FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

What does when simpson testified have anything to do with that.

What part of "subsequent developments may have influenced his recollection" do you not understand? You can't even remember exactly what you implied in your OP, and it is still Wednesday.

Hahahahaha!

This is great!

I love how far you anti trumpers are willing to go to deny reality.

So now the claim is ok Steele would have only been able to get that info from the FBI in october of 2016, but actually this is all just a misunderstanding because steele never told simpson that, it is just simpson being confused and making things up.


Hahhahahahaha!!!!


So then according to you, we shouldnt take any of Simpsons testimony seriously because maybe he is just confused snd reporting things he has learned in the past year.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.

Contradict yourself much?

No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?

Where have you been?

Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?

What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.

Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.

Whether or not WikiLeaks had intent, the people who supplied the emails clearly did. As promised. By Russian agents.

Whether or not FBI had intent, the people who (supplied) the info on their investigation clearly did. As promised delivered by the FBI to an agent working for the Russians. (Christopher Steele)

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.

Contradict yourself much?

No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?

Where have you been?

Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?

What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.

Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.

Whether or not WikiLeaks had intent, the people who supplied the emails clearly did. As promised. By Russian agents.

Not only does your link not even mention the emails that were leaked specifically, you have no proof that either the emails were leaked from russia, or even if they were that this russian lawyer and her partners were involved in any of that.

By the same token, I can show texts of FBI agent strzok saying they had an insurance policy against trump, therefore that proves the intent that the FBI giving details of the investigation to Steele proves their intent was to harm trump.

a reply to: Grambler

When logic and experience fail, resort to ridicule? You are trying to make an incriminating case based on hearsay. Simpson's testimony is based on recollection. Human memory is fallible. The general shape of his testimony confirms that the FBI was already investigating the Trump campaign for its Russian contacts when Steele approached them. These contacts were already known well before October, 2016. The implication that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a FISA warrant is therefore false.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.

Contradict yourself much?

No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?

Where have you been?

Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?

What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.

Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.

Whether or not WikiLeaks had intent, the people who supplied the emails clearly did. As promised. By Russian agents.

Whether or not FBI had intent, the people who (supplied) the info on their investigation clearly did. As promised delivered by the FBI to an agent working for the Russians. (Christopher Steele)

Do you really think the "Christopher Steele was working for Russia" narrative will get traction?

a reply to: Grambler

Why do you confuse individuals with organizations?

a reply to: Cutepants


I appreciate that!

And don't feel bad, I am sure I look just peachy with all of my ""highly reasoned"" arguments on the pro-Trump side

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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

Who cares about fake internet points? All it does it pop it up to the top of most read and bumps up poster stats.

Back to the topic

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

When logic and experience fail, resort to ridicule? You are trying to make an incriminating case based on hearsay. Simpson's testimony is based on recollection. Human memory is fallible. The general shape of his testimony confirms that the FBI was already investigating the Trump campaign for its Russian contacts when Steele approached them. These contacts were already known well before October, 2016. The implication that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a FISA warrant is therefore false.

No you are trying to make excuses for troubling testimony Simpson gave by choosing to say the parts that are inconvenient for you were just false memories.

And even if there was any other evidence by the FBI, how does that prove the dossier was not used for a fisa warrant?

Again, it is being reported that this inside source simpson is referencing is Papadopolous.

www.washingtonpost.com... f9e6999b02

So your expalantaion is that Papadopolous drunkenly telling an australian that a russian told him that they had emails on hillary (something everyone had speculated for a year when mentioning hillarys server may have been hacked) was the impetus for the FBI getting a fisa warrant against Carter Page, but not Papadopolous?

If that is the case, it is just as bad as the dossier being used.

Now all we need to spy on political opponents is a drunk saying something that many had been saying for a year, that the Russians or other may have had emails from hillarys unsecure server?

Regardless, none of this proves your point that this shows the Dossier wasnt used for a fisa warrant.

Why wont the FBI tell the oversight committee exactly what they used for a fisa warrant?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.

Contradict yourself much?

No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?

Where have you been?

Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?

What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.

Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.

Whether or not WikiLeaks had intent, the people who supplied the emails clearly did. As promised. By Russian agents.

Whether or not FBI had intent, the people who (supplied) the info on their investigation clearly did. As promised delivered by the FBI to an agent working for the Russians. (Christopher Steele)

Do you really think the "Christopher Steele was working for Russia" narrative will get traction?

So Christopher Steele wasn't getting his info from Russian sources? If that's the case why are we even talking about Russian Collusion? Maybe it was Chile who was providing all that inside Russian info on Trump....


LOL you're too funny. He was providing info on Russian connections without talking to ANY Russians. LMAO.

a reply to: DJW001

The implication that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a FISA warrant is therefore false.

Wow
guess you better get to telling the msm that...

www.cnn.com...

Washington (CNN)The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Funny how suddenly CNN has become a reliable news source. Note the language:

Washington (CNN)The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation. The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

The FBI had other sources. Also note that the FBI seemed to think that some of the information in the dossier is credible... if not confirmed by their other sources.

a reply to: GuidedKill

So Christopher Steele wasn't getting his info from Russian sources? I

So when CNN or the Washington Post report on Donald Trump they are "working for him?" And why did your post even get starred? Never mind, we all know why.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GuidedKill

So Christopher Steele wasn't getting his info from Russian sources? I

So when CNN or the Washington Post report on Donald Trump they are "working for him?" And why did your post even get starred? Never mind, we all know why.

Wait didnt you say this earlier in the thread?

The goal of Russia is to sow mistrust of American liberal democracy. You and Grambler are certainly doing your share.

So regardless of rather or not Steele was intentionally working for russians, by spreading info from Kremlin agents that has sowed more distrust in the American system than anyone else by a long shot, he certainly was doing what you consider to be russians goal.

a reply to: Grambler

The FBI was already picking up Manafort, Cohen, and Flynn on its routine surveillance, remember? Their identities were unmasked, and recordings used to obtain FISA warrants. The dossier, Papadapoulos, and other sources as yet unnamed were also used. All of this will become clear when the Mueller investigation is concluded.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

The FBI was already picking up Manafort, Cohen, and Flynn on its routine surveillance, remember? Their identities were unmasked, and recordings used to obtain FISA warrants. The dossier, Papadapoulos, and other sources as yet unnamed were also used. All of this will become clear when the Mueller investigation is concluded.

So your claim

The implication that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a FISA warrant is therefore false.

is a lie.

Wow, only took you about a half an hour to totally reverse your position on that.

a reply to: Grambler

So regardless of rather or not Steele was intentionally working for russians, by spreading info from Kremlin agents that has sowed more distrust in the American system than anyone else by a long shot, he certainly was doing what you consider to be russians goal.

Donald Trump is not the "American system," he is an individual subject to our laws. In our liberal democracy* a leader can be removed if he or she commits a crime. Exposing wrong-doing in high places is not treason. The investigations surrounding the election is a sign of health. The American people deserve to know if a foreign power is attempting to mislead them.

*Reminder: a democratic, representative republic falls under this heading.

a reply to: Grambler

Sorry, let me clarify: the implication that the dossier was the only basis for the FISA warrant is a lie. Still not sure if it needed to be used at all.

ETA: Note that I have not gone back to edit what I said. The dossier may or may not have been used. There was plenty of other evidence.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GuidedKill

So Christopher Steele wasn't getting his info from Russian sources? I

So when CNN or the Washington Post report on Donald Trump they are "working for him?" And why did your post even get starred? Never mind, we all know why.

So Christopher Steele was just “reporting” on possible Russian collision? I was under the impression the dossier was a saclacious direct account from trusted sources inside the kremlin on Trumps and Russian dealings.. Hardly just a reporter writing a story.

So which is it?? Just a made up report of what Christopher Steele thinks happened or a direct account from trusted sources in the kremlin? You can’t have it both ways my friend...

I think most here already know the answer... most with exception to you.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

So regardless of rather or not Steele was intentionally working for russians, by spreading info from Kremlin agents that has sowed more distrust in the American system than anyone else by a long shot, he certainly was doing what you consider to be russians goal.

Donald Trump is not the "American system," he is an individual subject to our laws. In our liberal democracy* a leader can be removed if he or she commits a crime. Exposing wrong-doing in high places is not treason. The investigations surrounding the election is a sign of health. The American people deserve to know if a foreign power is attempting to mislead them.

*Reminder: a democratic, representative republic falls under this heading.

So just to clarify your position.

The russians want to hurt credibility in the US.

Me or other discussing potential wrong doing by the FBI is doing the russians bidding by attacking our system of democracy.

But going directly to Kremlin agents to get dirt on the President is healthy and wanted.

Makes sense!