Why the Dossier may be the most serious political scandal the US has ever seen.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

Watergate was bigger.

Not even close.

Water gate had people from Nixon break in to a hotel for info.

This would be having the FBI do that break in, then use the evidence they found to start an investigation.

You forgot to add that they would then investigate said break in they did.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Steele was hired by an American company. The people paying for the dirt may not have even known what source Fusion GPS was using for this, only that they had some helpful connections.

If they (DNC) thought they were doing something perfectly legal...
- Why did they initially deny paying for it?
- Why did they not record or report these payments...as required by law?
- Why did they violate campaign finance laws by hiding the payments via their law firm?

a reply to: Grambler

I haven't missed anything.



From your zerohedge article, which I would like to mention is authored by the esteemed Tyler Durden, which is a pen name a group of writers use on that site to escape being sued for the lies they constantly spread..

Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.

Strangely, they leave out the republicans who originally funded the dossier. As you have. As did the RNC in the story about this on their website. Wonder why?

I'm convinced at this point you only absorb the information in an article that seems favorable to you. Mainly because of this little bombshell from the telegraph article you just posted:

It also alleges that Trump advisers including his lawyer Michael Cohen maintained regular contact with Russian officials and others linked to Russian intelligence during the election and were exchanging information for "at least" eight years.

At least eight years. So please, tell me how the investigation of people on Team Trump was a current Obama led conspiracy?

And as a b-side, please point to where I said I have any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal. I've maintained for months that nobody outside of the people investigating him know. It seems your whole style of argument is based on assuming something to be correct. First about the OP, then about me.

Once again, assumptions aren't facts. As this thread so clearly illustrates.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Maybe you can help me out with this, you're saying that the dossier couldn't have affected the issuance of the warrant to cover Page because it didn't exist and Page had been under scrutiny since 2014.

How could that scrutiny have any bearing at all on Trump's campaign considering that his campaign was formally launched on June 16, 2015?

So, minus a time machine, the 2014 warrant couldn't have played any role in the Trump campaign...

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't missed anything.

From your zerohedge article, which I would like to mention is authored by the esteemed Tyler Durden, which is a pen name a group of writers use on that site to escape being sued for the lies they constantly spread..

The article cites two New York Times journalists saying Hillarys team lied to them. IDo you have a problem with them too?

Strangely, they leave out the republicans who originally funded the dossier. As you have. As did the RNC in the story about this on their website. Wonder why?

I not only answered this three times on this thread that they are guilty to, but sources have been proided showing the hiring of Steele and the dossier was until the dems came on. But you ignore this.

I'm convinced at this point you only absorb the information in an article that seems favorable to you. Mainly because of this little bombshell from the daily caller article you just posted:


At least eight years. So please, tell me how the investigation of people on Team Trump was a current Obama led conspiracy?

Um what? The dossier said Cohen was meeting russain agents in prague. This is a proven lie, so why would we listen to any of it?

In addition, the fisa warrants and investigation was stepped up under Obama. This just says it was referencing 8 years worth of material. Do you have evidnce that Cohen was inder investigation for 8 years.

By the same token, if the look into Uranium one and Hillary brings up donations from people for 5 hyears, then clearly this isnt an investigation from trump supporters, because he has only been pres for one year. Do you see ho dumb this sounds?

And as a b-side, please point to where I said I have any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal. I've maintained for months that nobody outside of the people investigating him know. It seems your whole style of argument is based on assuming something to be correct. First about the OP, then about me.

Once again, assumptions aren't facts. As this thread so clearly illustrates.

In other words you have nothing to dispute any of the facts I had on points one, two and three. You are just trying to deflect and ignore them.

Oh and check out this thread of yours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Strange you started a thread with no absolute proof, claiming misdeeds when there is no proof of them, claiming how it could be shady.

Weird you didnt use oyour own standards there on yourself.

What was it you said to me?

Oh Yes.

I would have let it go if you put it in the grey area, but I expect better of you here.

a reply to: Grambler

Savage burn.

The double standards are heavy on this story.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't missed anything.

From your zerohedge article, which I would like to mention is authored by the esteemed Tyler Durden, which is a pen name a group of writers use on that site to escape being sued for the lies they constantly spread..

The article cites two New York Times journalists saying Hillarys team lied to them. IDo you have a problem with them too?

Strangely, they leave out the republicans who originally funded the dossier. As you have. As did the RNC in the story about this on their website. Wonder why?

I not only answered this three times on this thread that they are guilty to, but sources have been proided showing the hiring of Steele and the dossier was until the dems came on. But you ignore this.

I'm convinced at this point you only absorb the information in an article that seems favorable to you. Mainly because of this little bombshell from the daily caller article you just posted:


At least eight years. So please, tell me how the investigation of people on Team Trump was a current Obama led conspiracy?

Um what? The dossier said Cohen was meeting russain agents in prague. This is a proven lie, so why would we listen to any of it?

In addition, the fisa warrants and investigation was stepped up under Obama. This just says it was referencing 8 years worth of material. Do you have evidnce that Cohen was inder investigation for 8 years.

By the same token, if the look into Uranium one and Hillary brings up donations from people for 5 hyears, then clearly this isnt an investigation from trump supporters, because he has only been pres for one year. Do you see ho dumb this sounds?

And as a b-side, please point to where I said I have any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal. I've maintained for months that nobody outside of the people investigating him know. It seems your whole style of argument is based on assuming something to be correct. First about the OP, then about me.

Once again, assumptions aren't facts. As this thread so clearly illustrates.

In other words you have nothing to dispute any of the facts I had on points one, two and three. You are just trying to deflect and ignore them.

Oh and check out this thread of yours.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Strange you started a thread with no absolute proof, claiming misdeeds when there is no proof of them, claiming how it could be shady.

Weird you didnt use oyour own standards there on yourself.

What was it you said to me?

Oh Yes.

I would have let it go if you put it in the grey area, but I expect better of you here.

That's the thing. You have no facts. Only your opinion of what the facts are. And that isn't the same thing. No matter how much you claim the opposite.

In the thread of mine you try to use as a "gotcha" moment I actually have a named source, otherwise I wouldn't have made a thread about it. I know that may seem strange to you and others, but that's how it's supposed to work..

Daniel Fried, who served as a senior diplomat until he retired in late February, said he became aware of the sanctions effort in the early weeks of Trump's presidency.

So another fail right there for you.

Talk to me when you can name your sources by name, otherwise this is nothing more than circle jerk material for non-thinking lemmings. That you would expect people to just believe you when all you have are opinions pretty much says it all. Come back with any real evidence, and we'll talk.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: FauxMulder

You guys are on the wrong side of James Bond on this one...and the Bond Villain is in the White House...

"Gold Middle Finger"

I guess we'll have to wait till the movie is over to find out.

Can't we get someone like Chris Farley to play gold middle finger?!

a reply to: underwerks

You are really sounding to sound desperate.

Show me in that thread were named sources said the things you were inferring such as Trump did something shady, or Trump wouldn't just lift sanctions for no reason?

Oh thats right, you had no evidence for those claims, you made them up.

On this topic.

I have provided sources. You tell me which of these claims you don't believe because of the source.

1. Hillarys team paid for the dossier. My sources says the info is from bank statements.

2. They lied about this. I have two named NYT sources that say that.

3. The dossier came from Kremlin sources. I have sources that show the dossier itself show that.

Your deflection attempts are amusing, but they are just really showing that you are partisan.

But again, tell me which one of those three facts you don't agree with.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Grambler

Savage burn.

The double standards are heavy on this story.

CNN is gleefully reporting that Hilary or Debbie Schultz nor John podesta had any knowledge of payments for the dossier.

Man this is going to be fun when each of them have to appear before Congress to testify. Hopefully in Open Session!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Grambler

Savage burn.

The double standards are heavy on this story.

CNN is gleefully reporting that Hilary or Debbie Schultz nor John podesta had any knowledge of payments for the dossier.

Man this is going to be fun when each of them have to appear before Congress to testify. Hopefully in Open Session!

They are so full of it.

Well then I assume they Hillary and Podesta and Shultz will be calling on Fusion GPS to release all of their records and emails so we can see exactly who knew of this.

Any minute now they will call for this...

So Obama does not know what the FBI is doing in regards to investigations of candidates for president. Hillary and her campaign manager have no idea what the company they hire to do opposition research (disguised as legal services) is doing in regards to said research (disguised as legal services) and obviously none of them ever intended to rules or laws to be broken.

Is that about right?

They were utterly clueless and so it's not their fault.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I'm still waiting for some (any) avowed ATS leftist to say that if Hillary did anything wrong, she should be punished.

If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

I'll wait.

Fail.

I've been on record for months saying that if Trump is guilty, fry his butt.

But it is nice for a leftist to actually say that they want Hillary punished if she did anything wrong.

Are you a right winger? You constantly call yourself a "classic liberal", but you assume I'm talking about you when I say "right winger"...

Hmmmm.

Point of information: classic liberalism favors laissez faire economics, free trade, and small, representational government. It's a pity that propagandists have so twists the language that people don't even know what words mean any more.

Star on that!
Truth.

a reply to: carewemust

Hopefully in Open Session!

It should be done that way.... but I will not hold my breath waiting.

a reply to: Grambler

They really are coming apart at the seams. They're not even offering argument anymore, just screaming "No you're lying! NO FACTS NO FACTS!" when you clearly have facts that even their liberal masters are reporting.

a reply to: butcherguy

It's more of a shame that modern "liberals" aren't really classical liberals.

a reply to: Grambler

I really admire your interest and effort in pursuing this topic.

I'm starting to be resigned to the fact that there will be no accountability for any of it. When the FBI can ignore congressional subpoenas (even in a Trump administration), you can call this turkey of government cooked and done.

Hope I'm wrong, but doubt it.

Keep in mind the Fisa timeline:
It's anterieur (2014) to the Steele Dossier

Initial funding (2016)
goes back to Nunes (by all acounts)
for his own preliminary snooping
of his own adversory in the primaries : Trump !

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: AboveBoard

Steele was hired by an American company. The people paying for the dirt may not have even known what source Fusion GPS was using for this, only that they had some helpful connections.

If they (DNC) thought they were doing something perfectly legal...
- Why did they initially deny paying for it?
- Why did they not record or report these payments...as required by law?
- Why did they violate campaign finance laws by hiding the payments via their law firm?

I haven't ruled out the oppo research as being done on the sly - recorded in other expenses etc. That is normal for such things, apparently. Not saying it's good, just saying transparency is not a feature of how oppo is done. I know this due to my vast experience reading Wikipedia... Link: Opposition Research Wiki


Who was the original Republican that paid for it in the beginning??

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grambler

I really admire your interest and effort in pursuing this topic.

I'm starting to be resigned to the fact that there will be no accountability for any of it. When the FBI can ignore congressional subpoenas (even in a Trump administration), you can call this turkey of government cooked and done.

Hope I'm wrong, but doubt it.

If they don't find anything soon, the holiday spirit will start kicking in and the investigations will fall apart. Muellers team is already experiencing this phenomena.