more good news

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...ed-with-the-n2400143

But the dossier's author, Steele, wasn't brought into the mix until after Democrats retained Fusion GPS. So while both sides paid Fusion GPS, Steele was only funded by Democrats.


Steele's sources:

Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.”

Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”

And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

In all the dispute and bickering the parties have inflicted on us and each other, there is one happy question that they agree on.

The American People deserve to have the facts!

So, let’s have ‘em, bucko’s!

We’re listening, waiting.......

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,

All the fake news stations are beating the same drum...the Republicans started the info gathering and this kind of thing is common in election politics. They are pounding this hard. Their plan of action is now to minimize this incident into something not unusual. It may work with these libtards if the right does not keep up the pressure.

Nothing will happen to the clintonistas, and nobody will mess with them for their own self interests and in some cases their own self preservation. The corruption is too deep and widespread.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
Nothing will happen to the clintonistas, and nobody will mess with them for their own self interests and in some cases their own self preservation. The corruption is too deep and widespread.

Sadly, you are likely correct.

http://thehill.com/homenews/ca...-of-dossier-payments

A spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-Fla.), who was forced out as DNC chairwoman at the party’s national convention in 2016, also denied knowing about the arrangement.

“She was not aware of anything related to this research arrangement,” spokesman David Damron said.

Democratic officials said that the national party was not empowered to make campaign decisions, particularly at a time when it was racked by controversy over leaked emails and while its chairwoman was being forced out.

“I doubt that any of the leadership at the DNC was even aware,” a Democratic official said.

****************

make the DNC explain the dollars to law firm Perkins Coie

Let's see the contracts and any task statements

make Perkins Coie explain the tasks from DNC

and most important, make Perkins Coie say who they gave the dossier to

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
Nothing will happen to the clintonistas, and nobody will mess with them for their own self interests and in some cases their own self preservation. The corruption is too deep and widespread.

Sadly, you are likely correct.

What do you guys think you're doing? Stop trying to discourage everyone.

Donald Trump can NEVER be POTUS, right, guys? It's IMPOSSIBLE, isn't it?

Cut it out. You don't know what's going to happen and to prove that, I give you President Donald J. Trump.

I have my doubts But I also have Donald Trump as my President.

There's a large swath of America that knows the difference between shit and shinola.

And Donald Trumps My President.

another coincidence

http://www.nationalreview.com/...-server-perkins-coie

In its capacity as attorney for the DNC, Perkins Coie – through another of its partners, Michael Sussman – is also the law firm that retained CrowdStrike, the cyber security outfit, upon learning in April 2016 that the DNC’s servers had been hacked.

Interesting: Despite the patent importance of the physical server system to the FBI and Intelligence-Community investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the Bureau never examined the DNC servers.

Evidently, the DNC declined to cooperate to that degree, and the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue a subpoena to demand that the servers be turned over (just like the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue subpoenas to demand the surrender of critical physical evidence in the Clinton e-mails investigation).

Instead, the conclusion that Russia is responsible for the invasion of the DNC servers rests on the forensic analysis conducted by CrowdStrike. Rather than do its own investigation, the FBI relied on a contractor retained by the DNC’s lawyers.

***************

Crowstrike is owned by the Google parent company (Alphabet). Eric Schmidt is Executive chairman of Alphabet

Why is that significant? In 2014 Eric Schmidt sent Cheryl Mills a plan for how to execute a 1.4 Billion campaign to elect Hillary Clinton

Sorry to keep you waiting, complicated business.....

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
another coincidence

http://www.nationalreview.com/...-server-perkins-coie

In its capacity as attorney for the DNC, Perkins Coie – through another of its partners, Michael Sussman – is also the law firm that retained CrowdStrike, the cyber security outfit, upon learning in April 2016 that the DNC’s servers had been hacked.

Interesting: Despite the patent importance of the physical server system to the FBI and Intelligence-Community investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, the Bureau never examined the DNC servers.

Evidently, the DNC declined to cooperate to that degree, and the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue a subpoena to demand that the servers be turned over (just like the Obama Justice Department decided not to issue subpoenas to demand the surrender of critical physical evidence in the Clinton e-mails investigation).

Instead, the conclusion that Russia is responsible for the invasion of the DNC servers rests on the forensic analysis conducted by CrowdStrike. Rather than do its own investigation, the FBI relied on a contractor retained by the DNC’s lawyers.

***************

Crowstrike is owned by the Google parent company (Alphabet). Eric Schmidt is Executive chairman of Alphabet

Why is that significant? In 2014 Eric Schmidt sent Cheryl Mills a plan for how to execute a 1.4 Billion campaign to elect Hillary Clinton

I have been under the impression that the FBI has no authority to issue subpoenas. The grand jury does that. No grand jury, no subpoenas. Warrants must be issued by a court upon application.

The FBI was doing a criminal investigation of the Clinton emails.

An agent did apply for a warrant to search Weiner's laptop for material involving the email investigation.

Warrant here:

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploa...linton-warrant.0.pdf



was a grand jury needed for that ?

as the Clinton campaign people claim they didn't know of the dossier until after the election, a good point made here:

https://hotair.com/archives/20...sier-january-course/

Clinton has been trying to connect Trump to Russian mischief since at least July 2016, coincidentally that’s the same month Christopher Steele was turning the first parts of what became the Russia dossier over to Fusion GPS.

Presumably, Fusion GPS was sharing those results with their client Marc Elias who also happened to be the Clinton campaign’s general counsel. Steele says the findings were so explosive that he felt obligated to share them with the FBI on his own accord (again, in July 2016).

But we’re now asked to believe Elias never shared these explosive findings with any of the people paying for them. Does that make any sense at all?

Fusion GPS also had Steele share his findings with reporters at several outlets in October, in an effort to get the oppo-research out to the public before election day. Most of the outlets refused to publish his claims because they couldn’t back them up, but Mother Jones did publish a story on Oct. 31, 2016.

Again, does it seem plausible that Fusion GPS was doing this without the permission of their client, Marc Elias?

Podesta and Blabbermouth Schultz lied to Congress about this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/26/...p-dossier/index.html

Exclusive: In Hill interviews, top Dems denied knowledge of payments to firm behind Trump dossier

Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz both privately denied to congressional Russia investigators that they had any knowledge about an arrangement to pay for opposition research on President Donald Trump, three sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

The interviews happened before this week's disclosure that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for the research. Senate investigators may seek to further question the two top Democrats and dig deeper on the origins of the so-called Trump dossier, one of the sources briefed on the matter said.

Their remarks to congressional investigators raises the stakes in their assertion that they knew nothing about the funding because it's against the law to make false statements to Congress.

The White House has seized on the funding disclosures to discredit the ongoing investigations into potential collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. While the most salacious allegations in the dossier haven't been verified, its broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community.

In recent closed-door interviews with the Senate intelligence committee, Podesta and Wasserman Schultz said they did not know who had funded Fusion GPS, the intelligence firm that hired British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele to compile the dossier on Trump, the sources said.

Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources.

Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta's attorney and not as a witness.

On Tuesday, that law firm, Perkins Coie, wrote in a letter that it had retained Fusion GPS as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The disclosure of the Democratic funding source for Fusion GPS is raising new questions for the congressional Russian investigators. The Perkins Coie letter suggested its clients -- the Clinton campaign and the DNC -- did not learn about the matter until recently.

Senate intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told CNN Wednesday that the disclosure that Fusion GPS had been paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC opens up a new line of inquiry for the panel to pursue as part of its investigation.

"This provides us the ability to connect some dots that we couldn't do before this," Burr said. "And any investigation when you have a revelation this big, it begins to clarify some pictures that you were already trying to understand. This ... will require us to dig a lot deeper in some areas that maybe a week ago we weren't planning to."

As CNN has previously reported, Republican foes of Trump -- whose identity is still not known -- initially hired Fusion GPS
to conduct opposition research on Trump. Perkins Coie took over funding for that research on behalf of Clinton and the DNC in April 2016, as it became increasingly clear that Trump would become the Republican presidential nominee.

Fusion hired the former British spy who assembled the dossier in the summer of 2016.

It is not clear whether Hill investigators will press to learn the source of the Republican funding of Fusion.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, declined to comment through a spokesperson.

Asked about her interview before staff investigators on the Senate intelligence panel, which occurred earlier this month, Wasserman Schultz reiterated she had no awareness of the dossier. She declined to say whether she had spoken to the committee. Her Hill interview had not been previously reported.

"I didn't have any awareness of the arrangement at all," she told CNN. "I'm certainly not going to discuss with you what I talked to any committee about."

In a statement, Wasserman Schultz said, "I am grateful that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence offered me the chance to share any useful information I may have had as former DNC Chairwoman, which could aid in its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

This was an unprecedented attack on our democracy, and we must prevent it from ever happening again."

Wasserman Schultz spoke to the panel voluntarily.

Elias declined to comment, and Podesta did not respond to an inquiry.

One source familiar with the situation said that Podesta voluntarily spoke with the panel and that much the discussion centered on how Russian hackers got access to troves of his private emails. The topic of Fusion GPS, the source says, came up toward the end of the interview and was not a focus for the investigators.

But with the new disclosure about the Clinton campaign and DNC ties, Podesta, Elias and Wasserman Schultz may have to return to the committee, sources said.

The House intelligence committee has also spoken to Podesta as part of its Russia investigation. But the dossier and Fusion GPS were not discussed in that interview, according to one source familiar with the investigation.
Republicans on the House intelligence committee are trying to subpoena financial records of Fusion GPS in order to learn who paid for the research. The issue is currently in the midst of a court battle as Fusion GPS is seeking an injunction to stop the release.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC's involvement with the dossier is a "very sad commentary on politics in this country."

Uh-huh. So, what's on the laptop, Dankie?

The story does not say they testified falsely. It merely says they did not know who funded the work. That may be true. It may have been their responsibility to know. Maybe they should have known, but there is no admission that they in fact knew. Maybe they in fact did know, but it is unknown whether their denial is a lie until it is shown to be false.

Were they placed under oath for that Q&A session?

Has the Perkins Coie letter to Fusion been published anywhere ?

What triggered Perkins Coie to send the letter ?

Who went public on the contents of the letter ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Has the Perkins Coie letter to Fusion been published anywhere ?

What triggered Perkins Coie to send the letter ?

Who went public on the contents of the letter ?

Letter.