existence of the investigation based upon the dossier, months earlier in July

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Two words: "party loyalty."

Oh COME ON now!!!

"Party loyalty" in American politics (at least at the elected member level)? You HAVE to be kidding!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So you can't give a concise answer representing your views,

One of the main reasons why I don't give simple answers to the simple minded when they ask simple minded questions about complex matters is that there are no simple answers to complex matters.

However, I quite understand that your opinion differs.

... but have to resort to the old "read this massive document ...

That's what's known as actually examining the evidence and no simply relying on what someone else tells you what they heard you were supposed to think the evidence is.

I quite understand that actually looking at the evidence and thinking for themselves is something that some people REALLY don't like to do.

...and if you still don't agree, it's because I've already assumed the superior position in accuracy of interpretation."

Really? Exactly how does "My opinion of what that report says could well differ from what your opinion is, and that difference might well have something to do with the differences in our respective differences in legal interpretation, contract interpretation, intelligence interpretation, legal analysis, contract analysis, and intelligence analysis." (which a simple person could reduce to "Because we have different backgrounds and different skills, our opinions might not be the same.") say that?

Or is your statement actually a tacit admission that you don't have the same quality of comprehension, analytical, and interpretive skills as another person does but don't want to admit it (especially in conjunction with an admission that you just plain old have not bothered to actually take a look at the actual evidence that is actually available and much prefer to have someone [of totally unknown experience and ability] tell you what to think?

Betcha even Maxwell Smart would've been embarrassed to try that one.

Never having met your mentor and tutor, I leave such judgments to you.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

At one point I thought that Clinton might be the better choice, and even voted for her over Trump.

Her subsequent "cry me a river" behavior re: the election, though, has convinced me that she probably would have been as divisive a president as Trump, if not worse. As I said on another thread, I wonder whether the press would've given full coverage to her counter-measures regarding the border incursions, even if she continued to use Obama's "concentration camps."

Your "has convinced me that she probably would have been as divisive a president as Trump," is just about the same analysis as anyone who was able to stand outside the scrum when doing their analysis of the 2016 elections and election campaigns.

Your "if not worse" is quite correct PROVIDED you couple it with "but maybe not".

In short, by analogy, in the 2016 election the American people were presented with this question to answer

"Can I run faster if I shoot myself in my left foot, or can I run faster if I shoot myself in my right foot?"
​

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Like Trump says, it depends on the information.

Not really, because the laws of the United States of America do NOT make any distinction between what types of "assistance" an American political campaign/candidate is allowed to receive from foreigners.

Not all "dirt" is necessarily relevant to being investigated by the FBI, and not all of it would necessarily admit of definitive proof, rather like the Mueller Report.

True, but that decision is for the FBI to make and not for the person who wants to receive "assistance" from foreigners in their campaign for election/re-election.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Scanned this and saw no mention of the word "moral" anywhere, so it's just more noodling.

When dealing with what the law IS, the word "moral" simply doesn't enter into consideration.

When dealing with what the law SHOULD BE, the word "moral" does enter into consideration.

Some people believe that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people. Other people DO NOT believe that it is "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people.

Regardless of whether someone does, or does not, believe that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people, it IS NOT "legal" to rob banks.

If you think that it IS "moral" to rob banks in order to get money to feed starving people AND that it SHOULD NOT be illegal to rob banks in order to feed starving people, then the correct course of action to take is to CHANGE THE LAW, because, up until the time you do that you are going to go to jail if you rob a bank even if you do so in order to feed starving people.

 

[pamak]

And then there is the real world where the existence of the dossier and its content was made public in October. And the existence of the investigation based upon the dossier, months earlier in July

You do not remember well!

The dossier was published AFTER the election!

BuzzFeed Publishing the Steele Dossier Distorted Debate - The Atlantic

Less than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, CNN reported on the existence of a memo summarizing intelligence reports about Trump and Russia, compiled by a former British-intelligence operative named Christopher Steele for the research firm Fusion GPS. And a few hours later, BuzzFeed published the document, a collection of unverified intelligence that ran the gamut from troubling to salacious, in full

 

[bluesmoke]

Trump is merely reaffirming his on-record position of being open to accepting damaging information on political opponent from foreigners. The breaking news would be if he said otherwise.

 

[dixon01767]

You do not remember well!

The dossier was published AFTER the election!

BuzzFeed Publishing the Steele Dossier Distorted Debate - The Atlantic

Less than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, CNN reported on the existence of a memo summarizing intelligence reports about Trump and Russia, compiled by a former British-intelligence operative named Christopher Steele for the research firm Fusion GPS. And a few hours later, BuzzFeed published the document, a collection of unverified intelligence that ran the gamut from troubling to salacious, in full

YOUR WORDS- "reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections". I made no representations as to when it was printed and published. Its existence and the FBI investigations based upon it were revealed BEFORE the election.

 

[pamak]

YOUR WORDS- "reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections". I made no representations as to when it was printed and published. Its existence and the FBI investigations based upon it were revealed BEFORE the election.

Then you do not follow the conversation!
The claim is that Obama and the FBI had political motives to go after Trump in the Steel investigation case which was disputed by my claim that EVEN THOUGH they had the Steele file in their hands, they decided not to reveal it in public close to the election day which makes no sense for somebody who is near an election and has supposedly political motives. On the contrary, we actually saw the FBI revealing in public that they were starting a new investigation on Clinton's new discovered emails which again does not make sense for somebody who is supposedly politically motivated to go after Trump

 

[Grand Mal]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

Your "has convinced me that she probably would have been as divisive a president as Trump," is just about the same analysis as anyone who was able to stand outside the scrum when doing their analysis of the 2016 elections and election campaigns.

Your "if not worse" is quite correct PROVIDED you couple it with "but maybe not".

In short, by analogy, in the 2016 election the American people were presented with this question to answer

"Can I run faster if I shoot myself in my left foot, or can I run faster if I shoot myself in my right foot?"
​

They were given a choice between leprosy and syphillis. They chose leprosy but they got syphillis anyway.

 

[Grand Mal]

Like Trump says, it depends on the information. Not all "dirt" is necessarily relevant to being investigated by the FBI, and not all of it would necessarily admit of definitive proof, rather like the Mueller Report.

So foreign intelligence agencies seeking to influence the American election now have carte blanche to investigate Trump's rivals and hand him their findings.
That's what the President has said, literally.

 

[dixon01767]

Then you do not follow the conversation!
The claim is that Obama and the FBI had political motives to go after Trump in the Steel investigation case which was disputed by my claim that EVEN THOUGH they had the Steele file in their hands, they decided not to reveal it in public close to the election day which makes no sense for somebody who is near an election and has supposedly political motives. On the contrary, we actually saw the FBI revealing in public that they were starting a new investigation on Clinton's new discovered emails which again does not make sense for somebody who is supposedly politically motivated to go after Trump

Actually they made it available to the media but no one in the media believed it and didnt publish anything about it so they leaked to media that there was actually an investigation in the FBI to turn it into a story the media would report on.

 

[dixon01767]

So foreign intelligence agencies seeking to influence the American election now have carte blanche to investigate Trump's rivals and hand him their findings.
That's what the President has said, literally.

Theyve always had such carte blanche.

 

[pamak]

Actually they made it available to the media but no one in the media believed it and didnt publish anything about it so they leaked to media that there was actually an investigation in the FBI to turn it into a story the media would report on.

You can make such naive claims to really naive people. You try to argue that they could not find partisan media to publish something EVEN if the people in these media DID think it was "fake news"?

You make no sense!

 

[dixon01767]

You can make such naive claims to really naive people. You try to argue that they could not find partisan media to publish something EVEN if the people in these media DID think it was "fake news"?

You make no sense!

I suspect the reality that confronts you frequently doesnt make any sense to you.


Jane Mayer has described how, in "late summer, Fusion set up a series of meetings, at the Tabard Inn, in Washington, between Steele and a handful of national-security reporters.... Despite Steele's generally cool manner, he seemed distraught about the Russians' role in the election." Mayer attended one of the meetings. No news organizations ran any stories about the allegations at that time.[10]
By the third quarter of 2016 many news organizations knew about the existence of the dossier, which had been described as an "open secret" among journalists, but chose not to publish information that could not be confirmed.[2][62]

By October 2016, Steele had compiled 33 pages (16 memos), and he then passed on what he had discovered to David Corn, a reporter from Mother Jones magazine. On October 31, 2016, a week before the election, Mother Jones reported that a former intelligence officer, whom they did not name, had produced a report based on Russian sources and turned it over to the FBI.[45] The article disclosed some of the dossier's allegations:
Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia
A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump – Mother Jones

 

[Grand Mal]

Theyve always had such carte blanche.

Really? Every other President would have accepted information about political rivals from, say, the GRU?
I call bull****.

 

[SLC]

Really? Every other President would have accepted information about political rivals from, say, the GRU?
I call bull****.

Where do you think the Dossier came from?

 

[Grand Mal]

Where do you think the Dossier came from?

A private company called Fusion GPS was hired by a radical-right organisation, The Washington Free Beacon, to dig up dirt on Trump. The Free Beacon backed away in May and the DNC picked it up. Fusion hired Steele without telling him who the customer was.
Where do you think it came from?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

YOUR WORDS- "reveal the existence of Steele file before the elections". I made no representations as to when it was printed and published. Its existence and the FBI investigations based upon it were revealed BEFORE the election.

Quite right "BuzzFeed Posts Unverified Claims on Trump, Igniting a Debate". And "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump -Has the bureau investigated this material?". Please pay absolutely no attention to the dates on those articles since everyone knows that they are lies maliciously inserted by the super-secret, hidden, covert, conspiracy's conspirators in order to super-secretly, conspire to covertly conspire in a hidden manner to reveal the obviously fake (after all Mr. Trump hasn't been convicted, let alone tried, or even indicted so - OBVIOUSLY - nothing at all happened) lies about the man that God Chose To Lead America.

PS - I do, however agree that those dates were "before the election" - just not as far in advance as you appear to want everyone to believe.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Re: [W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

They were given a choice between leprosy and syphillis. They chose leprosy but they got syphillis anyway.

Graphic, but I'm not going to dispute the analogy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So foreign intelligence agencies seeking to influence the American election now have carte blanche to investigate Trump's rivals and hand him their findings.
That's what the President has said, literally.

Why not?

After all if the highest court in the land rules that it is "legal" to engage in hyper-partisan gerrymandering, why shouldn't it be "legal" for other countries to pervert America's elections.

The more this develops, the more that one is tempted to add the adjective "tin-pot" to the noun "republic" when referring to America's system of government.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Theyve always had such carte blanche.

So says someone who simply hasn't bothered to follow the links to the actual American statutes what actually deal with that actual point.