Hillary Clinton Caught In A Lie Now Admits Funding Russian Sourced Dossier

a reply to: openminded2011

Above the what?



The law? What's that?

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

Using campaign money to fund a fake dossier is a criminal offense. She can now be charged with 15 crimes. That's up from 13 on Monday.

The dossier isn't fake though.

As more evidence is revealed the more the information in the dossier is corroborated.

Wrong.
The "dossier" is quite fake, which is why the FBI has refused three times deadlined requests by Congress to provide supporting evidence.
In addition, FusionGPS has refused to testify to that same congressionnal committee, for fear of perjury.
QED
fake

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: openminded2011

Above the what?

The law? What's that?

a reply to: ausernamei am no legal genius but fibbing to congress is that not perjury?

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: ausernamei am no legal genius but fibbing to congress is that not perjury?

If you are under oath - yes and no.

You have to know that you are presenting false / misleading information.

18 USC 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Never a dull moment since Trump.





Hey there to you too

a reply to: theantediluvian

lol...I bet you don't make it into Trump's second term. At the rate you're going it's not looking good for you. You literally write in absolute convoluted circles without a coherent point being made.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Chickensalad

Follow the breadcrumbs to the FISA warrant.
That is the crux of the story.


Was this phony research used to get a FISA warrant
to spy on Trump?

This is what I have been saying all along.

As shady as Don Jr or the dems going to russia to get dirt on each other is, I don't think it's a crime for either.

But if the dossier was used for a fisa warrant without a thorough investigation that it was legit, it is a scandal of epic proportions.

I don't see how seeking info is wrong, that whole premise seems silly. I am sure "you can't seek information" is not the way to run opposition research. I do see how lying and hiding the money source and expenditures, stealing the election from the people by cheating Bernie is wrong. And I see how facts are poor to lies in the Dossier and it was used when they just wanted to wave it around without people getting to look at it closely.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Bush did the same for me from the opposite direction.

I lost the R's as soon as I found the picture of Daddy Bush leaning against a wall at Dallas' Dealy Plaza. Bush had a smile and a cig in his mouth that was found in the pics shown by the Time-Life magazine on the fateful day for the JFK and the USA.

The Clinton's finished off the D's for me.

Ron Paul though he didn't have a chance to win, I personally didn't vote for evil if I could help it and he is a good man. Some I voted for have turned out to be bad, that I had some hope for their honesty. Oh hell MOST have.

The tea party looks good now. Real good when you consider the media lied about them too when they went all crazy with throwing the "raycisss" card on them. I went to one rally near my building and saw a lot of black, yellow, hispanics wearing flags and a couple of "nuts with a sign" i call them that the media got a pic of that were not what the rest of them were representing. The Asian people are conservatives I have learned since then. They just don't vote for the conservative labels, they are tough on the elected liars. I was impressed that they think like a lot of us who disagree with big government powers.

a reply to: Justoneman

Pay attention to the details. Don Jr. was not "seeking details," he was approached by the representative of a hostile foreign government. As a businessman, he should have known that whatever the foreign agent was offering, it would not be free. Why was he willing to deal with an enemy of America, and what would he be willing to do for them in exchange? That's the issue here.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman

Pay attention to the details. Don Jr. was not "seeking details," he was approached by the representative of a hostile foreign government. As a businessman, he should have known that whatever the foreign agent was offering, it would not be free. Why was he willing to deal with an enemy of America, and what would he be willing to do for them in exchange? That's the issue here.

You are full of it as a Christmas Turkey the day after Thanksgiving.

What law is violated by either team for seeking information? I want to know if you can find it? I am positive you can't.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman

Pay attention to the details. Don Jr. was not "seeking details," he was approached by the representative of a hostile foreign government. As a businessman, he should have known that whatever the foreign agent was offering, it would not be free. Why was he willing to deal with an enemy of America, and what would he be willing to do for them in exchange? That's the issue here.

You are full of it as a Christmas Turkey the day after Thanksgiving.

What law is violated by either team for seeking information? I want to know if you can find it? I am positive you can't.

www.fara.gov...

That law.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Justoneman

Pay attention to the details. Don Jr. was not "seeking details," he was approached by the representative of a hostile foreign government. As a businessman, he should have known that whatever the foreign agent was offering, it would not be free. Why was he willing to deal with an enemy of America, and what would he be willing to do for them in exchange? That's the issue here.

You are full of it as a Christmas Turkey the day after Thanksgiving.

What law is violated by either team for seeking information? I want to know if you can find it? I am positive you can't.

www.fara.gov...

That law.

Clearly no violation of that. The only agent I recall that didn't declare was the one the DNC hired to setup Don Jr.

Paul fan... would love to see ANY criminal in office, no matter who they think they are or who you think they are, get run out of DC for good. This doesn't fit the opposition research facts that either D or R can seek data. The crime was how the money was allocated not that people talked.

Whipping that law out shows me nothing was violated. Trump jr is not an agent for anybody but Daddy.

a reply to: Justoneman

Hello? The email specifically said that the Russian government wants to help Trump. Donnie not only did not report the contact, he later lied about it.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: muzzleflash

Never a dull moment since Trump.

Hey there to you too

Is it just me or does anyone think ,I HOPE TRUMP HASNT DONE ANYTHING STUPID while Ive been asleep.

Exiting times 👍

a reply to: theantediluvian


LET IT GO, it is over, your liberal saviors have been outed for what they are... hypocrites and criminals. The claims you state as fact at the end of you reply about Trump have one tiny problem...FACTS. There is ZERO evidence of your claims of Trump working with Putin and the Kremlin, whereas, there is proof and now admissions of the Dems doing just that. Also recent testimony by facebook and google execs before congress actually say the ads taken out by Russians actually happened after the election and were anti trump NOT pro trump, so your whole story is nothing more than liberal fan fiction.

a reply to: burntheships

So wow, people here been telling me that it was the GOP who did this and passed it off to her. So let me get this this straight now, the GOP let Hillary finance their opposition research and then gave it to her ?

a reply to: Denoli

I'll admit The thought crosses my mind

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I don't think it was GOP per say, it was a News outlet
"Free Beacon" they are Republican based.

They dropped it, and at that point the Russians
we're not involved. Along came Clinton and that is where
the Russian's input started.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The GOP started to pay for it but after Trump won the nomination the Democrats said, 'Hey...we'll take that oppo research you've developed' and paid for it.