Steele Dossier

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Holding up reasonably well as raw intel

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

[AUDub 11,184]

Read this yesterday.

It's a fair, solid breakdown typical of Lawfare and the dossier does indeed hold up remarkably. 

[homersapien 11,447]

As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Holding up reasonably well as raw intel

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

Interesting paper by Sarah

 

Sarah Grant is a student at Harvard Law School 

[AUDub 11,184]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Interesting paper by Sarah

Sarah Grant is a student at Harvard Law School 

Bad faith argument, Salty. 

Sarah Grant is a student at Harvard Law School and previously spent five years on active duty in the Marine Corps. She holds an MPhil in International Relations from the University of Cambridge and a BS in International Relations from the United States Naval Academy.

And the co-author of the piece. 

Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

59 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Bad faith argument, Salty. 

I just sorta left some stuff out Ben

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

Basically what it shows is that Russians might have been involved with leaks of Hillary e-mail which also proves that Hillary put intelligence at risk by using her private server, It is more damning to Hillary then it is to Trump. It specifically said that there was no real proof that it was done with knowledge of senior Trump people which is the crux of what the whole investigation is about. 

It basically confirmed what we already know the Russians don't like us and wanted to hurt us.  Since at the time the Russians like almost everybody else expected that Hillary would become the next president I believe the real motive was to weaken who they thought was going to be the next President Hillary.

 While it is true that the Dossier had some legitimate information in it. Almost all disinformation includes some legitimate information to give it the appearance of being legitimate.

Now we have to wait for conclusion of Mueller probe to hopefully have some real answers

[TexasTiger 13,017]

2 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Basically what it shows is that Russians might have been involved with leaks of Hillary e-mail which also proves that Hillary put intelligence at risk by using her private server, It is more damning to Hillary then it is to Trump. It specifically said that there was no real proof that it was done with knowledge of senior Trump people which is the crux of what the whole investigation is about. 

It basically confirmed what we already know the Russians don't like us and wanted to hurt us.  Since at the time the Russians like almost everybody else expected that Hillary would become the next president I believe the real motive was to weaken who they thought was going to be the next President Hillary.

 While it is true that the Dossier had some legitimate information in it. Almost all disinformation includes some legitimate information to give it the appearance of being legitimate.

Now we have to wait for conclusion of Mueller probe to hopefully have some real answers

“But Hillary was careless! That’s worse!!! ‘Cuz Hillary!”

[homersapien 11,447]

28 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Basically what it shows is that Russians might have been involved with leaks of Hillary e-mail which also proves that Hillary put intelligence at risk by using her private server, It is more damning to Hillary then it is to Trump. It specifically said that there was no real proof that it was done with knowledge of senior Trump people which is the crux of what the whole investigation is about.

Hillary was wrong in the way she handled her email, but that in no way compares to colluding with the Russian government to assist your campaign for president and for personal gain.

Trump is guilty of treason.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-ready-to-pounce-on-trumpworld-concessions-to-moscow?ref=home

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/17/yes-there-was-collusion-now-what-will-we-do-about-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95bd8de33111

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“But Hillary was careless! That’s worse!!! ‘Cuz Hillary!”

Careless is making a mistake by accident. Intentionally going against government policy is not careless. For many years I supported "Department of Education" e-mail system not a high security environment. Even so  I had to get security clearance where we had to read certain documents and online training class and we had to sign an affidavit. The affidavit I signed stated very clearly and I am not a high powered lawyer like Hillary Clinton that you could not user personal e-mail for Government business. It said this would lead to immediate termination of my clearance and could lead to criminal prosecution. 

Hillary was in an much more secure Government agency I am willing to bet money she signed a similar affidavit and as a lawyer she would not sign something like that without reading it. That means she knowingly went against government policy. 

As for the article we were discussing the key piece was that it said, at this time there has been no corroboration that Senior Trump Officials colluded with the Russians. I am not saying Trump and his people didn't work with the Russians as I said in my last statement we need to wait till end of Mueller Probe when we have the whole story.

This article was posted as proving the Steele Dossier was legitimate research this article did not prove or disprove it. It showed something were legitimate and some were not proven another words depending on what comes out of the Mueller probe it is legitimate research or a hatchet job paid for by the DNC. 

By the way since Steele was using information provided to him by the Russians what is the difference in what Hillary and the DNC did and what they are accusing Trump and his people of using information provided by the Russians to hurt Hillary.

[homersapien 11,447]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/13/17569264/mueller-indictment-trump-russia-email-hack

July 27, 2016: Trump publicly asked Russia to find Hillary’s emails. They acted within hours.

Apparently, Russia was listening.

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hillary was wrong in the way she handled her email, but that in no way compares to colluding with the Russian government to assist your campaign for president and for personal gain.

Trump is guilty of treason.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mueller-ready-to-pounce-on-trumpworld-concessions-to-moscow?ref=home

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias

 

[homersapien 11,447]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias

 

Do you dispute any of the actual substance or do you just want to whine about the source?

 

Mueller Ready to Pounce on Trumpworld Concessions to Moscow

New court filings by Mueller’s office could answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What did the Kremlin hope to get from its political machinations?

For more than a year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has questioned witnesses broadly about their interactions with well-connected Russians. But three sources familiar with Mueller’s probe told The Daily Beast that his team is now zeroing in on Trumpworld figures who may have attempted to shape the administration's foreign policy by offering to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia.

The Special Counsel’s Office is preparing court filings that are expected to detail Trump associates’ conversations about sanctions relief—and spell out how those offers and counter-proposals were characterized to top figures on the campaign and in the administration, those same sources said.

The new details would not only bookend a multi-year investigation by federal prosecutors into whether and how Trump associates seriously considered requests by Moscow to ease the financial measures. The new court filings could also answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What specific policy changes, if any, did the Kremlin hope to get in return from its political machinations?

“During his investigation, Mueller has shown little proclivity for chasing dead ends,” said Paul Pelletier, a former senior Department of Justice official. “His continued focus on the evidence that members of the Trump campaign discussed sanction relief with Russians shows that his evidence of a criminal violation continues to sharpen. This has to come as especially bad news for the president.”

Mueller’s interest in sanctions arose, at least in part, out of his team’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Special Counsel’s Office noted in a court filing last week that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak concerning U.S. sanctions. But other portions of this court filing were left redacted.

Mueller’s team is looking closely at evidence—some of it provided by witnesses—from the transition period, two individuals with knowledge of the probe said.

“Sanctions conversations that happened after November are more serious,” said Angela Stent, a former national intelligence officer for Russia under President George W. Bush. “At that point Flynn, for example, would have already known he was going to be part of the administration and those conversations would have included plans for what might happen [next].”

And Flynn wasn’t the only figure talking sanctions during that transition period, three sources with knowledge of the probe said. Several individuals in Trump’s inner circle were developing their own plans to put pressure on other parts of the government to roll back the sanctions, which have cost the Russian economy more than $100 billion, according to Kremlin estimates.

It’s still unclear if Trump adviser Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds, spoke about sanctions in their now-infamous meeting in the Seychelles held during the last days of the transition. But The Daily Beast previously reported that the two spoke broadly about Russian investment opportunities in the U.S. and the potential for peace in Ukraine.

Just a week after Trump took office, Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii V. Artemenko handed Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, a “peace plan” that would lift sanctions. Accounts differ on how seriously the proposal was considered by the administration.

Around the same time, Trump reportedly asked staffers in the State Department to come up with a plan to roll back sanctions. But the department’s transition team was disorganized and understaffed, according to one person on the team. The request never made its way to people tasked with advising the White House on sanctions, according to two former national-security officials.

“The Russians were definitely looking to ease sanctions, or the relaxation of sanctions,” said one former Treasury official. “There was clearly a person they supported in the election and Trump clearly had a favorable view of Russia. But the transition was a mess and it took more time to get their feet under them. By the time they got their stuff together, Congress was increasing sanctions.”

The U.S. implemented sanctions on Russia in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea. Those sanctions were broadly supposed to make it more difficult for Russia to make money and to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies. Several of Russia’s financial entities, including the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Moscow’s sovereign wealth funds, and VTB, one of the leading banks in the country, were put under sanctions but still allowed to transact with Americans under certain circumstances. Others, though, including top government officials like Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, the formerly state-owned Russian oil enterprise, were blacklisted.

When Trump began campaigning in 2015, the Russian sanctions had started to take a toll on local Russians. Trump, unexpectedly, vowed to roll them back. “I don’t think you’d need the sanctions,” the future president said in response to a question from Russian provocateur Maria Butina, who pleaded guilty this month to conspiracy to violate restrictions on foreign agents.

Meanwhile, Putin was in the midst of implementing measures to insulate the economy from total collapse, compliance lawyers told The Daily Beast. With the careful maneuvering of business deals, Russia continued to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies, two former Obama officials involved in drafting the sanctions said.

But compliance lawyers said investors and U.S. businesses were wary of the legal risks of doing business with Moscow. The lifting of sanctions, lawyers told The Daily Beast, would have allowed for Russia to conduct business with American and European investors with more ease. It would have allowed international businesses and individuals to lend money to Russia as well as borrow, which the sanctions currently broadly restrict.  

The topic kept coming up during the campaign. In the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, for example, Donald Trump Jr. reportedly suggested a review of sanctions law.

But since Trump took office, the Treasury Department has increased the number of sanctions on Russia. In April 2017, for instance, the government blacklisted another set of Russian oligarchs and government officials, many of whom have close connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Congress is considering a number of pieces of legislation that would further punish Moscow for its interference in the 2016 elections.

 

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you dispute any of the actual substance or do you just want to whine about the source?

 

Mueller Ready to Pounce on Trumpworld Concessions to Moscow

New court filings by Mueller’s office could answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What did the Kremlin hope to get from its political machinations?

For more than a year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office has questioned witnesses broadly about their interactions with well-connected Russians. But three sources familiar with Mueller’s probe told The Daily Beast that his team is now zeroing in on Trumpworld figures who may have attempted to shape the administration's foreign policy by offering to ease U.S. sanctions on Russia.

The Special Counsel’s Office is preparing court filings that are expected to detail Trump associates’ conversations about sanctions relief—and spell out how those offers and counter-proposals were characterized to top figures on the campaign and in the administration, those same sources said.

The new details would not only bookend a multi-year investigation by federal prosecutors into whether and how Trump associates seriously considered requests by Moscow to ease the financial measures. The new court filings could also answer a central question of the Russia investigation: What specific policy changes, if any, did the Kremlin hope to get in return from its political machinations?

“During his investigation, Mueller has shown little proclivity for chasing dead ends,” said Paul Pelletier, a former senior Department of Justice official. “His continued focus on the evidence that members of the Trump campaign discussed sanction relief with Russians shows that his evidence of a criminal violation continues to sharpen. This has to come as especially bad news for the president.”

Mueller’s interest in sanctions arose, at least in part, out of his team’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Special Counsel’s Office noted in a court filing last week that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak concerning U.S. sanctions. But other portions of this court filing were left redacted.

Mueller’s team is looking closely at evidence—some of it provided by witnesses—from the transition period, two individuals with knowledge of the probe said.

“Sanctions conversations that happened after November are more serious,” said Angela Stent, a former national intelligence officer for Russia under President George W. Bush. “At that point Flynn, for example, would have already known he was going to be part of the administration and those conversations would have included plans for what might happen [next].”

And Flynn wasn’t the only figure talking sanctions during that transition period, three sources with knowledge of the probe said. Several individuals in Trump’s inner circle were developing their own plans to put pressure on other parts of the government to roll back the sanctions, which have cost the Russian economy more than $100 billion, according to Kremlin estimates.

It’s still unclear if Trump adviser Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds, spoke about sanctions in their now-infamous meeting in the Seychelles held during the last days of the transition. But The Daily Beast previously reported that the two spoke broadly about Russian investment opportunities in the U.S. and the potential for peace in Ukraine.

Just a week after Trump took office, Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii V. Artemenko handed Michael Cohen, then Trump’s personal lawyer, a “peace plan” that would lift sanctions. Accounts differ on how seriously the proposal was considered by the administration.

Around the same time, Trump reportedly asked staffers in the State Department to come up with a plan to roll back sanctions. But the department’s transition team was disorganized and understaffed, according to one person on the team. The request never made its way to people tasked with advising the White House on sanctions, according to two former national-security officials.

“The Russians were definitely looking to ease sanctions, or the relaxation of sanctions,” said one former Treasury official. “There was clearly a person they supported in the election and Trump clearly had a favorable view of Russia. But the transition was a mess and it took more time to get their feet under them. By the time they got their stuff together, Congress was increasing sanctions.”

The U.S. implemented sanctions on Russia in 2014 following its annexation of Crimea. Those sanctions were broadly supposed to make it more difficult for Russia to make money and to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies. Several of Russia’s financial entities, including the Russian Direct Investment Fund, one of Moscow’s sovereign wealth funds, and VTB, one of the leading banks in the country, were put under sanctions but still allowed to transact with Americans under certain circumstances. Others, though, including top government officials like Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, the formerly state-owned Russian oil enterprise, were blacklisted.

When Trump began campaigning in 2015, the Russian sanctions had started to take a toll on local Russians. Trump, unexpectedly, vowed to roll them back. “I don’t think you’d need the sanctions,” the future president said in response to a question from Russian provocateur Maria Butina, who pleaded guilty this month to conspiracy to violate restrictions on foreign agents.

Meanwhile, Putin was in the midst of implementing measures to insulate the economy from total collapse, compliance lawyers told The Daily Beast. With the careful maneuvering of business deals, Russia continued to conduct business with the U.S. and its European allies, two former Obama officials involved in drafting the sanctions said.

But compliance lawyers said investors and U.S. businesses were wary of the legal risks of doing business with Moscow. The lifting of sanctions, lawyers told The Daily Beast, would have allowed for Russia to conduct business with American and European investors with more ease. It would have allowed international businesses and individuals to lend money to Russia as well as borrow, which the sanctions currently broadly restrict.  

The topic kept coming up during the campaign. In the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, for example, Donald Trump Jr. reportedly suggested a review of sanctions law.

But since Trump took office, the Treasury Department has increased the number of sanctions on Russia. In April 2017, for instance, the government blacklisted another set of Russian oligarchs and government officials, many of whom have close connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Congress is considering a number of pieces of legislation that would further punish Moscow for its interference in the 2016 elections.

 

Since this would be classified information this is conjecture. Until Mueller's team actually files the papers they talked about this in the article we don't know what they will be filing as they are not allowed to report this type of information. It is called leaking and would prejudice their case. As for whining about the source multiple times in the past when somebody presented an article from a right wing leaning publication you discounted it because of the source. Apparently what is good for the Goose is not good for the Gander in your one sided view.  

I take all articles from publications that seem to have a bias both on the left and the right with a grain of salt. Also in this article there is a lot of innuendo without facts backing it up. the most damning revelation in this article is that in 2015 before he had the intelligence that you would get as a President he mentioned we should roll back the Russian sanctions. The reality is once in Office he didn't and the sanctions have actually increased under Trump.

[homersapien 11,447]

5 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Since this would be classified information this is conjecture. Until Mueller's team actually files the papers they talked about this in the article we don't know what they will be filing as they are not allowed to report this type of information. It is called leaking and would prejudice their case. As for whining about the source multiple times in the past when somebody presented an article from a right wing leaning publication you discounted it because of the source. Apparently what is good for the Goose is not good for the Gander in your one sided view.  

I take all articles from publications that seem to have a bias both on the left and the right with a grain of salt. Also in this article there is a lot of innuendo without facts backing it up. the most damning revelation in this article is that in 2015 before he had the intelligence that you would get as a President he mentioned we should roll back the Russian sanctions. The reality is once in Office he didn't and the sanctions have actually increased under Trump.

Get back to me in a couple of months.

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Get back to me in a couple of months.

In a couple of months if Mueller team proves it I will accept it if they don't I will accept that also. The difference between you and me you are assuming guilt without all the evidence and I am assuming innocent until proven guilty which is the basis of the American Legal system.

[homersapien 11,447]

38 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

In a couple of months if Mueller team proves it I will accept it if they don't I will accept that also. The difference between you and me you are assuming guilt without all the evidence and I am assuming innocent until proven guilty which is the basis of the American Legal system.

No, the difference between you and me is that I recognize Trump for what he is, based on his history and his actions. This has nothing to do with his criminal guilt or assumption of innocence.  In fact, he may be indicted, but he will never be tried for a crime, so "presumption of innocence" is a moot point.

Trump has a clear record of corruption.  Every single organization associated with Trump is currently under investigation for illegal activity. The corruption associated with many of these organization is already public.

In summary, this is about recognizing Trump as the narcissistic psychopath he is.  That doesn't require a criminal trial. It does require common sense and a willingness to face the truth which is glaringly apparent to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand.

[AuburnNTexas 7,172]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No, the difference between you and me is that I recognize Trump for what he is, based on his history and his actions. This has nothing to do with his criminal guilt or assumption of innocence.  In fact, he may be indicted, but he will never be tried for a crime, so "presumption of innocence" is a moot point.

Trump has a clear record of corruption.  Every single organization associated with Trump is currently under investigation for illegal activity. The corruption associated with many of these organization is already public.

In summary, this is about recognizing Trump as the narcissistic psychopath he is.  That doesn't require a criminal trial. It does require common sense and a willingness to face the truth which is glaringly apparent to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand.

If I didn't know better I would think you didn't like Trump. LOL

[HVAU 673]

Good indicators of guilt are whether or not there are demonstrable lies associated the accusations:

1. Sessions contacts with Russian operatives while a campaign surrogate.  Trump team lied about these.

2. Flynn contacts with Russian operatives while a campaign surrogate.  Trump team lied about these.

3. Circumstances of Comey's firing.  Trump team lied about these.

4. Trump Tower meeting occurrence.  Trump team lied about this.

5. Purpose of Trump Tower meeting.  Trump team lied about this.

6. Occurrence of Stormy Daniels affair.  Trump team lied about this.

7. Hush money for Stormy Daniels.  Trump team lied about this.

... Speeding things along 

8.  McDougal. Trump lied.

9. Manafort.  Trump lied.

10. Papadopoulos.  Trump lied.

11. Moscow Tower.  Trump lied.

It is my opinion that all of these lies paint a pretty damning portrait for Trump's campaign/presidency.  So, sure, we'll have to wait until Mueller publishes his report to have all the facts, but if you're still coming from the perspective of "I haven't seen enough to come to a personal conclusion about Trump's corruption" you're choosing not to see reason.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

In a couple of months if Mueller team proves it I will accept it if they don't I will accept that also. The difference between you and me you are assuming guilt without all the evidence and I am assuming innocent until proven guilty which is the basis of the American Legal system.

So here's an interesting question, since you're going off of this standard.  It's DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, thus Trump couldn't be "proven guilty" in the traditional sense.  So what from the Mueller would you need in order to accept guilt?  Also, noting that the public will likely not see the full report during this administration, how does that weigh in on your opinion?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

23 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Good indicators of guilt are whether or not there are demonstrable lies associated the accusations:

1. Sessions contacts with Russian operatives while a campaign surrogate.  Trump team lied about these.

2. Flynn contacts with Russian operatives while a campaign surrogate.  Trump team lied about these.

3. Circumstances of Comey's firing.  Trump team lied about these.

4. Trump Tower meeting occurrence.  Trump team lied about this.

5. Purpose of Trump Tower meeting.  Trump team lied about this.

6. Occurrence of Stormy Daniels affair.  Trump team lied about this.

7. Hush money for Stormy Daniels.  Trump team lied about this.

... Speeding things along 

8.  McDougal. Trump lied.

9. Manafort.  Trump lied.

10. Papadopoulos.  Trump lied.

11. Moscow Tower.  Trump lied.

It is my opinion that all of these lies paint a pretty damning portrait for Trump's campaign/presidency.  So, sure, we'll have to wait until Mueller publishes his report to have all the facts, but if you're still coming from the perspective of "I haven't seen enough to come to a personal conclusion about Trump's corruption" you're choosing not to see reason.

Could you add evidence in each of these cases that he lied?

[HVAU 673]

26 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Could you add evidence in each of these cases that he lied?

Yes, but I don't feel the need to as evidence of these lies has been repeatedly presented here and there many compendiums of Trump's lies available through numerous, easily accessible journalistic outlets.  

I will get you started with one of the best collections I've seen.  It's one I've posted before, but I'm certain has gone unread. 

Editing to add full site link:

https://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

 https://billmoyers.com/story/heres-whats-new-trump-russia-timeline/

Once you've read this, if you're still having doubts about Trump's dishonesty, and are having trouble finding more supporting documentation I will provide more.  

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

15 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Yes, but I don't feel the need to as evidence of these lies has been repeatedly presented here and there many compendiums of Trump's lies available through numerous, easily accessible journalistic outlets.  

I will get you started with one of the best collections I've seen.  It's one I've posted before, but I'm certain has gone unread. 

Editing to add full site link:

https://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

 https://billmoyers.com/story/heres-whats-new-trump-russia-timeline/

Once you've read this, if you're still having doubts about Trump's dishonesty, and are having trouble finding more supporting documentation I will provide more.  

 

I know Trump has lied about some things. Most politicians have. I just don't know what the specific lie is the 11 accusations you posted above. I could post links to a bunch of lies Obama, Hillary, etc., have told so what makes Trump different from them other than he happens to be the current POTUS??

[HVAU 673]

12 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I know Trump has lied about some things. Most politicians have. I just don't know what the specific lie is the 11 accusations you posted above. I could post links to a bunch of lies Obama, Hillary, etc., have told so what makes Trump different from them other than he happens to be the current POTUS??

Like I said the Moyers link will provide the information you are looking for, and after reading it, if you feel there are topics that needed addressing I can help you.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

12 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Like I said the Moyers link will provide the information you are looking for, and after reading it, if you feel there are topics that needed addressing I can help you.

I don't want to belabor it but I don't accept Bill Moyers as an authority on Trumps lying without being specific on what he said vs. KNOWN truth. No big deal so don't waste anymore time with it.