Have ties to Russia, Link
Any credibility here?
When has Fox ever reported anything remotely accurate?
Typical right wing propaganda in the Trump Era. Accuse your opponent of doing what you’re doing.
I get that it’s Fox, but you can’t just hand wave it away because of their name. Are there any valid counter arguments to the story?
You first: Are their any valid arguments for the story?
Fox is trying to say that Clinton and the DNC are just as bad as the Trump campaign, because they both tried to get dirt on their opponents from foreign sources. That’s a blatantly false equivalency.
I think it’s OK to hire a former spy from a friendly foreign country to talk to people to see what we can find out about your opponent. Steele did nothing illegal.
It’s a different thing altogether to work with a hostile foreign power, who is committing crimes in our country in order to dig up dirt on your opponent.
There’s a night and day difference between the two, and the fact that Fox News is claiming that there’s some kind of scandal with the Steele dossier is yet another example of them lying to their viewers.
When the same story (actually, the original story) is reported by The Washington Post? Fox is just re-reporting that story from the WaPo, btw. I didn’t do a word-for-word comparison to see if Fox was spinning this out of control, but it would seem the general story outline is the same.
The first paragraph of that Washington Post story says, “The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.”
How does that suggest “ties to Russia”? And remind me; who was the one who encouraged the Russians to hack the computers owned or used by his/her opponent?
Really? Let’s check out the beginning of both stories:
The original story:
Notice any difference in substance and style?
How is funding someone to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia proof that you have ties to Russia? For that matter, how is this a “scandal”?
Both the words “Trump” and “Russia” are in each sentence: It’s the exact same thing, sheeple!!
Oh yes I can, and easily so. Their track record is rock solid.
John’s just slinging mud to see what sticks.
You’re right. I probably should have something like: * I didn’t do a word-for-word comparison to see if Fox was spinning this out of control, but it would seem the general story outline is the same.*
Use the Washington post story, if you choose, to answer the question the OP is asking.
Here’s a little hint for John Mace: When what you are reading is using terms like “Clinton World” and “Dems”, you are probably reading a editorial.
BTW, can you point out any Fox articles that lead with anything like
concerning anything that has happened before or during the Trump administration?
I choose for him to answer the question I already asked, since he chose to sling that article at our wall.
WaPo had a good followup, making the point that a detective who talks with a mobster to find out which government officials are being bribed is not colluding with mobsters. The DNC’s relationship to Russians was akin to the detective talking with mobsters: they were investigating wrongdoing, not assisting a nonfriendly foreign government in their attempts to influence a US election.
Ok. The OP’s question was:
I would say, no. There is zero credibility based on the WaPo story that Clinton (or the DNC) have ties to Russia. The story is that they helped fiance someone else investigating Russia which isn’t remotely the same thing.
If you read the story linked to, it doesn’t mention ties to Russia. It seems to present a general outline that is similar to the WaPo story. That’s all I was saying.
So your answer to the OP is…?