So Fox is saying there is new compelling evidence that the Dems and Hillary are the ones that...

[Tom_Tildrum]

The suggestions that the Clinton campaign didn’t use the information are not correct. It’s been widely acknowledged that the dossier had been shopped to numerous media outlets, who were still trying to verify any of it when Buzzfeed just went ahead and ran it.

@Jophiel

Anyway, the first criminal charges in the Mueller investigation have been approved and it’s expected someone will be in custody as early as Monday so get ready for the big barrel of “But Clinton!” and false equivalences.

When the confirmation of Clinton campaign involvement broke, conservative media immediately predicted that Mueller would rush an indictment out to change the subject (and righty bloggers are currently high-fiving each other for that one). So that will be the counter.

[DigitalC]

@aceplace57

Imho We began to think of Russia as a trading partner. Big companies started investing there. We were developing a relationship very similar to countries in Europe.

Naturally that meant routine contact between businessmen, political strategists and politicians. Just like they have contact with people in other countries.

That is the entire point in making China and Russia trading partners. We WANTED normal relations.

Now we suddenly want to treat Russia as the “evil empire” all over again. Any prominent person that has prior connections to Russians is suspect.

This could easily snowball into the Red scare of McCarthyism. The finger pointing is getting pretty pathetic. The Russians influenced our election! Trump’s campaign colluded with them! Hillary’s campaign met with them. No wait! Don jr. met with them. They are even harassing Jeff Sessions for meeting with Russians.

People need to stop and take several deep breaths. These are normal contacts that happen every day with people from other countries. We live in a global market. Of course we take meetings with our counterparts in other countries.

I understand Putin has a dangerous agenda. We may need to revert back to treating Russia with suspicion. I hope that isn’t necessary. It would be a monumental step backwards. I certainly don’t want to see the Cold War revived.

We are treating Russia like the enemy because they have SHOWN themselves to be. We HOPED they would become trading partners and regular members of the world community, THEY failed spectacularly. We were right to make the attempt, we are right to treat them with absolutely suspicion from now on.

[JohnT]

1. PAY $ FOR INFORMATION
2. DO NOT RELEASE INFORMATION TO WIN
3. LOSE ELECTION
4. DO NOT USE INFORMATION TO DISPUTE
5. WATCH OPPONENT GET SWORN IN
6. RETIRE FROM POLITICS

If this was Hillary’s master plan, perhaps she did deserve to lose. :rolleyes:

[k9bfriender]

@DigitalC

We are treating Russia like the enemy because they have SHOWN themselves to be. We HOPED they would become trading partners and regular members of the world community, THEY failed spectacularly. We were right to make the attempt, we are right to treat them with absolutely suspicion from now on.

At least until they undergo a bit of a regime change, and then we can just keep them on probation for a bit. I dunno that the russian people are something to be feared any more than any other group of citizens, but their current gov’t? Yeah. Don’t trust them.

[Jophiel]

@Tom_Tildrum

When the confirmation of Clinton campaign involvement broke, conservative media immediately predicted that Mueller would rush an indictment out to change the subject (and righty bloggers are currently high-fiving each other for that one). So that will be the counter.

Sure, but that’s like predicting that a full bucket is about to spill over. It took no genius to guess that indictments were going to start soon just based on the activity.

I understand, of course, that this makes no difference and people desperate to spin the story away from Trump are going to take any port available in the coming storm.

[Voyager]

@aceplace57

People need to stop and take several deep breaths. These are normal contacts that happen every day with people from other countries. We live in a global market. Of course we take meetings with our counterparts in other countries.

I understand Putin has a dangerous agenda. We may need to revert back to treating Russia with suspicion. I hope that isn’t necessary. It would be a monumental step backwards. I certainly don’t want to see the Cold War revived.

Normal trading partners do not buy ads for one side in an election. Normal trading partners don’t offer dirt on one candidate.

If the government of Mexico did for Clinton what Russia did for Trump, the right would be shitting their pants and calling for an invasion.

[Aspenglow]

@k9bfriender

The U.S. is not so innocent.

I so appreciate that.

[DrumBum]

@Chefguy

When has Fox ever reported anything remotely accurate?

The weather perhaps ?

[puddleglum]

@CurtC

This is just incorrect. The info in the dossier wasn’t published until after the election, and although reporters knew of it, there’s no indication that the info was given to them beforehand by the DNC. Steele himself was alarmed enough about what he found out, that he passed the info to Mother Jones in October, and then to the FBI. Another major point is that the salacious “gross and embarrassing” allegations were an extremely minor point to the findings, and it seems that anyone who brings this up is just trying to dismiss the report as not politically or criminally important, hoping that everyone will forget about the the serious charges in the info.

The dossier was not published until after the election and I never said it was. It was given to the FBI in July of 2016 and reporters found out about it soon after. Reporters from the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, the New Yorker, and Yahoo news were given briefings about the content of the doessier. It was never published by them because none of the information on it was verified. It was covered by Mother Jones.

They are not at all equivalent. Someone earlier made an analogy to the mob that fits. If Candidate A suspects his opponent has mob ties, it’s perfectly OK to hire an investigator to dig for info with mobsters to see what those ties are. But it’s not OK for Candidate B to hire the mobsters themselves to engage in criminal activity in order to influence the election.

The analogy obscures more than illuminates. A better analogy would be one where a foreign government has information it hopes will affect an election and one side tries to meet with the government to obtain information and the other side pays someone to meet with the government to obtain information.

[CurtC]

@puddleglum

The analogy obscures more than illuminates. A better analogy would be one where a foreign government has information it hopes will affect an election and one side tries to meet with the government to obtain information and the other side pays someone to meet with the government to obtain information.

I hope you didn’t pull a muscle when stretching to make that equivalence. The mobster analogy nails the situation.

[Wheelz]

The question I have is: Why is anything regarding private citizen Hillary Clinton relevant to this administration nearly a year after the election?
He won. She lost. Yet the right continues to pound on her. In fact, they’ve been trying - unsuccessfully - to pin something crooked on her for 25 years now. It’s pathological.