Continuing to investigate the investigators.

[LostMarbels]

You are posting things other people said on TV and claiming they are true. Naturally, people take issue with that. You could respond by providing a clear, step by step explanation of why you believe these things to be true, including enough relevant information to present a balanced and clear picture. Instead, any time your insistence that the thing somebody said on telly is true is challenged, you post more links to people saying stuff on telly. Do you see the problem? I want to know why you believe this stuff, but instead of responding with an explanation you jsut continually post some stuff someone said on the TV. That’s not about you, it’s about the argument you refuse to engage in to defend your truth claims.

What evidences or counter facts do you bring to bear? What can you provide that counters my own stance? You seem intent with discussing me personally as if I am what I have presented.

 

[Tom 1]

What evidences or counter facts do you bring to bear? What can you provide that counters my own stance? You seem intent with discussing me personally as if I am what I have presented.

No, what I am discussing is what you presented - some stuff on the telly. What I am asking for are your reasons for taking it seriously. You can say ‘just because’, or you can provide your reasons, in detail. This would not mean another post with somebody on TV but your actual reasons for thinking what you think, along with detailed arguments, links to the relevant information that can be checked and so on. Is that clear? Your stance so far is ‘someone on telly said so’. If you can provide an actual argument as to why you think that what Fox says must be true, then we can start looking at the detailed information you provide. That would be a starting point for a discussion about it.

 

[Kentonio]

If you do not even understand what 'illegally obtained' means, why would I even bother getting into such a detailed, and intense discussion with you? In my view, all that is intended is such a response, is to get me to define the issue in such a manner that can be argued against. Then what ends up happening, is we argue over that definition of the topic, and never even discuss the topic at hand.

I've been doing this for too long. It would be much more forthright to state you will never agree with me.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase it clearly, my apologies. You stated as a ‘fact’ that HRC and the DRC illegally obtained information about the Trump campaign. I’m simply asking you what is it that was illegal. You’re clearly referring to their use of an opposition research company, Fusion GPS, so what laws exactly did the DRC and Hillary break in purchasing these services?

 

[LostMarbels]

Perhaps I didn’t phrase it clearly, my apologies. You stated as a ‘fact’ that HRC and the DRC illegally obtained information about the Trump campaign. I’m simply asking you what is it that was illegal. You’re clearly referring to their use of an opposition research company, Fusion GPS, so what laws exactly did the DRC and Hillary break in purchasing these services?

They broke campaign laws by filing reports meant to conceal their hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. They never reported it and attempted to conceal it.

Latter that information was used to illegally garner FISA warrants, knowingly that said information was intentionally falsified.

 

[Kentonio]

They broke campaign laws by filing reports meant to conceal their hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele. They never reported it and attempted to conceal it.

Do you have some links to support this please?

Latter that information was used to illegally garner FISA warrants, knowingly that said information was intentionally falsified.

You are moving on to very separate issues now. For the moment let's stick with the assertion that HRC and the DNC broke campaign finance laws please and we can come back to these two extra accusations later.

 

[LostMarbels]

Do you have some links to support this please?

Hillary for America, DNC Failed to Disclose Legally Required Information about Funding of Trump-Russia Dossier

 

[Tom 1]

Hillary for America, DNC Failed to Disclose Legally Required Information about Funding of Trump-Russia Dossier

That’s a link showing that an independent organisation filed a complaint about this issue. Do you take this filing of a complaint to be definitive of something?

You are aware that Fusion were originally hired to look into Trump’s foreign dealings by a group of concerned Republicans, yes?

 

[Kentonio]

Hillary for America, DNC Failed to Disclose Legally Required Information about Funding of Trump-Russia Dossier

That was a non-profits announcement of a complaint they (CLC) lodged. That complaint was not continued by the FEC because the FEC committee deadlocked on partisan lines on the issue. CLC continue to press their complaint.

To add a little more context, the claim here is that the SuperPAC 'Correct the Record' carried out the opposition research (not HRC or the DNC) and this was coordinated with the Clinton campaign. The laws state that SuperPACs can spend pretty much whatever they like as long as there is no coordination (Thanks Citizens United..). It seems pretty clear that there was coordination and that it was indeed a breach.

Let's be clear here about what this likely illegality actually is though. This is about the Clinton campaign probably trying to get around campaign finance laws to get additional money spent. Although this hasn't been ruled upon by the FEC yet, it's almost certainly true. It has nothing to do however with trying to hide their involvement with opposition research. There was nothing illegal about hiring Fusion GPS, a Republican group had previously used them for the exact same reason during the primaries. Opposition research is absolutely standard for national campaigns.

 

[LostMarbels]

The point I am making is nothing is 'unfounded'. As in not based in reality or having substantiation to conclude one's stance. My conclusions, my stance may be contested, but it is not just made out of thin air as I am constantly accused.

 

[LostMarbels]

Let's be clear here about what this likely illegality actually is though. This is about the Clinton campaign probably trying to get around campaign finance laws to get additional money spent. Although this hasn't been ruled upon by the FEC yet, it's almost certainly true. It has nothing to do however with trying to hide their involvement with opposition research. There was nothing illegal about hiring Fusion GPS, a Republican group had previously used them for the exact same reason during the primaries. Opposition research is absolutely standard for national campaigns.

This is commentary... your own subjective opinion. It only explains your own point of view concerning the matter. This does not elevate your opinion to some sort of evidence that debunks my own opinion.

What would need to be done is producing evidences, articles, so on... that you base your own stance upon. Right now what is being presented is that I am wrong, because you feel I am wrong, and you base that perception on evidence I have presented. What supports your stance the HRC/DNC did not break the law? What is your foundation? What are you beliefs founded on?

 

[Tom 1]

The point I am making is nothing is 'unfounded'. As in not based in reality or having substantiation to conclude one's stance. My conclusions, my stance may be contested, but it is not just made out of thin air as I am constantly accused.

You're making accusations and claims that have no basis to them. Somebody complaining about something isn't equal to 'they're guilty'. If that was true then you would have to accept that every suspicion raised about the politicians you do support is as valid as any other. What is quite obvious is that your views here and in other threads are based on a few tenuous shreds of info you haven't checked about something you haven't looked into and some feelings you have about it. You still haven't provided anything that can be said to be an actual basis for the kinds of accusations you make.

 

[Tom 1]

What supports your stance the HRC/DNC did not break the law? What is your foundation? What are you beliefs founded on?

You're getting this the wrong way round. You made the claim they broke the law. You still insist they did. Your evidence is that someone made a complaint. What is your evidence that a law was broken? Which law, by who, when, and when were legal proceedings initiated, and what was the outcome of these?

 

[Kentonio]

This is commentary... your own subjective opinion. It only explains your own point of view concerning the matter. This does not elevate your opinion to some sort of evidence that debunks my own opinion.

What would need to be done is producing evidences, articles, so on... that you base your own stance upon. Right now what is being presented is that I am wrong, because you feel I am wrong, and you base that perception on evidence I have presented. What supports your stance the HRC/DNC did not break the law? What is your foundation? What are you beliefs founded on?

No, I'm being very careful to try not be subjective where possible. What do we actually know? We know that Correct The Record paid for the research as part of a $9 million package of spending. It wasn't the only item, it just one of a whole raft of expensive campaign spending. What else do we know? If they declared they had done it in coordination with the campaign it would not have been allowed. The maximum spend would then have been $2700.

This seems like a pretty obvious case of the campaign getting around spending rules. You seem to be drawing the conclusion that it was for reasons of secrecy. I'm interested in how you came to that conclusion from the evidence available?

Incidentally I did not say the campaign didn't break the law. I said the exact opposite in fact, that I believe they almost certainly did.

 

[Tom 1]

The point I am making is nothing is 'unfounded'. As in not based in reality or having substantiation to conclude one's stance. My conclusions, my stance may be contested, but it is not just made out of thin air as I am constantly accused.

Here's a comparison for you - accusation - Trump University was a scam. Outcome? Trump was forced to pay out $25m to victims of his scam. Detailed breakdown? Here: Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think

There's something to go on - you can read the information, and the other information it links to, and decide if the legal finding that plaintiffs were entitled to compensation after being conned by Trump was fair. Do you see the difference between that and posting what someone said on the telly?

 

[LostMarbels]

What do we actually know? We know that Correct The Record paid for the research as part of a $9 million package of spending.

We also know that opposition research was used to get Fisa warrants to spy on the Trump campaign before he was elected, and his administration after he was elected. Obama, HRC and Biden all knew this was going on in internal communications. Everything from the pee pee tapes to Russian collision narratives come from this dossier.

You keep refusing to consider all the illegalities that stemmed from this hiding of campaign expenditures. In the OP of this thread, it has been found in documents: "U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

It was all an interconnected plan.

 

[Kentonio]

We also know that opposition research was used to get Fisa warrants to spy on the Trump campaign before he was elected, and his administration after he was elected. Obama, HRC and Biden all knew this was going on in internal communications. Everything from the pee pee tapes to Russian collision narratives come from this dossier.

You keep refusing to consider all the illegalities that stemmed from this hiding of campaign expenditures. In the OP of this thread, it has been found in documents: "U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

It was all an interconnected plan.

I'm not refusing to consider anything, and I'm not trying to stop you raising anything. What I'm asking you to do is to address one issue at a time on its merits and not dive into an 'x + y - z so b MUST equal c!!' position. It's an easy trap to fall into with complex issues, but here we can make things much simpler. For each step to make any sense, we must first ensure that each step itself has merit.

Step one, did HRC and the DNC illegally gather information on Trump. I'm yet to see any evidence that this is factual. What does appear apparently is that the Clinton campaign probably broke campaign finance laws by coordinating with a SuperPAC who spent money on her behalf. That means that yes illegality likely took place. But illegal on its own isn't all encompassing. If someone steals a handbag it doesn't mean they also committed a murder.

So let's break it down:

• Correct The Record SuperPAC paid Fusion GPS to research Trump. That isn't illegal.
• That information was passed to the FBI by Christopher Steele apparently before being given to the Democrats who paid for it. This also isn't illegal.
• The potential illegality came from Correct The Record coordinating with the Clinton Campaign. The illegality had nothing to do with the actual research gathered by Fusion. It doesn't actually matter FOR THIS STEP whether the information was true or false, the simple fact is that the gathering of it and payment was not itself illegal. This is an important distinction.

So correct me please if I'm wrong, but your first 'fact' that HRC and the DNC 'illegally obtained information about the Trump campaign' is not in fact true. Is that a fair conclusion?

 

[Tom 1]

We also know that opposition research was used to get Fisa warrants to spy on the Trump campaign before he was elected, and his administration after he was elected. Obama, HRC and Biden all knew this was going on in internal communications. Everything from the pee pee tapes to Russian collision narratives come from this dossier.

You keep refusing to consider all the illegalities that stemmed from this hiding of campaign expenditures. In the OP of this thread, it has been found in documents: "U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.’”

It was all an interconnected plan.

The FBI audit found only ‘minor clerical errors’ in the warrant request paperwork. As you can easily find out, as in fact somewhere in your brain you already know, there were plenty of legitimate reasons to investigate the Trump campaign. Many of the people involved were convicted in court of various illegal actions. Fox likes to take one part of a much bigger picture, add it to a sentence loaded with misleading terms and just repeat it over and over. It’s like getting your opinions from a paranoid parrot with a limited vocabulary.

It’s really, really easy to check this stuff before you post it. The Hill as far as I know is moderately conservative by any reasonable standard, but you can find this information in many places, or read the original info where linked to: Audit found only minor FBI errors in FISA warrants: court filing

As for your random illegalities remarks you need to go back to the drawing board. What do you think was illegal, why do you think it was illegal, where the various investigations and reports disagree with you why do you think your idea is more valid, and so on. Maybe address one ‘illegal’ thing at a time.

 

[LostMarbels]

So correct me please if I'm wrong, but your first 'fact' that HRC and the DNC 'illegally obtained information about the Trump campaign' is not in fact true. Is that a fair conclusion?

No it's not. This opposition research was used in the commission of a crime multiple crimes. They used it to lie to the courts using it as a form of substantiation for warrants. And had people prosecuted over it.

Even in the first sense, they did not disclose this opposition research as is required by law. So no. Neither coming nor going did they ever follow the law.

 

[LostMarbels]

The FBI audit found only ‘minor clerical errors’

The FBI is a part of it. Surprise, surprise they defended their own interests.

 

[Kentonio]

No it's not. This opposition research was used in the commission of a crime. They used it to lie to the courts using it as a form of substantiation for warrants. And had people prosecuted over it.

Even in the first sense, they did not disclose this opposition research as is required by law. So no. Neither coming nor going did they ever follow the law.

Whether or not it was used in a crime is the second step which I'm more than happy to discuss next. The first thing you stated as a 'fact' was that it was illegally obtained. This appears to not be the truth. A crime probably was committed by a breach of campaign finance law, but the information was not gathered illegally. Will you accept this?