FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

No, they paid to get dirt on trump[ that came from Kremlin agents.

This is true.

They didnt directly pay the kremlin agents.

They paid (a firm that contracted a foreign agent) to get dirt (the dossier) from Kremlin agents (the most troubling claims in the dossier came from Krmelin agents).

Hillarys team got the dossier, and knew that much of the info came from the kremlin. They then proceeded to parrot some of the claims from that dossier, lie about not paying for it, and claim that any attempts to get dirt on a political opponent from russians were criminal, despite knowing that is exactly what they had done.

So if they didn't directly pay the Kremlin agents, what is there to investigate?

Again, where is the logic in what you are requesting?

If don jr attempting to get dirt from russians that never materialized is worth investigating as someone on this thread suggested...

Then the democrats paying a company to contract a foreign source to get dirt on trump from russians, then lying about it, is also worth investigating.

a reply to: introvert

Thats what Im saying. A third party doing the bidding of others absolves others of their influence over the crime.

Arrest those Russian agents for knowingly violating US law, wait no. A retired British intelligence officer being hired though an organization in violation of the FARA isnt any better.

Wait I got it. The Russians hacked the DNC. They probably killed Seth Rich to do it.

a reply to: Grambler

Perfectly said. You are exactly right.

a reply to: Grambler

Then the democrats paying a company to contract a foreign source to get dirt on trump from russians, then lying about it, is also worth investigating.

The Democrats did not pay a company to contract a foreign service to get dirt on Trump.

They paid for research from a company. That company made the decision to use specific resources.

How can you hold the Democrats accountable for something they did not do?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: introvert

Thats what Im saying. A third party doing the bidding of others absolves others of their influence over the crime.

Arrest those Russian agents for knowingly violating US law, wait no. A retired British intelligence officer being hired though an organization in violation of the FARA isnt any better.

Wait I got it. The Russians hacked the DNC. They probably killed Seth Rich to do it.

Do you have a point?

a reply to: Grambler

What's really funny is that not one page earlier in this thread, you understood the distinction full well.

Now one page later when it fits your narrative, you forget that important distinction.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Then the democrats paying a company to contract a foreign source to get dirt on trump from russians, then lying about it, is also worth investigating.

The Democrats did not pay a company to contract a foreign service to get dirt on Trump.

They paid for research from a company. That company made the decision to use specific resources.

How can you hold the Democrats accountable for something they did not do?

Because they knew the dirt was coming from russia, lied about paying for it, and still had members spread the dirt in it after the election.

And the dems were the ones saying getting dirt on your opponent from russians was illegal.

Trying to claim because they paid a third party to get dirt on Trump from the Kremlin its ok is ridiculous.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

What's really funny is that not one page earlier in this thread, you understood the distinction full well.

Now one page later when it fits your narrative, you forget that important distinction.

Yes, what did I say on that earlier page?

"Yes i see the distinction. One side met with a russian and received no dirt. The other side actually paid for dirt from actual kremlin agents, and unlike trumps team actually got dirt.

So yes, what the dems did was far worse. Acting like paying an intermediary makes it ok is a joke. "

My position has remained the same.

Again, you cant even be honest about what was said a few pages back.

a reply to: Grambler

Because they knew the dirt was coming from russia, lied about paying for it, and still had members spread the dirt in it after the election.

None of that is illegal. They did not ask for or agree to receive anything for the sake of the election. Especially not Clinton or her campaign.

And the dems were the ones saying getting dirt on your opponent from russians was illegal.

It may have been, in the manner Jr did it. The Russians directly contacted the campaign.

You cannot compare the two situations.

Trying to claim because they paid a third party to get dirt on Trump from the Kremlin its ok is ridiculous.

Your false equivalencies are ridiculous.

You just want to do whatever you can to try to equate this to what Jr did.

Not going to work.

a reply to: introvert

Yes we know.

Its ok to pay for a dossier that gets dirt on trump from Kremlin sources, lie about paying for it for a year, and use that info.

But agreeing with a meeting with a russian to get dirt, and then walking out after 15 minutes when no dirt was given, that is a crime.

Either getting dirt form russians is illegal or its not.

Paying an intermediary (and then lying about it and still using that dirt) does not change the legality of it.



Oh, and can you link to where I knew the distinction a few pages back and then changed my stance, or admit you are a liar?

Thanks!

a reply to: Grambler

"Yes i see the distinction. One side met with a russian and received no dirt. The other side actually paid for dirt from actual kremlin agents, and unlike trumps team actually got dirt.

Exactly. This is what you said in another post:

They didnt directly pay the kremlin agents.

So they didn't pay for dirt from Kremlin agents.

They paid for dirt. Where they got that dirt was not their choice.

Jr chose to meet directly with those people.

Not the same situation.

There is this.

Trump Dossier Firm Also Supplied Info Used in Meeting of Russians, Trump Team

The information that a Russian lawyer brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 stemmed from research conducted by Fusion GPS, the same firm that compiled the infamous Trump dossier, according to the lawyer and a source familiar with the matter.

In an interview with NBC News, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower — describing alleged tax evasion and donations to Democrats — from Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner, who had been hired to conduct research in a New York federal court case.

A source with firsthand knowledge of the matter confirmed that the firm's research had been provided to Veselnitskaya as part of the case, which involved alleging money laundering by a Russian company called Prevezon.

This account casts Veselnitskaya's activities in a new light, challenging the notion that she was simply carrying talking points to Trump that originated with the Russian government.

www.nbcnews.com...

SO basically the DNC and everyone linked to setting up the dossier for use is guilty of breaking the law. The JR meeting set up by FGPS is telling for its use of information from the case file FGPS created. The information was compiled while still working for the DNC and makes it clear that fusion GPS was still working for its first client when it set up the JR meeting.

a reply to: Grambler

But agreeing with a meeting with a russian to get dirt, and then walking out after 15 minutes when no dirt was given, that is a crime.

I never said it was a crime.

Are you making that claim?

By definition, it may have been. I do not know.

Still not comparable to what the DNC lawyer did.

Either getting dirt form russians is illegal or its not. Paying an intermediary (and then lying about it and still using that dirt) does not change the legality of it.

Yes, it does. Very much so.

Oh, and can you link to where I knew the distinction a few pages back and then changed my stance, or admit you are a liar?

Already did.

a reply to: introvert

Yes we know your history of changing standards.

Political team members meeting with foriegn officials warrants an invetsigation.

Unless its hillarys team meeting with ukrainians or bill meeting with putin, or the podestas lobbying for russians.

Getting money from Russian sources is shady unless its Bill getting money from russian banks after speaking with putin because that was just for an inncoent speech.

And now it may be illegal to get dirt on hillary from russians, even if that dirt never materialized and that warrants an investigation, but its ok for hillarys team to pay an intermediary to get dirt on trump and use it while lying about paying for it.

Keep going.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes we know your history of changing standards. Political team members meeting with foriegn officials warrants an invetsigation.

Holy cow! Talk about changing standards.

Just meeting with foreign officials warrants an investigation now?

I thought it was because they paid for dirt from people they actually didn't even pay.

Of course Jr just didn't meet with them. He was promised goods.

And now it may be illegal to get dirt on hillary from russians, even if that dirt never materialized and that warrants an investigation, but its ok for hillarys team to pay an intermediary to get dirt on trump and use it while lying about paying for it. Keep going.

According to the law, Jr did not have to get dirt to potentially violate the law. The promise alone was enough, potentially.

No such thing happened with the Hillary camp.

But you keep going on and pushing your false equivalencies. One day you will get one to stick.

One day...

a reply to: Grambler



The AMERICAN media is not Russian government agents..

Some random foreign citizen not on a governments payroll, is not Russian government agents..

as the email was nice enough to spell out twice..

Once one person is a paid , sanctioned representative of a nation state, and the other person is just a random citizen.. THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING..

That is why people have to register as a foreign agent if they are taking money from another government. To push that governments wishes.

( on a side note whoever wrote that should take a class from anyperson who has ever bought or sold pot... I mean their innuendo skills are just atrocious.. did they really have to write out “Russian Government” twice?!?! Lol)



To your actual point though there are dozens of reasons it should be illegal...mainly the same reasons why it is illegal to accept anything of value from ANY foreign nation as a presidential candidate..



1) potential for blackmail later.

2) helping a foreign adversary nation hand pick their choice president.

3) don’t know what the potential payback they might want is.

4) as a civilian we don’t have the authority to negotiate on the behalf of America as a whole and the federal government.

5) if we assume they are talking about the DNC emails, those were stolen property. So it is helping a adversary nation leak stolen US documents.

6) would you want every tom dick and Harry doing backroom deals with North Korea or Iran???



There is just oodles wrong with it.. and yes I would feel the same way about any other civilian who did the same..

If you have been elected to a position high enough to make an argument for you having the authority to negotiate. That’s a hair different the potential for massive corruption is still there obviously.. but you kinda have a play off at least.

A private citizen has no play off..



Thus far at least.. every right wing conspiracy I research is based on nothing...

Pizzagate, Benghazi, IRS scandal, acorn, planned parenthood, anything from project veritas..

There is never a tangible motivation that is worth the risk...

There is almost never an actual bad guy to point to..

The people making decisions are never the people they are trying to pin it on..

I can usually think of a FAR better way to achieve the same goal.. and I’m some community college scrub.. I assume they have a room full of Ivy League phds thinking up their schemes ..

So I shouldn’t be able to instantly think of a more efficient plan..

aNONON I S FAKE

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Holy cow! Talk about changing standards.

Just meeting with foreign officials warrants an investigation now?

Hahahahahaha!

Yeah that does sound absurd doesnt it?

Only that is why you said initially that there needed to be an investigation into Trumps team.

Also, Trump's case warranted investigation due to confirmed connections between foreign agents and his staff. Not sure why I would have to prove his intent to warrant an investigation and I'm not sure why you would ask me to prove his intent.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

WHOOPS!!!

See you change standards and definitions so many times to fit your narrative that when presented with your own words you forget them and admit how ridiculous they are.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

No, they paid to get dirt on trump[ that came from Kremlin agents.

This is true.

They didnt directly pay the kremlin agents.

They paid (a firm that contracted a foreign agent) to get dirt (the dossier) from Kremlin agents (the most troubling claims in the dossier came from Krmelin agents).

Hillarys team got the dossier, and knew that much of the info came from the kremlin. They then proceeded to parrot some of the claims from that dossier, lie about not paying for it, and claim that any attempts to get dirt on a political opponent from russians were criminal, despite knowing that is exactly what they had done.

So if they didn't directly pay the Kremlin agents, what is there to investigate?

Again, where is the logic in what you are requesting?

If don jr attempting to get dirt from russians that never materialized is worth investigating as someone on this thread suggested...

???

He got the dirt.
The DNC hacked emails were released less than two weeks after the meeting.

The Russians got the US GOV. to settle the Prevezon Money Laundering case (Hundreds of millions of dollars laundered in the US by purchasing NYC Real Estate)..hmm

The Lawyer Don Jr. met with represented them.

Of course Trump had to fire the lead NY Prosecutor/AG assigned to the case first, Preet Bharara.

The settlement was offered by the US side, was for just a few million dollars and shocked both people in DOJ and Russian Attorneys with no one understanding why the US Gov would offer a pennies on the dollar settlement for what both sides agreed was a slam dunk case.

This is the reason Bannon said Mueller was going to "Crack Don Jr. wide open" for the world to see.

Trump Sr.s dictation of the public lie about the meeting is problematic and is reportedly the prime reason Mueller is going to interview the President.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Holy cow! Talk about changing standards.

Just meeting with foreign officials warrants an investigation now?

Hahahahahaha!

Yeah that does sound absurd doesnt it?

Only that is why you said initially that there needed to be an investigation into Trumps team.

Also, Trump's case warranted investigation due to confirmed connections between foreign agents and his staff. Not sure why I would have to prove his intent to warrant an investigation and I'm not sure why you would ask me to prove his intent.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

WHOOPS!!!

See you change standards and definitions so many times to fit your narrative that when presented with your own words you forget them and admit how ridiculous they are.

Meeting with Russians is fine.

Meeting with Russian agents and then repeatedly, publicly and even under oath LIEING about the meetings and what was said?

That warrants investigation by the FBI.

Lord..How stupid trumpites pretend to be to defend their holy oompa loompa.