Clinton Lawyer Under Fire After Disclosure That The Clinton Campaign Paid For Russian Dossier On Trump

download-6Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias is under fire today after the Washington Post ran an extensive story on how the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee hired controversial research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in Russia in the “Russian Dossier” matter.  Reporters at the New York Times have accused Elias of lying in past categorical denials of any connection to Clinton or the DNC.  The reports indicate that not only did the Clinton team fund the opposition research but that Elias may have been the person handling much of the arrangements. Update: Brian Fallon, former spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, has said that this was “money well spent.” On CNN, Fallon said that the “sensitive nature” of the project meant that it was kept to a small number of people that did not include him. Fallon’s expression of satisfaction with the work however conflicts with what reporters say Elias told them. He notably sounded a lot like Trump in saying “opposition research occurs all the time.” Christoper Steele is a foreign national who was seeking information from foreign sources to use against Trump.

The reports indicate that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS all the way until just a few days before the election. Fusion GPS has stonewalled on questions over who funded it and key witnesses have invoked their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

download-5According to the Post, Elias was representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC where he retained Fusion GPS and the dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer.  Elias is a partner at the Seattle-based Perkins Coie, a firm that received millions from the Clinton campaign.  The Clinton team gave Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016.

The story left some reporters irate and their ire is directed against Elias and Perkins Coie. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel went public and said that Elias  “vigorously” denied his involvement in the anti-Trump dossier: “When I tried to report this story. Clinton campaign lawyer [Marc Elias] pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’”

NYT reporter Maggie Haberman  wrote on Twitter and joined in on the criticism and accused the Clinton team of outright lies:  “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

If Elias and Perkins Coie lied to the media about the role of the Clinton campaign and the DNC in the affair, such allegations fall into a murky area of legal ethics.  Elias was clearly representing clients in this matter.  Attorneys are subject to a code of ethics that bars them from making false statements in representation. This is usually a matter of court filings or litigation, which have well-defined systems for addressing such misconduct.  Lying to the media is less defined but still covered by ethical rules.

While recognizing the duty of lawyers to defend their clients in the court of public opinion, the American Bar Association has repeatedly stressed that they can be disciplined for a variety of violations from making improper extrajudicial comments to violating prosecutorial limits to attacking judges.  One such limitation is found in Model Rule 8.4(c) which makes it improper for a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”  In this case, Elias not only allegedly actively participated in putting out false information to the public in a presidential election but hampered efforts to establish responsibility in a matter of great public significance.

Then there is Rule 4.1:

Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness In Statements To Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

However, it is important to note that we have not heard a response from either Elias or Perkins Coie on these serious allegations.

The alleged denials by Elias also raise potential criminal risks if any false or misleading comments were made to federal or congressional investigators, though it is not clear if such interviews have occurred.

Elias has deep ties to Clinton and Democratic politics.  He still lists himself as general counsel to Hillary for America, the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  He previously served as general counsel in John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

Elias and Perkins Coie will now face some very serious questions going forward.  Elias already spoke to the media on the allegations and did not claim privilege.  This could also be fashioned as a possible criminal matter by investigators in negating privilege assertions.  However, Elias has already gone public on the alleged involvement of both the Clinton campaign and DNC in the dossier controversy.  It will be hard to get that cat to walk backwards.

223 thoughts on “Clinton Lawyer Under Fire After Disclosure That The Clinton Campaign Paid For Russian Dossier On Trump”

    1. So she helped pay for da pee tape. Maybe Johnny McCain will release it. Da Russian hookers don’t give a d damn.

    2. There’s a great scene in “Road Warrior” where that cute little Mohawk haired kid flies his boomerang toward the enemy, one of whom (maybe Isaac or Natacha’s descendant…the movie takes place in the future) thinks it a good idea to catch the boomerang, which person quickly looses a few fingers.

      Love those future Progressives, just as much our current ones.

  1. Is anybody really surprised by this??? That the Democrats just make stuff up, and then lie about making it up? That Democrats engage in dirty tricks, while slamming others for dirty tricks??? The entire DNC has degenerated into a criminal organization designed to keep its members in charge of the trillions of dollars that flow thru the government, and the attendant power.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky as you already know, D’Souza wrote a book about this “Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party”

    2. No. I expected this.

      I’m not surprised.

      The Clintons are want-a-be third world socialist dictators. I lived in a third world socialist country and this is the type of business I’d expect there. Maybe punishment for all of the actors should be trying their hand in South American politics with a complimentary plane ticket Venezuela.

      Now I hope my clairvoyance is wrong, but someone’s going to die of long riffle suicide to the head and the crime will be swept under the rug.

      I wonder who has the goods on Sessions.

  2. During the campaign, both Rs [thought to be Bush] and Ds [known to be DNC and Clinton team] paid for opposition research done by a very well regarded British ex-spy that provided enormous amt of raw intel [that is being investigated] that Trump et al did business with Russia and may have collaborated to influence the election. Steele was so concerned about what he found that he got the info to the FBI via John McCain. And Comey briefed Trump privately about it.

    Who cares who paid for it? The important thing is investigating the raw data and finding out what is true and what isn’t true.

    Everybody wants dirt on their opponent. Trump, Jr sure did when he met with Russians in TT to get dirt on HRC [“I love it”].

    DOJ should investigate if the lawyer lied about it and deal with his individual case.

    GOP getting their shorts all tied up in a knot for nothing. This story [minus the lawyer] was first reported a year ago by David Corn in Mother Jones. Settle down.

    1. “GOP getting their shorts all tied up in a knot for nothing. This story [minus the lawyer] was first reported a year ago by David Corn in Mother Jones. Settle down.”

      Most here are just kids on the Turley playground — doin’ what kids do.

      1. Anonymous, you have demonstrated over and over again that thinking is something to be avoided. Your lack of sophistication is glaringly obvious.

          1. Have fun with your pals, Allan — as you naively believe that you understand how things work in the U.S., when you haven’t a clue.

            1. anonymous, your problem is that you lack facts and the ability to interpret them. Therefore anyone disagreeing with what you support at the moment has to be naive. You can’t discuss an issue and now that the Steele Dossier and Uranium One details are being revealed your former positions make you look like the fool you are.

              1. As I said, you naively believe that you understand how things work in the U.S., when you haven’t a clue.

                1. If you were smart you would post in detail what I don’t understand… But, you are not smart.

                2. you naively believe that you understand how things work in the U.S., when you haven’t a clue.

                  You naively believe those of us calling out how things work in the U.S. means we don’t understand it.

                3. anonymous – okay, I’ll bite. Enlighten us as to how things really work. I am a war baby, so I have been through many Presidents and many scandals, local, state and federal. I have also taught civics and run for office. So, enlighten away.

                  1. All you’re going to get is more Twitter links, Paul. That’s all it’s got.

                    1. Yes, Foxtrot Sierra.
                      But recycling Twiiter posts count toward getting on the “most frequent commentator” list.
                      Often those re-retweets are from “Schindler’s list”.

              2. Allan, I’m curious as to your understanding of the Uranium One deal and if you don’t mind, please answer two questions.
                1. Where is the uranium physically that allegedly represents such a danger to America?
                2. Can it be legally exported to Russia for their use?

                1. It cannot legally be exported, but it is not all accounted for according to some reports. We have to wait and see since we have just reached the point where it is being recognized that pay for play exists. We should not be selling raw nuclear material rights to anyone outside the US. The justice department should not have withheld the Uranium deal particulars from Congress.

                  If you haven’t read that lengthy article in the “…Orange…” posting of JW do so, but it would be better to read the original article.

      2. Most here are just kids on the Turley playground — doin’ what kids do.

        If by doin’ what kids do you mean observe the world without having yet been prejudiced by it, then sure. The kids I know aren’t yet tools of the establishment. They naturally recognize injustice without clearly understanding why it exists.

        This is not a game of gotcha. Collusion to subvert our institutions is a national security issue. If you find yourself reflexively on defense of all things DNC then you have no objectivity towards the rule of law.

        1. I am not a sheeple and I do not always play well with others. I always wanted to be an only child. 😉 Now, with my wife at work most of the day, my dream has come true. 🙂

          However, I do think of this as JT’s sandbox and he is kind enough to let me play in it every day. Here there are people I like and respect as well as some who annoy me. So, I take the good with the bad.

          1. Pretty much describes how playgrounds work. As far as the sandbox goes, we’ve had the Left kicking up sand for a year and now that the sand is blowing back into their face, they are either just closing their eyes or blaming it on the other kids. They need a timeout or a nap.

    2. “GOP getting their shorts all tied up in a knot for nothing. ”

      This comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significance of what has been happening. We have a President under investigation costing the taxpayer a fortune and making it difficult for the country to move forward. It also impacts our relationship with Russia the nation that purchased our uranium, supports our enemies and has a substantial nuclear threat. Such thinking that you demonstrate is the thinking of babes in the woods.

    3. Actually, your details are wrong. The GOP hiring we will find out about on Friday when Fusion GPS bank records are released to the House Intelligence Committee (why do you think the Dems leaked this to the WaPo to spin it beforehand). Reports are that the GOP focus was on Trump’s business dealings, particularly in Atlantic City. The GOP hire had absolutely nothing to do with Christopher Steele. Clinton and the DNC had their law firm hire Fusion in April 2016, and Steele was hired in June 2016. And if you think that Steele was the one responsible for shopping this around to every media outlet in September 2016, leaking it to McCain and everything else that went on, you have no idea how things work.

      1. “…The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.

        Of course, we still don’t know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January. John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion GPS has said in court documents that it didn’t share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele’s dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump…”


      1. HRC and Progressives lie about authoring this pack of lies about Trump, because this pack of lies about Trump was the original basis of the claims of Trump’s “Russian Collusion,” the basis of the entire current Trump investigation, which is a pack of DNC lies.

        To Isaac and Natacha, the above means “NOTHING.” To anyone approaching middle of the road, it screams something between behavior that should have one removed from the public stage permanently and forever to felony crimes.

        The difference between GOP and DNC is that the GOP removed Nixon from office for lesser crimes than what Jesus Obama and HRC have committed. Conversely, Progressive dolts like Isaac and Natacha want the felon HRC to replace Trump, who has committed absolutely no known crime ever than to become POTUS contrary to Isaac’s and Natacha’s wishes.

  3. This is a nothing story. All politicians root through the garbage cans of their opposition, whether it be a little or a lot. Clinton did what they all do. The difference here between most, if not all politicians and Trump is that Trump doesn’t bother to investigate or research dirt on the other side; he just makes it up, that lying sack of sh*t.

    1. The difference here is that we don’t know what the FBI knew or if the FBI relied on this opposition research that was obtained from Russian government operatives and paid for by Dems/DNC in order to obtain a warrant to justify spying on the Trump campaign. That’s not a nothing story.

      1. Issac is very ideological so it is a nothing story as long as it reflects badly on those that he supports. Issac likes to sound a bit like a civil libertarian, but when the $hit hits the fan and government goes wild on a phony investigation he is fine with that as long as they are investigating someone he doesn’t like. Issac sounds more like a fascist.

        1. Allan

          Not ideological but realistic, being able to see a spade for a spade and call it. Both sides are inhabited with scumbuckets, Clinton being the premier scumbucket for the Democrats. However, no one holds a candle to Trump when it comes to lying. Trump lies even when it is to his disadvantage. Trump takes all the credit for stuff he has had little to nothing to do with and blames others for the negative stuff he owns. The issue here isn’t ideology but mental competency. Trump is mentally incompetent, which is becoming more and more apparent each time he opens his mouth. The man’s a buffoon and serious flawed in ways that go well beyond the sewer/swamp that is politics.

          1. Issac, I think Olly’s comment says it all “First Law of Holes: Put down the spade.”. Admitting that both sides are “inhabited with scumbuckets” sounds good, but doesn’t promote consistent principles. Instead of relying on principle you rely on insult “no one holds a candle to Trump when it comes to lying.” without any proof, what so ever. We are now reading about the lies on the left that have great significance to the nation, but those lies seem to fly over your head.

            Trump might make mistakes, he might change his mind, he might be unclear, but he really shouldn’t be considered a liar. Why don’t you list what you think are three of Trump’s worst lies and the same of Hillary’s. Then let’s compare their impact.

            “Trump takes all the credit for stuff he has had little to nothing to do with and blames others for the negative stuff he owns. ” Trump is President so he gets a lot of credit and a lot of blame, but if one looks at his speeches one notes how he praises a lot of people who he says ‘created the success’, likewise the opposite is also true. Trump is telling you exactly what he believes. Compare his speech to one of Obama’s speeches and do a word count on the number of times the word ‘I’ exists in the speech. Obama’s favorite word is ‘I’ followed by other forms of that word. Hillary isn’t as bad as Obama, but she certainly isn’t as gracious as Trump.

            Let’s here the principles you believe to be most important and then compare Obama/ Hillary to Trump and let us see where that gets us. If you can’t have such a debate and your only responses are to insult the ones you don’t agree with then you are an ideologue as accused unconcerned with principle.

            1. Allan

              Trump recently stated that he had accomplished more in eight months against ISIS in Iraq and Syria than Obama in eight years. This is an outright untruth, lie, whatever. The statistics and military analysis prove this. Trump has increased the civilian deaths by ramping up Obama’s strategy. Trump lies continually, without giving it a thought. The fact of the matter is that the dupes that follow him have become oblivious to this. Or, it’s not a lie, if you believe it. Clinton lies when she gets caught and needs to squirm out of a mistake. That’s true. Trump, however, has exhibited, generally speaking, no rhyme or reason for lying. He is what’s known as a pathological liar; has something to do with the narcissistic megalomania issue(s).

              1. Clinton lies when she gets caught? Try again. “I remember landing under sniper fire running with our heads down…” And that’s just one whopper I can think of off the top of my head. Clinton IS a pathological liar AND a criminal.

              2. The amount of substance in your reply is near nil, but let me take you brash comment about ISIS. Obama managed Iraq very poorly and that led to skilled Iraqi troops joining ISIS. Obama in the meantime called ISIS a JV team meaning they should be able to be defeated very easily. In other words, Obama handled ISIS so well that it grew into a power that created its own capital and obtained seasoned Iraqi troops because Obama was so naive. This is what you call doing a good job. Then Obama finally recognized the dangers and weakly started to fight with all sort of rules and regulations. ISIS needed money, but did Obama bomb the fuel trucks and the fuel supplies. No. He let our men die and let ISIS refuel their armaments and have the ability to pay fighters. In the meantime, the politics became even more difficult out and we are now facing some of those problems. Trump came in and followed the general direction of what Obama was doing, but he let the military do their job. If Obama was still in office ISIS would still have their capital.

                All you know is how to call other people liars. You don’t have the slightest idea of how a war is won. ISIS should have never grown so big so we can blame Obama’s naivete for most of the deaths. Trump to date did a good job as a leader.

          2. If you accept the notion that everyone in Washington lies, and the entire world knows that Hillary Clinton is a congenital pathological lying cheating scumbag – in addition to being a greedy, power-lusting, criminal, then why let Trump’s lies bother you so much? Trump’s a buffoon, but he’s not a criminal. And he kept the Clinton Crime Family out of the White House. Enough said. He gets his four years.

          3. For those who call this a non story, here’s a question….when James Comey briefed President-elect Trump on the existence and contents of the dossier, did he mention that it was “oppo research” paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign? Do ya think Comey mentioned that part?

  4. This is a nothing story. It has been known forever that the DNC of course funded this opposition research. Which is of course completely standard in American politics. The ‘dossier’ was originally funded by the RNC, then later just picked up by the DNC after Trump won the nomination. Get outraged over something real.

    1. JC – it was originally funded by a Republican candidate and then when the candidate got knocked out, the material went to the Clintons and DNC and FBI. We still have a Republican candidate to be named.

    2. It’s never been claimed that the dossier was originally funded by the RNC. The claim is that it was originally funded by a “Republican donor”. We don’t know who the donor may have been. Nor do we know if the donor only donated to Republican causes. He or she, like Trump, may have been a large contributor to both parties. And, it is important to remember, the people who lied on the record about HRC and DNC funding the dossier are the same people who lied about the project being originally funded by a Republican donor.

      1. I don’t think jc is capable of thinking at more than one or at best two levels deep.

    3. The ‘dossier’ was originally funded by the RNC,

      Of course you can provide the source for that claim, right?

      1. Would it surprise you if it originated with Jeb Bush’s Super PAC? They did opposition research in the primaries. It is not illegal to do opposition research. They all do it.

        1. swm – I would not be surprised if Jeb Bush was involved, however, I want to know who gave it to McCain.

        2. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. If I were to pick one of his primary opponents, Jeb Bush would be that person. And no one is suggesting opposition research is illegal. However when a Russian-Trump collusion investigation is rooted in an actual Russian-RINO/Clinton/DNC collusion effort, then the entire script is flipped. Add in Uranium One, DWS, Clinton server (emails), etc., this is not going away no matter how hard the Left close their eyes.

          1. Yep. Real corruption is being uncovered and it all points to Hillary/Democrats and possibly the Obama DOJ/FBI. And the MSM are all like move along, nothing to see here, this is a nothing story. So instead of working to uncover the corruption, the corrupt media is working at covering up the corruption that is being uncovered to protect Clinton, Obama and the Democrats. Unbelievable.

            1. TBob,
              This swamp-draining thingy would be less complicated if the appointed investigators weren’t standing in the drain.

        3. SWM w/ the playground “He started it.” As some have alluded, the story is that this piece of manure dossier was used as a pretext to do unmasking and political spying by the NSA and all the sleazeballs from Obama’s administration. That makes it Watergate on steroids.

    4. See how the story changes to ‘oh this is nothing’ when the media actually finds real news in the Russia Russia Russia investigation? The MSM is all let’s just talk about Republican party infighting instead. We’ll save our foaming at the mouth coverage for when the facts implicate Trump or the Republicans. But this story here? Yawn.

    5. The proof that your “nothing story” claim is just another DNC surrogate lie, is that HRC, the DNC, and every single Progressive dolt like yourself has done everything possible to hide the fact that HRC purchased this false pack of lies, which is the entire basis of the false claims of Trump’s Russian Collusion.

      The existence of your “nothing story” claim disproves itself. If your claim is/was true, your post would not exist. If your claim is true, then your post/reply is nothing too. Do you often write and post about “nothing?” If Turley’s news is indeed about “nothing,” why did you read it, and why did you reply? Turley is one of the most respected lawyers extant. Who the hell are you to contradict him, other than a Progressive dolt and/or Deep State operative defending your queen?

      If any reader was still waiting for absolute, 100% confirmation that the entire focus of Congress’ and Mueller’s investigation has now officially switched from Trump and the GOP to Jesus Obama, HRC, and the DNC, take this little hint: STOP WAITING!!! THIS IS IT!!!

      WikiLeaks confirmed the Deep State pay employees to present and defend their positions in social media, including such as this blog.

  5. I’m not sure how much I buy into the “ire” of reporters like Maggie Haberman of the NYT. She used to be so cozy with Hillary and her campaign. She was a tool for them – a “reliable surrogate.” She knows all about how they operate.

    Remember this story by Glenn Greenwald that exposed the collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign?

    “As these internal documents demonstrate, a central component of the Clinton campaign strategy is ensuring that journalists they believe are favorable to Clinton are tasked to report the stories the campaign wants circulated.

    At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted “on background” and what should be described as “on the record.”

    One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them.

  6. Trump has been saying the Washington Post and the dossier is fake, which is it? Now we are to believe it? Because its something with HRC in it?

    1. The Clinton campaign shelled out cash for a crock of s***. This isn’t that difficult.

      1. There is no evidence that anything in the Dossier is false. In fact, several elements have already been proven true.

        1. And, several of the elements in the dossier have been proven to be false. This was noted by several of the major media organizations — not friends of Trump — at the time the dossier was first released to the public last January. In fact, despite having been shopped to media since the summer of 2016, no one in the media published it precisely because major elements of it were proven to be false and others could not be substantiated.

          1. Several of the elements have been disputed, many of which later proved to be true (i.e. Trump Tower Moscow, meetings with Trump officials). I’m not aware of a single thing that has been proven false.

            1. I guess you still believe the report that Trump peed in the bed Obama was supposed to sleep in?

              1. That certainly hasn’t been proven (and it was the bed Obama had already slept in). What I’d give to see the video. I’d settle for the videos we know exist from the set on The Apprentice.

                1. That was proven false which satisfies your request.

                  Quite a story though. It would never survive on TV. No one would believe it, but a lot of leftists believed it in real life and that tells you a bit about the mindset of all too many people wishing to see the worst in people.

                    1. I guess I was wrong. That Trump was somewhere else across the world doesn’t mean he couldn’t have peed in that bed according to jc.

                      JC is the first and only person I know that still believes Trump peed in that bed. In two months Santa Claus will be visiting JC. I think Santa will leave a straight jacket and rubber walls.

                  1. It sounds incredible but has not been “proven” false. If the video did turn up, no doubt Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Donald would say it was “fake news.”

                    1. One cannot prove a negative, but him being around the world at the time is good enough for me.

                    2. I’ve searched for any information as to the dates of the alleged hotel incident and Trump’s whereabouts without success. Perhaps you can point me to better information? Again, this has not been proven true. I just don’t think it’s been proven false.

                    3. I am not a research assistant and it doesn’t matter how much proof their is for your mind was made up before any facts were known.

                    4. You keep making statements that you back away from. You go from saying “it’s been proven false” to “you can’t disprove a negative. You say Trump was across the world and now can’t back it up. I’m open to believing it’s not true, you keep making things up to “prove” it didn’t happen.

                    5. Enigma, you have permitted your end of the discussion to deteriorate into an idiotic one.

                      My proof the sun will rise tomorrow is empirical. That means I don’t really have proof that the sun will rise other than the knowledge it has risen every day I have been alive. You like to use every device possible to prove what you want to prove. Reasonable proof doesn’t exist in your vocabulary, but that is what we use in our court system and how we make decisions. You don’t like the results of reasonable proof so you play a game playing with yourself to prove whatever you wish. It’s a stupid game that some people like to play.

              2. “The actual report, which is unconfirmed, states that Trump hired prostitutes in Russia to perform a “golden showers urination show” for him, which Russian authorities planned to use as “compromising material” to blackmail him. The details have been the subject of some amused debate on Twitter—was Trump actually showered upon? or did he just watch? is urine sterile?—but they don’t really matter. What matters is that the connection between Trump and kinky pee is now seared into our collective consciousness.”

                1. Thank you. I know that story, but I believe the other fake news existed as well. There has been so much $hit thrown out that then gets repeated that we can also see morphing of some of the claims. Too much garbage is being thrown around with very little substance or principle involved. I didn’t like some of the wild claims against Obama and I don’t like them against Trump, but the Democrats have a real problem with mistruths and criminal activity. Don’t forget that while all this is going on Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s problem still sits unresolved and she may have also severely compromised American security.

              3. Allan,
                You’re shadow-boxing here. Unless you enjoy the exercise, it’s not going to make any difference. Right now the entire Clinton Cartel is on red alert dispatching their usual suspects for damage control. The Russia-Trump investigation will conclude something exists or not. The Russia-Clinton/DNC investigation has just begun. We do not need to do anything more than keep the narrative on the only investigation that has evidence. That would be the latter. The rest of it is a distraction.

                1. Olly, I am watching TV and am tired. Dealing with karen involves almost no effort. I am on the blog more to learn what makes people tick than to discuss politics because except for you and a few others no one knows much of anything. Earlier I was watching the news, responding to this garbage all while I was supervising some construction. I get bored very easily.


                  1. Here is a fairly objective analysis from David French at the National Review:

                    We don’t know what role the Russia dossier has played or is playing in the Russia investigation. We don’t know yet which parts (if any) are true. Indeed, when it comes to the full extent of Russian efforts to sow chaos in our election, influence the Clintons, or influence the Trumps, we’re like the proverbial blind men feeling different parts of the elephant. We know so little. But we did learn a bit more last night, and what we learned undermines the dossier, indicts the Clinton campaign, and helps Donald Trump.


                    1. Thanks Olly. I think my back and forth for the night is done with karen. All I wanted to do is have her get the point that she lives a double standard feeling entitled to be considered honorable despite the fact that she calls others liars for the exact same actions.

                      Take note she graduated from law school cum laude. I don’t think she understands or thinks about what she is saying.

        2. LOL! A crock of stew load with $hit does not make it fit for human consumption. Unless of course you lack the ability to taste the difference.

        3. In fact, several elements have already been proven true.

          Good to know, which elements have already been proven true?

          1. Still need to flesh that out. But Senators privy to sensitive intelligence seem to think so. “As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven,” Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview with Reuters.

    2. Trump has claimed the dossier is ‘fake’ in the sense that it is false, not in the sense that it does not exist. So, there isn’t any change in position required to pursue claims that HRC and the DNC helped fund the production of the dossier.

    3. The Washington Post has to position itself for the future. They know they have been writing fake news and they know time is limited so they are starting with some admissions now that some of the people involved are admitting what was happening.

      In the future, you will read the WP and it will say ‘…as we reported earlier on these events…’ They will not admit to spinning the news.

      DSS is right. You are running neck and neck with Mark and ken.

    4. Trump can say it’s fake, but HRC and Co. says it’s real.
      If it is now inconvenient for HRC to claim its validity that is too bad; whether fake or real they have to live with their claims that it is real.
      Even if that is now coming to bite them in the ass, they don’t get to change their position.

  7. Perhaps the most significant aspect to this story is the involvement of the FBI. That’s very corrupt.

  8. I take it this means that Sulzberger and Bezos have sided with Bernie.

  9. BUT…BUT…..Her e-mails…………JT ya really threw out the red meat today. Foaming at the mouth begins in 3…2….1…….

  10. Ethics violations will be the least of his concerns. This collusion opened the door to FISA warrants, wiretapping, unmasking, and a year-long investigation costing millions of taxpayer dollars targeting the wrong culprit. This will have legs and it will grow exponentially with the Uranium One fiasco.

    More popcorn please.

    1. Interesting to see how this works out. For the less enlightened of us here, isn’t this turning into a case of “the pot calling the kettle black?” Also, it will be interesting to see if the Clintons’ and MSM embellishments of said black kettle will really come back to bite them hard on the hienie.

      Ok…looking for the “but… but… but…” coming anytime now. All we need now is an image of HRC sitting in a low lit small room tapping out code while holding a headset to her ear…

      1. slohrss – hell the woman can barely walk upright unaided – and can’t think strait –you think she is capable of tapping out code? =)

      1. One clear difference between you and I JC is I support the law, not people. If the evidence exists then prosecute. This is not that difficult if you have principles.

  11. Shocking that the Clintons are liars (not)! What’s truly depressing here is that these *ahem* “reporters” seem so hurt and surprised that they have been lied to by a candidate’s lawyer! Really? These are the people who routinely question every fact that happens to come their way through the RNC, or anyone remotely conservative! I really see no reason for any elevated first amendment protection for these people. They truly serve no necessary function in the age of the internet. The public would be better off just sorting through raw information themselves! I honestly don’t know ANYONE as naive and clueless as these supposed “journalists.”

    1. “Shocking that the Clintons are liars” Well said. And is it also “shocking” that the DNC is going full bore with the Clinton gang including Pelosi and Brazile? At this point the Demo party is less interested in governing than getting a piece of the action (money from wall street). Sad, truly sad we have come to this.

  12. This entire story is like Alice in Wonderland. It is now coming out, along w/ this sleazy dossier, that Clinton and the Podesta Cabal..err, Group, worked w/ Paul Manafort to allow Putin and oligarchs to collude w/ the Clinton and the Obama Administration. How in the name of God could no reporters have seen this?? There’s the biggest collusion.

    1. Nick the MSM is owned by big corpos – no way they would be allowed to do this story!

  13. Bruce David – two men have beaten Hillary, Obama out primaried her and Trump out campaigned her. Never underestimate determined men. 🙂

  14. Da dossier is about T rump’s prosty porn. Da Mueller is about da collusion with da Putin.

    1. do u sound like that in real life? i don’t want to pick on someone who clearly has a handicap

  15. Prof. Turley – it has always been assumed that Christopher Steele paid his Russian sources for information. It would make sense that whatever payments he made were billed back to Fusion GPS, who then charged Elias and Perkins Coie. They, in turn, would have billed Clinton/DNC. That would seem to violate election laws regarding receiving “things of value” from foreign sources. In fact, the Steele dossier itself would seem to qualify as that.
    Are we talking about election law violations by the DNC and the Clinton campaign here?

    1. Are we talking about election law violations by the DNC and the Clinton campaign here?

      Like it matters? These cretins don’t think they are above the law. They know it. They will not be held accountable.

      1. I think it’s against the law if “your guys do it”, but a “nothing story” if “our guys” do it.

        1. Frederic Bastiat had something to say about that:

          But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. The Law

          1. Olly, you must have liked Allen West. He always carried a copy of The Law in his inside jacket pocket.

            1. I still like West but did not know he carried it.

              I recall watching the debates during the 2008 election cycle when the moderator asked the candidates what one book would they recommend everyone read. Ron Paul, without hesitation recommended The Law. I ordered it, read it and then discovered it was available online.

              It’s not a good read for anyone attracted to and supportive of partisan politics; especially those in favor of the administrative state. It aligns with our DoI and the original intent of our constitution.

    2. That’s a good point Brian.

      For my own part, I want to see how this story was covered by the lefty press. At Flufflington, it isn’t covered at all as I scrolled down their site. Now that seems strange as they have been flogging the “Russia interfered with the election narrative” really hard. Rationally speaking, this would be an example of Russia giving out information to a political party and thus “interfering” in our election.

      Democracy Now doesn’t have it on their page. Let’s see what Rachel sayz. There is a mention on her twitter. “Regret I didnt know about Christopher Steele’s hiring pre-election. If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him”

      So I guess Russian interference is all good with Rachel now? What happened to the red menace? I question her patriotism!

      It will be interesting to see how all the people who have hyped the “red scare” in the US, something which has been truly corrosive of our society, will suddenly have to change their minds? I’m not sure what they’re going to do. I think they’ll have to keep Democrats unaware. I’m not sure this “narrative” is one they will ultimately be able to control but we’ll see.

      1. JIll, Rachel MadCow is a condescending media wench IMO – highly educated and intelligent – I own her book “Drift” which is an excellent read, but some where along the way she lost her moral compass – maybe the money? or fame? Rachel offers only emphatic lies to her public.Much like Ana Kasparian on TYT which is fake Progressive network.

        I roam widely to get the news and try as best I can to cobble together what is happening =)

        HardB#stard. while profane is one the best IMO

        1. She is smart and I hate to see a person use their talents to harm our nation but I guess that’s why she accepts the big bucks!

          It is bizarre to see her championing a guy who wishes he could have been more of a Putin stooge after all the attacking she’s done towards people who have nothing to do with Russia or Putin, let alone being a willing stooge! Jeesh!!!

          The worst of it is know her viewers won’t see any contradiction in what she just promoted! They are very well propagandized.

          On the other hand, I see that Trump is retaining Mueller. That’s proof he’s as much in on this as anyone else. I hope Trump voters start screaming but I’m afraid they won’t. Proapagnada works.

          1. “On the other hand, I see that Trump is retaining Mueller. That’s proof he’s as much in on this as anyone else.”

            Jill would you like to explain this comment. There are a lot of reasons Trump hasn’t fired Mueller and I believe them to be good reasons even though I at times wanted him to do so. Retaining Mueller based on the political realities of the nation doesn’t mean Trump has any involvement what so ever.

            1. Jill would you like to explain this comment.

              Jill is forever giving people bulletins from her alternative reality. There is no explanation other than it’s another piece of static passing through her head.

            2. Yes I will Allan.

              Mueller was intimately involved in the whole dossier process. He cannot give a credible accounting for this reason. He is part of what happened. Trump is aware of this involvement. He hasn’t fired him. He hasn’t even asked that Mueller recuse himself.

              This is a serious matter of potential wrong doing by the FBI. If Trump legitimately wanted to get to the bottom of the matter he would need to have Mueller resign or recuse himself at a minimum.

              There is no drained swamp. We need to be honest about that fact. The bankers run things. We are in wars up to our ears, just like when Obama Jesus was president. The FBI and other agencies are corrupt. I don’t think this is what most people who voted for Trump hoped for but that’s what they got. I saw this with Obama voters. They couldn’t let go of the fantasy and look at the reality of “their” guy. Now Trump voters are doing the same thing.

              No Oliie, I would not be screaming if Mueller was fired. (I don’t know why Trump should be so terrified about acting because of some fake liberals screaming anyway. Trump isn’t playing 12 dimension chess. He is betraying his voters, just as Obama did. That’s why he isn’t doing what he promised, not because he fears the fake left.)

              1. “Mueller was intimately involved in the whole dossier process. He cannot give a credible accounting for this reason. He is part of what happened.”

                You have drawn a conclusion that Mueller is guilty of malfeasance and therefore he belongs in jail or at least he should lose his law license and be reprimanded. Maybe you are right, but that means that Comey is even more guilty and HRC needs to be put in jail. I’m not going to disagree with you and find that opinion to be a good one.

                The political reality, however, might mean even more problems for the nation.Trump might feel that eventually in order not to implicate himself Mueller will have to implicate a whole bunch of Democrats including HRC.

                “There is no drained swamp.”

                It’s hard to drain the swamp when even members of his own party aren’t on his side. I guess though I like the thinking of putting HRC and all the other Democrats involved in jail, but I guess I have a little more patience than you.

                So far Trump has persisted in moving in the right direction. Maybe not fast enough, but he certainly knows the layout of the land better than I.

                1. I think you are right about this. POTUS has to let this play out as much as possible without being seen to put his thumb on the scales. IF he fires Mueller, he risks a political backlash such as came with the Comey firing, and that would give the MSM a squirrel to chase and take the focus off of Elias and HRC/DNC. Hard to drain the swamp when you arrive in DC without a large sewer company; AFAICT, Trump had no decent-size contingent of well seasoned politicos to advise him. And Obama and Clinton loyalists are still populating all levels of govt.

                  1. Thanks, Cape Cod, I have had difficulty adjusting to the fact that even a President can’t pull the plug on the swamp and that it has to be done slowly. I agree with you.

          2. On the other hand, I see that Trump is retaining Mueller. That’s proof he’s as much in on this as anyone else.

            No, that’s proof you lack critical-thinking skills. Think: Comey. If President Trump fired Mueller from this investigation, regardless of how reasonable that decision would be, you and every other anti-Trumper would scream at the top of your lungs that he did so for nefarious reasons. This is not that difficult.

  16. In some respects this is old news. The Clintons have always been known as some of the dirties, underhanded political players in America…only one was more underhanded and that was the man who beat Hillary, Pres. Obama.

    1. barry boy had a stronger globalist support than hillary, and the press still regards him as a deity

      1. Deserttrek – that is Barack Jesus Obama to you. Signed his friends in the MSM

    2. You are pretty damn dumb and desperate to parrot the same refrain HRC and her sycophants/surrogates have been repeating for decades when the Clinton Crime Syndicate is busted with yet another in their string of hundreds of felony crimes including murder: “old news.”

      The fact whether anyone knew about something prior is not the point. The point is that these two felons walk free while their heads belongs in stocks or a basket (after the appropriate trial and conviction, of course).

Comments are closed.