Trump: I Would Accept Dirt On Political Opponents If Offered By Foreign Governments [Updated]

In controversial interview, President Donald Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office that he would accept dirt on political opponents from foreign governments and would not necessarily alert his own FBI. He further said that FBI Director Christoper Wray was “wrong” in saying that such contacts should be reported. There is nothing illegal in receiving such information for either politicians or journalists. However, it puts Trump at odds with the view not only of his own agencies but most of the public on the need to alert the FBI. In the aftermath of the interview, various Fox hosts criticized not Trump but ABC for what they portrayed as an ambush. It was not an ambush. It was a standard interview with a highly relevant (and predictable) question by Stephanopoulos. At the same time, the CNN’s Chris Cuomo is also wrong to portray this as endorsing possible criminal conduct. There is nothing illegal in accepting information from foreign intelligence figures, which was done by the Clinton campaign in the Steele Dossier. Trump has downplayed the comments.

Stephanopoulos asked whether his campaign would accept damaging information from countries like China or Russia — or hand it over the FBI. Turmp “I think maybe you do both.” Trump continued “I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,. If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

That alone might not have caused as much of a stir. However, Trump then added that he might not inform the FBI:

“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘oh let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.

. . . “Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,’ do you call the FBI? . . . I’ll tell you what, I’ve seen a lot of things over my life. I don’t think in my whole life I’ve ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don’t call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do . . . ” Oh, give me a break – life doesn’t work that way.”

Stephanopoulos then asked the obvious follow up about the fact that Wray said that the FBI should have been informed about such efforts related to the Trump Tower meeting. Trump then directed contradicted his own FBI: “The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn’t happen like that in life. Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you’d think differently.”

Again, there is no law requiring notice to the FBI. However, this is a government offering dirt on a presidential candidate. It should be concerning for any official. There is nothing unlawful in receiving the information but there is ample reason to inform the FBI of a foreign power interfering with our election, particularly a hostile foreign power. Some have argued that information can be a “thing of value” under federal election laws. If so, receiving information from a foreign government could violate the ban on such contributions. However, I have always viewed such arguments as too sweeping. Obviously, there is a great deal of information that passes from government sources, including information acquired by the Clinton campaign from foreign intelligence figures in the Steele Dossier. The loose interpretation given to any “information” as a “thing of value”
would raise serious first amendment concerns that I have discussed in earlier columns.

The interview added yet another damaging soundbite to use against Trump in the general election. He gained nothing from the comments. He could have acknowledged that he would listen to evidence of possible criminal acts, but that he would simply notify the FBI as a matter of course. Instead, as correctly noted by Fox anchor Brian Kilmeade, opened himself up to an avalanche of bipartisan criticism.

Given the detailed findings of the Mueller report on Russian efforts to influence our election, the President’s statement could not come at a worse time. It also throws into doubt the position of our government after the report and could a course for a major collision between the Wray and Trump on the issue.

367 thoughts on “Trump: I Would Accept Dirt On Political Opponents If Offered By Foreign Governments [Updated]”

    1. So like Obama who used the Steele dossier to illegally spy on Trump?

      The Steele dossier was sourced from top Russian government officials?

      1. Emma Peele’s a sock puppet for some passive aggressive regular.

        1. “The Current PH is an alternative name for Peter “Hollywood” Hill.
          Since he’s figured out, or “it occurred to him”, that Emma Peel is a sick sick puppet, maybe he can back it up and tell us who it is.. maybe, for once, he’ll back up innuendo and accusations with facts.

            1. Emma Peel,
              I think you may have misunderstood my comment, and it is more that innuendo on Peter Hill’s part. He in accusing you of posting comments here under different names.

                1. Emma Peel,
                  He lives in Hollywood, so
                  I think he may be just mixed up at times.😄
                  Like his misinterpretation of my comment about NON-CITIZEN residents I posted earlier.
                  The”sick” puppet in my comment was supposed to be “sock” puppet…..I frequently hit the “I” right next to the “O” on the tiny keyboard.
                  Also, Peter sees his nemesis “Estovir” in different comments not posted as Estovir.
                  I think he saw me in a comment that I didn’t post.
                  I do admit to posting a few comments as either “Max Sand” or “Tom Fitch”, but it was pretty obvious that it was me posting it, hoping to “gaslight” Peter.😁

          1. Tom, there are days when you sound like a long-stewing sour apple. Like someone oozing with bitterness. On these days you get on the Dossier Rant. Like Trumpers are ready to explode on this!

            The entire Dossier rant, from a Trumpers perspective, is leveraged on the premise that Trump was an old political pro of fine character. ‘A respected businessman running a prominent company’. But none of that was true!

            Trump had never held public office. His business was ‘not’ completely respected. Trump’s bankruptcies in Atlantic City combined with numerous lawsuits had muddied the company’s name. There was a reason Trump sought the investment of Russian billionaires.

            One recalls that at the Democratic convention of 2016, Michael Bloomberg intimated that Trump was known as “kind of a fraud” among financial types. In retrospect that was a very telling moment. Here was a pillar of Manhattan’s financial elite calling Trump a ‘fraud’ on prime time television.

            The point is Donald Trump was primarily respected as a reality star. That was his main business in the run-up to the campaign. Trump was also franchising his name to a many endeavors outside his core business; some of which were questionable like Trump University. And financial publications had long-reported Trump’s links to Russian billionaires.

            So again, Trump was ‘not’ a vetted statesmen of any kind. Nor was Trump necessarily a ‘respected’ businessman. What’s more, Trump’s main ‘political’ experience was the so-called ‘Birther Movement’. Which was not exactly a positive effort in terms of leadership.

            During the Republican primaries Trump quickly distinguished himself as rash, immature and offensive to women. His campaign rallies were little more than improvised rants scapegoating Mexicans. America hadn’t seen a campaign like that since George Wallace in ’68.

            Therefore it’s presumptuous to think the FBI never should have looked at Trump. If anyone ever deserved deep scrutiny it was Donald Trump. He brought it on himself at every campaign rally. At every debate Donald Trump stood out as obnoxious. As for Christopher Steele one imagines he was looking out for Britain. Steele was justifiable worried about the western alliance. And Trump’s hostility to NATO vindicates Steele.

            1. I think I made it clear to Hollywood Hill on several occasions that lying propagandists like him can earn contempt.
              That should not be a big surprise to that jackass PH, who still can’t get over the fact that Trump derailed Hillary’s coronation.
              He is in full campaign mode, year round, spinning like a lathe and lying like a mattress.
              It should not be much of a surprise that he is occasionally called out for being a sanctimonious puke.

              1. Tom, that’s the wrong attitude! ..Seriously..!

                All your pent-up bitterness could possibly manifest itself into a health issue. You need to lay off right-wing media and realign your social circle. You’re spending too much time with uncritical Trump admirers.

                I suggest you start reading The New York Times and Washington Post. While spending more time with younger, hipper friends. Once you leave the rightwing bubble things will look much clearer. You’ll think, “Thank God I left that stupid cult”.

                1. We need more people from LaLa Land like Peter “Hollywood” Hill spouting off about things like “Trumpers”, “right wing media bubble, “Trumpland, etc. Once we have the sage advice from America’s Heartland–Hollywood— and from some propagandist fool like Peter, all will be right with the world.
                  Some of the Hillaryites like Peter never got over the shock of their candidate losing, so like Natacha and JanFanon, shooting off his mouth about subjects he knows nothing about is his way of coping. There is always the possibility that somebody out there will buy the bill of goods the charlatan Peter tries to sell here.
                  There’s also the possibility that eventually someone will get tired of a chicken**** propagandist like Peter, and give him his due as a chicken**** propagandist. That’s sort of the risk that he and others take when they are unethical weasels.

                  1. (I have told that jackass what I read, including the NY Times and the WaPo, when he asked. It does not do any good to tell that bozo anything, as he “knows” that those disagreeing with him are “Trumpers”, and trapped in “right wing media bubbles.
                    His arrogance may even exceed his stupidity).

                    1. Tom, you might want to seek counseling from your clergyman. They provide that service at a nominal fee. I mention clergymen because your problem could be moral bankruptcy. It’s a common affliction for uncritical admirers of Donald Trump.

                    2. “moral bankruptcy. It’s a common affliction for uncritical admirers of Donald Trump.”

                      Do you mean cheating and destroying hard drives is an honest day’s work? Spying on a candidate is ethical? Baby killing is the equivalent of high morality?

                      You have things backward Peter. Start with baby killing and then look at the history of the left. It’s inhumane and morally bankrupt.

                    3. Peter might want to consider not shooting off his mouth about things he knows nothing about, misrepresenting what others have said, and he should also reconsider seriving and emulating his master, David Brock.

                    4. We can also use advice about “moral bankruptcy” from St. Peter, our man on the ground in that beacon of moral guidance,, Hollywood.😄😂🤣

                    5. Tom, this about ‘you’, not ‘me’. I don’t have a problem. I”m not the bitter chain smoker coughing up phlegm. Then trying to smooth his throat with medium-priced Scotch. One imagines the self loathing existence that invariably becomes.

                    6. The “problem” is that Peter is a shameless propagandust, a lying P.O.S., who gets pissy when he is occasionally called on it. He can’t always count on a free ride and everyone always overlooking his games.As I said, that is the downside for a Brock Boy like Peter.

                    7. Peter “imagines” all sorts of things….that ONE can imagine anything that suits his particular delusions.

            2. And Hillary Clinton lost to that

              Even Trump figured out the electoral college system and didn’t ignore and insult the working class

              Sanders would have won and easily

          1. Emma, why is your ink blot symbol a different color now? It was purple before but green this time.

      2. The Steele Dossier was used in the 1st FISA application for Carter Page. The information in the Dossier about Page was largely correct, though parts remain uncorroborated. Mueller corroborated some of the Page info in the Dossier. What was illegal about the investigation into Page?

        1. The unsubstantiated dossier was used to illegally spy on the Trump campaign and blackmail Trump

          The Fbi lied to the FISA court to illegally spy on Trump

          And it’s sources were top Russian government officials

          That’s the only Russian collusion and conspiracy that can be proved

          Michael Issakoff who broke the story says otherwise

          Zeigler: You mention the Steele Dossier, which to me has been unfairly derided, especially by Trump fans. Would you agree that a lot of what’s in the Steele Dossier has been at least somewhat vindicated? Would you agree with that assessment?

          Isikoff: No.

          Zeigler: You would not?

          Isikoff: No.

          Zeigler: Tell me why.

          “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false…but based on the public record at this point, I’d have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been borne out.”

          Reporter who broke Steele dossier story says ex-British agent’s claims ‘likely false’

          1. What lie did the FBI tell the FISA court Emma. Please be specific. As I noted, the Dossier was only used for the first application regarding Page and Mueller later confirmed some of the Dossier allegations regarding his Russian trips and consultation.

            1. It was unsubstantiated rumors

              Michael Isikoff Says He Was “Stunned” To See His Story Cited In FISA Warrant

              “Obviously the information that I got from Christopher Steele was information the FBI already had,” he said, noting that Steele began sharing information from his dossier in July 2016.

              “It’s self-referential,” he said of the article and its reliance on the dossier.

              “My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.


              1. Emma, the application stated that the Dossier was a privately paid for result of opposition research, not confirmed FBI research and the Yahoo reporting was then public information. Applications to the court are not indictments or closing arguments in a trial but a request to seek further information. The relevant Dossier information on the subject of the application – Page – were substantially true. By the way, he had been on FBI radar for Russian connections going back to 2013.

  1. Mother Jones Magazine

    Hinted At Steele Dossier On October 31, 2016

    To follow-up on a disscussion below between Tom, Alan and Anon, I verified that Mother Jones referenced the Steele Dossier on 10/31/16 in a piece entitled: “A Veteran Spy Has Given To The FBI Information Alleging A Russian Operation To Cultivate Donald Trump”.

    I was trying to post that story here when my desktop crashed. For the record, I never read Mother Jones and had no familiarity with said story. Nor did the American public. According to Wikipedia, the mainstream media refused to mention the Mother Jones story in any way shape or form. Which explains why ‘I’ never heard about it.

    But I now feel the mainstream media let the public down. I think the public ‘should,’ have known about the Steele Dossier when Mother Jones referenced it. There should have been a national discussion regarding the Steele Dossier ‘before’ the election.

    Therefore this chronic complaint that Trumpers have regarding mainstream media is way overblown. Had mainstream media really done its job, the public would have known all about Trump and Russians ‘before’ the election.

    1. What was the Steele dossier if not Russian disinformation to use against a candidate and sitting president?Even Michael Issakoff says the dossier was bogus and he was the one who broke the story because fusion GPS gave it to him.Issakoff was shocked to learn his story was used to illegally spy on Trump since “My story is about the FBI’s own investigation,” he continued.

      The Steele dossier was the only Russia collusion and conspiracy that can be proved.

      Isikoff: Media should have had ‘more skepticism’ over Steele dossier, which was ‘thirdhand stuff’

      1. How much more skepticism could the media have exercised over the Dossier? None of them reported on it except MJ. Sounds like Isikoff is trying spread his culpability.

        1. Are you kidding me?

          Every news outlet was running with the Steele dossier as if it were substantiated facts

          The Fbi used it to illegally spy on Trump.

          The FBI lied to the FISA court to do it

          1. Is Emma Peele someone we know by another name? And if so, why isn’t that person using their regular name?

              1. Is Emma Peele really you, Tom? It occurs to me you’ve used sock puppets before.

                1. I suppose that a lit of things “occur to” Hollywood Hill. I’m not particularly interested in his fantasies.

          2. Emma, according to Jane Meyer – and others – much of the MSM had heard about someone investigating Trump/Russi connections going back years, but lacking confirmation did not publish that information though Mother Jones did. It was not public knowledge until Buzz Feed leaked well after the election.

            Since the MSM and the “Deep State” knew about this information before the election, how do you explain both of them sitting on it if they had a conspiracy as you seem to believe?

            How did the FBI lie to the FISA court. Be specific please?

            1. They used the bogus Steele Dossier which was Russian disinformation and lies.

              The only Russian collusion that can be proved is the FBI and DNC…….

    2. The original and most common line of bull is that the Steele Russian Dossier was never used against Trump, as if those behind it were somehow too noble to use it
      It’s been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the Russian Dossier opposition research was peddled aggressively to the media by Steele and Fusion GPS. And the email or text from the State Dept. official confirmed that “Steele’s client” want this out in the media before the election.
      Now, the fallback position is that the media “should have” run with unverified opposition research in the weeks leading up to the election.It was not for lack of effort that the Steele Russian Dossier opposition research was not published; it’s clear that Steele and “”Steele’s client” wanted the media to bit on it and play it up before the election.
      So that previous defense that it was never used before the election is specious at best, implying some sort of pure patriotic virtue in only turning the dossier over to the FBI. It was, in fact, a political hit job that established news oranizations correctly viewed with a high degree of skepticism.
      Now the story is “well, the media SHOULD HAVE published it”. The DNC and the Hillary Campaign bought and paid for that opposition research, and nothing was to stop them from buying air time, and promoting Steele’s story. They probably knew how risky that was, and there were, instead, efforts to feed it to the media in the hopes that THEY’D publish it.
      Remember, virtually everyone involved with the DNC and the Hillary Campaign denied even knowing about the dossier, as if the just forked over money to Fusion GPS and Steele’s business, Orbis, without question. It took a year to even find out that the money for the dossier came from the DNC and the Hillary Campaign.
      So the game was evidently to pretend that this dossier “information” just kind of sprang out of nowhere, and gee, we didn’t know anything about it. It isn’t the media’s job to act as a stooge for a campaign”s….ANY campaign’s….rumor mills.

      1. Tom, it appears the media was never as hostile Trump as Trumpers claim. So your argument is ‘specious’. The mainstream media published every Wikileak while James Comey’s letter to Congress was the mother of all October surprises. Yet Americans were kept in the dark regarding the Steele Dossier until ‘after’ the election.

        1. The reopening of the Hillary email investigation was relayed to Congress by the Director of the FBI. Yeah, the press noticed that and it was published.
          I won’t bother trying to explain the difference between a news story prompted by the decision of an FBI Director v. specious opposition research. Leaving aside the wisdom of Comey’s decision in handling the renewed laptop email investigation, the media could hardly be expected to ignore it.
          If, on the other hand, something like the Medina/ Clinton accusations were suddenly fed to the media right before a 1992 or 1996 election, the established media could hardly be expected to run with it.
          I don’t know if Hollywood Hill is just acting stupid, or really is as dumb as he seems in making these idiotic “comparisons”.

        2. The point was that Steele, Fusion GPS, and “Steele’s client” aggressively tried to get the established media to publish unverified opposition reasearch, you nitwit.
          If you feel that the Steele Russian Dossier allegations should have been widely publicized before the election, the DNC and Hillary Campaign could have bought airtime. The media were under no obligation to carry the DNC/ Hillary Campaign’s water for them.
          And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund went to great lengths to conceal their involvement in getting Russian opposition research.

      2. Tom should stick to trolling other posters.

        The important point he either avoids or is too dense to grasp, is that two of the supposed conspirators against Trump – the MSM and the supposed Deep State – did not use what he claims was their main weapon to blow up Trump’s campaign. Both of them kept it secret, in the case of the MSM because they were not able to confirm it, and the Deep State – they could have confirmed it – because they took seriously the policy of not announcing investigations in close proximity to an election. Tough luck for Hillary that Comey violated that policy.

        This is basically the same question which blows up the conspiracy theory and which Tom can’t answer: It makes zippo sense that the Deep State conspirators managed to sabotage Hillaty’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from the same kind of information. Throw the MSM in as another major player the Trump cultists here have convinced themselves was in on it, that actually also protected Trump.

        1. If JanF, aka anon1, were not so stupid and dishonest I would waste more time trying to explain some things to that fool.
          That entire post is a rambling, jumbled, off-topic demonstration of JanFanon’s fantasies.
          Those are easier to spew out than they are to untangle, so when the objective and effect of an intellectually deficient and dishonest hack like JanFanon1 is to waste other people’s time with stupid declarations, that game is endless.

        2. The fact is that I never mentioned “the Deep State”. A common stunt of JanF.-now- anon1 is to imply or state that someone said that they did not, in fact, say. That lying does get old after a while, and like St.Peter, JanF.-now-anon1 can expect to be called on her lies every now and then.

          1. If Tom had an answer to the obvious illogic of the conspiracy he alleges – he can call it whatever he wants, I chose the short hand name of his fellow cultists – we’d hear it, but repeatedly when faced with it he goes off on a personal tirade against me.

            If he thinks I have lied in anything I stated in my post he should say what and I’ll address it.

            1. Show us where I mentioned the Deep State, dummy. ( JanF./ now anon1

              1. Tom, you spend as much time or more than others here trying to buck up the Trump line on his victimization by the FBI , intelligence agencies, and others and as noted in my previous post, call this group whatever you want. Or, if you agree with me that Trump was obviously not a victim of a conspiracy within these agencies, say that. Alternatively, you can GFY. Your content free attacks on other posters won’t be missed.

    3. They had the dossier long before October. How interesting that the leaks started when there would be insufficient time to prove it was a hoax. There is a Clinton tradition of doing that, which contributed to how Bill took office.

      Another reason the dossier was an attempt to defraud voters.

      I think we need to do something about “October surprises” anyway. It is too little time for anyone to prove whether an allegation is true or false.

      Activists could claim that any candidate was a pedophile, or a rapist, in October. By the time the guy cleared his name, it would be too late. This could easily become par for the course, with candidates slinging ridiculous allegations at each other at the last minute, Jerry Springer style. I would consider that a type of voter fraud. Not sure what to do about it, however, as our libel laws allow people to make up anything they choose about a public figure.

      1. Karen pretends the Dossier was leaked as an October surprise, when the evidence is that the FBI, and even the MSM kept it’s existence secret until long after the election. Steele was concerned enough that he sought to spread it, but without an effective result.

        The only October surprise the overwhelming number of voters heard was the one the FBI sprang on Hillary.

    4. Peter, the problem is the Steele Dossier was a pack of lies. Some things were true but those things didn’t effect Trump. They spelled the name Steele right That is an example of when they were correct). The media took the untrue facts and used them to attack Trump along with adding other facts that were likewise untrue. They were not professional and their actions were reprehensible. They deserve the term ‘fake news’.

      Peter wishes to embarrass himself again. “Had mainstream media really done its job, the public would have known all about Trump and Russians ‘before’ the election.”

      Tell us the 5 most significant Trump /Russia facts not adequately told by the media that were true.

      Let’s hear it Peter and don’t embarass yourself.

      1. Embarrass myself like ‘you’, Alan..??

        Who are you even talking about when you say “the media”? That’s a broad term. It could arguably encompass every source outside rightwing media.

        But had we known the FBI was seriously looking at Trump that would have balanced Comey’s letter to Congress. Comey himself should have mentioned Trump in his letter to Congress. He should have said the FBI was investigating Trump in addition to Hillary. And when Comey failed to do that, mainstream media should have revealed that fact; forcing a national discussion.

        1. You are conflicted Peter, and other than talking points you don’t recognize what has happened. Think of Admiral Rodgers warning to Trump way back at the start of the campaign. Then get back to me.

          According to Comey the FBI was not investigating Trump but new information came in on HIllary and it continues to come in as we speak. They are getting closer.

  2. If “the Trump name is bad for business”, that would seem to undercut that “Emoluments” gambit by CREW, Richard Painter, and others.
    (I think the AGs of two states also hopped on board the emoluments train).
    I think the CREW emoluments effort started around Jan.20, 2017; now, nearly 2 1/2 years later, I haven’t seen any recent updates for some time.
    If this doesn’t work out for CREW & Co., maybe they can dust off the Logan Act 😃 and see if they have any better luck with that.

  3. Did Joe Biden plagiarize another line, this time from Michael Avenatti? “Make America America Again”

    He doesn’t stop, does he?

  4. The state of New York, and the governor has signed it, has issued a shoot to kill order in NY State. They have decided to get rid of the religious exemption for taking vaccines and to make taking vaccines mandatory. Mind you, it’s not the issue that vaccines couldn’t work. But these are untested vaccines that are in violation of federal law, signed into effect by Reagan, that granted Big Pharma freedom from product liability if they tested the vaccines for safety and effectiveness, which they have never done. In the inserts from the vaccine-makers themselves. they say that among the various neurological and health damages they can cause, they can kill you and your kids.

    At this point, the state of New York and its governor has declared that it has authority over every NY State citizen’s health to inject a biological weapons containing nothing less than DNA from a another human from aborted fetal tissue, with all it’s diseases, to grow the disease on for the claimed vaz on, in violation of Biblical principles and further which the cities/states/federal govt’s have absolutely no USC authority to claim such privilege to risk needlessly harming US citizens. And at this is that the government has decided that it can draw a syringe on any citizen or that citizen’s kid, and many citizens may fell that they are in fear for their lives and decide it’s time to give these people attacking them a lead vaccination.

    At this point most of us are correctly concerned as “We Are In Fear For Our Lives”.

    So if some one/govt attacks you with a bio-weapon in syringe, at this point you’d better stand up as it’s likely you’re last chance!

    You can confirm much by researching among others, Del Bigtree. I’ve many others for source material including the CDC & the US Congressional Record that Vaccines can be very harmful & Cause Death!!!


    AP Top News
    New York
    Andrew Cuomo
    U.S. News
    General News

    New York ends religious exemption to vaccine mandates

  5. I suppose you know the reason why the new information about the Abedin/ Carlos Danger
    laptop was known (at least by Strzok and McCabe) in late SEPTEMBER, and instead of
    reopening the Hillary email investigation at the point, nothing was done until late October.
    It’s still not clear when Comey first knew about the laptop issue, but there’s no doubt that Strzok and McCabe knew about it by late September.
    It’s a good bet that Page was let in on it, too.
    Instead of getting this out of the way at least a month before the election, when the issue would have been “ancient history” in terms of fast-moving election news,
    the investigation into the laptop was delayed for a month.
    Who was responsible for essentially
    “mothballing” that new development for at least one month?

  6. Thank goodness Trump didn’t say he would hire and pay foreign sources to search for dirt on his opposition … and even try to cover it up by using firms such as Fusion GPA. ANd thank goodness he didn’t utilize the Ukranians to leak info on an opposition associate … or take tons of money for a Foundation and Speeches from the Russians or Ukranians …. THE DEMOCRATS DID ALL OF THIS. What Trump said was innocuous. What Democrats did was treasonous.


    BY CHRIS MORRAN ON 6/13/19 AT 7:55 PM EDT


    Following President Donald Trump’s comments earlier this week that he would be willing to accept information about his political opponents even if were provided to his campaign by a foreign government, the chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has publicly released a statement reminding everyone that doing so would be “illegal.”

    “I would not have thought that I needed to say this,” wrote FEC Chair Ellen L. Weintraub on Twitter Thursday afternoon.

    Her tweet included an image of her full statement, which reads:

    “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.’ They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America’s. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

    The law Weintraub cites in her in her statement is 52 U.S.C. Section 30121 (a)(2), which reads: “It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation… from a foreign national.”

    While Weintraub did not name Trump or any other politician specifically in her tweet, she was most likely addressing the president’s remarks aired Wednesday evening in an ABC News interview with George Stephanopolous [end of excerpt[

    1. “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

      Does this include all the foreign born actors and actresses who promote Democrats (marketing), put on events to support Democrats, and are otherwise activists for the Democratic candidates? That certainly is a thing of value.

      What about the speaking fees that the Clintons enjoyed with the Saudis?

      1. There was the Access Hollywood tape, given by a corporation (NBC) to the HRC campaign. IIRC, corporate contributions to campaigns are illegal. So, how are we dealing with THAT?

        1. The Steele Dossier was paid for and produced by a US company hired by Clinton. They hired a foreign national to do work for them. None of it was donated by foreigners or foreign governments to the candidate.

          1. The Steele dossier was sourced by Steele from top Russian government officials and hotel maids in Russia

            How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier

            “How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.”
            top Russian government officials…and some Russian maids in hotels he paid
            where do you think he got them?….Africa?
            So you are saying he made it all up?Doesn’t that make things even worse for you?……

          2. That was evidently the Trump Campiagn’s mistake, according to JanFanon’s “reasoning”” they should have had a law firm pay Veselnitskaya for anything she might have brought to the Trump Tower meeting.
            Which evidently was zilch.

  8. Outrage on Capitol Hill over ‘completely unacceptable’ US-funded scheme to shape Iran debate

    ‘This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not democracies’

    Negar Mortazavi Washington ,
    Borzou Daragahi @borzou

    1 day ago


    United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration’s hardline Iran policy and accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.

    State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.

    “It’s completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration’s policy of escalation and conflict with Iran,” a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on condition of anonymity.

    “This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not democracies.”

    One woman behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote “freedom of expression and free access to information.”

    Over the weekend, The Intercept revealed that a purported Iranian activist, who had published dozens of articles on Iran in prominent outlets such as Forbes and The Hill, does not exist and is a fake persona run by a team of operatives connected to a bizarre Iranian political cult.

  9. If Macron told Trump about a troubling incident a candidate had in France, should Trump alert the FBI?

    If a Canadian offered information, should it be reported to the FBI?

    What about Javier Bardem, at any point in time, mentioning some information to a siting president?

    What about Hillary Clinton, who said, “China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns?” Speaking of which, did Rachel Maddow inform the FBI?

    How would we find out about the leaky, moldy, trailers provided by Clinton donors through the Foundation without speaking with Haitian nationals?

    Look, use common sense. If something seems suspicious, report it. You don’t have to report to the FBI every time you speak with anyone with an accent.

    The hypocrisy is stunning. The people in hysterics are the very same who blithely ignore that Hillary Clinton paid for a fake dossier prepared by Russian spies in order to defraud voters.

    It’s pretty clear who was the perpetrator, and who was the victim.

    I’m curious. Is the United States going to stop meddling in the elections of other nations?

    July 12, 2016

    “The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.”

    This activity was covered up by the State Department.

    Oops. We’re such hypocrites.


      Just a few years ago in 2015, then-President Barack Obama threw everything he had into an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party in Israel’s most recent election. He became only the latest of our Democratic US presidents to do so.

      First, Obama — according to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, a close watcher of the Obama team’s Mideast work — tried to “force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government [Tzipi] Livni’s centrist Kadima Party.”

      When that didn’t work, the president went all in. A bipartisan report from the Senate, issued in July 2016, found that taxpayer dollars were involved. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded that $350,000 had gone to a group called OneVoice. It obeyed the rules of the grant, intended to support peace.

      Once the grant ended, though, the infrastructure and resources “created, in part, from US grant funds” were, said the Senate, used “to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government.”

      That campaign was known as “V15,” as in Victory 2015. Its aim seems to have been to elect as prime minister anyone other than Netanyahu. It looked like that was in the bag, too.

      Only four days before the election, Reuters reported, the opinion polls showed Netanyahu’s Likud losing to Zionist Union by something on the order of four seats. Why not, with all the help Obama mustered?

      Those wily Israelis, though, turned around and elected Netanyahu prime minister anyhow. The Democratic press here in America was in a snit almost as bad as the one that followed the election of Trump.

      “Go ahead, ruin my day,” was how Thomas Friedman of The New York Times greeted Netanyahu’s upset. He suggested “facts on the ground” had made “a laughingstock of our hopes.”

      In Obama’s defense, interfering in Israel’s elections had almost become a Democratic Party tradition. President Bill Clinton started it in 1996, when he tried to tilt the vote to Labor’s Shimon Peres — also against Netanyahu. This was after Peres’ predecessor, Yitzhak Rabin, was killed by a right-wing assassin bent on stopping the peace process Rabin and Peres had begun.

      Clinton failed, and Israelis gave Netanyahu his first term as premier. Netanyahu promptly accepted an invitation from the new Republican speaker, Newt Gingrich, to address a joint meeting of Congress.

      That infuriated Clinton. He got his revenge in 1999, when Netanyahu lost a no-confidence vote in the Knesset, precipitating an election that pitted him against Israel’s most decorated war hero, Ehud Barak.

      The irony this time was that Democrats almost certainly didn’t need to lift a finger to knock Bibi from office, and it’s debatable whether they deserve any blame for the result. Nonetheless, they sent in the big guns: Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and Clinton-campaign mastermind James Carville went to work for Barak. Netanyahu lost in a landslide.

      Barak won office after promising never to concede even part of Jerusalem to the Arabs. Once elected, he went to Camp David II and offered up part of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital.

      He was trounced in the next election by Likud’s Ariel Sharon.

      Amazingly, it was only this spring that Clinton confessed his surreptitious role in Israel’s 1996 election. “I tried to do it in a way that didn’t overtly involve me,” he told Israeli television.

      So every Democratic president in Netanyahu’s career meddled in Israeli elections to depose Bibi.

        1. ” that’s a complete lie,”

          Anon’s source doesn’t even attempt to show everything a lie and one has to even question the arguements presented.If we don’t include those questionable arguments then the “complete lie” statement is a complete lie. There was nothing complete about it. You are a pathological liar.

          1. I guess the bipartisan Senate Subcommittee posted a complete lie, then, too. Interestingly, they claimed the Administration did nothing wrong, because State had never said OneVoice could not use the money to try to oust Netanyahu, and the diplomat claimed he deleted the plans to do so without reading them. In violation of the Records Act. Again.

        2. From the Washington Times

          “Some $350,000 was sent to OneVoice, ostensibly to support the group’s efforts to back Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement negotiations. But OneVoice used the money to build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign — all of which set the stage for an anti-Netanyahu campaign, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a bipartisan staff report.
          In one stunning finding, the subcommittee said OneVoice even told the State Department’s top diplomat in Jerusalem of its plans in an email, but the official, Consul General Michael Ratney, claims never to have seen them.
          He said he regularly deleted emails with large attachments — a striking violation of open-records laws for a department already reeling from former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s handling of official government records.
          Mr. Netanyahu survived the election, and the U.S. spending was not deemed illegal because the State Department never put any conditions on the money. Investigators also said OneVoice didn’t turn explicitly political until days after the grant period ended.”

          This is not a blog post – it’s a Senate Subcommittee report.

          The reason why it was not deemed illegal is because State never stated what the money could be used for, so trying to overthrow Bibi was fine.

          The diplomat who received emails from One Voice indicating what they planned claimed he must have deleted it without reading it. Now, that’s a trend, deleting damning emails in violation of record laws.

          Another excuse given, pointed out in both articles, was that the efforts began after the grant period ended. State was advised of the plans. American taxpayer money was used for the plans.

          Here is the Homeland Security link entitled “Report Finds the State Department Failed to Adequately Guard

          Against a Grantee’s Post-Grant Political Efforts Using Resources Paid for by U.S. Taxpayers

          Grantee Complied with State Rules, Which Placed No Limit on Post-Grant Use of Taxpayer-Funded Resources :”

          The Subcommittee’s investigation concludes that OneVoice Israel complied with the terms of its State Department grants. Within days after the grant period ended, however, the group deployed the campaign infrastructure and resources created, in part, using U.S. grant funds to support a political campaign to defeat the incumbent Israeli government known as V15. That use of government-funded resources for political purposes after the end of the grant period was permitted by the grant because the State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that campaign resources could be repurposed in that manner or place limitations on the post-grant use of resources.

          In service of V15, OneVoice deployed its social media platform, which more than doubled during the State Department grant period;, used its database of voter contact information, including email addresses, which OVI expanded during the grant period;, and enlisted its network of trained activists, many of whom were recruited or trained under the federal grant, to support and recruit for V15. This pivot to electoral politics was consistent with a strategic plan developed by OneVoice leadership and emailed to State Department officials during the grant period. The State Department diplomat who received the plan told the Subcommittee that he never reviewed it.

          “The State Department ignored warnings signs and funded a politically active group in a politically sensitive environment with inadequate safeguards,” said Senator Portman. “It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed — immediately after the grant ended — against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East. American resources should be used to help our allies in the region, not undermine them.”

          “While this report shows no wrongdoing by the Administration, and should put to rest such allegations, it certainly highlights deficiencies in the Department’s policies that should be addressed in order to best protect taxpayer dollars,” McCaskill said.

          So, after outlining how OneVoice used American Taxpayer money to try to unseat Netanyahu, why was no wrongdoing by Obama’s Administration found? For one, if Hillary could hide a bootleg server in her bathroom, upload top secret information to the Cloud, and break her laptops and phones with a hammer without being charged, I don’t think there’s anything anyone prominent in the Administration could do that would get them in trouble.

          For another, they let it rest when the diplomat claimed he didn’t read the plan to oust Netanyahu that was emailed to him because he just deletes files with large attachments without reading them, in violation of the Records Act.

          You know, this is one of the reasons why Conservatives say that there is a double standard in the justice system.

          There are myriad examples of the United States “meddling” in other countries’ elections, which is why people from around the world are howling in laughter at our shock and outrage.

          So, rather than being a complete lie, I provided proof from the Senate, while you referenced a blog. The Senate report supported what was said in the two links above, about using taxpayer money after the grant ended to fight Netanyahu, and the diplomat claiming he deleted the plans without reading them.

          1. Karen thanks for your admission that Obama did not try to interfere in an Israeli election but that the State Department did approve a grant to an organization which promoted a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long time policy of the US over decades, as well as Netanyahu’s policy.

            1. Actually, what the report actually said was that no wrongdoing was found because State never stipulated that he funds could not be used to overthrow Bibi Netanyahu.

              In addition, the report makes a note that State was advised via email of OneVoice’s intentions. In a trend made infamous by Hillary Clinton, the email was deleted in violate of the Records Act.

              Thus, Obama’s Administratin did send US taxpayer dollars to an organization that did meddle in Israel’s elections, and it did advise State of its intentions, showing that it had no reason to hide its intent or otherwise believe it was going off book. This organization did use the grant money to grow the infrastructue used in this attack.

              It was also noted that State never indicated that its funds could not be used in such an endeavor, which is why it was chastised, but OneVoice was not found guilty of wrongdoing because its election meddling did not go against State.

              This is, again, on a par with Hillary Clinton’s bootleg server and smashing evidence with hammers while under subpoena, but not being found guilty of wrongdoing. It is further evidence that justice does not apply to the Democratic Party.

              You have been proven wrong by no less than a Senate Subcommittee. But you can continue with your blogs, if you like…

              1. Karen thanks for your admission that Obama did not try to interfere in an Israeli election but that the State Department did approve a grant to an organization which promoted a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long time policy of the US over decades, as well as Netanyahu’s policy.

                1. No, the Senate Subcommittee report verified that the Obama Administration sent US taxpayer money to OneVoice, which used grant money to try to unseat Netanyahu. State was notified that this was their intention.

                  Yet another example of the US meddling in other countries’ elections.

                  Arabs did get a 2 state solution. They were given a far larger country than Israel – Jordan. Jordan is the Arab Muslim country produced from the region formerly known as Palestine, while the Jews, of course, got the far tinier part, called Israel. However, the regions will never accept a non-Muslim country there. Although they got the lion’s share of the land deal, they want all of it. That’s why Israel’s repeated offers of even more land are always rebuffed.

                  Those who oppose Israel’s right to exist are playing into the hands of terrorist organizations that seek another Holocaust. You would think the West would have learned its lesson and not support such a measure.

                  1. Karen you’re a liar. Act like a grown honorable woman – even if you aren’t – and retract the lie you posted in large type and have now avoided correcting twice. Here it is:

                    “Just a few years ago in 2015, then-President Barack Obama threw everything he had into an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party in Israel’s most recent election.”

                    As your own posts confirm, the State Department did approve a grant to an organization which promoted a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long time policy of the US over decades, as well as Netanyahu’s policy.

                    1. Actually, as OneVoice advised State, its plans was to mount a campaign against Netanyahu.

                    2. Karen, your a liar and not worth any decent person’s time.

                      You posted:

                      ““Just a few years ago in 2015, then-President Barack Obama threw everything he had into an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party in Israel’s most recent election.”

                      That is completely false, you know it by now, and yet refuse to retract it. I expected better

                  2. It appears that there is a hangup about this one, single line, in several articles that just touched the surface of the United States’ long history of “meddling” in other countries’ elections. That is, “then-President Barack Obama threw everything he had into an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party.” The phrase is obviously hyperbole. “Everything he had” would be a nuclear bomb. Germ warfare. Assassination. It is not a literal phrase. In fact, I included the verbiage toning it down to counteract the unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric in only one of the several articles posted discussing this example.

                    However, the United States funded OneVoice, whose purpose, clearly given to State, was to try to get Netanyahu unseated. Did State go rogue and fund the opposition of Netanyahu without Obama’s knowledge? The excuse that State accidentally broke the law and deleted the emails outlining the dastardly plans without reading them can be dismissed as absurd. OneVoice certainly did not have any hesitation advising us of their plans. If you won’t believe our involvement without a recorded video of Obama saying, “We did it, and we’re proud of it”, then you’ll never be satisfied. But you do not hold Russia to the same standard, clearly.

                    The argument that the money was supposed to just promote a “two state solution” is absurd. For one, funneling money into political activists in Israel is meddling in another country’s election, all on its own. For another, OneVoice told State it was going to use the infrastructure built with the grant money to oppose Netanyahu.

                    If this was Russia, and this was done to us, would Putin’s claim he wasn’t involved hold water? We already know that it would not. In this case, State employees, once again, deleted damning evidence. State was found to have done wrong.

                    “It is completely unacceptable that U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to build a political campaign infrastructure that was deployed — immediately after the grant ended — against the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East. American resources should be used to help our allies in the region, not undermine them.”

                    Or, in other words, the US financed meddling in not only another country’s election, on multiple levels, but it did so to one of its closest allies.

                    And yet, the same person who is outraged at Russia’s actions cannot wrap his mind around the fact that we have done the same, over and over again. We have employed many methods.

                    “Interfering” in elections is just a part of geopolitical maneuvering. If it is in our best interests for a country to elect a certain leader, if it would combat the spread of Socialism, for example, then we exert a push. Russia does the same. Exactly no one in the media, at least, should be surprised, as it has covered at least some of our efforts overseas to do exactly the same thing. In fact, that is the source of some of the resentment towards us in other countries. Sometimes, we even call our influence “nation building” which we know by now doesn’t work.

                    Geopolitics is real life Game of Thrones. You don’t know the half of what we do. Rather than shrieking about it hysterically, we should be taking steps such as shoring up our safeguards against, for example, the rampant theft of intellectual property and consumer information by the Chinese and North Koreans. Perhaps we need to do something about “October surprises” in general, as there is insufficient time to vet allegations. We most certainly need to continue with the investigation into the actions of the FBI, which allegedly played into Russia’s hands with the entire hoax.

      1. I don’t know about all that, but Ehud Barak lead a difficult negotation and there is no impeaching his patriotism to his country. He and Netanyahu were both Sayeret Matkal

        I would suggest the US politicians try and let the Israelis sort out their own elections without putting the finger on the electoral scales. Of course it’s difficult because the Jewish Diaspora in America picks sides, and they are powerful and will be tempted to use various tools to influence outcomes.

    2. Karen, you’re posting blatant lies. The Clinton campaign did not pay Russian spies for the Dossier. They paid a US firm which hired the ex head of the British MI-6 Russia desk – an ally which shares info with our intelligence agencies.

      You’re too smart to not know this so I think it fair to say you’re lying and I expect a retraction. If you didn’t know this you can claim ignorance in that post.

      1. Anon – I have repeatedly disproven your claim that I am lying. You know this, ignore the evidence, and continue to post untruths.

        In addition, the information in the Russian dossier was provided by Russian spies, paid for by Hillary Clinton, in order to defraud American voters. It is immaterial that she used a British national as a go between. Left wing pundits, and people like you, continue to do Russia’s work undermining our country in perpetuating the attack against Donald Trump, initiated by Russia.

        By seeding information against several opponents, they plunged our country into turmoil and instability, gleefully helped along by the Democratic Party which, coincidentally, is getting enamored with Socialism, which if realized, would make us comrades with Russia.

        1. Karen, you are a liar. The information in the Steele Dossier was compiled by the former head of the British MI-6 Russia desk, not “Russians”. Steel traveled to Russia and spoke with sources who remain anonymous. However, rational people will agree that Steele likely ranks in the top 10 people on earth who would not be worked by Kremlin agents of the type who helped your leader and for whom he endlessly makes excuses. I await your retraction of even more lies in service to your cult.

          1. Oh, wait, you think that Steele did not get his information from Russian spies because he’s a super guy. Information used to defraud voters and destabilize our government.

            “Dossier author Christopher Steele identified a former Russian spy chief and a top adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin as being involved in handling potentially compromising information about President Donald Trump, State Department notes show.

            In her notes, State Department official Kathleen Kavalec also referred to the two Russians — former Russian foreign intelligence chief Vyacheslav Trubnikov and Putin aide Vladislav Surkov — as “sources.””

            I don’t think “liar” means what you think it means.

            1. Liar means someone purposely misrepresenting facts like you are. It is possible but unlikely that you are stupid enough to think the former head of the British MI-6 Russia desk would be hoodwinked by known Russian players or that he thought his job was to get made up lies about Trump – he could do that himself – and then pretend to be so upset by them that he personally contacted his long time FBI contacts – who may remain valuable to him in his consulting business.

              Take your pick: pretend to be an idiot or retract your post like an honorable person,

              1. PS The Dossier information was not leaked by Clinton to voters making your theory double horse s..t

                1. She was using a series of cut-outs to avoid being traced. This isn’t that difficult.

                  1. Doofus, it is clearly too difficult for you. The Dossier wasn’t leaked to voters by anyone.

                    1. Various parties were peddling it to media outlets, who were wary of it. One object of Comey’s shenanigans was to provide a hook for media outlets to use in order to refer to it.

                    2. “The Dossier wasn’t leaked”

                      One has to ask themselves if the Dossier wasn’t leaked how did it get to Buzzfied and then onto the voters?

                      Anon is one of those whose brains were aborted prior to birth.

                    3. This is doofus, it was not leaked until January 2018. Both your and Karen’s scenario is patently ridiculous, but about on par for your cult.

                    4. “This is doofus, it was not leaked until January 2018”

                      Buzzfeed Jan10, 2017. Sometime earlier October 2016 Mother Jones discussed that something of this nature existed. Trump replied Jan 10 2017 as well.

                      Stupidity and arrogance are a very bad combination for Anon.

                      “These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia
                      A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

                      Ken Bensinger
                      Last updated on January 10, 2017, at 9:09 p.m. ET

                      Drew Angerer / Getty Images
                      A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations that the Russian government has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

                      The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

                      Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

                      The document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent. It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors. The report misspells the name of one company, “Alpha Group,” throughout. It is Alfa Group. The report says the settlement of Barvikha, outside Moscow, is “reserved for the residences of the top leadership and their close associates.” It is not reserved for anyone, and it is also populated by the very wealthy.

                      The Trump administration’s transition team did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News’ request for comment. However, the president-elect’s attorney, Michael Cohen, told Mic that the allegations were absolutely false.

                      “It’s so ridiculous on so many levels,” he said. “Clearly, the person who created this did so from their imagination or did so hoping that the liberal media would run with this fake story for whatever rationale they might have.”

                      And Trump shot back against the reports a short time later on Twitter.

                      Donald J. Trump


                      9:19 PM – Jan 10, 2017
                      Twitter Ads info and privacy

                      72.8K people are talking about this

                      His former campaign manager and current senior White House adviser, Kellyanne Conway, also denied the claims during an appearance on Late Night With Seth Meyers, adding that “nothing has been confirmed.” She also said Trump was “not aware” of any briefing on the matter.

                      The documents have circulated for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence officials who have seen them. Mother Jones writer David Corn referred to the documents in a late October column.

                      Harry Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson tweeted Tuesday that the former Senate Democratic leader had seen the documents before writing a public letter to FBI Director James Comey about Trump’s ties to Russia. And CNN reported Tuesday that Arizona Republican John McCain gave a “full copy” of the memos to Comey on Dec. 9, but that the FBI already had copies of many of the memos.”

                    5. Earlier Anon said, ” The Dossier wasn’t leaked to voters by anyone.” and then that it was leaked Jan 2018.

                      Anon is a bad source for any fact. He can’t get things straight and lies a lot.

                    6. Allan of course fails to mention that I corrected my post which was obviously a mispeak and not intentional misdirection. If Karen and kurtz had reacted similarly to their long winded and not simple mispeak false stories I would not be pointing out their now proven low character.

                    7. “Allan of course fails to mention that I corrected my post”

                      Anon only corrected himself after the fact and after he insulted everyone. He also denied that the Dossier was leaked and I provided him with a copy of Buzzfied from 2017. Anon you are a horror. The proper response would have been’ thank you for correcting me’.

                    8. The general public knew nothing about the dossier until January of 2017 when the Buzzfeed report surfaced.

                      At the time Buzzfeed released the dossier, mainstream media carefully explained that dossiers are a ‘mixture of fact and gossip’. Which they are! Private Investigators simply go about gathering all the information they can find.

                      At no point during the general campaign did the American public have any knowledge of the dossier. One imagines, however, that allegations of that ‘pee party’ would have been the ultimate October surprise had the public heard. But the public remained in the dark until ‘after’ the election.

                    9. Peter, mother Jones talked about it in October right before the election. The dossier at that time was not released but I believe some of its information was circulated and mentioned in mother Jones.

                    10. My mispeak of 2018 for 2017 does not change the meaning of my post or the fact that the Dossier was not leaked to voters. The election was over at both dates.

                      Of course someone as small as Allan can’t tell the difference between mispeaking inconsequential details and constructing complete lies, and by doing so is constructing his own.

                    11. Anon, your misspeak certainly changes the meaning especially because you were calling people doofus. I fed you the correct information. You also said “The Dossier wasn’t leaked” But it was, How did Buzzfied get it. Additinally you continue to be wrong for it leaked to many people befroe Buzzfied published it and it was talked about in the news media and by all sorts of people (maybe hiding what it was) for awhile before Buzzfeed’s release.

                      Anon, you have a credibility problem. You likely have gone too far down the nasty road to ever be accepted as an honest person.

                    12. Alan show us documentation that Mother Jones even hinted at the dossier. If they had, it would have been a front page story. Something like that would not have gone unnoticed.

                      And Alan, why do comments attributed to ‘you’ have two different ink blot symbols below. Is someone using your name to create confusion here?

                    13. Peter, it is not important enough for me to show you. If interested you can look it up yourslef. A lot of the information was being bounced around with some things comming out though not necessarily identified.

                      I have two icons, the generic because of wordpress problems and the icon I mave when I fill all the details out, but it is not saved. I will sen this out with all the details and my icon will appear.

                    14. PH, Mother Jones ran an article by David Corn a week before the election describing an ex-foreign agent who had been investigating possible Russian attempts over the last several years to turn Trump. The word “dossier” was not used nor was one mentioned. The article was not widely picked up, if at all. Too bad. According to Jane Myer, some of the MSM knew something of an effort to tie Trump to the Russians, but lacking confirmation did not publish it. In any case, raise your hand if you heard about t before the election. Raise your hand again if you don’t think the “Deep State” could have easily revealed their investigation at the same time they did Hillary’s, and justified it in the interests of “fairness”. OK, you all are high.

                    15. The dossier was more widely known in the inner circles than you recognize Anon and when that happens the news gets slanted without the name of the dossier or any of its documentation.

                  2. Kurtz, elsewhere Anon was crying about what you said about the NYTimes reporting on Hong Kong. Last time I didn’t get an alert from the Times but maybe Anon’s crying changed things because I got an alert this time.

                    BREAKING NEWS
                    Hong Kong’s leader is backing down after huge protests and will suspend a bill allowing extraditions to China, her advisers said.
                    Saturday, June 15, 2019 1:33 AM EST
                    Delaying the bill would be a remarkable reversal for the pro-Beijing chief executive, Carrie Lam, who had vowed to ensure its approval and tried to get it passed on an unusually short timetable.

                    1. The NYT’s had a page 1 article the day before kurtz began his stupid, ill-informed, 180 deg false rant which concluded with the conviction that the NYTs was hiding the news because they feared the Chinese.and on the next day wrote it’s own editorial denouncing the Chinese government for it’s actions. These articles and editorial were pointed out to him with links, which would have been the time an honorable person would admit their mistake and amend their post. Unfortunately,and to my surprise, kurtz is not an honorable man.

                    2. “The NYT’s had a page 1 article”

                      The question is not really if the NYTimes had a page one article or not but rather if they timely reported the event. As I have said I don’t know but I didn’t receive an alert on it but I did receive the later report. If it wasn’t timely then Kurtz’s sentiments are on target. If it didn’t appear Kurtz’s sentiments are on target.

                      Anon, I didn’t see the proof that the NYTimes reported what happened at the first available time. Kurtz says no you say yes, but you have been such a liar I can’t give any credence to anything you say. When you talk about honor you should look in a mirror for time after time you have been proven wrong and you have made accusations that are plain lies so anyone trusting you can’t be very smart.

                      The issue is not important enough to continue, but if you find it important to prove Kurtz wrong then you will have to show when the march started in our time and the time the NYTimes had to publish. I don’t know the time line and don’t trust you so make sure it is documented by hour and date including the time zone.

                    3. Allan,
                      That’s a good point about Mother Jones. Steele had been contacting established media outlets trying to get the allegations from the Russian Dossier published before the election.
                      None of them would bite on running unsubstantiated opposition research in the runuo to the election, so Steele had to settle for a rag like Mother Jones to publish some of the allegations from his dossier.
                      I think that MJ article appeared about a week to ten days before the 2016 election.
                      ( I won’t bother trying to correct the likely typos….I won’t be able to see what I’ve typed until it’s posted….this site has not worked well with any smartphone I’ve used since some changes were made last summer).

                  3. Absurd,
                    Do you still wonder if it’s “camp or stupidity”? I’m going with stupidity and lunacy, but I don’t want to prejudice your updated take on that JanF/Anon loon.


                  “Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.”

                  Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.

                  That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firm Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.

                  The dossier, though mostly unverified, was then used by the FBI as the main evidence seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the campaign.

                  The revelation was confirmed both in contemporaneous evidence and testimony secured by a joint investigation by Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight committees, my source tells me.

                  It means the FBI had good reason to suspect the dossier was connected to the DNC’s main law firm and was the product of a Democratic opposition-research effort to defeat Trump — yet failed to disclose that information to the FISA court in October 2016, when the bureau applied for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

                  “This is a bombshell that unequivocally shows the real collusion was between the FBI and Donald Trump’s opposition — the DNC, Hillary and a Trump-hating British intel officer — to hijack the election, rather than some conspiracy between Putin and Trump,” a knowledgeable source told me.”


                  During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business pending before America’s most powerful political woman.

                  The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was so pernicious that the State Department even tried to execute a special agreement with the charity to avoid the overt appearance of “pay-to-play” policy.

                  Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars, from foreigners and Americans alike who were perceived to be indebted to the Clinton machine or in need of its help.

                  It’s time for the American public to call in their own IOU on political transparency.

                  The reason? Never before — until 2016 — had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research document.

                  But Clinton’s campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law firm, funded Christopher Steele’s unverified dossier which, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election.”

                  1. You and others have shifted the narrative from Hillary didn’t pay for the dossier, to it wasn’t provided by spies, to it didn’t contain uncorroborated information, to it wasn’t used as the basis of a FISA warrant, to it wasn’t leaked by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. As each was disproven, the story changed. Now, let’s say you are desperately hoping that Clinton didn’t leak it to voters before the election.

                    First, your new assertion that my position is worthless because Clinton didn’t release the dossier to voters unravels, like all the ones before did, as well. I repeated said over the past two years that this was an effort by Hillary to defraud voters, using Russian information. I said the dossier was given to the FBI, and used to spy on an American campaign, and destabilize not only the Presidency, but our country. I also said, at the time, in the meantime, and again, now, that the dossier was given to the media and they didn’t print it because they couldn’t source it.

                    However, as I said before, when Comey notified Trump about the dossier, that was the source that the media needed. That was after the election, when the media ran the story. There were journalists all over the internet saying that they were given this dossier story, and they regretted not running it.

                    Therefore, my assertion is correct. They did provide the dossier to the FBI, they did pay for it, they did pay for information from Russia spies, it did contain fraudulent information (see the admission that some of it was just blog posts from the general public), they did leak it to the press, and they did the entire thing in an effort to defraud voters.

                    I understand that you will not accept this evidence. You will come up with a new story, like Peter and the price of Trump’s house. This information is therefore not really for you anymore, but anyone interested in what happened.

                    There are a few links provided to show what they attempted, and what occurred.

                    1. Here is the discovery that Steele not only gave the dossier to the FBI, but wanted it released to the public before the election.

                    “GRAHAM: So, I’m waiting for Horowitz to get his report done.

                    But we had a pretty big bombshell this week. We found out that, on October the 11th, Christopher Steele went to the Department of State to try to get a person at Department of State to get the dossier out before the election. And the person took notes, passed that on to the FBI.

                    BARTIROMO: You’re right. John Solomon reported that, and it was pretty incredible that, in the notes — in the e-mails that were released, she says, Christopher Steele says this information needs to get out before November 8.

                    So is this a critical piece then detailing and explaining the fact that they were actually moving all of this stuff to change an election, to take down a duly elected president?

                    GRAHAM: So Christopher Steele is the confidential informant used by the FBI to get a FISA warrant. But for the dossier, there would be no warrant against Carter Page.

                    The meeting on October the 11th was 10 days before the FISA warrant application. So the FBI was on notice that their confidential informant went to the Department of State to urge the Department of State to take the dossier and leak to the public to affect the election.

                    That’s about as sick as it gets. I sent it to Horowitz. Now we know for sure, before the FISA warrant was ever applied for, the FBI was on notice that Christopher Steele was trying to tube Trump’s campaign. They used it anyway.”


                    You’ve again changed the story that the dossier was never “leaked” at all. It was published. However, it was published in January due to a leak.

                    An associate of the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain shared with Buzzfeed News a copy of the unverified, salacious opposition research dossier alleging that Russians had compromising material on President Trump, according to a bombshell federal court filing Wednesday.

                    McCain had strenuously denied being the source for Buzzfeed after it published the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In recent days, the dossier’s credibility has increasingly come under question, as the Yahoo News investigative reporter who broke news of its existence said many of its claims were “likely false,” and an adviser to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said Cohen never went to Prague to pay off Russian hackers, as alleged in the dossier.”

                    Earlier this year, Fox News reported that a top McCain associate, David Kramer, had been briefed on the dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in late November 2016 in Surrey, England. Kramer invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before House Republicans about his handling of the dossier.


                    McCain has acknowledged giving the dossier to the FBI. But, until Wednesday, it remained a mystery what role, if any, his associates might have played in the dossier leaking to the media shortly afterwards.

                    Note that this isn’t an opinion. This was evidence from a federal court filing. We also know that Steele had already given it to the FBI. He was then going out and leaking it to others.

                    1. I have shifted nothing and I’m not wasting my time on your word vomiting while you try to shift focus from your earlier lies. You’re beneath contempt.


                      Reporter who broke the story about the dossier now admits it is false.

                      In addition, there is more on the efforts to leak the dossier before the election, as the goal was to defraud voters. Remember, although Buzzfeed didn’t publish the dossier until January, allegations that were in the dossier started to come out before the election.

                      On four occasions, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court that it “did not believe” Steele was the direct source for Isikoff’s Sept. 23, 2016 Yahoo News article implicating former Trump aide Carter Page in Russian collusion.

                      Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.

                      But London court records show that contrary to the FBI’s assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm behind the dossier. The revelations were contained heavily-redacted documents released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.“…

                      Fox News reported in August that embattled Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had contact in 2016 with then-colleague Andrew Weissmann, who is now a top Mueller deputy, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it.

                      The sources said Ohr’s outreach about the dossier – as well as Steele; the opposition research firm behind it, Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS; and his wife Nellie Ohr’s work for Fusion – occurred before and after the FBI fired Steele as a source over his media contacts. Ohr’s network of contacts on the dossier included: anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former deputy director Andrew McCabe; Weissmann and at least one other DOJ official; and a current FBI agent who worked with Strzok on the Russia case.”

                      So, the information in the dossier were leaked to voters prior to the election.

                      I have maintained that they tried to leak, but the dossier wasn’t published until after the election. However, their intention was to defraud voters and destabilize the Presidency, should Trump win. However, allegations in the dossier most certainly did get leaked to voters.

                    3. PS Karen loves posting the idiotic crap she reads for true believers and believs it, which is why she was stupid enough to post allegations that Obama purposefully tried to defeat Netanyahu in an Israeli election – completely false, as even her own word count busting posts proved – yet she can’t admit it.

                      She’s not worth anyone’s time.

                  2. “Key Democratic operatives and private investigators who tried to derail Donald Trump’s campaign by claiming he was a tool of the Kremlin have rebooted their operation since his election with a multimillion-dollar stealth campaign to persuade major media outlets and lawmakers that the president should be impeached.

                    The effort has successfully placed a series of questionable stories alleging secret back channels and meetings between Trump associates and Russian spies, while influencing related investigations and reports from Congress.

                    The operation’s nerve center is a Washington-based nonprofit called The Democracy Integrity Project, or TDIP. Among other activities, it pumps out daily “research” briefings to prominent Washington journalists, as well as congressional staffers, to keep the Russia “collusion” narrative alive.

                    TDIP is led by Daniel J. Jones, a former FBI investigator, Clinton administration volunteer and top staffer to California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein. It employs the key opposition-research figures behind the salacious and unverified dossier: Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Its financial backers include the actor/director Rob Reiner and billionaire activist George Soros.”


              2. “Dossier author Christopher Steele identified a former Russian spy chief and a top adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin as being involved in handling potentially compromising information about President Donald Trump, State Department notes show.

                In her notes, State Department official Kathleen Kavalec also referred to the two Russians — former Russian foreign intelligence chief Vyacheslav Trubnikov and Putin aide Vladislav Surkov — as “sources.””

                I never said that Steele knew the Russian spies provided fraudulent information. He actually said he did not know if any of it was true or not. That would make sense, since he also provided information provided on CNN’s blog post. What he did admit, however is that he used known Russian spies to get the information.


                “According to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele said last year he used a 2009 report he found on CNN’s iReport website and said he wasn’t aware that submissions to that site are posted by members of the public and are not checked for accuracy.”

                So, on top of using known Russian spies, he also used information provided on a blog by the general public, claiming he had no idea none of it was checked for accuracy.

                These were some of the reasons why the FBI cut ties with him, although FBI activists continued contact with him after official channels were cut.

                Honestly, Anon, you either don’t research any of your opinions, or you are being deliberately misleading. Either one is not good.

                Unless you really are the internet troll as others assert, then for one, stop calling me names in general and for another, take a moment to do research before you call anyone a liar.

                This looks really bad for you.

                At this point, I consider you too partisan to consider facts, and am providing this information for anyone who has been misled on this issue who may actually be interested in the truth.

                1. Karen, you’re really not worth my time or any person interested in a discussion of politics based on facts, since you have no regard for them.

                  You said the Clinton campaign paid Russian spies to produce a dossier to influence voters. You know by now that didn’t happen but instead of a simple retraction or correction pretend other charges somehow cover up other false ones you make.

                  By the way, your fellow cultist Tom walked himself down a blind alley by trying to argue the MJ article – which was picked up by no one – proved a conspiracy of some sort. The problem is the “Media”, which was according to Jane Myer in knowledge generally of the efforts to tie Trump to Russians dating back a few years did not report this information because they felt they did not have sufficient confirmation, and of course neither did the Deep State announce publicly or provide the desired confirmation so the “media” could. That’s the 2 main actors in the “conspiracy” doing nothing at the opportune time to reap the results of their work, and in fact hiding that work.

                  Think about it if your capable. It does not add up.

                  And your’e still a liar.

                  1. Why did Hillary Clinton buy the dossier? As a TV stand? To prop open a door?

                    The purpose was to influence voters. The degree to which she succeeded, as oppose to started an FBI investigation into her opponent, is immaterial.

                    The stated purpose of the dossier was to influence voters.

                    I understand that your own purpose here is to troll the comments. This information that I provide is for anyone else interested in the truth. The talking points you repeat here, including shifting narratives and accusations, are common in the realm of Democrats. Many may be true believers, but if a single person takes a moment to think about what I said, and drill down in it, they will understand the very high degree of wrongdoing that occurred.

                    1. Karen, you stated that Hillary paid Russian spies to create the Dossier to influence voters. She did neither. Quit dancing around your lie and retract it or shut up.
                      You also quoted a right wing hatchet man to the effect that Obama took every effort to defeat Netanyahu in an Israeli election. That did not happen either.

                      You know I have retracted something I said that was in error and said it as plainly and clearly as possible. Be a woman, admit your mistakes, or just go away.

                    2. Jan F on February 23, 2019 at 3:45 PM
                      I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing

                2. Karen S.,
                  I just posted a link ( if it “takes” and shows up nearby)that demonstrates the awesome power of a delusional “debater” like JanF who became Anon and anon1.
                  In her “mind”, such as it is, if she glues together enough false or misleading statements in the comments she posts here, she simply “declares” that she “won”.
                  I guess we could humor her and tell her that a self-declared victory is impressive. Maybe at some point JanF. / Anon will fess up that she was simply doing a parody of a lunatic partisan hack. She likes to run away from the comments she made right off the bat in February, but those words, and that idiocy, is on the the record, in the archives.

                  1. Jan F/Anon/Anon 1 is useful, because they keep posting regurgitated talking points that we have easily disproven. He/she provides an opportunity to dispel myths and fact check the Democrat agenda. They lost the election, and so have been trying “politics by other means”, trying on, and discarding, one scandal after another, hoping to repeat their success unseating Nixon after he’d won by a landslide. Come to think of it, bugging an opponent’s office seems rather tame. Such leaks, moles, and surveillance seems commonplace nowadays. Obama stands accused of having misused his authority to spy on Trump’s campaign. We will have to see where Barr’s investigation leads.

                    Those who repeat talking points get the opportunity to see disproving facts here. They may not get the opportunity elsewhere, as the mainstream media has abandoned journalistic integrity and become a propaganda machine.

                    These faces are sourced from court records, government subcommittees, and other quality sources.

                    It doesn’t matter that various sock puppets keep insulting everyone and claiming they won, regardless of the facts. The reasoning is not for them, the unreasonable, but rather for anyone else who might happen to read it.

                    It may also be an eye opener for readers to see people like Jan F/Anon/Anon 1 not only use a series of sock puppets, but dissolve into unintelligible insults when presented with another side of the story with supporting documentation. Or how Obama was excused while Putin was not, for meddling in elections. And I didn’t even bring up the most obvious example – Afghanistan.

                    1. Karen is a liar who refuses to be a woman and correct her mistatements of fact. That means she’s liar and worth anyone’s time.

                      I remind her that I had the gonads of my gender to admit in clear and simple terms an incident when she was right and I was wrong on a matter of fact. My insult is intelligible and well earned in her case and I possess the bona fides to make it.

                    2. PS Karen ends her ironic post – the queen of right wing and false “talking points” – by defending that hero of her Trump cult Putin and attacking Obama for the same lie I challenged her on. She posted:

                      “Just a few years ago in 2015, then-President Barack Obama threw everything he had into an effort to defeat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party in Israel’s most recent election. ”

                      Her own posts proved that was a lie and yet she persists in not retracting it because ….. I don’t know, because she’s a low life with as little respect for her readers as her cult hero? What else could it be?

                    3. What followed was an excellent example of a sock puppet troll dissolving into hysterical sexist insults when faced with facts that contradict her story.

                    4. Karen apparently would have nothing to say if it wasn’t a lie.

                      Nothing I said was sexist.

                      I stick to the facts, admit when I am clearly wrong on one – Karen knows that – and will not accept someone else refusing to do the same when shown the facts..

                      If that’s what trolls do, then I am proudly one.

                      Karen and Tom can keep talking to each other and pretending they have high principles. It’s not obvious from this board that they have any.

                    5. “Nothing I said was sexist.”

                      Everything Anon says is sexist, a lie, an insult or something else that fits into the grouping of the troll from He-l.

        1. I understand that as Trump supporters you all like being lied to, but normal people try to base our opinions on facts, not the kind of bulls… favored by weak principles posters like Karen and kurtz.

          1. It might be best if JanF/ Anon/ Anon 1 sticks to HHHNN for his/ her “facts”. Those filtered “facts” are more acceptable to JanFanonanon1, Natacha, and others exhibiting extreme symptoms of TDS.

            1. Of course Tom knows he can try to argue facts with me and if I’m wrong I’ll admit it, something his fellow cultists are not able to do.

              1. I have posted JanF’s perception of “the facts” from her comments she posted on 2-24-2019. I think the JT column was the Feb. 23 one on Bernie Sanders. Her introduction in that thread speaks volumes about her version of logic and facts.
                Changing aliases to Anon or anon1 doesn’t change the scatterbrain world if her facts as she sees and creates them.

                1. Tom once again having a hard time sticking to the subject and trolling me instead.
                  As to the facts I have noted that kurtz and Karen refuse to correct to acknowledge, I’m happy to argue them with Tom or anyone else, though he’s clearly not up to it and I’ve heard all I’m willing to listen to from the verbose liar Karen.

          2. I did not vote for Trump, and I have stated that here in comment threads several times. But nonetheless, I don’t like lying sacks of **** like JanF./ now anon lying her *** off in mist exchanges I once tried with her, and in what I’ve witnessed subsequently by that fool every since.
            So maybe JanF-who-now- uses-another-alias (Anon) will realize that a lot of people don’t care much for those like her who show up in comment threads and feel justified in lying to make a point, and using different aliases in doing so.
            There is a reason why I have re-published her garbage when she went by “JanF.” several months ago; those comments alone say a lot about just what a slimeball she is.
            This won’t take my log-in so will likely post as “anonymous”. But I would like the consistently anonymous JanF/ Anon/ then anon1 that I recoginize her “contributions” here; it’s only fair that she gets proper “credit”. Tom Nash

            1.  This one.Jan F on February 23, 2019 at 3:45 PM
              I’m sorry, but I already won this argument. To recap, anyone in the lily white GOP is the one with some ‘splainin’ to do about identity politics and since I’m not, I won’t. Thanks for playing.
              Given that there are archives here, merely changing an alias does not necessarily guarantee running away from previous comments made under another alias.
              These kinds of “introductory comments” by JanF/ (now anon1) give some perspective on her mindset, and her entire approach to what she tries to pretend is “debate”.

              1. Jan F says:
                No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

                This is absurd x 2 says:
                That’s a fact, not an opinion.

                At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

                Jan F says:
                My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

                Tom Nash says:
                It always makes it easier to know which way to go when someone draws a line in the sand like Jan F. just did with her “fact”.
                Rather than trying to respond to each and every one of JanF./ now “anon1’s” deflections, distortions, and lies, it’s actually easier to explain, in her own words, JanF’s view of why she feels justified in lying.
                That shows real committment😉😊😃 from a True Believer like JanF/ (now posting as “anon1”).

        2. Anonymous,
          Every “fact” acceptable to anon1, previously JanF., must be viewed by that don’t from the perspective expressed by JanF in her Feb23, 2019 comments. She pretty much came to these threads trying to out-Natacha Natacha with her demented bias.

          1. Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 2:03 PM
            No informed, sane, and decent person can defend Trump. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

            This is absurd x 2 says: February 24, 2019 at 2:35 PM
            That’s a fact, not an opinion.

            At this point I can’f figure if this remark is indicative of camp or stupidity.

            Jan F says: February 24, 2019 at 3:53 PM
            My remark is a statement of fact. Anyone who doubts it is a moral or mental defective.

            1. It was too early in the game in February for Absurd to mention “demented” re JanF’s rants & “facts”.
              Time has likely clarified that it was not merely stupidity.

          2. “fact checker” would not be the words I would use to describe JanF, ana “Anon” or “Anon1”.
            The words I would use would not clear the WordPress filter.
            I’ve re-posted some of JanF/ Anon’s comments when she introduced herself to this thread.

              1. I noticed that the Mother Jones article was not sufficient evidence for a chicken****, WEASEL- order bozo like anon1 to accept the fact that allegations from the Steele Russian Dossier were published by Mother Jones.
                All because the word “dossier” itself isn’t mentioned.
                I won”t ask how frigging stupid JanF/ Anon/ anon1 can be, because I know the question would be perceived as a challenge, and she’d come out with sonething even dumber.

                1. Typically Tom loses his way and jumps to extreme and unfounded personal insults.

                  Tom, the discussion before you joined in was specifically around the Dossier. and claims were made that it was shared with voters by Hillary. Of course both parts of that factually incorrect. I posted the facts surrounding the Mother Jones article and unfortunately for you, none of this supports the conspiracy theory your cult is promoting.

                  1. It’ ivirtually impossible to miss the fact that the “veteran spy” referred to in the Mother Jones article is Christopher Steele. And that allegations from the dossier were fed to David Corn by Steele. The fact that the words “dossier” or “Christopher Steele” do not appear in that pre-election article is neither here nor there.
                    I didn’d mean to appear to be targeted only you specifically for insults; I don’t care to waste time in exchanges with intellectually dishonest scum in general.

                    1. So Tom, the mighty power of the DNC and the Deep State and the MSM amounted to a single actor not part of it contacting a reporter for a marginal news magazine with limited coverage. You can win the semantics battle you’ve constructed – it was alleged by fellow cultists that the Dossier was developed to unleash on voters – but you just lost the war.

                      I’ll match my honor against you cultists any day. I have retracted comments I made in error here and the low life Karen knows that. Neither she or you are up to it however – it might damage your delusional devotion to Fatso.

                  2. “Typically Tom loses his way and jumps to extreme and unfounded personal insults.”

                    Yep. That’s his M.O.

                    1. If you ever tire of simply being a boot licker, Troll Groupie Anonymous, maybe the full-fledged trolls here will let you into their little club.

                    2. By jolly, JanF/ Anon/ anon1 just topped herself without even being challenged to see if she could say anything dumber. She also appears to be channeling Natacha now, as well. Or maybe just mimicing, who knows?.

                    3. ” troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages”

                      Tom;s picture is next to the listing

                    4. I post under one name….my name. I can understand JanF.’s use of aliases/ sock puppets, as these are in fact staples for anonymous trolls like her. She starts out here making wild and inflammatory comments as Jan F, bulids ono that as Anon and anon1, then does the passive-aggressive gig when she occasionally gets a taste of her own medicine.
                      I don’t routinely call people liars, scum, trolls, or propagantists. Having witnessed about a half dozen of those in that category camp out here within the past couple of years, I will occasionally give those relatively few pieces of trash the credit they deserve.

                    5. Of course nothing I have posted here calls up the insults Tom likes to throw out except i disagree with him on politics – strongly – and can throw an elbow when I think it’s called for. He’s just a partisan hack who pretends to high standards, except when team mates go low – he doesn’t care. If he did have high standards he wouldn’t be trying to run interference for 2 posters here – on his team – who have made factually wrong statements they won’t retract.

                      As to my anonymity, which Tom tries to pretend is unique when it’s the rule, call that card on every other poster here. There’s maybe 2 besides JT that aren’t anonymous. So what?

                    1. For your sake, Troll Groupie Anonymous, I hope you’re correct. I know you’re a big fan. This site can always use more low-life trash and propagandists like her, and Hollywood Hill and JanF/ Anon have to work that much harder to take up the slack in her absence.

                    2. Of course Tom’s accusations – unlike mine against kurtz and karen – lack any specificity except he doesn’t like my politics. He’s just playing for the team and honor and acknowledging facts don’t matter to him.

                    3. Nash’s comments are embarrassing and childish. It’s a waste of time to spend much time engaging with him.

                    4. It’s encouraging to see Bootlicker Anonymous surface every now and then to launch into her Troll Groupie Act. I would hope that she will someday be accepted as a full-fledged troll by those whose ***es she have faithfully kissed, and her courageous accusations made as one-of-many anonymouses here.
                      I just want to see her get credit for her grovelling work done here.

                2. Anon is a little simple. Until the Buzzfeed article people couldn’ put the facts together into one potential source. People were hearing simple bits and pieces that were contained in the dossier. That is what the discussion is all about. Not knowing the exact source or name doesn’t reduce the damage of the thoughts that were flying around.

                  I don’t know if Anon is smart enough to comprehend things of this nature.

  10. Turley has an interesting way of saying things. It appears that, if Trump had said that he saw nothing wrong with Trump getting in a car and running someone over, Turley would report it this way:

    “President Trump has said that he sees nothing wrong with getting into a car and then driving that car to run over someone. Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with Trump saying that he wants to drive a car.”

  11. The Deal Of A ‘Business Genius’..??


    President Trump’s company has quietly sold one of his last remaining properties in California — a 5,400-square-foot Beverly Hills mansion that county records show was purchased by a corporate entity linked to an Indonesian billionaire and Trump business partner.

    A deed registered with L.A. County on May 31 shows that Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., signed the property over to Hillcrest Asia Ltd., a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. The price tag: $13.5 million, nearly double what Trump paid for the house when he bought it in 2007.

    The purchaser address listed on the deed is a Beverly Hills condominium owned by a firm belonging to Hary Tanoesoedibjo, a billionaire media executive who ran for vice president of Indonesia in 2014.

    He is Trump’s business partner on two projects in Indonesia — a resort on the island of Bali and a golf course and resort in the forests of West Java, south of the capital city of Jakarta. Tanoesoedibjo has said he expects that the projects will be worth more than $500 million when completed.

    The $13.5 million sale price of the Beverly Hills mansion is likely to exacerbate ethics concerns. The property was sold off-market — meaning it was not listed for sale publicly — and Beverly Hills real estate experts said they were surprised at the high price.

    The median home value in Beverly Hills has gone up from $2.3 million in early 2007 to $3.5 million this year, a 52 percent increase, according to analysis from Zillow. Trump sold his home for 93 percent more than he paid for it in 2007.

    Trump “got a really good price,” said Luis Pezzini, the chief executive of Pezzini Luxury Homes in West Hollywood.

    “Seems a little rich, to be perfectly frank,” Pezzini said. “Unless there’s something spectacular about this [house] that I’m missing.”

    Pezzini said he had a listing nearby with a larger home and lot size — as well as a tennis court — and expected to get slightly less than the $13.5 million Trump received.

    Tanoesoedibjo’s main business is media, as his MNC Group in Indonesia owns television stations and broadband businesses, but he also has finance and natural resources companies.

    He and the Trump family know each other well, and beginning in 2015, he signed deals to partner with Trump on the two enormous projects in West Java and Bali, where he owns land.

    Tanoesoedibjo attended Trump’s inauguration, posing for photos with Eric and Lara Trump at Trump’s D.C. hotel the day after the inauguration.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Company Sells California Mansion To Firm Linked To Indonesian Billionaire, A Business Partner”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Current PH –

      “Pezzini said he had a listing nearby with a larger home and lot size — as well as a tennis court — and expected to get slightly less than the $13.5 million Trump received.”

      Have you ever heard of famous people selling their homes before? Your own article, for one, referenced Zillow, which is not a real appraisal. It’s just an online program that compares addresses. For another, it references a nearby listing that he expected to get a little less than the $13.5 million. That house had not sold. He’s saying he guessed he would get a little bit less. One had a tennis court. The other was owned by the President of the US.

      There are a lot of things that add value to a home. Bob Hope’s John Lautner house in Palm Springs has almost inconceivable value because of its unique, space age design, it is being restored to the original architect’s vision, fixing Dolores’ Hope’s ghastly over the top nouveau riche Hollywood decor, because it used to be Bob Hope’s house, and because it was designed by Lautner. The square footage and pool have little to do with its value.

      Where real estate sales would come into question would be in pay to play. If, for example, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bought the house for $1 billion over asking price, while he had negotiations underway for military technology, that should raise ethical concerns. Another good example was the University cheating scandal.

      Selling the house to someone he knew is not unusual. Steep returns in CA on property is not unusual, which is why we got Prop 13 passed. Powerful surges in housing prices were coinciding with massive property tax increases, pricing people right out of their homes and businesses. People couldn’t afford the constant property tax increases.

      Where’s the gotcha moment? He sold his house to a guy he knew. I’ll bet that guy makes a profit on it at some point. Trump’s businesses are in a blind trust.

      1. Karen, here’s what the L.A. Times says about that sale:

        The corner-lot estate sits at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard, Rodeo Drive and Canon Drive — a hot spot for Trump. In addition to frequenting the Beverly Hills Hotel over the years, he previously owned a Greek Revival-inspired mansion on a neighboring lot that he sold in 2009 at an $850,000 loss.

        The value of the property on North Canon Drive has been a point of interest over the years. In 2016, Trump’s tax attorney Wade E. Norwood argued the home was worth $6 million — less than half of the price it just sold for. Following the appeal, the county’s assessment board valued the estate at $6.004 million, according to L.A. County records.

        Edited from: “Donald Trump’s Beverly Hills Home Quietly Sells for $13.5 Million”

        Los Angeles Times, 6/12/19

        I know exactly where this house is. I used to work across the street. This house is on a busy intersection right off Sunset Blvd. Houses over $10 million are usually further uphill; away from the traffic.

            1. Newspaper articles are written by kids or people that know how to write for newspapers. If they really knew the real estate industry they would be in it making money rather than writing about it trying to generate interest that sells newspapers.

              Articles negative to Trump sells newspapers. Accuracy regarding the value of a specific property doesn’t. The writers have neither the ability, the time, nor the money to truly evaluate the property’s value and why it sold for a specific price.

              1. surely you guys know that people will try and downplay the value of a property for real property tax assessment purposes?

            2. Current PH – they are good examples of journalistic lack of integrity. It is not ethical to indicate wrongdoing without proof. All they have is that a house owned by a famous person, now President of the United States, sold above market value. One of your sources even stated that he expected to get just a bit less for a house slightly smaller. Not owned by Trump.

              Come on. This is exactly why the media has a bad reputation rivaling Congress. How would you someone to write such an article about you? Peter got a really good price for his home. He must be doing something wrong. We don’t know what, but sounds fishy.

              That would have never passed muster in a journalist class, let alone a paper, a couple of decades ago. Papers are becoming on a par with blog posts.

              A real pay-to-play investigative piece would have followed the crumbs from a high sale, and then found evidence of some dastardly plot, like money laundering, green card marriage, human trafficking, political favors, etc. (Granted, I’m seriously mining telenovelas at this point.) A good reporter would have held on to this tidbit and followed up, not publishing anything until they had proof of malfeasance. Like in Erin Brockovich. Erin and Ed made sure they had more to go on than insinuation.

              Instead, it’s nasty gossip based on nothing more than a celeb getting above market price from a private sale. That’s a non story in LA.

              1. I wonder how much the homes of other Presidents and former Presidents sold for?

                How much would someone pay to buy a Clinton or Obama house? I know the Clinton homes got successively more grand over the years. I’ll bet their real estate become something of a collector’s item at some point in time. Who knows?

            3. The mortgage crisis hit in 2007, which would have deeply cut home prices, still apparent in 2009.

        1. Current PH – where’s the gotcha?

          The county assessors office doesn’t attribute any increase in value due to who owns it.

          Homes will increase in value because movie stars lived there, it was used to film a movie (like the ET house), someone else famous owned it, someone famous OD’d there, someone famous was murdered there.

          A house is worth what someone pays for it.

          Trump is allowed to conduct a private sale, and all of his businesses are in a blind trust, as required.

          An example of pay-to-play would be the tremendous hit that Bill’s speaking fees took when Hillary lost the presidential election. Why did Bill’s value decrease? Or when a Clinton donor gave money to the Foundation, and was awarded a no-bid contract to build hurricane proof homes in Haiti, instead providing leaky, moldy trailers. Or when the Uranium One deal when down and the Clinton Foundation got a $145 million donation.

          Plus there are myriad examples involving Joe Biden.

          Pay to play and otherwise selling influence is a very serious, entrenched problem that most of Congress, let alone various administrations, State, etc are guilty of. We do need to do a better job policing that.

          However, in your case, you’re missing the other half of the equation. There is nothing to prove that a collector didn’t just want the house because of its association with Trump. So far, there is no evidence that the buyer got anything out of it besides real estate. If any pay to play evidence does come up, I’m sure it will be investigated in complete opposition to the activities of Clintons, Biden, et al. You know in CA that people become star obsessed, or even infamy obsessed.

          Wrongdoing should be investigated equally, regardless of political party. We all saw that the law did not apply to Hillary. It’s wrong.

          Frank Sinatra’s Malibu house – 7 BR, 5800 sq ft – asking price $12.9 million.

          Home in San Fernando Valley (which you know is not glitzy) – rented by Frank Sinatra, allegedly where Marilyn Monroe used to have secret trysts with JFK, listed $12.5 million. Was on the market in 2015 for $7.5 million. And that’s for a house in The Valley!

          It’s hard to say when a famous link will add real cache to a house or not. Trump has skyrocketed to both fame and infamy lately. I would say that the Trump name has increased in value to his fans, and decreased in value to those who used to like him before he ran for politics, but not after.

          1. Karen, Malibu ‘is’ the most expensive community for L.A. real estate. Malibu is about 10 degrees cooler than Beverly Hills during the summer months.

            Regarding that house Sinatra rented in the Valley, coincidentally I was there only two months ago on a special project. That ‘house’ is a huge estate that sits high on hill in Chatsworth. I wouldn’t want to live that far out but’s it’s a big estate.

            As for Trump’s former house in Beverly Hills, he never lived there. Nor did Trump ever stay there . Trump stayed across the street at the BHH. What’s more the Trump name has been bad for business lately. That name has had to come off at least 2 buildings in Manhattan. What’s more, The Trump SoHo Hotel isn’t doing too well.

            1. Peter, if I recall correctly the buildings where Trump’s name was removed were on the west side. The West side is notoriously leftist and politically they can be mean even if it is to no advantage to them. I so happen to be visiting a friend in one of the buildings where Trump’s name was removed and the discussion revolved around why the people of the building did it since it was likely the removal could cause the condo prices in the building to fall. I live at such and such in the Trump building sounds much better than I live at such and such.

              I think certain names add prestige which adds dollars to the selling price. All sorts of things can affect price greatly and I think drawing conclusions without evidence is a problem that you can’t seem to run away from.

            2. PH – it’s still Chatsworth. Malibu – cooler weather, sometimes a nice view, tiny lot size and homes on average with the occasional McMansion smashed in a lot, one entrance and egress in some places, burned to the shore in many others…

              THIS was Malibu:

              Brave lady waited to leave until all her horses were safely out on trailers, and her mother was out, and then darn near didn’t make it out herself.

              Look. Many of us are getting really tired of Democrats making up one allegation after another, without proof. When one gets disproven, there is no apology. No promise to do better. They move rapidly on to the next allegation, breathlessly sure that this time he’s really done something wrong.

              The series of journalistic mistakes, the sheer volume of times they’ve gotten it wrong…It reminds me when Whoopi asked Joy on The View why Democrats get it wrong about Trump so many times. Joy answered along the lines of, they just don’t like him. That is no excuse.

              Peter, I really wish you saw the logic in my point. A good journalist would have wondered if there was something wrong with the selling price, and then investigated it. Presented proof like a royal flush. Instead, what passes for journalism today is mean girl blog posts and cyber bullying.

              If it was pay to play for something, then the writer should have done his job and proven it, and not said a word about it until then.

  12. If you have, for example, a Peter Strzok in the FBI, or a Bruce Ohr at DOJ with his wife Nellie doing her bit for FusionGPS/ Orbis, then I think there would definitely be an incentive to turn over campaign opposition research obtained from foreign sources if it suited your purposes.
    I doubt that the Trump campaign was incentivized in the same way as their opposition was in the 2016 campaign, but while we have an idea of what’s politically expedient, we don’t seem to have clear FEC guidelines.

    1. But Tom, if you have a James Comey sending a letter to Congress saying that your candidacy comes with an FBI warning, that would seem to negate any ‘advantage’ you might have gotten from having sympathetic parties at the DOJ.

      1. Which does not somehow erase the activities and motivations of Strzok and Page and McCabe, who may have been calling the shots at the FBI. Nor does it mean that Bruce Ohr and his wife were not involved as “friendly insiders”, to put it mildly, for Steele and Fusion GPS.
        That was pretty hard to miss, irrespective of what Comey did or did not do.

        1. Tom, surely you know the IG found no misdeeds by Strzok other than using an FBI phone for personal and political messages.

          1. I don’t know if the IG or other investigator are done with Strzok yet; at this point, I don’t think any allegations of criminal offenses have been made against Strzok and others.
            As far as “sharing” the opposition research in the Russian Dossier, The Clinton Campaign was likely a lot more closely connected to the Obama DOJ than Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign.
            Based on what’s surfaced, you don’t see the same kind of Bruce Ohr/ Nellie Ohr/ Strzok/ Page/ possibly Lynch working against Hillary and for Trump.
            The reverse was true. And it remains true no matter how many more times we hear the endless whining about Comey’s October letter that he was reopening the email investigation.

            1. Of course you have no evidence for any of them working against Trump, and I remind you of your – and anyone else here – inability to explain how this presumed conspiracy managed to torpedo Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s. Want to give it ago again?

              1. Who made the decision to prioritize the Steel Russian Dossier over the Hillary email investigation?
                (Hint; Strzok was in charge of both investigations).
                Of course, Strzok, his sweetheart, the Ohrs, etc. would not be inclined to have a healthy dose of skepticism when Steele handed them this political opposition research.
                They ate that
                s*** up, and at a minimum,
                regarded it as an “insurance policy” in the unlikely event that Trump won.
                Of course, there’s no reason for anyone to be concerned when we have FBI and DOJ official with clear biases calling the shots
                It’s not as if the top law enforcement agency like the FBI could ever act inappropriately.

                1. Tom, we notice in Trumpland it’s never Trump’s fault. Somehow his big mouth and lack of experience are never linked to the grievance at hand. Trumpers would have us believe instead that Trump was this great natural statesmen perfectly suited for the presidency. So he didn’t need any prior experience.

                  But in the real world impartial observers would say that Trump’s big mouth and boorish nature combined with lack of experience (in addition to endless conflicts) made him a seriously bad fit for the presidency. And that’s why Trump drew a Special Counsel Probe in record time.

                  1. The royal “we” is presumably used to refer to HHHNN media outlet St.Peter operarates here. I noticed that with the TDS crowd, it’s ALWAYS Trump’s fault. For those like Peter, Natacha, and others, their “beliefs” or “suspicions” are the same as evidence.

                    1. Tom, the ‘evidence’ was there in business media 15 years ago; numerous stories linking Trump to Russian investors. Those stories were obviously a starting point for Opposition Research. That’s how Christopher Steele got involved. The FBI would have been derelict in its duties had they ‘not’ looked at those links. No Russian gets rich without Putin’s approval.

                      So it was stupid of Trump to shoot his mouth off about how he loves Wikileaks. And calling on Vladimir Putin to find Hillary’s emails. In a normal America no presidential candidate with an ounce of common sense praises hackers in public. In a normal America presidents don’t label as ‘fake news’ security threats their whole cabinet acknowledges.

                      Wasn’t it bizarre that Trump’s Secretary of State, NSA Adviser, U.N Ambassador and Defense Secretary all acknowledged Russian interference while Trump kept denying it?? We’ve never had a president contradict his whole cabinet. That’s not a normal thing! No one connected to reality could mistake that as normal.

                    2. The fact that Trump has “been linked to Russian investors as far back as 15 years ago” does not validate the Steele Russian Dossier allegations. That’s a hell of a leap that Peter and others might take to use to claim that “the evidence was there 15 years ago; that’s like claiming the evidence for Russian dirt on the Clintons goes back to Bill Clinton’s $500,000 speaking fee he was paid by a Kremlin- connected bank while Hillary was Sec. of State.

                    3. We need are man on the ground in Hollywood to tell us about being “connected to reality”😃😂🤣

                2. Tom, surely you know that it is not a job requirement that FBI employees have no political opinions and that it is also true that dollars to donuts, conservatives and Republicans are well represented in the agency. You also know that the IG confirmed that Strzok was found to not have acted unprofessionally in his actions as an FBI employee, a position strongly defended in his appearance before the House.

                  You may or may not know that the NY FBI office at that time was rumored to have some virulent Hillary haters and that would help explain Guiliani’s advance knowledge of the Comey October letter and one of the reasons for it – his fear of someone in that office leaking the reopening of the investigation.

                  He apparently did not fear leaking of the contemporaneous Trump investigation by those in charge of it and that confidence was confirmed.

                  Perhaps the Guiliani incident can be investigated by Barr’s task force.

                  1. Strzok and Page went far beyond just ” having political opinions”; that “defense” pops up every now and then, and it vastly understates to the extreme aninmus they had toward Trump.
                    You can try to find a part of IG Horowitz’s report that you claim supports the view that Strzok was not found to have behaved “unprofessionally”. I don’t think that Horowitz said that.
                    You might look at the CNN link I posted about Strzok’s Congressional testimony.. Strzok had far viewer people making weak excuses for him after the country witnesses Strzok’s obnoxious and arrogant performance. And Strzok was not fired from the FBI because he was found to have behaved “professionally”.
                    I think that Strzok and McCabe and perhaps others were decided to bury the Abedin/ Carlos Danger laptop issue they knew about in late September. That would be consistent with their pro-Hillary favoritism, and Strzok was unfortunately in charge of both the Russiagate and Hillary email investigation.
                    There is no doubt that he favored investigating Trump over investigating Hillary.
                    Coney may have been too busy acting like he was the Attorney General to know about about the laptop issue at the same time as Strzok and McCabe. I haven’t seen clarification on whether he was informed by late September, or if Strzok and McCabe hid that knowledge from him for a time.
                    Either way, it does not speak well of Comey. I’ve pointed out numerous times that the FBI could have, and should have, done the Hillary email/ laptop renewed investigation in late September, not sit around and wait until late October. As I mentioned, I think Strzok’s preference would have been to “deep six” that issue entirely.
                    Comey spent months trying to find out where Guiliani was getting his information from, and he had over 6 months to investigate that before he was fired. He never was able to answer that, and apparently now other investigations have been successful either in resolving that.
                    They’ve had well over 2 1/2 years to find out, and if they haven’t figured it out by now, I don’t think they’re likely to do so. If it was fear of leaking from the NY FBI agents that prompted Comey to reopen the email investigation, then I’ll repeat the the FBI is not led by it’s field agents. It is supposed to be led by the FBI Director, which was ostensibly James Comey.. If in fact Comey ordered the Clinton email investigation in late October because of concerns about leaks, that’s on Comey, not those FBI agents in New York.
                    If they had leaked it to the media, or to Congress,vtgen it would have been on them. As it was, this was Comey’s decision and the responsibility is his.

                    1. A blawger I correspond with said that in 35 years of trial practice, he couldn’t ever recall seeing a witness behave as condescendingly as Peter Sztrok. Without a doubt that man is a piece of work.

                    2. “…we found that Strzok was not the sole
                      decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear
                      investigative decisions we examined in that chapter.
                      We further found evidence that in some instances
                      Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive
                      investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search
                      warrants to obtain evidence.
                      There were clearly tensions and disagreements in a
                      number of important areas between Midyear agents and
                      prosecutors. However, we did not find documentary or
                      testimonial evidence that improper considerations,
                      including political bias, directly affected the specific
                      investigative decisions we reviewed in Chapter Five, or
                      that the justifications offered for these decisions were
                      Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the
                      FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the
                      investigation’s credibility. But our review did not find
                      evidence to connect the political views expressed in
                      these messages to the specific investigative decisions
                      that we reviewed; rather, consistent with the analytic
                      approach described above, we found that these specific
                      decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
                      made during the course of an investigation by the
                      Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
                      judgment calls were not unreasonable….

                      ……..We searched for evidence that the Weiner laptop was
                      deliberately placed on the back-burner by others in the
                      FBI to protect Clinton, but found no evidence in emails,
                      text messages, instant messages, or documents that
                      suggested an improper purpose. We also took note of
                      the fact that numerous other FBI executives—including
                      the approximately 39 who participated in the
                      September 28 SVTC—were briefed on the potential
                      existence of Midyear-related emails on the Weiner
                      laptop. We also noted that the Russia investigation was
                      under the supervision of Priestap—for whom we found
                      no evidence of bias and who himself was aware of the
                      Weiner laptop issue by September 29. However, we
                      also did not identify a consistent or persuasive
                      explanation for the FBI’s failure to act for almost a
                      month after learning of potential Midyear-related emails
                      on the Weiner laptop…….

                      We found that the conduct of these five FBI employees
                      brought discredit to themselves, sowed doubt about the
                      FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation, and
                      impacted the reputation of the FBI. Although our
                      review did not find documentary or testimonial evidence
                      directly connecting the political views these employees
                      expressed in their text messages and instant messages
                      to the specific investigative decisions we reviewed in
                      Chapter Five, the conduct by these employees cast a
                      cloud over the FBI Midyear investigation and sowed
                      doubt the FBI’s work on, and its handling of, the
                      Midyear investigation. Moreover, the damage caused
                      by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the
                      Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI’s
                      reputation for neutral factfinding and political

                      We do not question that the FBI employees who sent
                      these messages are entitled to their own political views.
                      However, we believe using FBI devices to send the
                      messages discussed in Chapter Twelve—particularly the
                      messages that intermix work-related discussions with
                      political commentary—potentially implicate provisions in
                      the FBI’s Offense Code and Penalty Guidelines. At a
                      minimum, we found that the employees’ use of FBI
                      systems and devices to send the identified messages
                      demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a gross
                      lack of professionalism. We therefore refer this
                      information to the FBI for its handling and consideration
                      of whether the messages sent by the five employees
                      listed above violated the FBI’s Offense Code of Conduct….

                      The harm caused by leaks, fear of potential leaks, and a
                      culture of unauthorized media contacts is illustrated in
                      Chapters Ten and Eleven of our report, where we detail
                      the fact that these issues influenced FBI officials who
                      were advising Comey on consequential investigative
                      decisions in October 2016….”


                    3. The House Republicans unsuccessfully challenging Strzok deserved his condescension. I watched much of that hearing

                    4. Absurd,
                      As you can see from some of the comments here, Strzok’s behavior and his performance in that Congressional testimony can be explained away as though these are the kind of people they like to see at the top levels of the FBI.
                      Or at least it can be condoned as long as the target that Strzok said he’d “stop”, or take out “insurance” against in the unlikely event that he won, is a candidate they don’t like.
                      If someone does not understand why you don’t want to see that kind of behavior, those kind of people, leading the FBI, I won’t waste a lot of time trying to explain it to him.

                    1. The 3rd paragraph of the Chicago Tribune article that I linked is especially relevant. Horowitz did not clear Strzok of unprofessional behavior; since he could not conclusively prove that Strzok’s strong political bias was the driving factor in his decisions, he stopped short of making that accusation.
                      If, for example, Rosenstein had appointed Rudy Guiliani as Special Counsel, and Guiliani completely cleared Trump and everyone involved in his campaign of any wrongdoing, it might be impossible to conclusively demonstrate that Guiliani’s political bias affected his investigation and it’s conclusions.
                      That does not mean that one can excuse/ sweep under the carpet having a person like Guiliani in charge of the Russiagate investigation.
                      If people are satisfied having people like Strzok in the role(s) of top leadership at the FBI, especially after watching Strzok testify, I think they’re willing to overlook the dangers of a politicized FBI.

                    2. Forunately, we not only have the statements of Horowitz’s finding that there is no evidence Strzok’s political opinions affected his work – and actually mentioned his increasing the intensity of the Clinton email investigation at one point – but we also have the proof that the only candidate injured by the FBI investigations into both campaigns was Hillary, the supposed – by the Trump cultists here – benefactor of a “politicized” FBI.

  13. Collusion always implies quid pro quo in the form of money,goods,policy influence,etc.
    Listening to foreign intelligence that was not paid for in money,goods,policy influence is different from collusion and is something every nation does,e.g.,recent report of Mossad tipping off UK about the large,growing stash of explosives by Hezbollah in London.
    Are you implying UK intelligence should have virtue signalled by refusing Mossad’s offer of intelligence ?

    1. Kurtz, on any given day there are ‘hundreds’ of important stories that don’t get the coverage they deserve. That’s not a conspiracy. It simply represents the limitations of media to put reporters on the ground in every newsworthy spot. What’s more, the general public is only capable of following ‘X’ number of stories on any given day. The Average Joe would be overloaded if confronted by all the topics that really matter. For that very reason, The New York Times and Washington Post are not that appealing to Average Joe’s.

        1. yes. priorities. the US media job is supposedly to inform about news. This conflict is YUUUGE news.

          that’s a decent one from the lamestream media i just found, read it, not too bad a summary

          one point of interest: China has put the lock on Wechat it says.

          Never heard of Wechat?

          Bigger than facebook.If you can count, that’s big news in itself.
          Shows how software can be used to throttle dissent.
          Lots of angles in this thing. John Q Public ill served by lack of due attention.

          1. The Defense Department could release videos of UFOs shadowing fighter jets and finally admit. And the US legacy mass media would barely notice. Oh wait; that already happened.

            Imagine all the people who are deserved apologies that were called credulous nutjobs. Well, some of them were credulous nutjobs, but as it turns out, a lot of them werent.


            UFOS: Defense Department has no clue, but yeah ,like, they’re real, whatever they are!

            Come to think of it, Tucker covered this a little. but that’s “FAUX” news so the Republicans must have conjured the UFOs up huh? I mean Harry Reid helped finance the AATIP so it must be a lie. Because, as we have heard 10^10 Times, TRUMP IS A LIAR. Back to Trump…..


      1. PH, don’t waste your time. To my surprise kurtz didn’t have the balls to correct himself when faced with irrefutable proof which refuted a similar attack he made a only few days ago. He doesn’t respect himself enough to correct his posts. Why should we respect them as worth our time?

        1. Ha ha I dont respect the NYT nor you hauling ashes for them

          My balls are none of your concern Sir/ Madam

          1. kurtz, you no longer have any balls and clearly, covering important news is not what gains your “respect” as you have repeatedly claimed, nor does it seem you possess any respect to win.

              1. UH, yeah. “Mr Kurtz”. I gave you the links including the front page designation.

                Your opinion is worth nothing since you have admitted facts have nothing to do with it, and confronted with them change not.

        1. Kurtz, the Hong Kong story has been all over mainstream media. You think you’re the only one aware of it..???

          1. all over is a matter of perspective. i have seen some coverage but it’s a huge story and receiving scanty treatment. that’s just my perspective but then again I Think the most populous nation in the world deserves more attention. what do i know

            i hear a lot about appreciating diversity and so forth, for decades now except the attention rarely ends up where it might profit us to allocate it

          2. i have to admit i am trolling you guys a little, because I know that Democrat activists tend to believe the US should just quit whining about the PRC agenda and cozy on up to them like Bill Clinton and Obama did

            Throw the older friends in Hong Kong and Taiwan under the bus, because there’s easier money to be made sucking up to the bigger kid on the block.

            So far I haven’t been disappointed, the emotional reaction from anon verified this speculative experiment on my part

            The truth is, I find a lot to admire about the Communist Party of China. I always admire strength and cunning, nationalistic fervor and brutal resolve. I just dont admire the lack of it among my own people.

            1. At this point kurtz, you’re trolling yourself and your making the same false statements after knowing they are false reflects on you and confirms the fact that your posts are not worth reading.

            1. I’ll ask what you may wonder. Why is AOC of any relevance to coverage of Hong Kong?

              Because her district includes Flushing, Queens.

              Biggest and fastest growing community of Chinese in America

              Biggest foreign born population of Chinese outside of Asia in fact



              or — my personal “conspiracy theory”—


              I have no proof of that. It’s pure conjecture on my part, of course.

              1. Kurtz, your recent comments are going off the rails. Seriously. You’re veering into Estovir territory.

                1. Ha, I cast pearls before swine, that is all.

                  But its the year of the pig so why not?

    2. kurtz you little man. you said the same thing on another thread a few days ago, were proven completely, utterly, and embarrassingly wrong and didn’t have the balls to admit it or correct yourself and actually doubled down on the opinion part of your stupid post. Why would anyone self-respecting poster GAFF what you said on this subject?

      1. Because I’m right, and the HK protests are not being sufficiently covered in light of the world’s current events.

        A secondary point is my personal conspiracy hypothesis that the American legacy mass media is unduly influenced by the sycophant attitudes the Democrat leadership have towards the CPC

        That’s just my perspective of course. I am just a nobody

        But it turns out, other people have made this point long before it occured to me

        Chinese Government Influence on the U.S. Media Landscape
        Written Testimony by Sarah Cook
        Senior Research Analyst for East Asia, Freedom House
        Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
        Hearing on China’s Information Controls, Global Media Influence, and Cyber
        Warfare Strategy
        May 4, 2017
        Reuters establishes a new round of internal vetting on stories about human rights in China
        after its English and Chinese websites are blocked.1 Radio stations in fifteen U.S. cities
        broadcast content provided by Chinese state-run media.2 Tech giant Apple removes the New
        York Times’ mobile-phone applications from its download store in China with little
        explanation.3 And several rounds of crippling cyberattacks hit the New York-based servers
        of New Tang Dynasty Television and The Epoch Times newspaper’s websites.4
        These are a small sample of incidents that have occurred over the past three years.
        Collectively, they illustrate various ways in which Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
        information controls—in terms of both censorship and propaganda—extend beyond
        mainland China’s borders and influence the media landscape in the United States.
        This testimony summarizes and supplements a 2013 study I authored of this phenomenon
        globally—The Long Shadow of Chinese Censorship,
        5 while attempting to offer updates on its
        recent evolution as it pertains to the American news media sector.
        The CCP and various Chinese government entities, have long sought to influence public
        debate and media coverage about China in the United States, particularly among Chinese
        language communities. However, over the past decade, these efforts have expanded and
        intensified. Moreover, they are increasingly targeting English-language media companies
        and news consumers alongside their Chinese-speaking counterparts. As a result, the “China
        Factor” is palpably present, be it at the internationally renowned Wall Street Journal, a cable
        TV provider in Washington DC, or a Chinese radio talk show in Los Angeles.
        Sarah Cook
        U.S.-China Economics and Security Review Commission
        May 4, 2017
        I have divided this testimony into five parts and ask that this full written testimony be
        admitted into the record:
        I. Goals of CCP media influence campaigns in the United States
        II. Propaganda and censorship tactics: two sides of the same coin
        III. Recent trends: Expansion and innovation
        IV. The impact and limits of Beijing’s influence
        V. Recommendations for U.S. government and Congressional responses
        I. Goals of CCP media influence campaigns in the United States
        Similar to CCP outreach and propaganda efforts in other parts of the world, influence
        campaigns in the United States target two primary audiences: overseas Chinese and nonChinese foreigners. In both cases, the narratives and actions encompassed by these
        initiatives reveal three primary aims6:
        1) To promote a positive view of China and benign perspective of the CCP’s authoritarian
        2) To encourage foreign investment in China and openness to Chinese investment abroad
        3) To marginalize, demonize, or entirely suppress anti-CCP voices, incisive political
        commentary, and exposés that present the Chinese government and its leaders in a
        negative light.
        For overseas Chinese, two additional goals of promoting nationalistic sentiment vis-à-vis
        China and reunification with Taiwan are evident in programming and news coverage as
        well.7 Some Chinese-language state-media content can also be quite anti-American,
        particularly in how it frames key events in U.S.-China relations.8
        Research by scholars like Anne-Marie Brady9 and James To10 provide detailed examples and
        analysis of these narratives and their application to various target audiences outside China.
        In considering the close intersection between the CCP’s overseas propaganda and censorship
        efforts, Ashley Esarey, a scholar of Chinese media, noted in his own 2011 testimony before
        this commission:
        The objective of CCP leaders is to utilize propaganda to retain high levels of popular
        support domestically and to improve the regime’s international influence. When
        propaganda messages are disconnected from actions that speak otherwise or
        challenged by rival perspectives, the effectiveness of propaganda falters and sows
        doubt among both foreigners and Chinese alike.11
        Sarah Cook
        U.S.-China Economics and Security Review Commission
        May 4, 2017
        Esarey’s observation helps make sense of why the party’s recent multi-billion dollar effort to
        expand the reach of state-run media has been coupled with increased instances of
        extraterritorial censorship. For the party’s narrative to be convincing to audiences inside
        and outside China, reporting—especially investigative reporting and critical commentary—
        about the darker sides of CCP rule at home and Chinese activities abroad must be suppressed.
        In seeking to accomplish this aim, the party’s transnational obstructions appear to prioritize
        a set of targets that one former Chinese diplomat said were internally called “the five
        poisonous groups.”12 These are Tibetans, Uighurs, practitioners of the Falun Gong spiritual
        group, Chinese democracy activists, and proponents of Taiwanese independence.13 In many
        instances, these groups and related causes have been explicitly mentioned as the focus of
        direct or self-motivated censorship, or of vilifying propaganda, highlighting the special
        importance the CCP attributes to them. The transnational activism of Tibetans and Falun
        Gong practitioners—including the latter’s efforts to build their own U.S.-based media entities
        free of CCP controls—render them even more frequent targets of restrictions. These issues
        touch on some of the most egregious and systematic abuses taking place in China today,14
        pointing to the CCP’s nervousness of regime violence being exposed.
        But the mechanisms used to marginalize discussion of these subjects are now also being
        applied to new topics deemed politically sensitive. Since 2012, the Chinese authorities have
        meted out multi-faceted reprisals and obstructions against American news outlets for
        investigative reports detailing the assets of party leaders’ relatives, critical coverage of the
        Chinese economy, or unfavorable reporting about Xi Jinping.15 Foreign correspondents’
        attempts to report on issues such as human rights lawyers’ trials, land disputes, and
        environmental pollution have also encountered interference and in some cases, physical
        attacks. These topics collectively affect the lives of tens of millions of people in China and
        may have global implications.
        II. Propaganda and censorship tactics: two sides of the same coin
        The CCP uses a variety of strategies in its efforts to achieve its goals of influencing media
        narratives in the United States in the directions described above. These typically take the
        form of propaganda tactics that actively promote Chinese government content and proBeijing media outlets or censorial ones that suppress information and obstruct media outlets
        critical of the regime.
        Propaganda efforts have taken three primary forms:
        1) Aggressive attempts to expand state-run media outlets’ reach and influence inside
        the United States. These efforts have included high-profile initiatives like Xinhua news
        Sarah Cook
        U.S.-China Economics and Security Review Commission
        May 4, 2017
        agency’s advertisement in Time Square,16 the appearance of China Daily newspaper
        boxes on streets in major U.S. cities, and the launch of China Central Television (CCTV)
        America—recently rebranded as China Global Television Network (CGTN) America.17 In
        the Chinese-language media sphere, this effort has been going on for over 20 years,
        resulting in CCTV being accessible to over 90 million households in the United States18
        and a series of free pro-Beijing newspapers displacing the earlier dominance of Taiwan
        and Hong Kong-affiliated papers.19
        2) Insinuating state-media content into mainstream media or other existing
        dissemination channels. Chinese officials and state-media reports have referred to this
        strategy as “borrowing the boat to reach the sea” (借船出海).
        20 This phrase refers to
        disseminating Chinese state-media content via the pages, frequencies, or screen-time of
        privately owned media outlets that have developed their own local audiences. This
        strategy has a long history of use in the Chinese-language environment, such as via the
        provision of Xinhua newswire content for free.21 In recent years, its robust expansion to
        English-language media has garnered much attention and public debate. One of the most
        prominent examples has been the emergence of China Watch—a paid insert sponsored
        by the state-run China Daily—that has appeared both in print and online in prominent
        U.S. papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. In
        November 2015, a Reuters investigation revealed that programming from the statefunded China Radio International (CRI) was appearing on stations in 15 U.S. cities,
        including Washington DC, via intermediaries of a privately owned media group.22
        3) Co-opting or partnering with privately owned media to produce and publish
        content that serves Beijing’s aims: Not all pro-CCP propaganda appearing in U.S. media
        necessarily originates from writers and editors at Chinese-state run media outlets.
        Rather, Chinese diplomats and other officials have gone to great lengths to develop
        “friendly” relations with private media owners and reporters, encouraging them to
        produce their own content that promotes key narratives favored by Beijing. Outlets and
        diaspora media owners whose reporting portrays Beijing positively are frequently
        rewarded with advertising, lucrative contracts for non-media enterprises, joint ventures,
        and even political appointments. In several instances, Chinese state-media have also
        purchased small financial stakes in overseas media to solidify such a relationship.
        Examples of these dynamics are evident in two media entities whose content is
        disseminated in many parts of the United States. First, the above-mentioned Reuters
        investigation revealed that only part of the content aired on radio stations owned or
        leased by CRI’s U.S.-based partner G&E Studio originates from CRI. Other segments are
        produced by G&E Studio itself in California.
        23 Nevertheless, their messaging matches that
        of Chinese state propaganda. A second example is that of Phoenix TV, the second most
        Sarah Cook
        U.S.-China Economics and Security Review Commission
        May 4, 2017
        widely available Chinese-language television station on cable in the United States.24
        Owned by a former military officer with close ties to Beijing officials, Phoenix TV’s
        coverage is typically favorable to the CCP.25 Moreover, over the past two years, it has been
        used as an outlet for airing televised confessions by various detained CCP critics, most
        notably all five Hong Kong booksellers abducted by Chinese security forces in late 2015.26
        Such coverage is perhaps not coincidental, considering that CCTV reportedly holds a 10
        percent stake in Phoenix.27
        Censorship and other attempts to suppress the spread of information deemed undesirable
        by the regime have taken a variety of other, often more subtle forms. The above-mentioned
        2013 study described these dynamics in detail, finding that they manifest in four key ways
        both in the United States and other parts of the world…………….


    Professor Turley provides a link of Sean Hannity reacting to the ABC interview. In said clip Hannity refers to the “Democrats and their friends in the media mob”. Hannity then portrays the ABC piece as totally hostile to Trump before launching into a “What about Hillary?” rant.

    In watching the Hannity clip, one is struck by the bubble mentality. There is clearly an ‘us against them’ point of view. Hannity most strongly implies that mainstream media coordinates with Democrats to diminish Trump’s stature. The “What about Hillary?” rant that follows sounds like routine comments from this blog.

    One has to wonder if Fox and its viewers can ever get beyond, “What about Hillary?”. That rant seems to be a crutch that Trumpers are helpless without. Which may indicate why polls show Trump tailing every Democrat; ‘he can’t stand on his own two feet’.

    1. As long as we have the thoughts of the left-wing media bubble presented here by HHHNN, I think we’re safe from being indoctrinated by “the right- wing media bubble”.,😉😄😂🤣
      St. Peter of Hill continues to protect us from that hazard.

      1. CNN would give Don Lemon’s right ovary for the ratings any of Fox News shows has.

    2. The problem for Peter is Hannity is seldom wrong about the facts. He can’t be wrong because the left stream hit pieces attack him when he makes a mistake. When he does make an error it is honest and he states it was an error. Some of his facts that were devastating to the left caused the left to smear him daily but on those big items he proved correct and no peep from the left that he was right and they were wrong.

      You don’t like his opinion and that is fair but his facts are pretty accurate, much moreso than the MSM. Hillary’s name comes up because one needs a reference point. Hillary actually comitted crimes compared to Trump who most insulted people that committed crimes.

      The lies from the left is what the left has to get over. When they do one won’t hear much about ‘what about Hillary’. By then she will be an outcast or in jail.

        1. I posted the link to the Mother Jones article where I could find a place to reply .Hollywood Hill said “show us” that MJ published what they published.
          In my experience, he’ll simply ignore whatever is presented to him, even when he requests the information. So I’m not listing this for the benefits if that lying propagantist. If anyone else is interested, this link, the contemporaneous statement from Deputy Assistant Sec. of State Katherine Kavalec ( I just posted that link), and numerous links and citations that I’ve previously posted in other threads make it hard to miss the fact that Steele and “”Steele’s client” definitely wanted the media to cover the allegations from the Steele Russian Dossier.

          1. Yes, Tom, and both the media and the Deep State failed their roles in the conspiracy alleged by you and fellow cultists by hiding the information. It’s that simple. 2+2=4 Get it?

            1. Demonstrating that JanF/ anon1 can add 2+2 is indeed impressive, but it does not advance her case.
              There are probably at least a half dozen comments where she mouths off about the Deep State, then falsely alleges that I’m the one promoting the Deep State argument..
              This has become a stock argument that we hear from JanF/now anon1, and it is as stupid as it is routine.

  15. Here’s some information on Stephanie Stephanopolous but …….

    ….. and in other non news.

    1. Can’t refute thus rebuke, Michele, you are getting old and not carrying it well.

  16. Don’t media types receive all types of information from foreign sources all the time? Isn’t it ok for them to do so and report on it, whether it is negative or not, so long as it is factual?

Comments are closed.