FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

a reply to: Grambler
A) we don’t know what they got or said in that meeting. You are just assuming they are being honest, and they lied every step of the at so far..


B) i thought it was a fake news witch hunt???

C) if they have a reason to investigate, based on the meeting and email. Doesn’t that invalidate The whole case against the the investigation?? Lol

If they have a reason to investigate, then what is the case against the fbi again???

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler
A) we don’t know what they got or said in that meeting. You are just assuming they are being honest, and they lied every step of the at so far..


B) i thought it was a fake news witch hunt???

C) if they have a reason to investigate, based on the meeting and email. Doesn’t that invalidate The whole case against the the investigation?? Lol

If they have a reason to investigate, then what is the case against the fbi again???

I just want to know how Grambler can extrapolate that he has proof the FBI intended to harm Trump.

At this point I am beginning to think they will throw anything at the wall to see what sticks.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I answered most of this earlier but will try to again.

A. Yes, as I said in the op Steele or Simpson may be lying. This would be very bad for the anti trump crowd.

B. Yes the investigation into trump seems to be a witch hunt, as evidenced by the Intel community stonewalling, lying about meetings, sending texts against trump, Mueller team having members that worked for Hillary team members, leaks against trump, indicting people for lying to the fbi when the very same people chose not to indict Hillary's team.

And because the investigation is indicting people for and looking in to things that have nothing to do with trump colluding with Russians.

C. The meeting and email? There was notj8by illegal there.

Hillary's team paid to get dirt on trump from Kremlin agents, so why is there no 8independent council investigating them?

I never had a problem with the fbi doing an investigation.

I have a problem with what we are learning about how it was carried out.

a reply to: introvert

I think it was just that when he saw “debrief” he thought “working together”..
when debrief really means “working for”.


As if steel/fusionGPS would have been equal partners with the fbi in that interaction. Rather than closer to a Dea and snitch relationship.

Imho the way he was perplexed about the fact we were not seeing the information sharing part when we read “debrief” imho kinda points to just a misinterpretation of what that word meant.


I just don’t get the stench of political shillery here. Seems more like an honest mistake.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: introvert

I think it was just that when he saw “debrief” he thought “working together”..
when debrief really means “working for”.


As if steel/fusionGPS would have been equal partners with the fbi in that interaction. Rather than closer to a Dea and snitch relationship.

Imho the way he was perplexed about the fact we were not seeing the information sharing part when we read “debrief” imho kinda points to just a misinterpretation of what that word meant.


I just don’t get the stench of political shillery here. Seems more like an honest mistake.

I would agree with everything except the honesty aspect.

a reply to: Grambler

Hillary's team paid to get dirt on trump from Kremlin agents, so why is there no 8independent council investigating them?

No, they did not. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make it true.

But I'll be open to giving you a chance to prove it.

Prove they directly paid Kremlin agents for dirt on Trump.

a reply to: Grambler

I don’t know how meeting with Russian agents to discuss obtaining dirt on your political opponent, as a regular citizen (wasn’t an elected or state sanctioned actor at that point.) isn’t illegal???



I promise you, that it would be illegal if it were me and you doing it without the sanction of either political party. So neither side needed to protect us to cover their butts..

I would bet my last dollar that both parties and the full might of the US government made a bi-partisan example of us and put us under the jail.. public trial and everything to make sure the rest of the American people knew what happened to those who decided to make shady backroom deals with russuan agents..



I have no idea how oppo research doesn’t count as “something of value”.. where it breaks that one law I can’t recall the name of..


People pay for oppo research right??? So how does it not have a value?!?!?

If it doesn’t the only reason it isn’t illegal is because it is such a bat $H!7 crazy concept that no one thought about making a law..

a reply to: introvert

If everything else happened then it would have to be an honest mistake lol...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You have made this exact argument for eons now, the inclusion of the word value and all.

Listen, lol, have a good one.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary's team paid to get dirt on trump from Kremlin agents, so why is there no 8independent council investigating them?

No, they did not. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make it true.

But I'll be open to giving you a chance to prove it.

Prove they directly paid Kremlin agents for dirt on Trump.

I never said they paid Kremlin agents.

I said they paid for dirt, that dirt came from kremlin agents.

You know that is true.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


JC, I mean between the President and Russia directly. I do not dispute the information revealed by the Trump Jr. email of course, I read the email for myself. I do not believe it is in violation of any specific US law, but I admit I do not know the full text of the US code.

I'm not mortally shocked that a member of his campaign would try to obtain dirt on the other party, which is why the dossier itself doesn't shock me. Everyone knows that things/documents produced during a campaign are about worthless, simply because of the biased political nature of our elections. What does surprise me is that campaign material was used in any way during a criminal investigation

I believe against Trump himself it is, but I also don't dispute that critters like Paul Manafort were swept up by this probe. That alone makes it worthwhile, since he is precisely the type of unscrupulous DC insider that most Trumpians oppose

a reply to: DJW001


Oh, thank you for clarifying that

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Why should it be illegal.

If a media company comes to me and tells me they have dirt on my opponent, thats ok. But if its a foreign government with the same dirt, that is somehow not ok?

There would be nothing illegal at all about us as private citizens hearing a Russian give dirt on a politician.

If that was the case, then any private whistle blower who heard something bad from a foreign government about a US politician would be breaking the law.

What would be illegal is offering favors for that info, paying for it, or other such things.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: introvert

I think it was just that when he saw “debrief” he thought “working together”..
when debrief really means “working for”.


As if steel/fusionGPS would have been equal partners with the fbi in that interaction. Rather than closer to a Dea and snitch relationship.

Imho the way he was perplexed about the fact we were not seeing the information sharing part when we read “debrief” imho kinda points to just a misinterpretation of what that word meant.


I just don’t get the stench of political shillery here. Seems more like an honest mistake.

I would agree with everything except the honesty aspect.

So even after you admitted exactly what Joshua here is saying didnt happen, that the FBI in fact did tell steele they had a source inside the trump team, you agree with him to try to make a personal attack at me for being dishonest.

As usual, real classy.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary's team paid to get dirt on trump from Kremlin agents, so why is there no 8independent council investigating them?

No, they did not. No matter how many times you say it, it is not going to make it true.

But I'll be open to giving you a chance to prove it.

Prove they directly paid Kremlin agents for dirt on Trump.

I never said they paid Kremlin agents.

I said they paid for dirt, that dirt came from kremlin agents.

You know that is true.

Here is what you said:

Hillary's team paid to get dirt on trump from Kremlin agents

That says they paid to get dirt on Trump from Kremlin agents.

That is factually incorrect.

They paid for research from a source. That source chose where to get the dirt. Not Clinton and team.

That is why there is no investigation in to it.

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.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: introvert

I think it was just that when he saw “debrief” he thought “working together”..
when debrief really means “working for”.


As if steel/fusionGPS would have been equal partners with the fbi in that interaction. Rather than closer to a Dea and snitch relationship.

Imho the way he was perplexed about the fact we were not seeing the information sharing part when we read “debrief” imho kinda points to just a misinterpretation of what that word meant.


I just don’t get the stench of political shillery here. Seems more like an honest mistake.

I would agree with everything except the honesty aspect.

So even after you admitted exactly what Joshua here is saying didnt happen, that the FBI in fact did tell steele they had a source inside the trump team, you agree with him to try to make a personal attack at me for being dishonest.

As usual, real classy.

Dude, you literally took this fight to another thread, asking me to prove intent where I never once mentioned it, and proceeded to call me a liar when I refused to prove that which I never claimed.

Considering that you cannot even debate me without lying and arguing against things I never said, you are not in a position to lecture about class.

And my questioning about your honesty is well founded. You literally make things up on a consistent basis.

Either that or you cannot properly read and your logic is #ed.

So either you are a liar or you are stupid. Take your pick.

No matter what, I couldn't care less.

a reply to: introvert
More personal insults from you.

All that you are good at it seems.

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?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert
More personal insults from you.

All that you are good at it seems.

What else do you want?

I try basic logic and you fumble it around like it's the first time you have ever witnessed it...every time!

I ask you for basic things like proof and you fabricate lies.

At this point I don't know what else to do. You have no shame in your game and literally play the role of the pigeon on a chess board. Sad thing is, at least a real pigeon knows he just # on the board.

You don't.