Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?

I am guessing this is the correct answer?

Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.

Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?

Ok. There was plenty of probable cause for the FBI to get a warrant to directly obtain a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

They didn't.

The document photographed by Factcheck is demonstrably fraudulent despite Factcheck's claim it was legally certified. Two members of Congress claimed they relied on it as prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama's birth.

So I think the FBI should not be asking for warrants or subpoenas for anything.

They should close shop and stop wasting money and wreaking havoc on the justice system.

That's a nutter rabbit hole I do not go down.

You will have to take that argument somewhere else. I want nothing to do with it.

I am not a 'nutter.' And I have supported my argument with the regulations from the HDOH and their statements.

'Nutter' is not a substantive argument or evidence to support your views..it's an ad hominem attack because you can't support your argument with any facts or evidence.

ETA: But, I will not clutter this thread with that topic. Just know that calling me a 'nutter' underscores the fact that you have no debate.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Nyet. Nine. And No.

Fusion GPS is who she and many many others have hired for research including oppo. So Marco Rubio also colluded because he hired Steele, a legitimate Russia expert formerly of MI-6? Hillary didn't hire Orbis (Steele) directly and may not have even known what sources were being utilized. Her campaign was buying oppo research. And Orbis is a private company not a government.

I think Hannity is barking up a tree here, and it ain't the right one.


The dossier, is only a piece of the puzzle.

What I've seen is that the dossier was only taken seriously because there was already information from our allies to the same tune. It became such a focal point because of the salacious material. It is also raw intelligence, not a polished final report.

Here:

Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told.

GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious “interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.

Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the “Five Eyes” spying alliance that also includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said.

. Link: The Guardian

Steele is the real deal. He is highly credible. But even so, the dossier (a series of raw intelligence memos which had yet to be research and fully confirmed) is only a part of this. The investigation is far bigger and has more widespread intelligence than those who seek to diminish it realize.

Hannity is so pro-Trump he might as well be Trump's PR rep. I believe nothing he says or his show produces without tons of corroboration.

a reply to: Grambler

It actually doesn't.

Or a year ago when all this information was known it would have been an issue.

I meant an agent of a foreign government.

And yes he could have been a spy..

But what are the rules for opposition research?

Is this normal or unprecedented?

But please roast Clinton if it's true and she broke the law. It won't hurt my feelings.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.

They accepted something of value from a US firm that had hired a foreign national.

I know the difference is small, but in the court of law that is a huge difference.

Where did you get your law degree? Because that's really not the language of the statute...

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very loose?

We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying

Yes, very loose.

As we know as of now, there are degrees of separation between Hillary the dossier.

The same cannot be said for Jr, for example. He has direct ties to the foreign nationals in that aspect.

Both are relevant when considering potential violations of law.

That being said, and as I have said before, I do not think anything will come of the Jr stuff. But it does provide a good example to contrast what Hillary and friends are accused of.

Again your only difference is that don jr met directly, whereas hillary and the DNC were indirect.

Shall we see what the law you provided as a reason for an investogation into trumps team says?

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The law says both are illegal.

So you claiming that don jr met directly but the DNC and hillary did not are irrelevant in the eyes of the law that YOU cited as the reason to investigate trumps team.

The way I understand it, the laws do not prohibit foreign individuals from performing services for campaigns. So even if they hired Steele directly, I do not see it being a violation of the law.

The law prohibits accepting contributions from foreigners or providing substantial assistance to foreigners in making independent expenditures," Hasen said. "It does not prohibit paying foreigners at market value to perform services." Jan Baran, an attorney and election law expert at Wiley Rein LLP who has argued several cases before the Supreme Court, said he also knew of no law banning campaigns from hiring foreigners.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Jr's case is quite different.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.

They accepted something of value from a US firm that had hired a foreign national.

I know the difference is small, but in the court of law that is a huge difference.

Yes, had they just paid steele directly, they would have been acceoting something of value DIRECTLY.

Pay accepting it through fusion, they accepted something of value INDIRECTLY, which the law says is also illegal.

If the law meant for it to be legal to hire a firm to get something of value for you from a foreign national, they would not have included that it is illegal to get something of value INDIRECTLY from a foreign national.

Do you think that if the DNC and Hillarys team paid fusion to get financial donations for them not knowing where they would come from, but then accepted that money when they knew it was from a foreign national;, that this would be acceptable?

Of course not. So if dirt is potentially a thing of value that warranted an investigation into don jr, it would also warrant an investigation here.

How can you honestly sit there and claim that if this law warranted an investigation into trumps team

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I am not a 'nutter.' And I have supported my argument with the regulations from the HDOH and their statements.

Ok.

'Nutter' is not a substantive argument or evidence to support your views..it's an ad hominem attack because you can't support your argument with any facts or evidence.

"nutter" is a word I use to describe certain issue or scenarios.

ETA: But, I will not clutter this thread with that topic. Just know that calling me a 'nutter' underscores the fact that you have no debate.

I did not call you a nutter and you are right. I have no debate.

That is not a topic I find worth the time to debate.

It serves no purpose.

a reply to: AboveBoard
If the dossier was used even in part to get a fisa warrant to spy on a political oponents team as the info in the OP suggests may be the case, then yes its a huge deal.

Again, it was known paid opposition research,and comey admitted months after the fisa warrant that the dossier was salacious and unverified.

Steele being the real deal is irrelevant.

The head of the FBI admits the dossier was unverified. If it was used even in part for a fisa warrant against Obamas political opponent, it is the weaponization of the intel community, and the biggest scandal i have seen in my life time.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes, had they just paid steele directly, they would have been acceoting something of value DIRECTLY.

Sure, but still may not have been a violation of the law. See my previous post.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.

They accepted something of value from a US firm that had hired a foreign national.

I know the difference is small, but in the court of law that is a huge difference.

Where did you get your law degree? Because that's really not the language of the statute...

I'm an expert on everything.

Everything I need to know I learned on 4chan.

a reply to: introvert

"nutter" is a word I use to describe certain issue or scenarios.

Nutter has a definition and is used to describe a person, not a thing.

I did not call you a nutter and you are right. I have no debate.

But you did and it's clear.

a reply to: introvert

First lets remember your justifcation for the investigtaion into trump team was not that you know don jr may have committed a crime, but that he might have.

Ok, right off the bat from the top of your article.

Election law experts are divided on what crimes, if any, Hillary Clinton may have violated by hiring former British spy Christopher Steele to compile dirt on Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Some experts believe Clinton and the Democratic National Committee may have violated a ban on foreign contributions to campaigns, though others disagree and emphasize potential disclosure violations by filtering payments through a law firm.

Some experts think she broke the law.

Just like some experts think don jr. may have, but some disagree.

So given that, why do you want an investigation into one but not the other?

One of the two lawyers saying Hillarys team did not break this law is saying she broke another law.

But Baran added that he believes the Clinton campaign could be in trouble for not accurately disclosing its payments to the law firm.

"The committees spent money to hire an opposition research firm," he said. "However, there is no payment that describes having done so. The law requires such disclosure on reports filed with the FEC."

Baran points to the Justice Department's indictment this week of two campaign staffers for Rep. Bob Brady, D-Pa., for misreporting campaign payments allegedly used to pay off a competing candidate.

"Isn't that what happened with the hiding of dossier expenses?" Baran asked.

So I fail to see how this article helps you.

None of these lawyers in this piece compare this situtaion to don jr.s other than this lawyer saying awhat hillarys team did was worse.

"There's been no allegation that the Trump campaign went out looking for ways to get those Russians to manipulate the election for Trump, but now you have these payments to a foreign national," she said.

So why shouldnt there be an investigation again?

a reply to: JinMI

Nutter has a definition and is used to describe a person, not a thing.

True.

But you did and it's clear.

Fine. I still stand by my statement.

My intent was not to hurt feelings.

It's just a topic I find rather nutty.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, had they just paid steele directly, they would have been acceoting something of value DIRECTLY.

Sure, but still may not have been a violation of the law. See my previous post.

As you admitted, don jr.s meeting also may not have been a violation of law.

So why an investigation into one side and not the other?

a reply to: Grambler

Investigate all you like. Knock yourself out.

Just stop comparing the two situations.

It is a false equivalence at best.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Yes, had they just paid steele directly, they would have been acceoting something of value DIRECTLY.

Sure, but still may not have been a violation of the law. See my previous post.

As you admitted, don jr.s meeting also may not have been a violation of law.

So why an investigation into one side and not the other?

Ask that question when you find two comparable situations.

Edit to add:

I believe it is being investigated.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Im not giving credence to a turd like hannity

Im pointing out that Hillary may have helped fund a poison pill that has been shown to be accurate in only one way (page), and which resulted in the spying on, unmasking of, and violation of the rights of her electoral rival.

Had it never been turned into a fisa warrant it would have just been dirty politics

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

If hillary contracted its creation.....she colluded with foreign agents

She did not. A DNC lawyer contracted a US firm, who in turn hired Steele.

Hillary controlled the DNC, she paid their debts, therefore, had complete control of the DNC as Donna Brazil said.

So do you think the DNC lawyer was a rogue who worked unpaid and under no direction?

That lawyer was told to do this.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: AboveBoard

Im not giving credence to a turd like hannity

Im pointing out that Hillary may have helped fund a poison pill that has been shown to be accurate in only one way (page), and which resulted in the spying on, unmasking of, and violation of the rights of her electoral rival.

Had it never been turned into a fisa warrant it would have just been dirty politics

And that seems to be part of the investigation.

The real question is whether or not using the dossier in part to get warrants i some sort of violation.

originally posted by: xstealth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

If hillary contracted its creation.....she colluded with foreign agents

She did not. A DNC lawyer contracted a US firm, who in turn hired Steele.

Hillary controlled the DNC, she paid their debts, therefore, had complete control of the DNC as Donna Brazil said.

So do you think the DNC lawyer was a rogue who worked unpaid and under no direction?

That lawyer was told to do this.

Could be, and I'm sure that will come out of this investigation.