The Right Side of the News

The truth about the Steele Dossier: Experts compare the infamous memo with Mueller’s findings

quote:

---

A former U.S. attorney and a Harvard Law student teamed up to revisit the Steele dossier by cross-referencing it with special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings and unveiled which parts of it hold water.

​

Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg and Harvard Law student Sarah Grant wrote for Lawfare that many of the findings made public as part of Mueller’s probe confirm both specifically and thematically aspects of the dossier.

​

The dossier holds up well over time, the scholars wrote, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

---

When first begun it wasn't thought that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election would lead to the Trump campaign, but it did. We've now learned that at least 16 people connected to the Trump campaign had contact with Russia. There was a meeting of top Trump campaign officials with Russian representatives in Trump Tower. With Michael Cohen's help Trump paid woman for silence just before the election. Donald Jr. tried to set up backchannel communications with Russia that would be secret from the rest of government. Trump refused to divest himself of his businesses and is now being charged with violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. And now his inaugural committee is under investigation.By the way, about "searching and searching and searching to find something, anything, they can hold over him," this sounds more like Republican efforts to find evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton regarding Benghazi, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton emails. It's been years and they've still found nothing. In a last ditch attempt to find, in your words, "something, anything," the House Oversight Committee just held a hearing Thursday in which they once again found...nothing. I don't recall any calls for impeachment so early on, but a recent article (Does Trump’s Involvement in the Cohen Payments Constitute an Impeachable Offense?) addresses the question Caffeine has been asking:

quote:

---

This account of the president’s actions is one that he allegedly went to great lengths to hide in order to protect against serious, perhaps lethal, damage to his 2016 campaign. If the conduct described in the memo was carried out in violation of the campaign finance laws with the requisite state of mind, it could be criminal. But is it impeachable?

---

Their answer appears to be "probably." Attempts to '"disguise or conceal financial activity" regulated by campaign finance laws are not going to be viewed kindly by prosecutors or by the Democratic House. The actions took place before Trump was actually president, but he lied continually about the payoffs, and as George Mason noted during the Constitutional Convention a few years back, a president "who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance" might be open to impeachment. The House has a lot to take into account including more than just matters of fact before deciding whether or not to impeach, but at this point it does seem more likely than not that Trump committed impeachable offenses. And we don't yet even know what will be in the Mueller report. What in the dossier has been shown untrue? Anything? What is actually true is that some things is the dossier have been substantiated and some have not. None have been shown untrue. The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was begun in 2016 by James Comey (a Republican).
After his firing Rod Rosenstein (a Republican) appointed Robert Mueller (a Republican) to continue the investigation as Special Counsel. You're making the mistake of thinking the Russia probe is an investigation into Trump. It is not. It is an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election that should, if properly conducted, follow the evidence wherever it leads. It shouldn't matter whether the evidence leads to Republicans (5 so far) or Democrats (none so far) or Russians (about 25 so far), following the evidence is what the investigation is all about. Mueller has yet to issue his report, so you are correct that the public is not yet aware of any substantiated evidence for Trump campaign collusion with Russia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just don't yet know whether there's any or not. Cohen didn't advise Trump to pay off the women. He was directed by Trump to pay off the women. This has been publicly confirmed by the testimony of Pecker, and by the tape where Trump and Cohen discuss purchasing Karen McDougal's story rights from AMI. How is the left misusing the law? Mueller is a Republican, and he leads the investigation. How is the left getting Mueller to do their bidding?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Arguing with fact's a bitch. I never called you a liar. I used the Washington Post rating system to classify your statements as true or untrue. Your claim is false so I'll have to give it four Pinocchios. Holding people accountable for their crimes, including the president, is not normally deemed being "out to get them." Of course people can be coerced by the legal system. In other threads I have commented about this, complaining that we are often too much a system of laws rather than of justice.But people such as yourself can be tricked into believing things that are untrue because you don't often try to connect your beliefs to facts. I will believe the allegations against Trump that are supported by evidence. Collusion with Russia is far more true of Obama and the Clintons than of Trump? Paying off women for silence? Failing to divest businesses? Failing to disclose tax returns?Obama's campaign was fined $375,000 for campaign violations, a near record fine. Do you remember what the violations were? They missed a number of 48-hour notices on some 1300 campaign contributions, had some reports with erroneous contribution dates, and were late returning some contributions that exceeded legal limits. This isn't even close to hiding the monies used to pay off women for silence in offshore accounts while failing to report any campaign contributions. What do you see them as getting a pass on? I admit to not noticing events that seem to exist only in your imagination. You're referring to Obama deporting more illegal immigrants than Trump. But the actual concern is Trump's punitive treatment of immigrants, both illegal and those simply seeking asylum, such as family separation. By your own admission Trump is a poor excuse of a human being, but the true facts are that we do care deeply about this country, and it distresses us a great deal to see Trump flouting the rule of law and tearing down American institutions. On those rare occasions when you attempt to state facts you are invariably wrong. The rest of the time you're just casting unsupported accusations against everyone you disagree with.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Mueller's "findings" ???? WHAT findings???? This is insane. There are NO findings about Trump whatever. WHat on EARTH are they talking about? This is evil stupid innuendo that ought to be prosecuted and the writers thrown in prison. All just part of the campaign to insinuate and insinuate and insinuate to bring Trump down, facts be damned.I can hardly believe anyone still takes that evil fake dossier seriously. Oh, but of course, the Left wouldn't let anything go that smeared Trump no matter how fake. Amazing: it hasn't been "disproven." Wow. It isn't enough that it is officially "unverified," we have to believe it means something against him if it isn't proven. How disgusting can Leftists get? There really is no bottom to it.

None of it has ever connected Trump with Russia, ever, and that was supposedly the whole point of the investigation. After two years of this there is still no connection with Russia. Mueller should long ago have said he was unable to fulfill the original aim of showing Russian collusion and shut down the investigation.As for people having contacts with Russia why is it never mentioned that this is standard for any political campaign to make contact with foreign nations that would be affected by new policies, or just for whatever reason. Clinton had deals with Russia and that is completely ignored. There is nothing suspicious about such contacts except when they want to find something to pin on Trump. Which they haven't found either. And there is nothing wrong with business deals either. Especially when Trump didn't even expect to win the election and naturally wanted to keep his businesses alive. Business as usual, nothing about the campaign at all.And I'll wait and see what happens with this campaign payoff idea. Most of what I've been hearing is that it won't fly. It had nothing to do with the campaign, and even if it did there is no limit on how much the nominee himself is allowed to contribute to his own campaign.

Mueller has released lots of findings including (last week) mult testimonies about Trump committing one or more felonies. There is plenty we don't know about yet.No part of the dossier has been found to be fake. Some parts have been verified. The point of the article was that further verification is continuing. It's possible the entire thing is true.The dossier has not been a major part of the investigations. There's plenty of other evidence of crimesDo you have any relevant evidence? Your unsupported rants don't cut the mustard.

1. Payoffs, or Nondisclosure Agreements. Rush Limbaugh, yesterday I think, maybe Thursday, said over and over again that the deal Pecker of the Enquirer made to buy off Karen McDougal and kill the story was not in 2015 but August of 2014. Googling it only gets me the usual 2015 but even a few 2016s. Not that I'm surprised that Google would show only the Leftist line, that's what it does. But if Limbaugh is right that means there is no connection between the payoffs and the campaign at all since they occurred before Trump was campaigning for the election, possibly even before he was thinking of running.And all the Right are pointing out that Congress has a special fund for paying off women who accuse Congressmen of sexual misconduct or harassment or whatever. The hypocrisy is damning. They also point out the attempt to prosecute the Edwards affair which he won.2. The Wall. Brian Mudd who sat in for Mark Levin on Thursday, said there are 77 countries that have border walls, 62 of them built since 1990. As for walls working he pointed out that the Berlin Wall certainly worked, and the wall Israel built in 2004 has also worked, cutting down on the terrorist problem by 95%. It's also been pointed out by many that in 2006 THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR A WALL, including Pelosi, Obama and Hillary!!! But if Trump wants a wall, nope. Please God expose all this evil political manipulating and let us do away with it.3. Oh a new one. The little Guatamalan girl who died after getting across the border, which is being blamed on the Border Patrol, who in fact did their best to save her. She had been deprived of food and water by her parents for days before they reached the US border, and a few hours after their arrival she started having seizures and the Border Patrol helicoptered her to a hospital where she died of dehydration and sepsis. The girl was part of a group of over 150 looking to get into the US illegally, who gave themselves up to the Border Patrol. Possibly her condition was overlooked during the processing of so many people, I don't really know what happened, haven't seen the details described, but it is clear she died because of having been deprived of food and water for days before she arrived in their custody. But they did their best to save her and all you lying Leftists should be sent to Mexico yourselves, such America-haters might as well go live where they won't hate the country they are living in .Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Mueller has found plenty of evidence of wrongdoing with Russians by top employees of the campaign. None directly involving Trump. Yet. Personally. I think the Russians would let such an uncontrollable blabbermouth in on the gaff.The acts of which Trump was accused last week by mult people are felonies. Period.They have everything to do with the campaign. The payoffs were explicitly intended to avoid damaging information coming out just bef the election. They may have changed the result.Trump can give any amount to his campaign. Allegedly he directed Cohen to pay amounts far exceeding Cohen's limits, using Cohen's own money. Later reimbursement doesn't change that felony.Opinions differ on whether he can be indicted while in office. There are lots of possible outcomes. But if Trump did what he accused of he committed crimes.Yeah, right-wing news is frantically trying to spin these facts out of existence.

Of course all you've said there is wild assertions without a shred of evidence but you have the gall to demand evidence from me? WHAT "part of the dossier" has been "verified" and what does that mean anyway? WHAT "felonies" you lying Leftists?The "dossier" was the original reason for the investigation. The original reason for the investigation was allegations of collusion with Russia. There was no collusion with Russia. The stuff they've found is personal crimes by people that have nothing to do with Trump, and they aren't part of what the investigation was supposed to be about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NONE of the connections with Russia by ANYBODY amounted to "wrongdoing." That's all lying Leftistspeak.If the payoffs occurred in 2014 rather than 2015 there is no connection with the campaign whatever. But if Trump ever paid off anyone before the campaign anyway there is no connection, it's clearly a personal thing.You want to believe he committed crimes and the media feed you that line every day and you swallow it happily but there is no actual evidence for criminal activity whatever.There is nothing frantic about the Right wing answers to these lies. It's reasonable thoughtful commentary. Unlike the endless stream of slimy innuendo from the Left.

Gosh, so many lies. McDougal was paid off a few weeks before the 2016 election. AMI explicitly admitted in their plea deal that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman's story so as to prevent it from influencing the election. The Congressional fund is bad but not an excuse for felonies. In 2011, John Edwards was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly using hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds to hide Hunter during the 2008 presidential race. The following year, he was acquitted on one count of violating campaign finance rules and a federal judge declared a mistrial on five other criminal counts after the jury came back deadlocked. The Justice Department decided to not retry the case. Not particularly relevant.No country has a wall anywhere near what Trump's proposing in terrain as difficult as the Mexican border. Most illegal cross-border traffic travels via boat, tunnel, or airplane. In 2006 many democrats voted for 700 miles of fence, not a wall, along border sections where such a fence is practical and possibly effect.There's significant quest wheth the Border Patrol did their best to save Jakelin Caal Maquin. The incident should be investigated.

No I am talking about the punitive treatment, including separation of children from parents, that was SOP under OBAMA.I admit I'm not good at this sort of discussion, I find it hard to keep information in mind, and I wish there were others here who would support me. Marc9000 usually does a pretty good job but he's not always around and I don't know of anyone else. In any case the Leftist line that is pursued here is a pack of lies and needs to be confronted. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All your flat assertions are just the usual Leftistspeak, I have no reason to pay any attention to them. Sure investigate the Border Patrol incident, why not, the Left "investigates" anything at great cost to the taxpayers that might make this administration look bad without the slightest concern for the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evidence on the dossirr, read the link I posted. What felonies? Obviously your right-wing sources didn't tell YOU. Allegedly Trump instructed Cohen's and Pecker to pay the women off with their own funds for the express purpose of influencing the election which was a few weeks away. Those were illegal campaign contributions, far exceeding the limits on Cohen and AMI, and directing them would be illegal.The dossier was not the original reason for the investigation. The FBI's Russia investigation began in the summer of 2016 when investigators learned that a Trump campaign foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been importuned by Russian intelligence operatives in London. They offered him "dirt" on Hillary Clinton and "off-the-record" meetings with Russian officials.Indictments, guilty pleas, and prison sentences testify to collusion. Not on Trump part. Yet.

Certainly true of the Clintons, yes. Uranium deal while Bill was getting hundreds of thousands for a talk there.Hillary should ahve been prosecuted for her email fraud but got a pass on that we can be sure Trump would never get. Poor Ivanka who did nothing remotely like what Hillary did they've tried to smear with that crime. No you aren't following evidence, but I'll give you that you think you are. You are following Leftist insinuations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.