It wasn't a hoax

First, there is no evidence Clinton had any contact with Steele, she only contracted with Fusion GPS, and American firm.

However, it's a moot point anyway for the following reason:

Steele's oppo research doesn't actually violate US Election laws. The key difference is highlighted below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Legal_status_as_related_to_U.S._election_laws

Legal status as related to U.S. election laws
The legal status of the dossier relates to FEC laws forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations. The dossier and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard. At issue is the legal difference between a campaign expenditure and a campaign contribution.

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't":[469] "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."[103]

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution"[469]) to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump issued a deceptive press release about it.

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense[469] and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if performed by foreigners.[469]

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.[469]


@Lee Atwater (CC'd because of reply to the same comment).

 

That all sounds really good and well, however you have no evidence that what Trump was given was not paid for.

What was he given after all?
The whole Russia fantasy is a creation of Democrats anyway.

 

For over a century, Republicans were from the Ruling Class, i.e., Buckley, Rockefeller, Bush, Wallstreet, etc.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/republican-party
Because of the Republican Party’s association with business interests, by the early 20th century it was increasingly seen as the party of the upper-class elite.

 

"A thing of value" doesn't require cash in the transaction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dea-that-trump-might-seek-foreign-assistance/

...Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined. WikiLeaks's dumps of information damaging to Clinton's campaign was demonstrated to have been the result of hacking by Russian actors before the material was actually made public. Yet, as the Mueller report states, the “presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ... showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton.” ...

The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was initiated by Republican James Comey, was taken over by Special Counsel, Republican Robert Mueller, appointed to that post by Republican Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by Republican Donald Trump.

What was that about Democrats?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Legal_status_as_related_to_U.S._election_laws

Legal status as related to U.S. election laws
The legal status of the dossier relates to FEC laws forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations. The dossier and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard. At issue is the legal difference between a campaign expenditure and a campaign contribution.

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't":[469] "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."[103]

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution"[469]) to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump issued a deceptive press release about it.

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense[469] and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if performed by foreigners.[469]

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.[469]


@Lee Atwater (CC'd because of reply to the same comment).[/QUOTE]

Liberal speak 101... it was legal

When.... the dossier was a lie from the first letter to the last period... used illegally to get 4 FISA warrant to use the "two hop" rule to get into the Trump campaign communication going forward and backwards.

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine applies here... and there never should have been any charges brought against any Trump campaign folks..

YOUR government "behaved badly"

 

How funny... you may need to try and not use wikipedia so much... the link uses nothing but WaPo and such fake news sights as their sources....

I find it entertaining the link bring up the Trump Tower meeting...contributions "from the Russian government"

The Russian lawyer at that meeting was a Russian citizen, not some clandestine secret government agent. Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya

Seems Hillary has her dirty little fingers in it all.......

IN FACT.... lets have a look at the Trump Tower meeting...
Who was Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.....
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and co-founder of Fusion GPS, was with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at a Manhattan federal courtroom just hours before the Trump Tower meeting...
Veselnitskaya has publicly stated that she used talking points developed by Simpson for the Russian government in the meeting.
Veselnitskaya hired Simpson in spring 2014 for work that lasted, according to Simpson’s Senate testimony, until “mid to late 2016.”
Simpson also testified that he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the night before the meeting and the night after. In two different cities... What are the odds of that?

In 2007, Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote a compelling spy-novel-like article titled How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington, which contains many of the same names and familiar themes that have been used throughout the entire 2+ year situation

 

From Mueller.........

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,
“coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term
coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

IOW, because he was not able to obtain evidence that Putin called Trump and said, "how'd you like us to hack some DNC servers and then release the material through Wikileaks to help you get elected" the high criminal conspiracy bar was not met. Yet, we know Trump reveled in the release of said material (a unique act of treachery in the history of this country) from his benefactor......an enemy of the US. And by his "sweeping and systematic" actions to influence the election for Trump we know Putin's goal was to get Don elected. Proving once again the orange MAGA god has tremendous instincts in walking to the water's edge of outright criminal behavior (traitorous but not criminal) without plunging in the water. As he has in so many ways Trump exposed weaknesses in our legal system that desperately need to be addressed.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
https://www.lawfareblog.com/repairing-rule-law-agenda-post-trump-reform

 

The FBI investigation was ….
An investigation started to find a crime instead of…
A crime that started an investigation

 

No actually Hillary had her finger in the pie quite a bit.... looks like the messiah Obama had his nose stuck in it also...

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified documents that revealed former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s purported “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server” ahead of the 2016 presidential election,

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-10/ENCLOSURE_2__DCIA_Memo_09-07-16__U.pdf
https://justthenews.com/government/...showing-why-fbi-russia-probe-was-broken-start

 

It doesn't matter. IG stated the bar for predication is low, and the gov met that threshold, and the investigations were properly predicated, no bias reveal, and issue with proper authority.

Nothing else matters.

Get it?

Of course you don't.

And the most salient aspect of the Dossier was confirmed, Russian meddling, that, plus Trump's welcoming of it, equals predication right there ( in my view ).

 

This would go a long way to speeding up the Jan. 6 committee's work.

Expediting judicial review of congressional demands for records in relation to oversight and impeachment. The Supreme Court has now made clear that congressional subpoenas in support of its oversight of executive authority are valid and subject to judicial review. During the House of Representatives’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump, the administration flatly refused to comply with subpoenas for Ukraine-related documents, despite Congress’s general oversight authorities and investigative powers for the purposes of impeachment. And although the House responded by including in the articles of impeachment a charge for obstructing Congress, it avoided challenging the administration’s behavior in court because doing so would simply take too long. Likewise, Congress’s subpoena for the testimony of one of the president’s advisers has been pending for nearly two years. This history makes clear that the lack of an expedited process for reviewing conflicts between Congress and the president can have the unintended effect of immunizing executive action from congressional scrutiny. It is well within Congress’s power to mandate the expedited judicial consideration of such matters, setting affirmative time limits that bind the courts to act more quickly.

 

If you can't handle quote tags, I suspect you can't handle framing a proper argument, as such is markedly more difficult.

I'll file yours in the quote tag failures file.

I don't need to puff myself up, you just stoop, and my 'puffery' is therefore an illusion.

Hah!

 

Scarborough is not from late-nineteenth-century / early-twentieth-century America; he is a so-called conservative in early twenty-first-century America, and he is a member of the ruling class. Two of the gentlemen, Rockefeller and Buckley, are from a bygone America; George W. Bush and Wall Street are existing in the latter-day, and both of them are members of the ruling class, and both of them are more in line with Democrats, who are in line with the ruling class. Wall Street is heavily invested in the Democrat Party. In fact, it spent over $74 million backing Joe Biden for president in 2020 (1). In 2008, Wall Street put its money behind Obama for president. (2) Hell, according to the Daily Kos (yes, I am citing the Daily Kos), the Clintons have had a "cozy" relationship with Wall Street (3) Now you don't have to necessarily be a Democrat to be in the ruling class; Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are very much in and vociferously defending the ruling class, the establishment. And when Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are both primaried out of their positions of power, I am pretty sure they will have a multimillion-dollar seat in Wall Street, and they will probably continue to be consistent guests on CNN and MSNBC until their utility runs dry. That's why they are undisturbed about losing their seats in Congress. And don't even get me started on the mainstream corporate press that is essentially the wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party.

1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/wall-street-spends-74-million-to-support-joe-biden.html
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/analysis-shares-obama-idUKNOA53525520080605
3. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/29/1493380/-The-Clinton-Wall-Street-Affair-Cozy-for-24-Years

 

They backed Biden only because Trump is bad for business.

He's a lunatic.

Business would rather have a stable dem than a loony president who claims to be a republican, any day of the week.

You will find that those who voted for Biden in the world of Business are mostly republicans, ........

sensible republicans.

No, historically speaking, republicans were associated with oligarchs, the ruling class.

Only recently has that concept been shaken up a bit.

This idea that Trump represents the common man is the scam of the century.

 

You gotta see someone out your fixation with my quote tags errors, aka BQTDS - Bullseye Quote Tad Derangement Syndrome.

 

If you are going to take my argument out of context, please just respond to that part that you are taking out of context. Don't take my argument out of context, but quote my whole argument, which makes it clear that you are taking my argument out of context. It makes you look silly.

Wall Street has been backing the Democrats for at least decades; it has not just started with Biden. Wall Street backed Biden in spite of, not because of, how his policies were going to affect inflation. Under Trump, before the Chinese virus came to America during an election year, national unemployment was 3.5%. (1) Gas prices, for example, during the entire Trump presidency never reached $3 a gallon; within the first year of Biden's presidency, it's currently at at $3.41, on average. At June, gas prices passed $3 a gallon, and it has been climbing upwards each month. (2) But high unemployment and high gas prices does not affect the ruling class as much as it affects working-class Americans. Biden's unemployment rate is currently an embarrassing 4.2%, and that's in spite of Democrat governors lifting draconian restrictions from businesses after Trump supposedly lost the last election, which brought it closer to the pre-pandemic Trump unemployment number.

1. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/1...ess-for-27-weeks-or-more-in-february-2020.htm
2. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W

 

Oh like Bush was a member of the TANG, yep he got that right and that was about it. Just sayin'.

Yes a delta wing supersonic all weather interceptor which he flew out to them middle of the Gulf of Mexico under ALL conditions. Still one of the highest fatality rate aircraft ever in US inventory. AND when he enlisted the TANG was still flying them in Viet Nam.

 

What was verified in it?

 

Can't quote, can't argue.

Can't do much, can you?

Oh, what, another thought-terminating cliché?

You've already got a buck full of them.

 

You wish. But, no one is paying attention, so much for appearances.

yes, because dem leadership has been neoliberal for some time.
Who's a neoliberal? Mainly Reagan, Bush 1 & 2, and Clinton, are the main ones Obama less so (but they loved the bailout ) , and Biden less even more ( but not as much as progressives would like ) but I'n not sure if O & B are totally out of the neoliberal shed, just yet..

Another disingenuous statement.

If you look at the unemployment graph, it was on an steep upward trajectory when Obama took over.

Obama REVERSED that trend and sent it in steep steady decline over the course of his presidency.

This idea that Trump achieved something worth bragging about, not in my book, because as you can see, below

It would be like if Obama constructed a nice Corvette, handed Trump the keys, and now all Trump has to do is not wreck the car.

Unfortunately, he wrecked the car with his supreme incompetence handling Covid.

Your implication is disingenuous, inflation is not that simple, and To say Biden caused inflation is, in my view, only one quarter correct. Allow me to explain

There was an interview with Kevin O'leary, one of the shark tank guys, a billionaire who has investment with some 30 companies who deal with overseas suppliers, who explained that the shortages he is experiencing with his firms getting product has to do with the fact that many foreign countries are far behind America on Covid management, haven't gotten their vaccines yet, etc., and they are heavily in lock down, causing supply change shortages here in America, and that is driving up prices. O'leary explained that the other half of inflation was due to the massive fiat currency issue to finance Trump's and Biden's stimulus packages. So, the pandemic abroad is causing half of inflation, Biden and Trump contribute 25% each. That's the long and short if it, according to O'leary.



Fiat currency flooding the economy faster than GDP can absorb it, resulting in too many dollars chasing two few goods and services, is what causes in inflation, i.e., this is the 'ultimate' cause of inflation.

However, the pandemic, supply chain issues driving up prices isn't inflation, per se, they are market fluctuations which, when the pandemic completeply passess and markets will sort themselves out and recover and the price increase the pandemic caused will settle back to whatever the real inflationary rate is. Note that, since the pandemic passes, the need for stimulus will pass, and the pandemic factors pushing the price up will go way, and prices will return to their normal yearly increase of about 2.6% per year.

Oh, stop it. Anything around 4% or less is considered full employment. 4.2%, given the times, is a positive achievement, given where it was when Biden took office, I believe it was 6.7%. At any rate, it was higher.

'
So? You know, when you pepper your argument with apparently meaningless facts which don't buttress your point, if there
is some hidden point you are making, you might want to let us know what it is.

'
No, he is a conservative.

That's a bizarre statement. "Ruling class' smacks of a monarchy. What does this even mean?
No, what he is a conservative TV host. He also plays in a band, sometimes.
The rest of your post just meanders about the 'ruling class'.

 

A whole BUCK? With Biden's inflation hardly anything. Or did your mean:



BUCKET!

 

Like what? You can't support what Frum said, and he can't be here to defend his own very debatable and clearly wrong headed commentary. That you continue to defend it as if somehow it's truthful absent ANY ability to demonstrate how Frum is accurate or correct, and then the fact that you divorce yourself from the responsibility, and still actively attack criticism absent any ability to craft your own defensive narrative is pretty laughable. Why do you continue to try to do so except to waste the time? So, to be specific, you have an opinion that is factless. That you continue to support the Frum narrative makes you seem far more zealous. You haven't created any support, individually, but you whine when folks can so effectively negate your "support" because you chose to use such a weak advocate to base your "argument" on.

You aren't specific. I find it interesting that you'd want others to be more effective than you are. But, since you asked, Frum is simply mischaracterizing information to form a narrative that isn't factually true in order to influence folks. He got you on his team. Do you feel adequately duped yet?

 

Not much.

 

Give me a few of the much's that were verified because I don't think anything of any substance was in fact if was rebuked.