Why Do You Even Drink?

[webfact]

Republican senator wants Democrats to testify on Trump dossier

By Ginger Gibson

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Susan Collins speaks at the Penobscot Bay Regional Chamber of Commerce's Quarterly Business Breakfast in Rockport, Maine, U.S., October 13, 2017. REUTERS/Joel Page

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, said Democrats should be called again to testify about reports that their party and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign paid for parts of a dossier that detailed accusations about President Donald Trump's ties to Russia.

 

The Washington Post reported last week that Marc Elias, a lawyer for 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Clinton, used campaign funds to hire Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier. Committees in both chambers of Congress have been investigating the origin and contents of the document.

 

John Podesta, who was Clinton's campaign chairman, and U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was the head of the Democratic National Committee at the time, as well as Elias “absolutely need to be recalled" to testify," Collins said in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

 

"It’s difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance," Collins said. "But perhaps there’s something more going on here. But certainly, it’s worth additional questioning of those two witnesses. And the lawyer; absolutely, he more than anyone.”

 

It has been widely reported that supporters of Republican Jeb Bush, a primary opponent of Trump, initially paid for the firm's research. Perkins Coie, Elias' law firm, confirmed on Tuesday that it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016.

 

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative online publication backed by billionaire Republican megadonor Paul Singer, said on Friday it was the original funder of the Fusion GPS project to compile opposition research on multiple Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.

 

Known as the Steele dossier because it was compiled by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the document identified Russian businessmen and others who U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded are Russian intelligence officers or working on behalf of the Russian government.

 

Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican who runs the House Oversight Committee, said in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" that he was more interested in whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice used the dossier in conducting their own probes.

 

"I don’t expect the (Democratic National Committee) to be objective," Gowdy said. "Almost by definition, opposition research is not objective.

 

"The next thing that House Intel is trying to find out is whether or not the U.S. government relied on it."

 

(Reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-30

[retarius]

This is going to be fun seeing the Dems wriggle on the hook for having paid for the scurrilous dossier. I would love to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the stand....what a nasty piece of work she is.

[farcanell]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Representative Trey Gowdy, a Republican who runs the House Oversight Committee, said in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" that he was more interested in whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice used the dossier in conducting their own probes.

Oh no  I thought the presidunce ( thanks LatPhrao... love it), had declared fox as the embodiment of “fake news”

[mike324]

6 hours ago, retarius said:

This is going to be fun seeing the Dems wriggle on the hook for having paid for the scurrilous dossier. I would love to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the stand....what a nasty piece of work she is.

Its funny that the dossier compilation was first started by the Republicans themselves (did you forget that bit), it was the Dems that later picked it up as Republicans realize Trump is the lead and dropped it. So lets start from the top. Republicans can testify first. The irony.

 

[KarenBravo]

Just another "shiny object" to try and distract from the fact that indictments are coming down the road.....

[mrwebb8825]

On 10/30/2017 at 2:47 PM, mike324 said:

Its funny that the dossier compilation was first started by the Republicans themselves (did you forget that bit), it was the Dems that later picked it up as Republicans realize Trump is the lead and dropped it. So lets start from the top. Republicans can testify first. The irony.

 

Just to be clear - 1 republican started it to help himself against the others he had no chance to beat otherwise and President Trump wasn't the focus point. As soon as they knew he was going to blow them all out it was dropped. THEN the Clinton camp picked up JUST the Trump portion and enlisted help from the Russian. Can you say "Collusion"?

There's your irony.

[ilostmypassword]

On 10/30/2017 at 8:27 AM, retarius said:

This is going to be fun seeing the Dems wriggle on the hook for having paid for the scurrilous dossier. I would love to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the stand....what a nasty piece of work she is.

Scurrilous? Really?

The Steele Report, Revisited

How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html

[mike324]

37 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Just to be clear - 1 republican started it to help himself against the others he had no chance to beat otherwise and President Trump wasn't the focus point. As soon as they knew he was going to blow them all out it was dropped. THEN the Clinton camp picked up JUST the Trump portion and enlisted help from the Russian. Can you say "Collusion"?

There's your irony.

haha one messed up bunch

[attrayant]

It'll be fun hearing all the sound bites from the Orange Team about how opposition research is totally normal and everybody does it.

[impulse]

What I get a kick out of is the current free-for-all that's lifting the illusion of decency among our elected officials and the people they pay to keep them in power.  Reading the first page of the recent indictment shows half a dozen crimes for which any of us would spend decades behind bars.

 

I'm not a fan of the man, but it's one more benefit of electing an outsider and putting the fear of God into both sides of the aisle that their career path is no longer written in stone if only they pay homage to their party's hierarchy.

 

Just a shame it had to be Trump, 'cause nobody else had the stomach -or the ego- to survive the all the dirty tricks of a presidential election.

 

Maybe the swamp will get drained just a little.  Though it may be in spite of Trump, it will be because of him.

 

[habanero]

If they have to stretch this much to find a reason to charge someone, then this whole investigation looks like the witch hunt Trump says it is.

Here's what the Manafort indictment comes down to: It's not that he broke the law by repping for parties in foreign countries. It's not illegal to do that. And he wasn't acting as an agent of some sort of hostile power such that issues like treason would come into play. His business activities were legal, but he was supposed to fill out paperwork to register as a foreign agent. He allegedly didn't do that, so he was apparently in violation of the law.

But usually, when the Justice Department finds someone to be guilty of this particular violation, they don't prosecute. They just tell them to get it taken care of.

Why did Mueller decide to indict in this case? Probably because special counsels need a head to make the roll so he can justify the investigation, particularly in light of what we learned last week about Fusion GPS and Uranium One, not to mention the FBI's foot-dragging on the latter issue when Mueller was still the director.

So Manafort was indicted, and former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy thinks the big picture is looking pretty good for Donald Trump:

[attrayant]

46 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Just to be clear - 1 republican started it to help himself against the others he had no chance to beat otherwise and President Trump wasn't the focus point.

 

All republican candidates were in focus, including Trump.

 

46 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

THEN the Clinton camp picked up JUST the Trump portion and enlisted help from the Russian.

 

Since Trump was the presumptive nominee, what's so strange about that?  Would you have recommended continuing to fund opposition research on Carly Fiorina?

 

And can you provide the specifics about this part:

 

Quote

the Clinton camp [...] enlisted help from the Russian.

 

 

The Russian what?

[ilostmypassword]

59 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Just to be clear - 1 republican started it to help himself against the others he had no chance to beat otherwise and President Trump wasn't the focus point. As soon as they knew he was going to blow them all out it was dropped. THEN the Clinton camp picked up JUST the Trump portion and enlisted help from the Russian. Can you say "Collusion"?

There's your irony.

That's what Free Beacon claims. But it seems dubious. It was Paul Singer who paid for the research. And the fact is, the one Republican candidate that Paul Singer was extremely opposed to and disdainful of was Donald Trump.

GOP donor Paul Singer says Trump would cause a depression

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gop-donor-paul-singer-says-trump-would-cause-a-depression.html

Gop Megadonor Paul Singer Rips Trump at NYC Dinner

http://www.nationalreview.com/www.nationalreview.com/Republican-Megadonor-Paul-Singer-Denounces-Donald-Trump

 

Now of course he's changed his tune. 

[mrwebb8825]

Personally I find it a bit disconcerting that information was leaked from Muller/Grand Jury that was supposed to be secret. I really hope President Trump keeps pushing to prosecute and jail everyone that violates the oath of secrecy (or whatever it's called when you disclose things you shouldn't to the media). Maybe if they started putting some of them in jail the rest would seriously rethink things before opening their mouths.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Personally I find it a bit disconcerting that information was leaked from Muller/Grand Jury that was supposed to be secret. I really hope President Trump keeps pushing to prosecute and jail everyone that violates the oath of secrecy (or whatever it's called when you disclose things you shouldn't to the media). Maybe if they started putting some of them in jail the rest would seriously rethink things before opening their mouths.

If in fact anyone bound by the law did violate an oath of secrecy."

"Grand juries are indeed subject to strict secrecy laws, specifically Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 6(e) restricts disclosure of grand jury proceedings by grand jurors themselves, as well as lawyers hired by the government and other court personnel.

Other people — witnesses, defense attorneys, defendants — would not be subject to those rules.

"But the rule most definitely does not cover witnesses, who are traditionally the most likely source of information about a grand jury," Columbia University law professor Daniel Charles Richman said. "

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/31/did-criminal-leak-land-cnns-story-mueller-probe-no/

The article goes on to explain the defense attorneys are often advised in advance of a plan to charge them in order to give the clients a chance to turn themselves in.

[riclag]

9 hours ago, impulse said:

What I get a kick out of is the current free-for-all that's lifting the illusion of decency among our elected officials and the people they pay to keep them in power.  Reading the first page of the recent indictment shows half a dozen crimes for which any of us would spend decades behind bars.

 

I'm not a fan of the man, but it's one more benefit of electing an outsider and putting the fear of God into both sides of the aisle that their career path is no longer written in stone if only they pay homage to their party's hierarchy.

 

Just a shame it had to be Trump, 'cause nobody else had the stomach -or the ego- to survive the all the dirty tricks of a presidential election.

 

Maybe the swamp will get drained just a little.  Though it may be in spite of Trump, it will be because of him.

 

I wish I said that.There is so much hatred and negativity for him. Now I realize why the polls got it wrong and why the silent majority voted him in.People where scared to wear a MAGA hat,put Trump stickers on their car's,campaign signs in their yard or answer correctly to phone pollster's.This GOP lady has a lot of courage to dispute the dem's

[ilostmypassword]

32 minutes ago, riclag said:

I wish I said that.There is so much hatred and negativity for him. Now I realize why the polls got it wrong and why the silent majority voted him in.People where scared to wear a MAGA hat,put Trump stickers on their car's,campaign signs in their yard or answer correctly to phone pollster's.This GOP lady has a lot of courage to dispute the dem's

The silent majority? It wasn't even a silent plurality.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, impulse said:

What I get a kick out of is the current free-for-all that's lifting the illusion of decency among our elected officials and the people they pay to keep them in power.  Reading the first page of the recent indictment shows half a dozen crimes for which any of us would spend decades behind bars.

 

I'm not a fan of the man, but it's one more benefit of electing an outsider and putting the fear of God into both sides of the aisle that their career path is no longer written in stone if only they pay homage to their party's hierarchy.

 

Just a shame it had to be Trump, 'cause nobody else had the stomach -or the ego- to survive the all the dirty tricks of a presidential election.

 

Maybe the swamp will get drained just a little.  Though it may be in spite of Trump, it will be because of him.

 

Another I-don't-support-Trump-but.. concern troll.  His one achievement of note was to appoint Gorsuch to the Supreme court. A justice who is extremely pro-corporate and anti-worker. This is your idea of swamp draining?

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[beechguy]

I don't see anything wrong with asking the Democrats, from Hillary on down, to answer questions regarding the dossier, plus a few more issues. 

Maybe this comment won't ruffle too many feathers.

[impulse]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Another I-don't-support-Trump-but.. concern troll.  His one achievement of note was to appoint Gorsuch to the Supreme court. A justice who is extremely pro-corporate and anti-worker. This is your idea of swamp draining?

 

One more time, I'm not a fan of the man, but I am a fan of citizens going to serve their country for a few years, then going back home to live in the world they have created.

 

Not so much a fan of professional politicians and their entourages that go to Washington, clamp on to the government tit and hang on for their entire lives, never having to live in the real world they create for the rest of us.  They get to live in gated communities, with all the perks they vote for themselves.  Surrounded by people who seem to get extremely wealthy just by keeping them in power.  (And their money had to come from somewhere, because they sure didn't create anything of value for consumers or society)

 

If it takes a few years of putting up with Trump to see more indictments like we're now seeing, it's a reasonable tradeoff.   Hopefully, it opens the door for better citizen candidates to follow him.  But someone had to open that door.  Too bad it was Trump, but so be it.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by impulse