It's simple really. Russian diplomats/Putin shills are foreigners, American investigative firms are not. One is trying to subvert a country in favor of another, the other one is just digging dirt. One got their info by illegally hacking, the other one did not.
Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
It's simple really. Russian diplomats/Putin shills are foreigners, American investigative firms are not. One is trying to subvert a country in favor of another, the other one is just digging dirt. One got their info by illegally hacking, the other one did not.
Wait - what??? Honestly, you are making no sense. Why don't you spell it out clearly for the class. Especially that hacking part.
This is a joke right?
Did Hillary Clinton meet with the Russian to get the opposition research? Did any American working for them did? Is it illegal for American firms to hire non Americans to do research?
WTF is wrong with you Cons, every one of them is too dumb to understand the simplest of logic.
If it's a crime, why isn't the Trump DOJ investigating Clinton for this just like they are investigating Trump?
Unbelievable BS.
Another joker.
Tell me who in the Clinton team met with Russians for research.
This is the height of hypocrisy.
Trump is being investigated by Trump's own DOJ but it's the liberals who are deflecting using this bullshit excuse that someone in the Clinton 'team' paid for research.
Cons really are dumb to their own BS.
That might be an okay bumber sticker explanation but it will get more complicated as we go along. You are promoting the basic spin which is that everyone does opposition research and it is nasty but legal unlike Russian espionage.
NEWSFLASH!!!!
If the Dems had knowledge that the Fusion group hired foreign intelligence officials current or former to conduct espionage within the US then it going to get more complicated than you want right off - requiring more splaining than you might be prepared for.
Then you add to it that an American intelligence agency- let's just call them the FBI for short- said "hey I want to get in on this and I will even pay for it, because getting in the middle of political parties doing intelligence gathering so that we can use it to go after one of the leading candidates IS WHAT WE ARE ALL ABOUT- THAT'S HOW WE ROLL.
Yup, have fun with the little "just some investigative firms doing normal opposition research" spin for as long as it works. That will be less than another 48 hours.
Also, I have not heard the press or anyone here mention the name of the divine Miss Debbie Wasserman yet or for quite a while. Trust me there is going to be and already is some serious lying coming out of the dems over a nasty scenario. Absolutely inconceivable that she was not involved as we shall see at some point. It would be like having a duck living next to a big pond of water and telling me that the duck never went in the water. IT'S WHAT SHE DOES.
If it was so legal and above-board why did they hide it through bogus legal fees, which interestingly went to the law firm once headed by Bill Gates father, Perkins Coie. Disguising bribes and other nefarious financial arrangements through legal or consultant's fees is a classic Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violation. In this case the lawyer involved repeatedly denied to the media that anything like that occurred. Now he is revealed as a liar and probably the campaign violated FEC disclosure rules.
It was treason for Don Trump Jr to meet with some Russians but this is all perfectly legal and appropriate? Even the NYT is not buying that.
It was treason for Don Trump Jr to meet with some Russians but this is all perfectly legal and appropriate? Even the NYT is not buying that.
If we had a real Attorney General and not an intimidated wuss, the lawyer and his firm would be facing felony charges now. Payback, make them suffer.
It would appear that the Republican party, like a Giant Brain Deficit Magnet, has somehow managed to attract to its bosom every American with impaired reasoning. How did they pull that off?
If you were trying to determine whether Trump had business ties with Russians, who would you ask? Russians? If this meets the definition of 'collusion' then the definition has changed in the last few minutes without my knowledge.
If you were trying to determine whether Trump had business ties with Russians, who would you ask? Russians? If this meets the definition of 'collusion' then the definition has changed in the last few minutes without my knowledge.
Last edited:
The flaw in your logic is that your definition, for a whole number of different terms, varies depending on whether those terms are applied to liberals or conservatives. I'd speculate that you have a third group of definitions reserved for Trump alone.
