10-27-2017, 02:31 PM
Thanks for posting that Duchess. It was a pretty interesting read.
To me, the contents are very vague and much of it is unsubstantiated (it might be true, but there's no proof in the dossier).
I understand that the dossier research was first funded by a Republican client during the primaries (not publicly identified). When that client dropped it, Clinton's campaign picked it up and funded it, which is when the British former intel specialist, Christopher Steele, was hired to drive it.
None of that is unusual -- politicians frequently do such research to dig up dirt on their opponents. And, using UK sources doesn't equate to collusion (they're allies, not adversaries, and there's no indication that the Clinton campaign attempted to have a foreign government intervening in U.S. elections).
But, based on the vagueness and unsubstantiated contents of the linked contents, I think it was probably right-headed of the Clinton campaign not to use it, even though it might have helped her. I mean, plenty of people believed all the fake news about Clinton being on death's door with a doctor posing as her Secret Service guard, Clinton running a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop with John Podesta, and a lot of other crazy shit which didn't stem from research, just fabrication.
I don't know how much the targeting/spreading of those baseless conspiracy theories hurt Clinton and helped Trump in the last stretch of the campaign cycle, but it sure didn't help her.
Anyway.......Philip Bump's analysis of the main dossier points is objective and a good read, in my opinion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...it-doesnt/
I'm more curious to see what, if any, evidence of collusion between Russian officials and Trump campaign staffers is turned up by the Mueller investigation.
To me, the contents are very vague and much of it is unsubstantiated (it might be true, but there's no proof in the dossier).
I understand that the dossier research was first funded by a Republican client during the primaries (not publicly identified). When that client dropped it, Clinton's campaign picked it up and funded it, which is when the British former intel specialist, Christopher Steele, was hired to drive it.
None of that is unusual -- politicians frequently do such research to dig up dirt on their opponents. And, using UK sources doesn't equate to collusion (they're allies, not adversaries, and there's no indication that the Clinton campaign attempted to have a foreign government intervening in U.S. elections).
But, based on the vagueness and unsubstantiated contents of the linked contents, I think it was probably right-headed of the Clinton campaign not to use it, even though it might have helped her. I mean, plenty of people believed all the fake news about Clinton being on death's door with a doctor posing as her Secret Service guard, Clinton running a pedophile ring out of a pizza shop with John Podesta, and a lot of other crazy shit which didn't stem from research, just fabrication.
I don't know how much the targeting/spreading of those baseless conspiracy theories hurt Clinton and helped Trump in the last stretch of the campaign cycle, but it sure didn't help her.
Anyway.......Philip Bump's analysis of the main dossier points is objective and a good read, in my opinion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...it-doesnt/
I'm more curious to see what, if any, evidence of collusion between Russian officials and Trump campaign staffers is turned up by the Mueller investigation.