If there’s no collusion with Russia, why the desparate ramping up of the “There’s no collusion with Russia!” tweets?
In the past couple of hours, a number of right-wingers (like Laura Ingraham and Fox News, to name a few) have weighed in with “Nuh-uh! It was Hillary!”
Also, why is Trump refusing to initiate the sanctions on Russia?
Apparently, although we’ve known about this since January, it is “news” now because David Nunes, who supposedly recused himself from the Russia investigation because he’s Trump’s lapdog, subpoenaed GPS Fusion’s bank on his own for financial records to see who paid for the dossier.
Yawn. Maggie Halberstam of the NY Times is trying to salvage her decision to focus on a bogus email story while being duped, then scooped, on the political scandal of the century.
Meanwhile, the big question is this: Why did the GOP, upon learning that there were numerous troubling connections between Trump and the Kremlin, drop the research? More specifically, who gave the order to stop?
Not State. Federal.
If State, Trump isn’t interviewing them.
I doubt if I would value much your psychological assessment in any event. But that it’s based on an apparent inability to understand a logical sequence does not add any confidence.
Well, then understand this logical sequence. The head of Cambridge Analytica, the company hired by the Trump campaign, offered his firm’s assistance to Wikileaks on their hacking of Clinton’s emails.
I believe it was originally someone running against him for the nomination. Once that was secured, there was no point to them funding it anymore. Enter the Clinton campaign.
My bet is that there already is at least sealed indictment against Donald, probably on the obstruction of justice charge which should be a slam dunk. Mueller probably did so to counter the possibility of him getting fired and to prevent statutes of limitation from continuing to tick away.
And apparently they found what was known since October of last year: that after Trump won the nomination and GOP funding for anti-Trump oppo research dried up, the Dems picked it up and continued funding it.
It’s been long known that “the Dems” picked it up. What’s new is that “the Dems” means the Clinton campaign and the DNC. (In the case of the initial Republican funding, it was apparently a Republican donor rather than an official campaign or RNC.)
Doesn’t seem like any sort of earth-shattering revelation to me. But neither is much else that gets reported. Worth a headline or two, I suppose.
Don’t much care who started it or why they did. Just glad that they did.
Never mind…
According to the WaPo article Steele was hired after Marc Elias picked up the funding. If true then there was no dossier relating to Russia while the republican donor was funding the oppo research.
Doesn’t sound like a huge deal to me either. But some people apparently cared a lot about this.
Yes, “GOP” is too broad a stroke, my bad.
However…
A GOP donor paid for oppo research. During the time the GOP was paying, Trump/Russia ties started emerging. The GOP donor (unknown) stopped paying for the research in April. Then the Dems picked it up.
So…
Who was the donor? Had to be a supporter of one of the 16, at least one of those who still thought they had a chance prior to April, 2016 (ruling out Walker, Jindal, some others). A Cruz supporter? Jeb!?
When was the donor told about Russia? When was his candidate told? (Don’t forget, Putin/Trump was an open joke in the summer of '16 among Republicans.)
Who gave the order to drop the investigation? Was it at the donors behest, or his preferred candidates? Why did they not say anything about the Russian stuff? (I work for a research house and you do keep the client advised on how the research is going, so please don’t come back with “well, they didn’t know.” They knew.)
Just askin’ questions…
That’s not how I read it, see above. The article places the original Trump/Russia findings during the time of the GOP-donor controlled portion of the investigation. Steele was brought onboard to help verify and expand on what was already found. Or so I understood it.
Clarification on this point would be helpful.
Here’s how Wikipedia puts it:
So the Republican donor funded general “business and entertainment” opposition research until he withdrew in May, at which point Democrats took over. In June the hacking was revealed, at which point Fusion hired Steele to look into that angle.
Personally I think the whole issue JohnT is raising is a non-issue. But FWIW, it apparently also rests on incorrect factual grounds.
Well, as many would say… even in this thread… I will be satisfied to wait until a more trustworthy source than Wikipedia can be found. But if that’s your level of proof, then by all means, thanks.
It’s a big deal, actually. A really big deal in one sense. If my understanding is correct, the DNC and/or Clinton’s campaign denied funding the research. Yet it seems like that might not have been completely true.
In dealing with an authoritarian, whose goal is to destroy the idea that truth exists, it is necessary not to be as truthful as the authoritarian, but more so. In fact, critics of the authoritarian must be at the top of their game when it comes to credibility, whether we’re talking about the press or political opposition. Credibility is everything. Authoritarians aren’t necessarily believed 100% of the time; they just need to convince people that the truth cannot be known, and that no single person is necessarily more truthful or more believable than they are. They want people to believe “They’re all liars, they all do it. They’re all equally bad.” A truth vacuum, over time, gives authoritarians more power to fill it with misinformation, misdirection. Over time, they become the source of truth.
The Wiki article is full of footnotes, which you could easily look up - they’re even clickable. But if you don’t want to know and prefer to ask your Very Important Questions in blissfull ignorance, no one can force you.
FWIW, the key parts of the Wiki timeline cited above are from a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?_r=0