• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The second Steele memo

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
Yes. Are you attempting to make the argument that when conducting opposition research, those researchers aren't allowed to ask people from other countries questions? If not, it's very unclear what your point is.
Click to expand...
I'm attempting to understand the legal difference between hiring an intermediary to conduct opposition research that uses hostile government sources vs. just doing it yourself.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I'm attempting to understand the legal difference between hiring an intermediary to conduct opposition research that uses hostile government sources vs. just doing it yourself.
Click to expand...

You keep saying 'hostile government sources' but this makes no sense. There's no indication that any of the sources in Steele's dossier were from hostile foreign governments. It's very confusing that you keep repeating this after being corrected so many times. Is there some sort of failure of communication here?

As for why it is legal for a campaign to pay someone to conduct opposition research but illegal for a campaign to accept donations from hostile foreign powers that were obtained through criminal activity, it's because... duh? It's the same reason why it's legal for a campaign to rent hotel rooms but illegal for hotels to give a candidate permanent free nights wherever they go. Also, since this 'donation' was obtained through a criminal act, accepting information you know was obtained illegally puts you in all sorts of other legal hot water.
 
fskimospy said:
You keep saying 'hostile government sources' but this makes no sense. There's no indication that any of the sources in Steele's dossier were from hostile foreign governments. It's very confusing that you keep repeating this after being corrected so many times. Is there some sort of failure of communication here?
Click to expand...
Russian intelligence is not considered a hostile foreign government? Let's say Trump did talk to a Russian lawyer about getting dirt on Clinton. How is this different from Clinton paying people to collect dirt on Trump...dirt that came from the Russian government?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Russian intelligence is not considered a hostile foreign government? Let's say Trump did talk to a Russian lawyer about getting dirt on Clinton. How is this different from Clinton paying people to collect dirt on Trump...dirt that came from the Russian government?
Click to expand...
Again, do you not know the difference between getting information from someone who works for the Russian government vs. getting information sanctioned by the Russian government?
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Russian intelligence is not considered a hostile foreign government? Let's say Trump did talk to a Russian lawyer about getting dirt on Clinton. How is this different from Clinton paying people to collect dirt on Trump...dirt that came from the Russian government?
Click to expand...

Do you consider information that came from Edward Snowden to be the same as information that came from Trump himself? Or, alternatively, would you consider information that comes from Trump to represent the US government and information that came from Snowden to represent Snowden? (this is the sane choice).

As far as the difference between the two, it appears highly likely the lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was representing the interests of the Russian government. She (and Russian actors at other points) were offering Trump criminally obtained materials for free. That is both an illegal campaign donation from a foreign source and willfully receiving stolen property.

The easiest way to think about this is in two separate parts:

1) first is the likely campaign finance violations by the Trump campaign in accepting in-kind donations of opposition research. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, followed the rules by paying fair market price for it as the law requires.
2) It appears the Trump campaign abetted criminal activity by the Russian government, something the Clinton campaign also did not do.

Are you less confused now?
 
fskimospy said:
Can you provide links to back up your claims that Putin was a knowing source for Steele's work either directly or indirectly?
Click to expand...

You going to deny it was "Russian government sources", per the OP's link? Or do we only name Putin when it's Russia and Trump? Just like we'd say Clinton when it was her surrogate Sidney Blumenthal. We're cutting to the chase when we name those at the top.

Correction:
Ah, I see the OP's article carefully choose to omit the phrase "Russian government", never putting the words together. Does that bother you, do you question it? I know you've read proper sources on this before, they would have mentioned it. Hell, I even cited them before today. Here's another source from before. Before the media realized using Russia to interfere with our election was an issue worth obfuscating.

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.​
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
You going to deny it was "Russian government sources", per the OP's link? Or do we only name Putin when it's Russia and Trump? Just like we'd say Clinton when it was her surrogate Sidney Blumenthal. We're cutting to the chase when we name those at the top.
Click to expand...

Stop being dishonest. Its one thing to say the source is Putin or given at the direction of Putin which is what you appear to claim and something completely different to be talking to people in the Russian government who are not acting on the government's behalf but relating information they are aware of.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I'm attempting to understand the legal difference between hiring an intermediary to conduct opposition research that uses hostile government sources vs. just doing it yourself.
Click to expand...

It's an issue of expertise, like hiring a dentist.

Oppo research extended into the international realm some while back, particularly when the subject has a vast foreign enterprise going. Steele's work wasn't about Russian interference or even active involvement in the beginning, I suspect, but about Trump's business practices & funding sources. As it unfolded, Steele just went where the information led him.

Returning to the topic at hand, Trump's choice for SoS, it seems perfectly obvious that Tillerson was the best choice for Russia. He's crippled the department by under staffing & morale destruction while apparently just wanting to go back to business as usual despite Russian aggression in Ukraine. Mitt probably would have done things differently.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Using Steele as an intermediary to obtain opposition research from Russians is considered acceptable...while going directly to the Russians for opposition research is not?
Click to expand...

You're moving along nicely Doc Savage Fan

#1 – DISAVOWAL.
“It’s a total lie, never happened, fake news!”

#2 – DISMISSAL.
“So what if it happened? It’s not a big deal! A Nothing Burger!”

#3 – BARGAINING.
“Okay, it might be a big deal, but it isn’t illegal! So who cares.”

#4 – DEFLECTION.
“Okay, it’s illegal, but Crooked Hillary and Obummer did ‘whatever, whatever,’ so it doesn’t matter.”

#5 – MATURE ACCEPTANCE.
“Get over it, libtard, you’re just a sore loser!”


 
Jaskalas said:
You going to deny it was "Russian government sources", per the OP's link? Or do we only name Putin when it's Russia and Trump? Just like we'd say Clinton when it was her surrogate Sidney Blumenthal. We're cutting to the chase when we name those at the top.
Click to expand...

Again, I continue to struggle as to why Steele's dossier using Russian government sources is a problem. It would be very troubling if he DIDN'T use those sources. The distinction that matters is whether those sources were acting on BEHALF of the Russian government (ie: Trump) or AGAINST the Russian government (ie: Steele).
 
Jaskalas said:
You going to deny it was "Russian government sources", per the OP's link? Or do we only name Putin when it's Russia and Trump? Just like we'd say Clinton when it was her surrogate Sidney Blumenthal. We're cutting to the chase when we name those at the top.
Click to expand...

Sources within the Russian govt & the Russian govt aren't the same thing. That's the same in any country.

How the Hell you managed to introduce Hillary into the conversation is beyond omprehension unless it's just to work up your own level of irrationality. The events described in this new memo took place after she lost, remember? The notion that she had anything to do with it is conspiracy theory of the circular mindfuck variety.
 
emperus said:
You're moving along nicely Doc Savage Fan

#1 – DISAVOWAL.
“It’s a total lie, never happened, fake news!”

#2 – DISMISSAL.
“So what if it happened? It’s not a big deal! A Nothing Burger!”

#3 – BARGAINING.
“Okay, it might be a big deal, but it isn’t illegal! So who cares.”

#4 – DEFLECTION.
“Okay, it’s illegal, but Crooked Hillary and Obummer did ‘whatever, whatever,’ so it doesn’t matter.”

#5 – MATURE ACCEPTANCE.
“Get over it, libtard, you’re just a sore loser!”

Click to expand...
I was just being curious. It's now clear to me that it's not worth my time or effort. I probably should have posted in the Discussion Club forum.
 
Jaskalas said:
Steele's sources are Putin and Clinton. And you gleefully use them to assault the USA / a political opponent.
Click to expand...

Trump's sources were Putin and Julian Assange and he gleefully used them to destroy America and now you want to cry foul.
 
feralkid said:
"Do as I say, or I will nuke Mar-a-Lago".

_100239698_floridatarget.jpg
Click to expand...


Lmao right at Mar-A-Largo. Putin is the ultimate troll.
 
FIVR said:
Lmao right at Mar-A-Largo. Putin is the ultimate troll.
Click to expand...

I know it is "CGI" .. and a reused one at that but it still just bothers me... first off unless those tips are very very heavy is a cone shape going to behave like that aerodynamically speaking? I would rather expect them to be in reverse and secondly, proximity, those warheads sure is close to one another.. who makes these animations? Putin looks like a fool.
 
dank69 said:
Well for starters, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the Russian government to sanction information that makes the Russian government look bad.
Click to expand...
actually it'd be kinda brilliant.

step 1: sow discontent by fanning flames on all sides, and by feeding a nut running for president.
step 2: leave enough of a paper trail that someone looking diligently would find that you were feeding a nut. rely on dunning-kreuger effect that lots of people will bury their heads that "their guy" was getting assistance from you.
step 3: ???
step 4: constitutional crisis.
 
cytg111 said:
I know it is "CGI" .. and a reused one at that but it still just bothers me... first off unless those tips are very very heavy is a cone shape going to behave like that aerodynamically speaking? I would rather expect them to be in reverse and secondly, proximity, those warheads sure is close to one another.. who makes these animations? Putin looks like a fool.
Click to expand...

Cones (actually ogives) are the normal aerodynamic shape for a reentry vehicle. However, a missile like this will have what is called a MARV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) which will have either vectored thrusters or aerodynamic fins or a combination of both.


Those animations are probably purchased from some bargain-bin CGI studio in india lol. I wouldn't put much stock into them actually representing the final product. Russians suck at that sort of creative CGI stuff and they are poor.
 
fskimospy said:
As far as the difference between the two, it appears highly likely the lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was representing the interests of the Russian government. She (and Russian actors at other points) were offering Trump criminally obtained materials for free. That is both an illegal campaign donation from a foreign source and willfully receiving stolen property.
Click to expand...

Point of clarification on this. "Highly likely" perhaps understates the case. The e-mail chain prior to the meeting stated that the dirt they had on Clinton was from the Russian government, and that said government was attempting to help Trump win the election. If that wasn't enough, another e-mail in the chain describes her as a "Russian government lawyer."

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top