08-10-2018, 10:13 PM
Wait a moment. Duchess. I am an Aussie so you will need to clarify this. You just said:
"The only time her name is even mentioned in the article you posted is when it was said her campaign paid for the dossier. You always forget that it was a republican that first requested & financed it."
Maggott retorted:
"On October 24, 2017, it was reported that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid Fusion GPS for opposition research that included the Steele Dossier. This work was facilitated by the law firm Perkins Coie, and the firm stated that the campaign and the DNC were not aware that the research was being conducted by Fusion GPS. It was later reported on October 27, 2017 that Fusion GPS was initially hired to do opposition research on Republican presidential candidates by the conservative website The Washington Free Beacon. The Free Beacon has stated that the work provided to them by Fusion GPS did not contain the information in the Steele Dossier, indicating that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS once the Clinton campaign and the DNC had begun funding the work.
Started by a conservative website that did not get any info and taken over by the DNC and Clinton campaign."
Now assuming this is fact (and damned if I know, it is your country, you guys have a clearer idea).
Which is being truth and genuine. Not the words but the narrative.
Is it a genuine narrative that Clinton did not fund the Dossier via Fusion GPS who the contracted a ex-British Secret Service to then dig up salacious and untrue propaganda about Donald Trump and then touted it as truth to use to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?
OR
are you saying that Clinton took over paying for a Dossier that was actually Republican focused (not a "Conservative website" but Republican) and that the Republicans were directing payment to Steele and him to do this propaganda dossier and she just joined in.
It is clear to me Maggots narrative is the top one and when you said "hah Clinton corruption, huh. Ha! You're a funny dude. The only time her name is even mentioned in the article you posted is when it was said her campaign paid for the dossier. You always forget that it was a republican that first requested & financed it." without parsing words, the bottom narrative seems to be the one that you are promoting.
Is Maggot's narrative true and genuine or is yours? They both cannot be. There is exactly enough facts and scope for one to be true. If his is true why are you promoting a false narrative (and it is not the only time I have heard this pretty much word for word) and if it is not, what am I missing (not semantics) but hard and fast facts. I genuinely want to know.
It seems things are about to get worse for the Steele Dossier story with Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr's effort with this and the FISA spying warrants and increasingly it looks like not only was there no collusion but there was also no underlying reason to spy on Trump or appoint the special counsel and his calling it (no, not the Russian inference but the efforts at targeting Trump and his campaign) a witch hunt seems rather apt.
As an outsider looking in and YES I likely miss the broader picture, but Donald Trump fairly won the election as President and the Establishment was in shock. They not only had tried to undermine him and believed his bumbling would sink him BUT they had their "insurance policy" to delegitimise him and have been aiding by the media every step of the way.
I find it unbelievable almost the lengths they have collaborated to oust him and smear him and what steps they have undertaken. It is like a witch hunt in so far as people who likely have never really reacted or done things they now consider acceptable. A "in this instance, there is no line that cannot be crossed, we have to get him out" kind of response. I have NO doubt that there are many who have broken regulations, laws and procedural protocol in their hysterical hatred of him. I personally think he is not very "Presidential" by the traditional meaning of the term. I think sometimes the carnival is entertaining and the precedent is a little scary. I think in respect to decorum and what not one hopes this Presidency and its boorishness is an anomaly.
But all of the above does not make it right or legal to do whatever it takes to get rid of him. Yes people should be prosecuted for every instance they have stepped across the line in this. For exactly the same reason it would have been okay to prosecute people doing the same under any other government. But that is both Presidential Administration of today and that of all those who overstepped the mark going after him and his administration. It does not suddenly become okay because he is Trump. He won the election and he gets his 4 or 8 years like every other President and if they want a new president, vote him out in 2020. Easy.
"The only time her name is even mentioned in the article you posted is when it was said her campaign paid for the dossier. You always forget that it was a republican that first requested & financed it."
Maggott retorted:
"On October 24, 2017, it was reported that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid Fusion GPS for opposition research that included the Steele Dossier. This work was facilitated by the law firm Perkins Coie, and the firm stated that the campaign and the DNC were not aware that the research was being conducted by Fusion GPS. It was later reported on October 27, 2017 that Fusion GPS was initially hired to do opposition research on Republican presidential candidates by the conservative website The Washington Free Beacon. The Free Beacon has stated that the work provided to them by Fusion GPS did not contain the information in the Steele Dossier, indicating that Steele was hired by Fusion GPS once the Clinton campaign and the DNC had begun funding the work.
Started by a conservative website that did not get any info and taken over by the DNC and Clinton campaign."
Now assuming this is fact (and damned if I know, it is your country, you guys have a clearer idea).
Which is being truth and genuine. Not the words but the narrative.
Is it a genuine narrative that Clinton did not fund the Dossier via Fusion GPS who the contracted a ex-British Secret Service to then dig up salacious and untrue propaganda about Donald Trump and then touted it as truth to use to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign?
OR
are you saying that Clinton took over paying for a Dossier that was actually Republican focused (not a "Conservative website" but Republican) and that the Republicans were directing payment to Steele and him to do this propaganda dossier and she just joined in.
It is clear to me Maggots narrative is the top one and when you said "hah Clinton corruption, huh. Ha! You're a funny dude. The only time her name is even mentioned in the article you posted is when it was said her campaign paid for the dossier. You always forget that it was a republican that first requested & financed it." without parsing words, the bottom narrative seems to be the one that you are promoting.
Is Maggot's narrative true and genuine or is yours? They both cannot be. There is exactly enough facts and scope for one to be true. If his is true why are you promoting a false narrative (and it is not the only time I have heard this pretty much word for word) and if it is not, what am I missing (not semantics) but hard and fast facts. I genuinely want to know.
It seems things are about to get worse for the Steele Dossier story with Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr's effort with this and the FISA spying warrants and increasingly it looks like not only was there no collusion but there was also no underlying reason to spy on Trump or appoint the special counsel and his calling it (no, not the Russian inference but the efforts at targeting Trump and his campaign) a witch hunt seems rather apt.
As an outsider looking in and YES I likely miss the broader picture, but Donald Trump fairly won the election as President and the Establishment was in shock. They not only had tried to undermine him and believed his bumbling would sink him BUT they had their "insurance policy" to delegitimise him and have been aiding by the media every step of the way.
I find it unbelievable almost the lengths they have collaborated to oust him and smear him and what steps they have undertaken. It is like a witch hunt in so far as people who likely have never really reacted or done things they now consider acceptable. A "in this instance, there is no line that cannot be crossed, we have to get him out" kind of response. I have NO doubt that there are many who have broken regulations, laws and procedural protocol in their hysterical hatred of him. I personally think he is not very "Presidential" by the traditional meaning of the term. I think sometimes the carnival is entertaining and the precedent is a little scary. I think in respect to decorum and what not one hopes this Presidency and its boorishness is an anomaly.
But all of the above does not make it right or legal to do whatever it takes to get rid of him. Yes people should be prosecuted for every instance they have stepped across the line in this. For exactly the same reason it would have been okay to prosecute people doing the same under any other government. But that is both Presidential Administration of today and that of all those who overstepped the mark going after him and his administration. It does not suddenly become okay because he is Trump. He won the election and he gets his 4 or 8 years like every other President and if they want a new president, vote him out in 2020. Easy.