Live Breaking News & Updates on Opposition Researchers
Stay updated with breaking news from Opposition researchers. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
What we now know is that the clinton campaign through its lawyers and fusion g.p.s., the information firm it hired, were working a bunch of journalists and at the same time they gave the story for example to franklin fore, who wrote the big piece about that, are they were pushing, and baker testified about this, being pushing the new york times and it s obviously that the reporter weighs skeptical of the story and for that reason i think they went to the fbi to try to entice them into being interested in it in hoping that would make it a more saleable story to the times. so, they were working a lot of angles on this. i don t think it s credible to me that they were unsure whether the story was true or not because it was their own information people, their own opposition researchers who developed this story. ....
His reporters won t investigate democrats but tumble is fair game. i would think the journalists are upset about this. you hogg tied them. you won t talk about the misspoken words with elizabeth warren. you won t talk about biden/burisma? i think it s a travesty. if you don t trust your own news organization to be fair, balanced, i m sorry, come on. bill: these stories go together. lindsey graham is making the case the media won t investigate hunter biden and you have this story with bloomberg suggesting they aren t going to go that far with bloomberg or any other democrat. trump is fair game. back to the quote. what an awkward thing. start with the ban invest gateing democrats but not mr. trump? there is a name for folks like that, opposition researchers. i agree with you. ....
Conversations with kurt volker and mick mulvaney that this is being driven by the president himself. that president trump was the person who wanted these investigations, who was concerned about this aid in the first instance. now cooper said that at the department of defense they were concerned that the president might lack authorization for this. that is a little bit of a coded way of saying, they were worried that it wasn t consistent with the law. that the president was only allowed to use these funds for a limited purpose only allowed to hold them up for limited purposes and they said they told the white house if you want to if you want to use these funds or delay the funds, you need to notify congress and notify them of a possible reprogramming action and she said that didn t happen. so it is more indication that nothing that was happening here was happening for legitimate purposes or within the ordinary or regular order that we would expect but instead this really was about the ....
Her democratic contenders do not have confidence that she s going to come up with a realistic plan so this criticism isn t even coming from republicans but from other democrats and that is a very telling sign. there are some who wish other democrats would stop asking because they think it is counterproductive. salon, can we skip the bad faith debate over whether we can fund medicare for all the real point of constantly asking warren about funding medicare for all is to get her on the record saying she plans to raise taxes. why buttigieg in the debate moderators seem to think they are obliged to be trump s unpaid opposition researchers is truly a mystery. does this conversation about her plan end of hurting democrats? know. i think that analysis misses some key points. i get why she doesn t want to answer the question in terms of the way the question is framed. i respect the fact her position is medicare for all would ....
People should if they have it. the idea that opposition research was funded by one side of a political campaign might have turned up something they gave to the fbi because they were concerned or hoping for an fbi investigation that would turn up something damning. is that an improper source of information? it seems like opposition researchers opposing campaigns might at any time turn up something they were concerned about. i m worried at this point that that itself has been defined as a scandal and those won t go to the authorities. with respect to this information that came to us, my recollection is that we knew that it was coming from that type of source and we had to be skeptical about it. we should have been squekeptica about it, but it didn t mean it was wrong. it had to be vetted and analyzed, but with the origin in mind. we didn t ignore that. ....