Obama Campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Quote

 - A new book claims former President Barack Obama hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Romney

 - Obama used law firm Perkins Coie to hide payment to Fusion GPS

 - The Clinton campaign would later do the same thing to investigate Trump

The Barack Obama presidential campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012 to dig up dirt on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, according to a book released on Tuesday.

The Obama campaign hid its payments to Fusion GPS through its law firm, Perkins Coie. The arrangement is similar to the one that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee used to pay Fusion for its investigation of then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

That contract led to the creation of the infamous Steele dossier, which was written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

“In 2012, Fusion GPS was hired to do opposition research on Mitt Romney for Barack Obama’s reelection campaign,” reads “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and Donald Trump’s Election.”

The book is written by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, two veteran reporters who met during the 2016 campaign with Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.

read all of the article at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/13/fusion-gps-romney-investigation/

[TexasTiger 12,829]

12 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

read all of the article at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/13/fusion-gps-romney-investigation/

Way to keep your eye off the ball. ?

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Way to keep your eye off the ball. ?

Way to articulate a point. 

Have the investigation(s) found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia yet?......  Please do tell....

[TexasTiger 12,829]

1 hour ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Way to articulate a point. 

Have the investigation(s) found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia yet?......  Please do tell....

I don’t have that level of clearance nor am I on the investigative team. Mueller ain’t said a word, unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone. But collusion is largely the media’s term. Is there conspiracy? Is there obstruction? Is there money laundering? Is there abuse of power? My bet is there is a combination of those things. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t have that level of clearance nor am I on the investigative team. Mueller ain’t said a word, unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone. But collusion is largely the media’s term. Is there conspiracy? Is there obstruction? Is there money laundering? Is there abuse of power? My bet is there is a combination of those things. 

Ken Starr? uh oh there's a "whataboutism." Sic him Titan

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t have that level of clearance nor am I on the investigative team. Mueller ain’t said a word, unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone. But collusion is largely the media’s term. Is there conspiracy? Is there obstruction? Is there money laundering? Is there abuse of power? My bet is there is a combination of those things. 

I'm sure your bet is based on legal reasoning as well, isn't it? I mean, since you want to get technical...

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Ken Starr? uh oh there's a "whataboutism." Sic him Titan

let him have it!! I want to see paragraphs dangit!!!!

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Ken Starr? uh oh there's a "whataboutism." Sic him Titan

One of these days, it'll sink in to you what 'Whataboutism' actually is.  Hint:  this wasn't it.

 

Quote

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,^[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.^[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.^[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Tex wasn't saying "what about Ken Starr?!?"  He simply was saying the Mueller hasn't dropped any leaks as to what he's found or where the case is heading. The Starr mention was just an aside, not an attempt to deflect.

Why is this so hard for you?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

One of these days, it'll sink in to you what 'Whataboutism' actually is.  Hint:  this wasn't it.

 

Tex wasn't saying "what about Ken Starr?!?"  He simply was saying the Mueller hasn't dropped any leaks as to what he's found or where the case is heading. The Starr mention was just an aside, not an attempt to deflect.

Why is this so hard for you?

It's hard because IMHO you aren't consistent. When I refer back to Obama or Clinton you call it "whataboutism

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

It's hard because IMHO you aren't consistent. When I refer back to Obama or Clinton you call it "whataboutism

No, it's hard because you still don't understand what the term means.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it's hard because you still don't understand what the term means.  

I understand what it means. I don't understand your application of it. But so be it nothing is going to change. Besides I was just doing a friendly jab at Tex which YOU don't get. Not arguing further. Good night.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I understand what it means. I don't understand your application of it. 

Because you don't understand what it means.  If you understood it, you'd get why Tex's mention of Starr isn't anywhere near fitting the definition.  

It's not like someone criticized Mueller and Tex tried to deflect and defend him by saying, "But that Ken Starr a-hole...!"  THAT would be whataboutism.  Simply mentioning that Starr loved the spotlight when making a comment on the fact that he doesn't know any of the details because Mueller isn't talking isn't Whataboutism.

My application of it is perfectly in line with what it is.  And what it isn't.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I'm sure your bet is based on legal reasoning as well, isn't it? I mean, since you want to get technical...

Yes, there is enough in the public domain to make some educated conclusions about possible illegalities.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yes, there is enough in the public domain to make some educated conclusions about possible illegalities.

Please enlighten me. If possible, cite the penal code statutes as well.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because you don't understand what it means.  If you understood it, you'd get why Tex's mention of Starr isn't anywhere near fitting the definition.  

It's not like someone criticized Mueller and Tex tried to deflect and defend him by saying, "But that Ken Starr a-hole...!"  THAT would be whataboutism.  Simply mentioning that Starr loved the spotlight when making a comment on the fact that he doesn't know any of the details because Mueller isn't talking isn't Whataboutism.

My application of it is perfectly in line with what it is.  And what it isn't.

 

 

Nah. You’re bluffing and showing favoritism. That’s all this is. Whenever comparisons, which this is, are made about Clinton or Obama, you go off. Quit trying play it off man. And it’s time you get called out on it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nah. You’re bluffing and showing favoritism. That’s all this is. Whenever comparisons, which this is, are made about Clinton or Obama, you go off. Quit trying play it off man. And it’s time you get called out on it.

Another ignoramus on the subject.

It's not merely comparisons.  It's using comparisons to deflect or mitigate the wrong actions of another.  Had you bothered to read what whataboutism actually is (or managed to comprehend it) you'd get it.  Instead you just whine and bitch about favoritism.

I can take getting called out on something legit.  But if you're going to just try to call me out on bull**** because you can't be bothered to understand terminology, you can just go talk football and be relieved of the anxiety this forum apparently causes you.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Please enlighten me. If possible, cite the penal code statutes as well.

Note my post about learning to tailor my arguments. I limit the time I waste trying to convince folks of things they really don’t want to believe. I suspect if and when a highly respected prosecutor releases his findings you will reject exactly what you’re asking me to produce. I’ll wait for professionals. I’m not screaming “impeachment!” Yet.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Heck yeah he’s inconsistent. But oh don’t you remember? He’s the ultimate arbiter of truth. We are mere inferiors.

Another example of why I tend to tailor my arguments to my audience. Even if you’re capable of getting it, you simply don’t want to. This one should be easy but you and Proud have become so tribalistic picking sides trumps logic and reasoning.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Another ignoramus on the subject.

It's not merely comparisons.  It's using comparisons to deflect or mitigate the wrong actions of another.  Had you bothered to read what whataboutism actually is (or managed to comprehend it) you'd get it.  Instead you just whine and bitch about favoritism.

I can take getting called out on something legit.  But if you're going to just try to call me out on bull**** because you can't be bothered to understand terminology, you can just go talk football and be relieved of the anxiety this forum apparently causes you.

Its shocking how a person loses it so abruptly over mere words. Why can’t you be reasonable, and give thought to what others are saying, contemplate, and resist going into full combat mode?I’m not whining and bitching. You use the term much more loosely with some than others (at least that’s how some of us see it). And I stand by that statement. 

And then you start doing this. I don’t get it. Like it’s not even worth trying to share a point of view that differes from yours on this matter. I’m not going to go back and forth. If you feel the need to block me, then that’s unfortunate. Just wish you’d at least try to see it from another’s point of view instead of going default-combat mode.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Note my post about learning to tailor my arguments. I limit the time I waste trying to convince folks of things they really don’t want to believe. I suspect if and when a highly respected prosecutor releases his findings you will reject exactly what you’re asking me to produce. I’ll wait for professionals. I’m not screaming “impeachment!” Yet.

I’m asking for the legal basis of your contention. I mean, I assume you know the elements of each crime in that you’d conclude he’s guilty of some of them. Right?

Also, a prosecutor can not ethically “release his findings.” Now, after trial, sure. But you need to qualify the phrase before blindly injecting it. It also runs afoul the rules of evidence.

This is an offer to get as intellectual as you want. See if I can keep up. ready set go

[TitanTiger 20,472]

@NolaAuTiger and @Proud Tiger,

I'm going to try to explain this one more time.  Because whataboutism isn't a term I just made up to gig you about.  It is a term that has been around for a while and I am operating within that well-known definition.

 

Let's take Tex's example again for illustration purposes:

Let's say that someone was bashing Mueller's handling of this investigation - saying he's botched it, that he's ethically compromised or biased, that he's bought and paid for by the Trump opposition, or criticizing specific actions Mueller has taken.  Then Tex strides in and doesn't address any of the points the person made, but simply retorts with "At least he's not Ken Starr who never saw a TV camera or microphone he wasn't in love with.  Never saw you complain about Starr's handling of Clinton."  He's not actually addressing any of the points made about Mueller, he's just using Ken Starr as a prop to avoid the argument and charge the other side with hypocrisy.  This would be whataboutism and if I saw it I would call him or anyone else out for it.

 

Now let's look at what Tex actually did:

First, no one was critiquing Mueller.  Tex wasn't responding to some attack on him.  Tex was responding that neither he nor anyone else knows a lot of details about this current case because Mueller isn't talking.  There aren't any (or there are precious few) leaks to the press.  Then he tosses in as an aside, "unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone."  There's no attempt to charge anyone here with hypocrisy.  He's not deflecting or avoiding any arguments about Mueller.  It was a casual side remark that had zero bearing on what was being discussed.  This is not whataboutism and thus I wouldn't have called out PT, you or anyone else for something similar.

 

If you can't understand the difference after this explanation, then there's no hope.  But I will continue to moderate this forum on this issue based on the actual definition of whataboutism and not the version that you two have in your heads.  If that is going to be a source of unbearable angst for you, I'm sorry.  I'm not changing to your custom definition just to make you feel better.  And if you complain about it because you refuse to comprehend this important distinction, it will be deleted on sight.  If you persist, then you may find yourself no longer discussing politics here.  I don't mind moderating but I'm not going to babysit.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Nola and PT,

I'm going to try to explain this one more time.  Because whataboutism isn't a term I just made up to gig you about.

 

Let's take Tex's example again for illustration purposes:

Let's say that someone was bashing Mueller's handling of this investigation - saying he's botched it, that he's ethically compromised or biased, that he's bought and paid for by the Trump opposition, or criticizing specific actions Mueller has taken.  Then Tex strides in and doesn't address any of the points the person made, but simply retorts with "At least he's not Ken Starr who never saw a TV camera or microphone he wasn't in love with.  Never saw you complain about Starr's handling of Clinton."  He's not actually addressing any of the points made about Mueller, he's just using Ken Starr as a prop to avoid the argument and charge the other side with hypocrisy.  This would be whataboutism and if I saw it I would call him or anyone else out for it.

 

Now let's look at what Tex actually did:

First, no one was critiquing Mueller.  Tex wasn't responding to some attack on him.  Tex was responding that neither he nor anyone else knows a lot of details about this current case because Mueller isn't talking.  There aren't any (or there are precious few) leaks to the press.  Then he tosses in as an aside, "unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone."  There's no attempt to charge anyone here with hypocrisy.  He's not deflecting or avoiding any arguments about Mueller.  It was a casual side remark that had zero bearing on what was being discussed.  This is not whataboutism and thus I wouldn't have called out PT, you or anyone else for something similar.

 

If you can't understand the difference after this explanation, then there's no hope.  But I will continue to moderate this forum on this issue based on the actual definition of whataboutism and not the version that you two have in your heads.  If that is going to be a source of unbearable angst for you, I'm sorry.  I'm not changing to your custom definition just to make you feel better.  And if you complain about it because you refuse to comprehend this important distinction, it will be deleted on sight.  If you persist, then you may find yourself no longer discussing politics here.  I don't mind moderating but I'm not going to babysit.

Got it. Happy Friday. Stay happy and WDE

[TexasTiger 12,829]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

@NolaAuTiger and @Proud Tiger,

I'm going to try to explain this one more time.  Because whataboutism isn't a term I just made up to gig you about.  It is a term that has been around for a while and I am operating within that well-known definition.

 

Let's take Tex's example again for illustration purposes:

Let's say that someone was bashing Mueller's handling of this investigation - saying he's botched it, that he's ethically compromised or biased, that he's bought and paid for by the Trump opposition, or criticizing specific actions Mueller has taken.  Then Tex strides in and doesn't address any of the points the person made, but simply retorts with "At least he's not Ken Starr who never saw a TV camera or microphone he wasn't in love with.  Never saw you complain about Starr's handling of Clinton."  He's not actually addressing any of the points made about Mueller, he's just using Ken Starr as a prop to avoid the argument and charge the other side with hypocrisy.  This would be whataboutism and if I saw it I would call him or anyone else out for it.

 

Now let's look at what Tex actually did:

First, no one was critiquing Mueller.  Tex wasn't responding to some attack on him.  Tex was responding that neither he nor anyone else knows a lot of details about this current case because Mueller isn't talking.  There aren't any (or there are precious few) leaks to the press.  Then he tosses in as an aside, "unlike Ken Starr who loved a microphone."  There's no attempt to charge anyone here with hypocrisy.  He's not deflecting or avoiding any arguments about Mueller.  It was a casual side remark that had zero bearing on what was being discussed.  This is not whataboutism and thus I wouldn't have called out PT, you or anyone else for something similar.

 

If you can't understand the difference after this explanation, then there's no hope.  But I will continue to moderate this forum on this issue based on the actual definition of whataboutism and not the version that you two have in your heads.  If that is going to be a source of unbearable angst for you, I'm sorry.  I'm not changing to your custom definition just to make you feel better.  And if you complain about it because you refuse to comprehend this important distinction, it will be deleted on sight.  If you persist, then you may find yourself no longer discussing politics here.  I don't mind moderating but I'm not going to babysit.

Good explanation— I would just clarify, as I think you did earlier, it wasn’t just a totally meaningless aside. It was in the context of Mueller being tight lipped— not all prosecutors are. He’s given no clues publicly. Frankly, that’s how it should be, IMO. So it wasn’t just a gratuitous jab at Starr— there was a real contrast that allowed media speculation to be attached to a recent clip of Starr talking. 

[TexasTiger 12,829]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I’m asking for the legal basis of your contention. I mean, I assume you know the elements of each crime in that you’d conclude he’s guilty of some of them. Right?

Also, a prosecutor can not ethically “release his findings.” Now, after trial, sure. But you need to qualify the phrase before blindly injecting it. It also runs afoul the rules of evidence.

This is an offer to get as intellectual as you want. See if I can keep up. ready set go

Forgive me if I don’t see it as a genuine offer of intellectual discussion. There’s a ton of articles with informed speculation by attorneys on what charges may flow based on what’s in the public domain. Review those if you’re interested. I have no interest in convincing you my suspicions are rock solid. Believe what you want.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

32 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Forgive me if I don’t see it as a genuine offer of intellectual discussion. There’s a ton of articles with informed speculation by attorneys on what charges may flow based on what’s in the public domain. Review those if you’re interested. I have no interest in convincing you my suspicions are rock solid. Believe what you want.

“Based on what’s in the public domain” is ambiguous, wouldn’t you agree? I guess I could use an example, but I’m sure you follow me on this.