Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Special Counsel Says Certain Parts of Buzzfeed Report are not Accurate

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, shader said:

So?

Do you have a picture of your dear leader in every room of your house yet? He’s watching you. You better get those pictures up. Do you call him Don Jong Un, cause Your God worship of the criminal is mind boggling. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shader said:

Watch your wording....Clinton colluded with russia to acquire the dossier. 

Im sure Trump did collude with Russia in some way. But how?  And will it be bad enough for it to stick and get him impeached?  We shall see

Collided with Russia?  No...no she didn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

It's astounding what people who follow the right wing news will take as fact.  Sites like Breitbart and Infowars have zero journalistic standards yet they throw garbage out there and many conservatives eat it up.  Meanwhile the Times and Post are actual news organizations that have meet and maintained standards for freaking decades.  It's crazy. 

It’s astounding what people who have strong political leanings will take as facts.

Clinton paid for research that came directly Russia.  Much of that research may have been completely false and unsubstantiated.  How can anyone be sure that Steele didn’t acquire info by making promises?  It should be investigated I’d imagine.

Yet the very mention of “Clinton colluded with Russia” is immediately laughed at by you guys, because your media doesn’t connect the dots.

I said many weeks ago that Russia has compromised both sides, which should scare all of you.  But it doesn’t.  The right thinks the left is compromised and vice versa. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, shader said:

This thread is 1100 pages long with accusations of Trump “associates” and their wrongdoings...

Clinton directly paid for Russian info on Trump, some of which is probably false.  Yes she didn’t travel to Moscow and meet with the Russians directly, but she colluded with russia to get a dossier.

To be fair, I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with what she did.  It’s “opposition research”.  Now if it turns out that she made promises in exchange for the info that would change things, but there’s no evidence of that. 

Sorry...your claim on Clinton is utterly ridiculous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Do you have a picture of your dear leader in every room of your house yet? He’s watching you. You better get those pictures up. Do you call him Don Jong Un, cause Your God worship of the criminal is mind boggling. 

What in the heck are you talking about?  God worship?  Some of you have absolutely lost it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

It’s astounding what people who have strong political leanings will take as facts.

Clinton paid for research that came directly Russia.  Much of that research may have been completely false and unsubstantiated.  How can anyone be sure that Steele didn’t acquire info by making promises?  It should be investigated I’d imagine.

Yet the very mention of “Clinton colluded with Russia” is immediately laughed at by you guys, because your media doesn’t connect the dots.

I said many weeks ago that Russia has compromised both sides, which should scare all of you.  But it doesn’t.  The right thinks the left is compromised and vice versa. 

It’s laughed at because it’s not a true statement.

And you were incorrect weeks ago when you said that...as people pointed out them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shader said:

Which part?

That she collided with Russia...and pretty much your portrayal of the whole situation...especially in comparison of what Trump is accused of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

That she collided with Russia...and pretty much your portrayal of the whole situation...especially in comparison of what Trump is accused of.

Trump probably colluded too.  That isn’t what we are talking about.  I know some people on here think that criticizing Clinton equals Trump god worship :lmao: but learn to separate the two.

Clinton funds directly went to Steele who acquired a VAST amount of info in that dossier. This isn’t Breitbart, this is mainstream info.

How did he get the Russians to pony up?  Money? Promises?  Aren’t these things that should be investigated?  

Think outside the box.  If Trump has acquired a long and detailed dossier on Clinton from Russia, what questions would you want to know?

Why is this even a remotely controversial opinion?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Do you have a picture of your dear leader in every room of your house yet? He’s watching you. You better get those pictures up. Do you call him Don Jong Un, cause Your God worship of the criminal is mind boggling. 

I'm sure this sounded witty in your head. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, shader said:

Yes she didn’t travel to Moscow and meet with the Russians directly, but she colluded with russia to get a dossier.

To collude with Russia means to have an agreement with Russia. This is being plausibly alleged of the Trump campaign — that Trump agreed to enact policies favorable to Russia in return for Russia’s help winning the election. (Not help from private Russian citizens, but from Russia.)

As far as I know, nobody, not even Alex Jones, is alleging that Clinton had an ageeement with Russia.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need spies anyways? Apparently all you have to do is pay for it and promise things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

To collude with Russia means to have an agreement with Russia. This is being plausibly alleged of the Trump campaign — that Trump agreed to enact policies favorable to Russia in return for Russia’s help winning the election. (Not help from private Russian citizens, but from Russia.)

As far as I know, nobody, not even Alex Jones, is alleging that Clinton had an ageeement with Russia.

The president of the US and his press secretary have alleged that the Russian dossier is clear eveidence of Clinton colluding with Russia.  So this isn’t some outlandish conspiracy theory that goes beyond Alex Jones.

Let’s keep the Trump allegations out of this.  I’m not comparing the two and/or saying one is worse or better than the other.

But she clearly paid for Steele to go to russia and collect info.  How did he get this info?  

Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I’m imagining Steele in Russia digging for info and the Russians wanting to know “what’s in it for them?  Do they just volunteer all this salacious stuff out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shader said:

Why is this even a remotely controversial opinion?

A lot of objectively false opinions are controversial.

”Clinton colluded with Russia,” as a characterization of Clinton paying Steele to compile information that came from Russians, is objectively false. It’s not what the word “collude” means.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shader said:

The president of the US and his press secretary have alleged that the Russian dossier is clear eveidence of Clinton colluding with Russia.

The President and his Press Secretary have said plenty of objectively false things. That's not controversial.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

A lot of objectively false opinions are controversial.

”Clinton colluded with Russia,” as a characterization of Clinton paying Steele to compile information that came from Russians, is objectively false. It’s not what the word “collude” means.

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

The President and his Press Secretary have said plenty of objectively false things. That's not controversial.

No doubt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, shader said:

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

No, but even that isn't collusion with Russia. "Russians" are not Russia. Also, that kind of agreement isn't collusion just like buying groceries isn't collusion.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shader said:

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

So you think the Free Beacon also colluded with Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, shader said:

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

NO! What the hell are you talking about?

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rhetorical defenses being used by Trump which some, followers or other, are using - the DNC server wasn't directly inspected by the FBI, Hillary's campaign lawyer paid Fusion, etc. - can't and won't help Trump in court. We're all used to talking points and back/forth and equivalence arguments. - There are two grand juries, three indictments, a trial is set, more indictments are likely coming, at least one or more people are cooperating. Trump and his cohort won't and can't use this grade-A level bull#### to help them in a court of law.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No, but even that isn't collusion with Russia. "Russians" are not Russia. Also, that kind of agreement isn't collusion just like buying groceries isn't collusion.

I was just asking if you agreed with what I said, not whether that equates with Clinton colluding with russia.  I think we’ve already established that you guys think that’s outlandish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, shader said:

Trump probably colluded too.  That isn’t what we are talking about.  I know some people on here think that criticizing Clinton equals Trump god worship :lmao: but learn to separate the two.

Clinton funds directly went to Steele who acquired a VAST amount of info in that dossier. This isn’t Breitbart, this is mainstream info.

How did he get the Russians to pony up?  Money? Promises?  Aren’t these things that should be investigated?  

Think outside the box.  If Trump has acquired a long and detailed dossier on Clinton from Russia, what questions would you want to know?

Why is this even a remotely controversial opinion?

 

Actually quite clearly we were discussing Dershowitz stating what would happen if it were shown Trump colluded.  You then brought up Clinton incorrectly claiming she colluded with Russia on the dossier.

Amd Clinton campaign finds right...or DNC finds?  Went to a law firm...that then paid a research group...who paid Steele.  Hardly directly...and it seems actually legal.

Yiur Post is t controversial...it’s factually incorrect on what happened and a deflection from the claims in Trump and what Dershowitz was saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The rhetorical defenses being used by Trump which some, followers or other, are using - the DNC server wasn't directly inspected by the FBI, Hillary's campaign lawyer paid Fusion, etc. - can't and won't help Trump in court. We're all used to talking points and back/forth and equivalence arguments. - There are two grand juries, three indictments, a trial is set, more indictments are likely coming, at least one or more people are cooperating. Trump and his cohort won't and can't use this grade-A level bull#### to help them in a court of law.

I wonder what steps outside of the law would/could Trump take? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

I was just asking if you agreed with what I said, not whether that equates with Clinton colluding with russia.  I think we’ve already established that you guys think that’s outlandish.

Right. I answered both. I don't agree with what you said, but even if I did agree with it, I wouldn't agree that it amounts to collusion.

(And by "I don't agree with what you said," I don't mean simply that I think it's false. I mean that I don't even think that's what's being alleged.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, shader said:

The president of the US and his press secretary have alleged that the Russian dossier is clear eveidence of Clinton colluding with Russia.  So this isn’t some outlandish conspiracy theory that goes beyond Alex Jones.

Let’s keep the Trump allegations out of this.  I’m not comparing the two and/or saying one is worse or better than the other.

But she clearly paid for Steele to go to russia and collect info.  How did he get this info?  

Maybe I've seen too many movies, but I’m imagining Steele in Russia digging for info and the Russians wanting to know “what’s in it for them?  Do they just volunteer all this salacious stuff out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

The President is arguing that because he is under fire for his own actions.  Of course he is trying to distract from his own issues.

How does bringing up that Trump alleges it proof that it’s not some Alex Jones type conspiracy theory?  Hell...it’s moreproof that it’s nuts than it is credible.

I mean seriously...you just used Trump as a source? And his utterly dishonest press secretary?

Keep Trump allegations out of a conversation that was about Trump allegations?

Get a grip man.  No I really hope you are just fishing with this.

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

I wonder what steps outside of the law would/could Trump take? 

I'm less bothered by that than I used to be. We'll be ok. This country has gone through serious turmoil before, Trump's not something we can't handle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, shader said:

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

False

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

The President is arguing that because he is under fire for his own actions.  Of course he is trying to distract from his own issues.

How does bringing up that Trump alleges it proof that it’s not some Alex Jones type conspiracy theory?  Hell...it’s moreproof that it’s nuts than it is credible.

I mean seriously...you just used Trump as a source? And his utterly dishonest press secretary?

Keep Trump allegations out of a conversation that was about Trump allegations?

Get a grip man.

It’s interesting times when the president and press secretary have less credibility than Alex Jones!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... it's beautiful to watch 25 years of believing your own bull#### collide with actual court cases.  Going to come as a shock to many that the FOX News standard doesn't fly in the real world.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

Which part 

All of it? It has been proven that it was republicans who started the dossier. This came out a couple weeks back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shader said:

It’s interesting times when the president and press secretary have less credibility than Alex Jones!  

Well...given the number of lies and conspiracy theories he has stated and tweeted...he isn’t a credible source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

How does bringing up that Trump alleges it proof that it’s not some Alex Jones type conspiracy theory?  Hell...it’s moreproof that it’s nuts than it is credible.

Right. Trump was the leading proponent of Birtherism, so Birtherism can't be some outlandish conspiracy theory. Oh, wait, yes it can.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bagger said:

All of it? It has been proven that it was republicans who started the dossier. This came out a couple weeks back.

Who cares how it started.  They may be just as responsible as her..but the dnc and Clinton also kicked in money...correct?

Edited by shader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

Deny deny deny.  Smart tactic.

Facts...on my side.  I often deny false statements like you made.

Deflect deflect deflect...Hell...you even stated let’s take Trump allegations out of a conversation about Dershowitz’s comment about Trump allegations.

Do you expect people to take you seriously when you do such things?

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shader said:

Who cares how it started.  They may be just as responsible as her..but the dnc and Clinton also kicked in money...correct?

Change the post to Republicans and Clinton paid money for dirt on trump and I will respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

 

This was a good article.  Michael Morell states that he learned that Steele paid people for info.

If true, that pretty much completes the “paper trail” for the “purchasing of groceries”, as Maurice called it, by Clinton/DNC and anyone else behind the dossier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shader said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

 

This was a good article.  Michael Morell states that he learned that Steele paid people for info.

If true, that pretty much completes the “paper trail” for the “purchasing of groceries”, as Maurice called it, by Clinton/DNC and anyone else behind the dossier.

 

You see...there is a thread for Hillary and DNC stuff.  This is about the actual investigation into actual possible crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shader said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176

 

This was a good article.  Michael Morell states that he learned that Steele paid people for info.

If true, that pretty much completes the “paper trail” for the “purchasing of groceries”, as Maurice called it, by Clinton/DNC and anyone else behind the dossier.

 

I'd say 7 months & 3 indictments later that article is irrelevant.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sho nuff said:
37 minutes ago, shader said:

Clinton and Russians, through an intermediary, came to a secret agreement to get dirt on Donald Trump in exchange for money. 

Agree?

False

Right. Some of it is only pedantically false. ("Clinton" is not the Clinton campaign.) But it's all false. Clinton and the Russians didn't have an agreement. Steele allegedly purchased information from certain Russians (not from Russia as a polity). Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS was hired by Marc Elias's law firm. The law firm was representing the campaign, I think (though it could have been representing some other party instead -- but close enough if we're not being overly pedantic). The Campaign was working to elect Clinton. But to characterize that as "Clinton had an agreement with Russians" is to say that "shader had an agreement, though an intermediary, with some guy in Brazil" because shader's secretary purchased a pencil from CVS. (CVS has a contract with a pencil supplier, who has a contract with a pencil manufacturer, who has a contract with a company that produces rubber, who has employees in Brazil, including the guy in question.) Even though shader has never met the guy in Brazil, doesn't know the name of his employer, doesn't know the name of the pencil manufacturer, and the guy in Brazil could care less about shader or his secretary, or even about pencils in general.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

You see...there is a thread for Hillary and DNC stuff.  This is about the actual investigation into actual possible crimes.

You’re correct.  My apologies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now