HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Thread by Seth Abramson t...

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 12:20 AM

Thread by Seth Abramson that explains the difference between opposition research conducted by

democrats in 2016 and tnd the crimes committed by the Trump campaign and Trump.

(THREAD) This thread discusses the difference(s) between the OPPOSITION RESEARCH conducted by the Democrats in 2016 and the CRIMES committed by the GOP candidate for president during the 2016 campaign. I hope you'll share this thread with anyone who you think might be interested.

1/ From the moment he decided to run for POTUS in 2016—November 2012, per his own advisors—Trump told about as many lies about his foreign entanglements as he'd continue to do as president: that is, thousands. Each potentially hid the fact he'd been compromised by foreign powers.
5 replies 192 retweets 553 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

2/ For this reason, and because Trump was widely known to have lived a life of white-collar crime and personal infelicities that could open him up to blackmail, REPUBLICANS decided to conduct aggressive opposition research on him during the GOP primaries.

3/ The right-wing entity that did the opposition research that'd eventually come to the country's notice—involving a company called Fusion GPS—was the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON, which engaged Fusion GPS to conduct such research with funding from a right-wing anti-Trump billionaire.


4/ While REPUBLICANS were paying Fusion GPS to do opposition research—a *lengthy* period from fall 2015 into spring 2016—Fusion GPS turned up evidence involving possible "golden showers" occurring in Russia in 2013, as the right-wing DAILY CALLER reported.

5/ That's right: REPUBLICANS paid Fusion GPS to find dirt on Trump, and almost immediately a Fusion GPS contractor from the United Kingdom (allowed by law because he's a contractor) found intel in Russia about the Kremlin possibly having kompromat (blackmail material) on Trump.

6/ No one in the Republican Party believed the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON and powerful billionaire funders of the GOP were engaged in any untoward behavior over the *nine months* they were paying an American firm, Fusion GPS, to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump. *No one*.
3 replies 162 retweets 483 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

7/ The said behavior became objectionable the *second* it was a Democratic client paying Fusion GPS rather than a Republican one. So here's what happened with Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS, beginning in the spring of 2016— when Chris Steele had already done much of his research.
6 replies 124 retweets 412 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

8/ The Clinton campaign hired an AMERICAN law firm (Perkins Coie) which thereafter hired an AMERICAN research firm—whose employees were likewise AMERICAN—to conduct opposition research. The Clinton campaign had *no role whatsoever* in telling Fusion GPS what to look for or where.
7 replies 143 retweets 463 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

9/ Because of the work a British Fusion GPS contractor (the former Russia desk chief for MI6, an ALLIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCY) had done for REPUBLICANS, the contractor, Chris Steele, knew that at least some of his research had to be in Russia—because Trump had done business there.
4 replies 103 retweets 382 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

10/ Any opposition research firm will conduct research everywhere a given person has done—or, in Trump's case, better to say "tried to do"—business. Because most politicians aren't businesspeople, that usually doesn't extend to overseas. But Trump is an international businessman.
3 replies 91 retweets 351 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

11/ Consequently, Chris Steele did research in Russia—a country he knew well from having worked there as part of an ALLIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Steele was also, as his AMERICAN employers at Fusion GPS knew, someone who had done work alongside AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT in the past.
9 replies 102 retweets 386 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

12/ Steele found tons of info on Trump—some of which came from American sources, some from Russian sources. Steele thereafter compiled a doc he freely admitted was simply *raw intelligence*. None of the research was willingly supplied by someone REPRESENTING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
3 replies 122 retweets 409 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

13/ When the research made its way back from the BRITISH contractor to the AMERICAN research firm and thereafter to the AMERICAN law firm the Clinton campaign had hired, do you want to know what the Clinton campaign did with it? Nothing—*nothing*. There are many reasons for that.
5 replies 105 retweets 376 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

14/ One reason the Clinton campaign did nothing with it was because, as Steele conceded, it was raw intel—no one knew if it was accurate, and while the Clinton campaign might've benefitted by putting inaccurate info out, (a) that would've been wrong and (b) it would've backfired.
3 replies 106 retweets 378 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

15/ *Another* reason the Clinton campaign did nothing with it was because some of it came from overseas—a fact *no one on the campaign knew was going to be the case beforehand, nor did they ask it to be*—and the use of any overseas material was not something they wanted to touch.
2 replies 87 retweets 334 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

16/ Meanwhile, the BRITISH contractor was so concerned about the information he'd uncovered—info that surprised even him, as he had *not*, in advance, known he was going to find it either when he was working for Republicans or, thereafter, for Democrats—that he *went to the FBI*.
3 replies 94 retweets 384 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

17/ You'll notice I keep mentioning that Steele was BRITISH and had worked with an ALLIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. I do that because Fusion GPS *had* to contract with *some* non-Americans to do *overseas research*—but chose allied-intel researchers for a reason that'd become obvious.
5 replies 74 retweets 344 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

18/ The reason Fusion GPS, which had to contract with *some* non-Americans, chose to contract with a BRITISH man who'd worked for an ALLIED INTELLIGENCE AGENCY—and who had worked alongside the FBI—is that they could trust his intentions. Unlike, say, if he worked for the Kremlin.
6 replies 77 retweets 365 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

19/ And Fusion GPS turned out to be right, as when Steele took his info to the FBI—a federal agency he was known to, respected by, and had previously worked with—he did so, he told Fusion GPS, because he cared for AMERICA and was worried about a U.S. politician being compromised.
8 replies 107 retweets 410 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

20/ And Steele also turned out to be right, as when U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT saw what he had—*coupled* (as Republicans repeatedly forget to note) with similarly troubling intel from SEVEN ALLIED INTEL AGENCIES that arrived between December 2015 and July 2016—they were concerned, too.
5 replies 120 retweets 380 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

21/ What Steele didn't expect was that US LAW ENFORCEMENT—while routinely talking and leaking to media about the less-serious Clinton email probe—would *take to its damn grave* the *wildly more serious* Trump case, at least pre-election. It even lied to the NYT to protect Trump.
4 replies 98 retweets 342 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

22/ Concerned that the FBI had been compromised by politics—which a subsequent IG investigation would show it *had been*, with the entire New York field office of the FBI in the tank for Trump pre-election, and committing Hatch Act violations to aid him—Steele spoke to the media.
7 replies 91 retweets 319 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

23/ Fortunately for Trump, virtually no one in the media would touch Steele's dossier either, even though—yes, even post-Mueller report—there's substantial evidence confirming Steele's own analysis at the time, which is that about 75% of his raw intelligence on Trump is accurate.
4 replies 82 retweets 338 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

24/ Now let's compare that sequence of events with the CRIMES committed by Donald J. Trump, his family, and his campaign.

(As with everything else in this thread, everything I've reviewing here comes directly from *major media reports*. None of this is guesswork or speculation.)
4 replies 76 retweets 303 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
1h1 hour ago

25/ By spring 2016, Trump, his family, and his campaign *knew* that at *least* four nations (one hostile) wanted to see him become president: RUSSIA, SAUDI ARABIA, ISRAEL and the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES. How did he know? Because agents of these governments had told his campaign so.

26/ A campaign isn't just *one person*, of course. There were *many* people on the Trump campaign who had *worked campaigns before* and knew election laws in the United States, and undoubtedly would have communicated those laws to the neophytes on the Trump presidential campaign.


27/ So by spring 2016, one thing the Trump campaign knew FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN was that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would it be legal for them to directly receive opposition research from an agent of a foreign government. LET ALONE a hostile government and LET ALONE *stolen documents*.

28/ Instead, the Trump campaign let it be known it was OPEN FOR BUSINESS to ANY government that had ANY information on Clinton acquired by ANY means and transmitted to the Trump campaign in ANY setting and for ANY purpose. This was the ethos of the entire campaign, top to bottom.

29/ We know that Trump, his family, and his campaign knew this policy violated the law because EVERY TIME THEY EXECUTED IT—in the process VIOLATING U.S. LAW—they did their utmost to *cover their tracks* and *lie about ever
y aspect of their actions and any meeting they had taken*.

30/ The Mueller Report shows Trump Jr. was told the Kremlin wanted his dad to win; was told the Kremlin had dubiously obtained documents on Clinton; was told it wanted to give Trump those documents to influence the election; and Trump Jr. was ABSOLUTELY ECSTATIC to break the law.
10 replies 114 retweets 385 likes

2 replies, 556 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thread by Seth Abramson that explains the difference between opposition research conducted by (Original post)
triron Jun 16 OP
Dennis Donovan Jun 16 #1
Baitball Blogger Jun 16 #2

Response to triron (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 07:53 AM

1. I wanted to isolate this section:

13/ When the research made its way back from the BRITISH contractor to the AMERICAN research firm and thereafter to the AMERICAN law firm the Clinton campaign had hired, do you want to know what the Clinton campaign did with it? Nothing—*nothing*. There are many reasons for that.
5 replies 105 retweets 376 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

14/ One reason the Clinton campaign did nothing with it was because, as Steele conceded, it was raw intel—no one knew if it was accurate, and while the Clinton campaign might've benefitted by putting inaccurate info out, (a) that would've been wrong and (b) it would've backfired.
3 replies 106 retweets 378 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago

15/ *Another* reason the Clinton campaign did nothing with it was because some of it came from overseas—a fact *no one on the campaign knew was going to be the case beforehand, nor did they ask it to be*—and the use of any overseas material was not something they wanted to touch.
2 replies 87 retweets 334 likes
Seth Abramson
‏Verified account @SethAbramson
2h2 hours ago


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2019, 09:19 AM

2. So...THIS is what Barr wants to investigate? How the Russian - Trump investigation started?

Is there any way to put the thirty tweet explanation into one document so you can sent it to Bill Barr? We can save a boat load of taxpayer dollars.

Though, I don't know if Barr will also need to see the movie version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread