Agreed. But what we’re discussing at this particular point is not either of these things but rather whether Russians feeding high-impact information to the US gov and media via Steele counts as foreigners influencing the election.
OK, we disagree about this.
What’s been suggested as a possible motive for Russian interference in general is wanting to rile up the people and set them against each other (e.g. some Russian trolls were posting BLM stuff to social media) and this would fit. But it could be something else. The world is pretty complex, and I don’t think you can determine what foreign actors are up to simply by ruling out one or two possibilities that you come up with.
I don’t know what this is addressed to. For purposes of this discussion we can stipulate that Steele had the highest motives. We’re discussing the motives of those who fed him the info.
FWIW, my best guess is that Steele set out to do what he was hired to do - dig up some dirt on Trump. And what he got - which is what you commonly get from intelligence sources of the type he consulted - is mostly third hand gossip, of various degrees of veracity. I believe Steele himself would agree with this. But it’s not out of the realm of possibility that some of these Russian government agents who were Steele’s sources had other motives. Again, the question is more about the ultimate source of the information.
[In addition, if in theory one were to doubt Steele’s motives specifically, I disagree with you anyway. It’s very difficult to prove a negative, and the FBI would be hard-pressed to conclusively refute the dossier allegations, especially in time for the election. Meanwhile the mere news that the FBI is investigating Trump’s Russian contacts could be expected to have enormous impact on its own, regardless of what the FBI ultimately concluded, most likely well after the election. So a theoretical Steele motivated to take down Trump would have every incentive to go to the FBI anyway. But that’s all just FWIW. I’m not claiming he had this motive.]
Let it be noted that I am personally very impressed by the depth of your knowledge and expertise on intelligence gathering! I’d ask how you came by it, but don’t want you to have to kill me.
Well, maybe, as if anyone should care. But it also could be the manner and mannerisms of the “genteel” class of Southern men in times gone by. Not that common anymore, but not necessarily effeminate. I expect Sen Graham goes hunting, and probably actually shoots something.
(Liberace didn’t surprise me at all, but Rock Hudson? That one was hard to, ah, swallow. And I still think David Bowie was putting us on…)
Come on, there’s no actual proof that Trump named the CEO of Exxon as his Secretary of State. That’s all just liberal speculation! Why, I’m sure that a full, fair, and impartial investigation would reveal that Rex Tillerson was a lifelong state department civil servant, who’d paid his dues and built up an impressive profile of foreign relations yeoman’s work.
I agree. But “decent sources” means sources who have access to “mostly third hand gossip, of various degrees of veracity”. It’s a lot more than you and I could come up with.
As previous, I don’t think Steele himself disagrees with this.
It wasn’t “released” ever. Buzzfeed decided to publish it on their own.
But that’s how these things work. The dossier was shopped around to various media entities before the election. Happens that none of them chose to publish it at that time. But it was certainly being used in a manner which would have influenced the election had it been successful.
[The way it eventually got published was that it was presented in intelligence reports to Obama and Trump, which made it “news regardless of its veracity” and gave justification for publication. FWIW, it’s been speculated that one big reason it was promoted in intelligence circles was for this exact reason - so as to get the media to publish it. But that’s speculation.]
Once more, we see the contemptible equating of using an investigator to check into mob ties, to someone hiring the mob to do criminal activities for them.
F-P, those are not equivalent. One is honorable, one is dishonorable.
I’ve explained repeatedly why this is logically flawed. Not sure that “once is enough” in this case, but several times should be enough, I would think …
What happens if the “only” thing that the investigation uncovers is a decades long history of massive money laundering, and the Russian collusion remains smoky, but no smoking gun?
I know. But would it be impeachable? Not in the “high crimes and misdemeanors” sense, but the “Republicans will suddenly be forced to give a shit” sense.
Yup. Money laundering, tax evasion, obstruction of justice … plenty of opportunities for indictments and impeachment even if no collusion/quid-pro-quo smoking gun ever turns up (although I’m sure it will, eventually).
You have to think in terms of two parallel tracks.
The criminal investigation (under Mueller) will continue, and may very well produce indictments for money laundering, etc. of Jared & Ivanka & Junior & Carter Page…
Impeachment of DJT Himself is a political question. As long as Republicans control the House, nothing (up to and including shooting someone on 5th Avenue) is impeachable. If Democrats take control…well, they have enough material already.