It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth
So in your opinion, it is impossible to enter Italy on one passport and then travel through the Schengen countries under an assumed name, possibly using Israeli or simply counterfeit passports where necessary?
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: bastion
None of the allegations have proven to be correct.
When is your focus going to switch to reality?... That the DNC paid a foreign agent to work with Russia to dig up dirt on a political opponent, and the media publishing unverified claims to the world to try and influence an election...
As for your 'verifications' - even the anti-Trump CNN had to admit:
For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals.
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: UKTruth
No I already got the talking points on another thread.
You are allowed to pay for And collude with Russia as long as you pay an American company to do it for you and it can't be proven you had INTENT to use Russian sources.
You can't make this stuff up.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: UKTruth
No I already got the talking points on another thread.
You are allowed to pay for And collude with Russia as long as you pay an American company to do it for you and it can't be proven you had INTENT to use Russian sources.
You can't make this stuff up.
Agreed, but funny nonetheless to witness the mental gymnastics of the anti-Trump brigade.
1) Suspected collusion is not known collusion
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
2) It was deployed before the election, to both the media and intelligence. Neither took it seriously.
3) The Russian troll army plays both sides, or did you miss the news stories about the fake black activists accounts?
Source
4) Incompetent? Elaborate.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: soberbacchus
If the Clinton campaign knew about it, would have been mentioned in the leaked Podesta emails.
originally posted by: burntheships
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: soberbacchus
If the Clinton campaign knew about it, would have been mentioned in the leaked Podesta emails.
Really? Apparently not.
Because she now admits she funded it.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: burntheships
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: soberbacchus
If the Clinton campaign knew about it, would have been mentioned in the leaked Podesta emails.
Really? Apparently not.
Because she now admits she funded it.
Really? Where?
originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: DJW001
Sounds like a Clinton crafted excuse for when she gets
had, which just happened.