It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: burntheships
They should be.
Perkins Coe,DNC,Clinton,Fusion GPS= Pedino. That California guy.
Steele= 13 Russian Nationals.
I am sure there are handfuls of communists paid postings all over the net, paid for by Hillary herself. Her trolls should not be exempt.
In addition to social justice bots, there are also bot services that seek to enhance everyday life online.
The Federal Elections Commission has shown no evidence of even recognizing that bots exist.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert
ive used ths tactic before. i know it when i see it. GPS has a verifiable track record of shady things. dismissing it is foolish.
Ok. How does that equate to the Hillary campaign being indicted for something they had no choice in?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert
FusionGPS is a well-known oppo research firm. What do you suggest their intent in hiring them was?
For them to do oppo research, just as they are well-known for.
Do you know any lawyers who hire services and accrue costs for their client without their clients prior approval and vetting?
No, but I'm not sure that means anything of substance in regards to this topic.
Clearly someone was not following the rules... Who should be the fall guy?
Ok. What laws were broken, who broke them and how is the Clinton campaign accountable?
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: introvert
ive used ths tactic before. i know it when i see it. GPS has a verifiable track record of shady things. dismissing it is foolish.
Ok. How does that equate to the Hillary campaign being indicted for something they had no choice in?
Same for trump then. if the law is equal right?
originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: neo96
No, unlike the alt rights popular belief the Dossier is not illegal. Sucks that now we are stuck with a illegitimate president, because of Russia.
The last one was not.
originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: neo96
No, unlike the alt rights popular belief the Dossier is not illegal. Sucks that now we are stuck with a illegitimate president, because of Russia.
1. The existence of the dossier isn't really the problem. Ask your parents to explain it to you.
2. Winning the electoral vote IS legitimate. What's notnlegitinate is crying about the rules when you don't win. If you're next argument is "so and so cried too," that's even more pathetic.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: visitedbythem
The last one was not.
I wonder how many of his twitter followers were BOTS.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RadioRobert
FusionGPS is a well-known oppo research firm. What do you suggest their intent in hiring them was?
For them to do oppo research, just as they are well-known for.
Do you know any lawyers who hire services and accrue costs for their client without their clients prior approval and vetting?
No, but I'm not sure that means anything of substance in regards to this topic.
Clearly someone was not following the rules... Who should be the fall guy?
Ok. What laws were broken, who broke them and how is the Clinton campaign accountable?
Great! So you admit the obvious that they were being paid to produce oppo research finally. Nothing illegal about opposition research. Now, is opposition research subject to campaign finance laws regarding disclosure of use of funds? Was the use of those funds for opposition research disclosed accurately? Or was that campaign money described as "legal services"? Why did the campaign deny involvement for so long? Why was the service provided by third and fourth parties? Remember there is nothing illegal about hiring FusionGPS. So why not disclose it accurately instead of describing it as "legal services"?
So why would someone pay someone to pay someone to pay someone to pay someone simply to acquire a service that would otherwise be legal and above the board? Was it to avoid disclosure? Why do you think that might be relevant looking at the big picture as this slowly unravels?