FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Where does it say that???

Wow was the quoted material so long you couldn't be bothered to read it?

Its points 8 9 and 10 in the quoted section.

Perhaps the pro trump Russian bots that are flagging this thread are also blocking you from being able to read it.

a reply to: Grambler

Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's 7 information might be credible because they had 8 other intelligence that indicated the same thing 9 and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human 10 source from inside the Trump organization.

So where does that say the FBI gave info out????

That says they believed Chris because they had other reports and a leak in the trump campaign itself....


Where are you getting the FBI gave out info????


Did one of the bots accidentally remove the quote you are siting???

a reply to: Grambler

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.

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.

Also, if the FBI tells Steele that they might believe his story because other sources may corroborate what he found, what is the problem?

It is a leap in logic to say this is proof the FBI puts it's interests in making Trump look bad ahead of anything else.

a reply to: introvert

My thoughts exactly...


Just another fake trump thread that swiftly gets 30 flags..


Totally false pretense, yet it almost instantly gets 30 flags..

Almost like no one who flagged it actually read the OP...

It is definitely real people checking them.. lol

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

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.

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.

Also, if the FBI tells Steele that they might believe his story because other sources may corroborate what he found, what is the problem?

It is a leap in logic to say this is proof the FBI puts it's interests in making Trump look bad ahead of anything else.

Q. You said that he told you of the meeting
19 with the FBI in Rome in mid or late September, that
20 he "gave them a full briefing"?
21 A. A debrief I think is what he probably
22 said, they had debriefed him. I don't remember him
23 articulating the specifics of that. You know, my
24 understanding was that they would have gotten into
25 who his sources were, how he knew certain things,

Page 175
1 and, you know, other details based on their own
2 in
telligence. Essentially what he told me was they
3 had other intelligence about this matter from an
4 internal Trump campaign source and that -- that
5 they -- my understanding was that they believed
6 Chris at this point -- that they believed Chris's
7 information might be credible because they had
8 other intelligence that indicated the same thing
9 and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human
10 source from inside the Trump organization.

www.feinstein.senate.gov... cted.pdf

The transcript is very clear.

Steele had a full debriefing by the FBI in Rome.

It is clear that simpson is saying the FBI told steele at that meeting that they had info, including from someone on trumps team being a source.

I already explained what the problem is in the OP.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Almost like no one who flagged it actually read the OP...

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.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Almost like no one who flagged it actually read the OP...

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.

So in your opinion, Simpson saying the FBI gave Steele a debrief in Rome, and then immediately saying the FBI believed portions because they had other sources including someone inside trumps campaign is not enough proof that Simpson is saying the FBI told steele that?

Its almost like you are willing to ignore reality in your quest to hate trump.

a reply to: Grambler

It is clear that simpson is saying the FBI told steele at that meeting that they had info, including from someone on trumps team being a source.

No, it is not clear. There are specific words used that cast much doubt on what we can say for certain.

a reply to: Grambler

So in your opinion, Simpson saying the FBI gave Steele a debrief in Rome, and then immediately saying the FBI believed portions because they had other sources including someone inside trumps campaign is not enough proof that Simpson is saying the FBI told steele that?

Go back and read the exchange. There is one word that casts doubt on everything. Can you figure out which word that is?

Its almost like you are willing to ignore reality in your quest to hate trump.

How does this have anything to do with hating Trump and where did I say I hate Trump?

Do you just like to make # up as you go?

Never mind. Don't answer that. We already know.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

It is clear that simpson is saying the FBI told steele at that meeting that they had info, including from someone on trumps team being a source.

No, it is not clear. There are specific words used that cast much doubt on what we can say for certain.

Hahahahahahahah!!!!

What specific words? Do you acknowledge that Simpson says steele was debriefed by the FBI in rome?

And also that steele told simpson that the FBI had sources inside Trumps team?

Where would have steele gotten that info if not from the FBI? How would he have know what the FBI had if the FBI didnt tell him?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So in your opinion, Simpson saying the FBI gave Steele a debrief in Rome, and then immediately saying the FBI believed portions because they had other sources including someone inside trumps campaign is not enough proof that Simpson is saying the FBI told steele that?

Go back and read the exchange. There is one word that casts doubt on everything. Can you figure out which word that is?

Its almost like you are willing to ignore reality in your quest to hate trump.

How does this have anything to do with hating Trump and where did I say I hate Trump?

Do you just like to make # up as you go?

Never mind. Don't answer that. We already know.

No there is not one word that cast doubt on everything.

And as far as your hatred of trump, you dont have to say it, your constant chnaging of standards to make trump look bad, or ignoring of reality is obvious.

Thats ok though, its always fun to watch you ignore evidence to push your narrative.

a reply to: Grambler

What specific words?

Do I really have to babysit you all the time? C'mon.

Do you acknowledge that Simpson says steele was debriefed by the FBI in rome?

Yes.

And also that steele told simpson that the FBI had sources inside Trumps team? Where would have steele gotten that info if not from the FBI? How would he have know what the FBI had if the FBI didnt tell him?

Sure.

What that does not tell us is that the FBI did this "against Trump".

That is an extrapolation you cannot prove.

a reply to: Grambler

And as far as your hatred of trump, you dont have to say it, your constant chnaging of standards to make trump look bad, or ignoring of reality is obvious.

So you cannot prove it and you are just making it up. Ok.

Jesus. Amazing how you can go off the rails so easy and derail your own thread.

Thats ok though, its always fun to watch you ignore evidence to push your narrative.

What evidence?

Did you not see his statement of "my understanding"?

Ok. What was he told, specifically?

Can you provide that? If not, we are only left with his "understanding".

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


What evidence?

Did you not see his statement of "my understanding"?

Ok. What was he told, specifically?

Can you provide that? If not, we are only left with his "understanding".

I can show that he testified that Steele told him he was debreifed in Rome, and that the FBI had a source inside trumps team that backed up some of steeles research.

Again, how would steele know about papadopolous or any other sources the FBI had if the FBI didnt tell him this in the debriefing?

a reply to: Grambler

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.

Details? Be specific. What details were the FBI giving? Names? No. Locations? No. Sources? No. All they said was that they had other information. It wasn't just Papadopolous, by the way. They also had recordings of other Trump staff talking to Russian agents. Trump himself has said so.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


What evidence?

Did you not see his statement of "my understanding"?

Ok. What was he told, specifically?

Can you provide that? If not, we are only left with his "understanding".

I can show that he testified that Steele told him he was debreifed in Rome, and that the FBI had a source inside trumps team that backed up some of steeles research.

Again, how would steele know about papadopolous or any other sources the FBI had if the FBI didnt tell him this in the debriefing?

Irrelevant.

Please provide proof that the FBI did this in any form to harm Trump.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

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.

Details? Be specific. What details were the FBI giving? Names? No. Locations? No. Sources? No. All they said was that they had other information. It wasn't just Papadopolous, by the way. They also had recordings of other Trump staff talking to Russian agents. Trump himself has said so.

They gave the detail that they had someone inside trumps team saying shady thiings were going on with russia.

Again, I explain in the OP why that is ridiculous.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


What evidence?

Did you not see his statement of "my understanding"?

Ok. What was he told, specifically?

Can you provide that? If not, we are only left with his "understanding".

I can show that he testified that Steele told him he was debreifed in Rome, and that the FBI had a source inside trumps team that backed up some of steeles research.

Again, how would steele know about papadopolous or any other sources the FBI had if the FBI didnt tell him this in the debriefing?

Irrelevant.

Please provide proof that the FBI did this in any form to harm Trump.

So you realize you look like a fool and now you move the goal post.

Ok, now that we admit the FBI did this, we can focus on your clamoring about how this wasnt against trump.

I said in the OP that the FBI did this against Trump, as in he was the person that this info getting out to the press would hurt.

Do you disagree with that?

I will wait for you to squirm and move the goal posts again.

a reply to: Grambler

They gave the detail that they had someone inside trumps team saying shady thiings were going on with russia

Apparently English is not your first language. The word "details" means specific facts. The testimony does not suggest that the FBI provided any specific facts whatsoever. All they did was say: "There could be something to what you're saying. You're not the only one saying it." There was no mention of Papadopoulos, the wiretaps, or "Stinky Steve" Bannon, one of the principal leakers.

a reply to: Grambler

Ok, now that we admit the FBI did this

That they debriefed Steele and had another source of info?

Sure.

That's earth-shaking, how?

I said in the OP that the FBI did this against Trump, as in he was the person that this info getting out to the press would hurt.

Ok. Please provide proof that is why they did it.

I'll wait.

I will wait for you to squirm and move the goal posts again.

Proof please.