The Russians played both sides against the middle. Claiming it was something more than that is dishonest.
Something the hildebeest crowd has never explained is the absence of evidence that Russia did anything to help Trump defeat seventeen other Republicans. Where is that piece of this "RUSSIA!" story? If Russia supported Trump throughout his run, where is the evidence showing that Russia worked against the seventeen other Republicans?
The only part of the Steele Dossier that was remotely correct was that the Russians were maliciously involved in the 2016 election -- Russians wrote the Steele Dossier.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Yes they did play both sides against the middle, among other things. Yes, a lot in the Steele Dossier is incorrect. Did the Russians try to help Trump beat other Republican candidates? I have no idea. If so you'd suspect they didn't try very hard because until late in the campaign they wouldn't have figured he'd win the nomination.
However, the evidence is clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...ates_elections
The Russians tried to help Trump by hacking Democrats' computers and planting stories in social media. So what, this is pretty tame stuff. We've had presidents and presidential candidates in other countries knocked off. Trump won the election, and Democrats maintaining he did it because of the Russians is just sour grapes. You're probably right, Hillary Clinton's campaign did pull a lot more dirty tricks on Trump than vice versa.
That said, Trump needs to learn he can't change the truth by denying it. It makes him look stupid and hard headed.
A defense lawyer seeking evidence to defend his client against fraudulent charges is substantively different than a politico seeking dirt to damage a political rival.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I'm not sure whether Giuliani is the defense lawyer or the politico, but either way that's not what this looks like. It looks like the lawyer is trying to engage the State Department, the Justice Department, and a foreign government to help investigate laughable claims about his clients' political opponents. And the client offered a reward (face to face meeting) and was contemplating making a threat (withholding aid) to induce the cooperation of the foreign government.
And this doesn't make you question the man's judgement?