Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e5f6e985587[/url]

The Russia story has been 80% deflection and hysteria from the Democrats. It's been a bunch of political maneuvering from the start to distract from how terrible they are and the reason why they lost.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817662]The Russia story has been 80% deflection and hysteria from the Democrats. It's been a bunch of political maneuvering from the start to distract from how terrible they are and the reason why they lost.[/QUOTE] I'd believe that, but this research has brought about genuine results?

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817662]The Russia story has been 80% deflection and hysteria from the Democrats. It's been a bunch of political maneuvering from the start to distract from how terrible they are and the reason why they lost.[/QUOTE] if that's really what the situation is, then all parties and person's involved should have no problem fully cooperating. I mean, what better way to make Democrats look silly than to prove all claims from the dossier wrong, correct?

[QUOTE=ToumaniSquirrel;52817686]I'd believe that, but this research has brought about genuine results?[/QUOTE] Let me elaborate: Trump has [i]financial[/i] ties to Russia. He's undeniably a corrupt businessman. He has financial ties to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and numerous others. What I disagree with is the prevailing mainstream narrative that Trump actively colluded with Russian agents or that the Russians helped him win at all. [QUOTE=djshox;52817698]if that's really what the situation is, then all parties and person's involved should have no problem fully cooperating. I mean, what better way to make Democrats look silly than to prove all claims from the dossier wrong, correct?[/QUOTE] They're wrong about the "Russia swung the election for Trump" narrative. They're right about "Trump has illegal financial ties to Russia" (which often doesn't go reported in favor of the former sensationalist headline). They won't cooperate because they [i]are[/i] guilty of corruption and Trump doesn't want people finding out about his dirty money. That's why he fired Comey. It's not because of some conspiratorial Russian espionage plot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don’t make bold claims without sources otherwise you look like you’re trolling" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817728] They're wrong about the "Russia swung the election for Trump" narrative.[/QUOTE] okay, would you be able to provide sources that back up this claim?

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817728]They're wrong about the "Russia swung the election for Trump" narrative. [/QUOTE] This is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. The amount of evidence to back up the claim that the Russian Government utilized social media, memes, misinformation, and so on in order to influence the American public's decision come voting time is [B]enormous.[/B] Every single day there's more evidence being brought to light. To make your statement is, in simple terms, naive. [QUOTE=djshox;52817754]okay, would you be able to provide sources that back up this claim?[/QUOTE] there are no sources to back up that claim :v:

[QUOTE=djshox;52817754]okay, would you be able to provide sources that back up this claim?[/QUOTE] Sources for what? My disbelief that Russian memeing had a tangible effect on the outcome of the election? I believe the burden of proof is on the people claiming otherwise. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Quark:;52817772]This is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. The amount of evidence to back up the claim that the Russian Government utilized social media, memes, misinformation, and so on in order to influence the American public's decision come voting time is [B]enormous.[/B] Every single day there's more evidence being brought to light. To make your statement is, in simple terms, naive. there are no sources to back up that claim :v:[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that didn't happen. What I'm asking is if you seriously believe Russian memes and Facebook ads was the decisive factor in Trump winning.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817785]Sources for what? My disbelief that Russian memeing had a tangible effect on the outcome of the election? I believe the burden of proof is on the people claiming otherwise. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] I'm not saying that didn't happen. What I'm asking is if you seriously believe Russian memes and Facebook ads was the decisive factor in Trump winning.[/QUOTE] are you completely unaware of the sheer amount of people who use facebook, twitter, etc as their primary source of knowledge? or the huge number of anti-clinton memes / propaganda / misinformation (PIZZA GATE?) circulating via the aforementioned platforms? the "God Emperor Trump" cultism? Literally everyone you can think of besides the extremely elderly were/are using these social media platforms, seeing posts demonizing Hillary Clinton, seeing memes about her, seeing "Fake News" stories about her, and having their subconscious image of her manipulated. It's very easy for something you read on the internet to change the way to think about thinks in real life, whether what you read was true or not. During the campaigning season, every single website was talking about the election unless it was specifically not allowed. The internet has an enormous impact on real life, and in this case, the internet (thanks to very dedicated Russian troll farms) had an impact on [B]our presidential election.[/B]

[QUOTE=Quark:;52817800]are you completely unaware of the sheer amount of people who use facebook, twitter, etc as their primary source of knowledge? or the huge number of anti-clinton memes / propaganda / misinformation (PIZZA GATE?) circulating via the aforementioned platforms? the "God Emperor Trump" cultism? Literally everyone you can think of besides the extremely elderly were/are using these social media platforms, seeing posts demonizing Hillary Clinton, seeing memes about her, seeing "Fake News" stories about her, and having their subconscious image of her manipulated. It's very easy for something you read on the internet to change the way to think about thinks in real life, whether what you read was true or not. During the campaigning season, every single website was talking about the election unless it was specifically not allowed. The internet has an enormous impact on real life, and in this case, the internet (thanks to very dedicated Russian troll farms) had an impact on [B]our presidential election.[/B][/QUOTE] Is that a yes then? Because in my opinion it's more likely that Hillary lost because she was a flawed status quo candidate running against a fake populist and not because Russian trolls were posting Facebook memes. The right-wing was [i]already[/i] posting the same fucking memes, by the way.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817814]Is that a yes then? Because in my opinion it's more likely that Hillary lost because she was a flawed status quo candidate running against a fake populist and not because Russian trolls were posting Facebook memes. The right-wing was [i]already[/i] posting the same fucking memes, by the way.[/QUOTE] Since you didn't figure it out from my post, my answer is a resounding YES. Maybe you should [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook"]catch up[/URL] [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html"]with[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-us-election-donald-trump-st-petersburg-troll-farm-hillary-clinton-a8005276.html"]reality[/URL]?

[QUOTE=Quark:;52817818]Since you didn't figure it out from my post, my answer is a resounding YES. Maybe you should [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook"]catch up[/URL] [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html"]with[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-us-election-donald-trump-st-petersburg-troll-farm-hillary-clinton-a8005276.html"]reality[/URL]?[/QUOTE] I think something is getting lost in translation here. I'm not asking you what the Russians did. I'm asking you [i]"Is Russia the reason Trump won and can you prove it empirically?"[/i]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52817864]I think Russia certainly contributed to trumps election, but can't be blamed as the "sole reason" that trump got elected. I think the dems still could have won had they ran a competent candidate.[/QUOTE] For sure. If the reason Hillary lost was because a Russian troll posted a pizzagate meme on Facebook then I think the the root of the problem lies with your candidate. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] I'm not asking these questions solely to be a contrarian douchebag. It's important to know where people stand on this issue because it affects how we go moving forward. If you want say "Russia got Trump elected," then do we impeach him? Imprison him? Declare the election illegitimate and hand the presidency to Hillary? What about Russia themselves? We're already sanctioning them out the wazoo. What do we do? I genuinely want to know. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] My problem with the Russia story isn't even necessarily about what Russia did, it's about how it's used as a scapegoat by Democrats for their own failures and as a reason to justify Trump's presidency, as if a madman like Trump could only have come to power with the help of a hostile foreign government instead of being enabled by deeply systemic and internal problems in America.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52817908]Everyone he's appointed = gone[/QUOTE] That should be be quick considering like half the positions are still vacant.

Given that much of the research in the Steele Dossier has been corroborated or confirmed, I daresay it matters not at all.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817728]Let me elaborate: Trump has [i]financial[/i] ties to Russia. He's undeniably a corrupt businessman. He has financial ties to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and numerous others. What I disagree with is the prevailing mainstream narrative that Trump actively colluded with Russian agents or that the Russians helped him win at all. They're wrong about the "Russia swung the election for Trump" narrative. They're right about "Trump has illegal financial ties to Russia" (which often doesn't go reported in favor of the former sensationalist headline). They won't cooperate because they [i]are[/i] guilty of corruption and Trump doesn't want people finding out about his dirty money. That's why he fired Comey. It's not because of some conspiratorial Russian espionage plot.[/QUOTE] That Russia's campaign helped Trump win is not in question. At all. Every single intelligence agency in the country unanimously agrees that Trump won thanks largely to Russia's campaign of propaganda, hacking, botnets, and disinformation. Put the thought that Russia had nothing to do with his victory out of our mind, because it is objectively wrong. As to whether or not Trump actively colluded with Russia to enable that end may remain in question, but all signs point to "yes." Every one of Trump's key advisers has been found with Putin's shit on their shoes. Every member of Trump's inner circle was present at a meeting with a self-proclaimed Russian agent who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton that had come about as a direct result of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The emphatic response from the Trump camp upon learning this was, "if what you say is true, [we] love it!" They actively agreed to collusion and took steps to make it happen. The events of the meeting itself are irrelevant, because it was based on the explicit information within that email that Trump's inner circle established the meeting. That is treason. The investigation, continuing from that point, has discovered link after link after link between Trump, his family, and his key advisers directly to powerful Russian oligarchs and agents. The unprecedented scale and speed of this investigation has resulted in pre-dawn no-knock raids of powerful government figures' homes. Nearly everything within the dossier referenced in the original post has been proven true. Anybody who believes that the Russian investigation is a "nothing burger" is either willfully delusional, or simply hasn't been paying attention. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817785]I'm not saying that didn't happen. What I'm asking is if you seriously believe Russian memes and Facebook ads was the decisive factor in Trump winning.[/QUOTE] That was hardly the extent of Russia's campaign, and the implication that it was is either very misguided or actively disingenuous. Again, every intelligence agency in the country is in unanimous and unreserved agreement: Russia's attacks significantly influenced the election.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817785]Sources for what? My disbelief that Russian memeing had a tangible effect on the outcome of the election? I believe the burden of proof is on the people claiming otherwise. [/QUOTE] Its great that you think that the burden of proof is on others, but youre wrong. You made the claim, and its proper to support your claim with viable evidence. Deflecting accusations by saying "well can you prove me wrong?" Is some elementary school bullshit.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52817983]Its great that you think that the burden of proof is on others, but youre wrong. You made the claim, and its proper to support your claim with viable evidence. Deflecting accusations by saying "well can you prove me wrong?" Is some elementary school bullshit.[/QUOTE] To expand, completely aware of how redundant I'm being, the claims of Russia's influence, attacks, and efficacy have already been unanimously supported by every intelligence agency in the country, and basically every intelligence agency in the Western world. At this point, the burden of proof for Jim is so insurmountably crushing that he stands effectively no chance of bearing it. It's like arguing against the existence of water whilst sitting at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52817971]That Russia's campaign helped Trump win is not in question. At all. Every single intelligence agency in the country unanimously agrees that Trump won thanks largely to Russia's campaign of propaganda, hacking, botnets, and disinformation. Put the thought that Russia had nothing to do with his victory out of our mind, because it is objectively wrong. As to whether or not Trump actively colluded with Russia to enable that end may remain in question, but all signs point to "yes." Every one of Trump's key advisers has been found with Putin's shit on their shoes. Every member of Trump's inner circle was present at a meeting with a self-proclaimed Russian agent who promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton that had come about as a direct result of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The emphatic response from the Trump camp upon learning this was, "if what you say is true, [we] love it!" They actively agreed to collusion and took steps to make it happen. The events of the meeting itself are irrelevant, because it was based on the explicit information within that email that Trump's inner circle established the meeting. That is treason. The investigation, continuing from that point, has discovered link after link after link between Trump, his family, and his key advisers directly to powerful Russian oligarchs and agents. The unprecedented scale and speed of this investigation has resulted in pre-dawn no-knock raids of powerful government figures' homes. Nearly everything within the dossier referenced in the original post has been proven true. Anybody who believes that the Russian investigation is a "nothing burger" is either willfully delusional, or simply hasn't been paying attention.[/quote] Again, I want to make a distinction between the intelligence agencies saying "Russia interfered in the election" (I agree) and "Trump won because of Russia" (I disagree). Have these intelligence agencies released statements to that effect with empirical evidence? I don't simply take government agencies at their word. And I pose my earlier question to you: what do we do, then? If the crux of your argument is "colluding with a foreign government to influence the election is treason," then [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446"]Clinton is also guilty.[/URL] Before you jump on me for "What about Clinton"ing you, it's because I want to clarify what you consider treason or not. Trump and his cohorts clearly have dirty money involved with Russian businesses but treason is a serious charge along the lines of selling state secrets and I think you're being far too loose with that charge. [editline]24th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52817983]Its great that you think that the burden of proof is on others, but youre wrong. You made the claim, and its proper to support your claim with viable evidence. Deflecting accusations by saying "well can you prove me wrong?" Is some elementary school bullshit.[/QUOTE] I'm not [i]making[/i] a claim, Zyklon. I'm [i]disagreeing[/i] with the claim the Russia stole the election for Trump. How do I prove a negative?

[B][I]"I simply don't take government agencies at their word."[/I][/B] Then this entire discussion is pointless, as nothing I can provide to you will have any merit whatsoever by your irrational and arbitrary standards. None other than national (and international) intelligence agencies are qualified to investigate and determinate the impacts of this attack. To discount any and all evidence from such agencies on such a baseless standard makes any debate impossible and pointless. To your other point, your own source sinks your argument on two fronts: 1) Ukraine is not a hostile country, unlike Russia 2) Ukraine's involvement was above board consulting and research, unlike Russia, and not [B]nearly[/B] as broad in scale. [quote]The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails. Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.” There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.[/quote] Long story short: Ukraine's involvement here is not even remotely comparable to Russia's. It was overt (not covert) and legal (not illegal). Consulting and research, not cyberwarfare. You're peddling an argument that simply doesn't apply.

This is old news? I thought it was already clear that both Democrats and Republicans contributed to finding this dossier

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52818070]I'm not [i]making[/i] a claim, Zyklon. I'm [i]disagreeing[/i] with the claim the Russia stole the election for Trump. How do I prove a negative?[/QUOTE] Semantics. You are disagreeing with the claim that Russia influenced the election by [I]making[/I] the claim that Russia did [I]not[/I] influence the election. You'll need to provide evidence to support that claim if you want to be taken seriously, yet given that you've already openly admitted to refusing to believe any official evidence to the contrary on completely arbitrary grounds, there's not much point in engaging you.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52818097][B][I]"I simply don't take government agencies at their word."[/I][/B] Then this entire discussion is pointless, as nothing I can provide to you will have any merit whatsoever by your irrational and arbitrary standards. None other than national (and international) intelligence agencies are qualified to investigate and determinate the impacts of this attack. To discount any and all evidence from such agencies on such a baseless standard makes any debate impossible and pointless. To your other point, your own source sinks your argument on two fronts: 1) Ukraine is not a hostile country, unlike Russia 2) Ukraine's involvement was above board consulting and research, unlike Russia, and not [B]nearly[/B] as broad in scale. Long story short: Ukraine's involvement here is not even remotely comparable to Russia's. It was overt (not covert) and legal (not illegal). Consulting and research, not cyberwarfare. You're peddling an argument that simply doesn't apply.[/QUOTE] That's unfortunate, then. I didn't realize asking for evidence beyond "the intelligence agencies say this" was irrational. So foreign collusion is ethical if it's with a friendly power? [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52818105]Semantics. You are disagreeing with the claim that Russia influenced the election by [I]making[/I] the claim that Russia did [I]not[/I] influence the election. You'll need to provide evidence to support that claim if you want to be taken seriously, yet given that you've already openly admitted to refusing to believe any official evidence to the contrary on completely arbitrary grounds, there's not much point in engaging you.[/QUOTE] Are you even listening to yourself? This is basic stuff. I'm trying be as clear I can. You are making the positive claim that Trump won because of Russia. The burden is on [i]you[/i] to prove it. Did Russia interfere in the election? Absolutely. Did Trump's team meet with Russian officials and oligarchs? Yes. Did dirty money change hands? Without a doubt. [i]Is it the reason Trump was elected?[/i] I'm asking for something empirical that answers that question, not "intelligence agencies say Russia interfered in the election" because that doesn't answer my question, which is [i]how significant was the interference, and would Trump have lost if Russia didn't interfere?[/i] That is literally all I'm asking and I will be right on board with you.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52818099]This is old news? I thought it was already clear that both Democrats and Republicans contributed to finding this dossier[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm surprised this is 'news' to some people. I remember learning about this some months back. How it started as Republican opposition research, then taken over by Democrats for more opposition research, then finally taken by the FBI to which they stopped paying Steele when this went public.

Whether or not Russia's interference affected the election or not is a separate issue from the electoin itself, [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1582758&highlight="]which is why the intelligence community specifically didn't make that call[/URL]. Discounting an investigation that has already brought forth incredible information about Russia's disinformation campaign and their eagerness to exploit societal divisions in the United States shouldn't be discounted because you think the Democrats are using it as a political hatchet. They are two separate ideas. Don't let partisan hackery blind you to real problems.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52818070] I'm not [i]making[/i] a claim, Zyklon. I'm [i]disagreeing[/i] with the claim the Russia stole the election for Trump. How do I prove a negative?[/QUOTE] If you're just disagreeing with something then dont post. But thats not what you're doing, youre making and have made the claim. You're refusing to back up that claim and you're deflecting with semantic bullshit. [editline]25th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52818155] Are you even listening to yourself? This is basic stuff. I'm trying be as clear I can. You are making the positive claim that Trump won because of Russia. The burden is on [i]you[/i] to prove it. [/QUOTE] No. You made the claim that Russia did not influence the 2016 election: [Quote]Let me elaborate: Trump has financial ties to Russia. He's undeniably a corrupt businessman. He has financial ties to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and numerous others. What I disagree with is the prevailing mainstream narrative that Trump actively colluded with Russian agents or that the Russians helped him win at all. [/quote] You saying "I disagree!" is you making a claim bud. Do I really need to link you to the Wikipedia article about burden of proof? You made a claim, so back it up. If your claim is just how you feel about a situation, then just say so. But as it stands, you've thus far disregarded factual evidence because of how you [i]feel [/i] about the agencies reporting it and you've done nothing to prove your claim. If you're just going to argue opinions and feelings and refuse to cite your statements, then maybe find a subreddit where you can air your baseless beliefs into an echochamber.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52818318]He said he wanted a source to an official report with empirical evidence that Russian interference altered the outcome of the election. That's not the same as "you don't believe official evidence". And your point about the burden of proof is stupid and wrong, you know better than that BDA.[/QUOTE] Dood, he made the claim that Russia's influence had no appreciable effect on the outcome of the election. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. It doesn't matter if he words his statement like a feeling or dodges the burden with semantical deflections.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52818400]I believe that until the positive claim is irrefutably proven, the negative claim doesn't carry burden of proof[/QUOTE] You're right, but he's not actually responding to the insurmountable amount of evidence backing the positive claim. He's just saying "I disagree."

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52817971]That Russia's campaign helped Trump win is not in question. At all. Every single intelligence agency in the country unanimously agrees that Trump won thanks largely to Russia's campaign of propaganda, hacking, botnets, and disinformation. Put the thought that Russia had nothing to do with his victory out of our mind, because it is objectively wrong.[/QUOTE] Can you cite this claim, please? I know the intelligence agencies agree that Russia tried to influence the election, but I haven't seen any such agreement that the influence played a large role in Trump's victory.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52817785]Sources for what? My disbelief that Russian memeing had a tangible effect on the outcome of the election? I believe the burden of proof is on the people claiming otherwise.[/QUOTE] I think it's important to note the word 'tangible' here. Of course it isn't tangible - how could we possibly quantify how much influence certain events had? It would literally require mind reading or alternative universe simulations to tell. I don't think there can be any denying that it had [I]some[/I] effect, but it's impossible to say how big a part in Trump's victory it played. Regardless, it's a huge issue - I think your understanding of it as a 'scapegoat' for Democrats is wrong. They're not talking about it because they need to justify losing the election, they're talking about it because they think it's important. Democrats being unable to recognize their own flaws is a separate issue that can coexist with 'the Russia story'.