20 MONTHS LATER, TOP 10 'DOSSIER' CLAIMS UNVERIFIED
'Salacious' document remains foundation for anti-Trump Dems
20 MONTHS LATER, TOP 10 'DOSSIER' CLAIMS UNVERIFIED
'Salacious' document remains foundation for anti-Trump Dems
A lot is starting to make sense as info coming forward and dots are connected.
Sidney Blumenthal: Clinton's attack dog
A name long associated with the Clinton machine has surfaced as a behind-the-scenes figure in the Trump-Russia collusion story, prompting some to speculate that the investigation began at least partly as a dirty tricks operation.
Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton loyalist from the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency up through Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns, was identified by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., as a source of anti-Trump information passed to the FBI through the State Department. The information is believed to have played a role in the FBI’s launching of the collusion probe that is now in the hands of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Blumenthal has long been known as an attack dog for the Clintons, so ferocious a defender that he earned the nickname “Sid Vicious.” As Dick Morris, former adviser to the Clintons (although he has since become a critic) puts it, “If [Bill Clinton] is caught shoplifting for the tenth time, Hillary would have Sidney blame the store’s cameras.”
Instead, Blumenthal went to work at the Clinton Foundation, and kept in touch with Hillary. He sent her policy advice, including a reported 25 emails about Libya in 2011 and 2012. A few years later, Republicans on the Benghazi committee asked Hillary about the Blumenthal connection. In a leaked email, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign boss, believed Blumenthal to be “lost in his own web of conspiracies.”
Around this time, Hillary defended her connection with Blumenthal, stating “I’m going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are….He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and that’s just part of the give-and-take.”
And now it appears Blumenthal was likely there, behind the scenes, helping to spread information tying the Trump campaign to Russia. It would appear to fit his MO—as Dick Morris claims, “Sidney Blumenthal is Hillary’s go-to guy for off-the-shelf dirty ops.”
The question now is will the Russia story continue to bedevil Trump, or will it be turned around on his accusers?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...stigation.html
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
It's the beginning of the case unfolding before our eyes. Have you ever been in real court? Have you ever been a witness or a defendant?
Then you understand what's starting to come out and be played. It's kind of like playing Bridge and the good guys are about to run the table.
Now comes the real news and scandal for which the lying socialist/libs/Dems will get nailed to the wall (maybe on our southern border ).
FISA court judge ups pressure on DOJ to disclose spy warrant records
DOCUMENTS IN DEMAND
FISA court judge ups pressure on DOJ to disclose spy warrant records
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sproven-muell/ Was this what Mueller intended to do? If so, this means the investigation is over, since it was started by the dossier.
True, but that is a little like giving Trump the right of first refusal for any documents released as a result of the Russian investigation. If I am accusing the DOJ/FBI of impropriety (or Trump in the Russia example), I won't let them block the release of damning information just because it will make them look bad. What they did do is allow them to suggest edits. The part that looks bad for the Democrats and FBI/DOJ is the fact that they said the memo would compromise national security which is clearly not the case.
For the counter memo, the Democrats have a reason to defend the DOJ/FBI in this case because they were acting under a democratic president and his appointed department heads when the alleged impropriety occurred. In this case the conflict of interests is lessened, and the DOJ/FBI can hopefully be trusted to protect national security while releasing a memo that supports their position.
If the republicans can release a memo without affecting national security, but know that the democrats cannot refute the claims without compromising national security then this was some pretty brilliant manipulation on the republicans part. If you are intellectually honest though you have to understand why you can't give the organization you are accusing of improper action full control of whether the accusations are made at all.