FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

a reply to: introvert

More name calling.

Good job!!!

a reply to: Grambler

I did get you in a gotcha moment. You alluded to the fact it would be ridiculous to suggest just meeting with foreign official;s or agents would be reason for investigation. Yet that is exactly what you initially said was the justification for the trump investigation.

And Jr did more than just that. I said connections and that included things he did that Clinton did not.

You caught yourself in your own trap. Bless your heart.

Again, paying a third party to get dirt from russians and then lying about it does not legitimize getting the dirt more than what Trump jr did. You can shout that it does till the cows come home, but it is a joke and you know it.

Just another in a long line of you changing standards to fit your narrative.

Narrative has always been the same. You are creating false equivalencies that make no sense.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: introvert

No, she did not. She did something worse. She hired Fusion GPS whose involvement in our nations business caused the greatest electoral crisis since our inception.

Kiss me.

So you admit it is not the same. Awesome!

Tell your buddy Grambler. He's having a rough time with it.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

More name calling.

Good job!!!

Truth hurt?

Don't like being called a hypocrite, stop being hypocritical.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

I did get you in a gotcha moment. You alluded to the fact it would be ridiculous to suggest just meeting with foreign official;s or agents would be reason for investigation. Yet that is exactly what you initially said was the justification for the trump investigation.

And Jr did more than just that. I said connections and that included things he did that Clinton did not.

You caught yourself in your own trap. Bless your heart.

Again, paying a third party to get dirt from russians and then lying about it does not legitimize getting the dirt more than what Trump jr did. You can shout that it does till the cows come home, but it is a joke and you know it.

Just another in a long line of you changing standards to fit your narrative.

Narrative has always been the same. You are creating false equivalencies that make no sense.

Here is your intial claim for why an investigation was warranted.

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.

Show me where in that you said things he did that Clinton did not.

You then proceeded imply on this thread that haaving an investigation just for connections to foriegn agents would be ridiculous.

yet that is excatly what you intially said.

Yet you still wont admit it.

Well its there in black and white for everyone to see how you have adjuysted your standard gto just be Trump needs investigated, hillary doesnt.

a reply to: Grambler

Still at it? Hillary is being investigated yet again. According to Simpson, Steele believed the FBI had elements that were trying to shield Trump, which is why he stopped cooperating with them. Interesting, don't you think? Why didn't you mention that in the OP?

a reply to: Grambler

Here is your intial claim for why an investigation was warranted.

Yup. See that word "connections"? What were his connections to foreign agents?

Promises made and meetings they had.

Show me where in that you said things he did that Clinton did not.

I did not say anything of the sort in that statement.

I guess if you are trying to twist context from one thread and try to mold it to another, you are doing a fine job.

You then proceeded imply on this thread that haaving an investigation just for connections to foriegn agents would be ridiculous.

yet that is excatly what you intially said.

I implied or exactly said? Please provide a specific quote.

Considering your knack for dishonesty and inability to understand context, we have to be very specific. Can't have you setting traps you may fall in yourself.

Well its there in black and white for everyone to see how you have adjuysted your standard gto just be Trump needs investigated, hillary doesnt.

My standard is the same and I understand the difference. Just because I do not fall for the laughable false equivalencies that you create in your mind does not mean I have changed standards.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Still at it? Hillary is being investigated yet again. According to Simpson, Steele believed the FBI had elements that were trying to shield Trump, which is why he stopped cooperating with them. Interesting, don't you think? Why didn't you mention that in the OP?

Excellent question.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Still at it? Hillary is being investigated yet again. According to Simpson, Steele believed the FBI had elements that were trying to shield Trump, which is why he stopped cooperating with them. Interesting, don't you think? Why didn't you mention that in the OP?

How is that relevant to what the OP is stating.

Yes, many people came on and attempted to derail, and I dont mind discussing other things with them.

But the point of the OP stands; simpson claims the FBI told steele they had a source inside Trumps team, and that is bad for the reasons outlined.

As far as your point, what proof did Steele or simpson give for that? The fact the NYT article said there was no proof orf Trump doing anything illegal?

So what? Show proof the FBI acted to shield trump.

Everything seems to point the other way, including stonewalling oversight committees about the dossier and fisa warrants, not mentioning meetings with fusion gps, team members that worked for hillarys team, texts showing hatred for trump, charging trumps team for lying to the fbi while the same people allowed hillarys teanm to lie without charging them, leaks to the press designed to hurt trump.

But by all means, lets have steele discuss how the FBI acted innaporiately to help trump.

I am more concerned with a politicized and weaponized intel community than any one politician, so if they acted inappropriately to help trump they should be held accountable for that.

a reply to: introvert

You really want me to go back and post what you stated? How many times do I have to do that?

I had to go bakc and prove you did say that there was no proof that the transcript said steele was told by the FBI that they had an inside source. I showed you did.

You said that I had changed my stance on the distinction between trumps team russia and hillarys. I showed that you were wrong.

Now you want me to go back again?

How many times do I have to quote your own words for you?

a reply to: Grambler

I had to go bakc and prove you did say that there was no proof that the transcript said steele was told by the FBI that they had an inside source. I showed you did.

I said no such thing.

How many times do I have to quote your own words for you?

Until my actual words match what you claim.

I spend most of my time debating things I never said, but you think I did.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

I had to go bakc and prove you did say that there was no proof that the transcript said steele was told by the FBI that they had an inside source. I showed you did.

I said no such thing.

How many times do I have to quote your own words for you?

Until my actual words match what you claim.

I spend most of my time debating things I never said, but you think I did.

I already posted what you said about steele being told by the FBI.

Like this.

We cannot say for certain what Steele was told by whom and the context in which that was relayed or portrayed to the person at Fusion.

...

It's almost as if no one actually read the quote from the transcript. There are some very specific words used that demand more context be provided before coming to any conclusion.

And on and on.

Now you are saying that you never said there was no proof of Steele being told this?

It is astonishing to see you deny your own words from today that are saved on the page.

But go on, explain hgow those quotes were actually not you saying we cant be sure that simpson claimed the FBI told steele that.

a reply to: introvert

It is worse since its the same supposed (Possibility!) of crime, twice. LOL

You dont take issue with this being the SECOND problem involving Fusion GPS in the same election cycle?

You dont see how both the dossier and the Jr meeting are unequivocally connected through Fusion GPS and focused towards the same goal?

You dont see how FGPS' involvement and all the minor players along the way are only involved thanks to the Clinton campaign /DNC hiring FGPS and starting the whole enchilada?

a reply to: Grambler

Now you are saying that you never said there was no proof of Steele being told this?

No. What I said is that we cannot say for certain what he was told and how that context was relayed to Simpson. I did not say there was no proof he was being told this.

That's exactly what I said above. You just quoted it. How could you misread what you just quoted?

It is astonishing to see you deny your own words from today that are saved on the page.

I don't deny it. I deny your claim as to what I said. Apparently you cannot even read what you quoted.

But go on, explain hgow those quotes were actually not you saying we cant be sure that simpson claimed the FBI told steele that.

That's not what I said. Read what you quoted...again. What does it say?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: introvert

It is worse since its the same crime, twice.

You dont take issue with this being the SECOND problem involving Fusion GPS in the same election cycle?

You dont see how both the dossier and the Jr meeting are unequivocally connected through Fusion GPS and focused towards the same goal?

You dont see how FGPS' involvement and all the minor players along the way are only involved thanks to the Clinton campaign /DNC hiring them and starting the whole enchilada?

You have admitted that the two situations are not the same.

That is all I needed to prove my point.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Still at it? Hillary is being investigated yet again. According to Simpson, Steele believed the FBI had elements that were trying to shield Trump, which is why he stopped cooperating with them. Interesting, don't you think? Why didn't you mention that in the OP?

Perhaps his recollection of events was skewed? There is a lot that happened between now and then so how can we be sure of anything? As other posters have pointed out the waters are pretty murky at this point.

a reply to: introvert

I said this.

"The FBI, which is supposed to be a non political entity, tasked with keeping our country safe, apparently was giving details of looking into election interference between Trump and russians to a former spy from another country that they knew to be getting paid by an oppo research firm working for Trumps opponent, Hillary. "

You replied.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on the quote you provided.

We cannot say for certain what Steele was told by whom and the context in which that was relayed or portrayed to the person at Fusion.

You then later admit that I was right.

I say "Ok, now that we admit the FBI did this "

You say

That they debriefed Steele and had another source of info?

Sure.

So your initial claim that you dont know how I could say how the FBI was giving details of the investigation to Steele were absolutely wrong.

And you know this.

a reply to: introvert

I know you are only proving a point as they come in your favor. You dont have anything to say but the antithesis of anything offered that isnt the truth you have already chosen. Also, you dont ever really contest what I say so what I said stands.

Its the same company, working for the same client. The dossier and the info offered to JR were compiled TOGETHER, by the same FGPS that was hired by the DNC and Clinton.

Clinton tried to make her opponent commit a crime by first hiring a foreign operative through FGPS to make that a reality. What was she going to do blackmail Trump? Tell the authorities? Who knows. She was acting criminally by hiring FGPS to begin with. They were in violation of the law. FARA

The proof is that FGPS was STILL employed by Clinton when they sent their employee ( Natalia Veselnitska) to do work, put simply. Her job was to bait and switch Jr into an inappropriate discussion with the express purpose of helping their then client, Clinton /DNC.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: introvert

It is worse since its the same crime, twice.

You dont take issue with this being the SECOND problem involving Fusion GPS in the same election cycle?

You dont see how both the dossier and the Jr meeting are unequivocally connected through Fusion GPS and focused towards the same goal?

You dont see how FGPS' involvement and all the minor players along the way are only involved thanks to the Clinton campaign /DNC hiring them and starting the whole enchilada?

You have admitted that the two situations are not the same.

That is all I needed to prove my point.

No that proves no point.

If a person murders someone, and we say murder is bad, and then a second person pays a firm to murder someone, you dont just say "Well we cant investigate the second person because the situations are not the same"

That is why there are standards for why there should be an investigation that arent just drawn up on a situation by situation basis.

The implication is that Don jr meeting with russians to get dirt should be investigated, becau8se it is wrong to try to get dirt on your political opponents from russia.

Ok fair enough.

There is no reason why paying a third party top get dirt on your opponent from russians (and the lying about it) wouldnt also justify an investigation.

As usual, you just say no two situations are the same, therefore trump needs investigated, but Hillary doesnt.

It proves that you are not interested in stopping russian interference, merely attacking trump.

Again, maybe you should watch this video from trump haters showing how the idea that because hillarys team paid a third party for dirt from russia makes it somehow ok when don jrs meeting wasnt is absurd.

a reply to: tadaman

What evidence is there that links Clinton to Fusion?

I know that the Clinton team did get information on Trump, but that was a psych profile, to see about his triggers that would unhinge the man. And according to Fusion, they do not do that, they do more of the profile on a person with facts when it comes to their business and getting all of their information from more public and open sources, such as court documents, and things that the person said, and media, like video and recordings.

So who actually hired Fusion to do a report on Trump?