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.

 

Why the Steele "dossier" is meaningless

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   
When the ex-UK spook's unsubstantiated "dossier" hit the press, the left began citing and touting this document as though it was a true bombshell. Minus the salacious details (which are 100% unproven: A.K.A. not true), the supposed details show absolutely no wrong doing. I used to consider myself on the left (libertarian/classic liberal - ya know, the real kind of liberal), but my old party has been co-opted by so-called progressives, communists and anarchists to the point it is unrecognizable. Political madness, indeed.

Another site I browse frequently (Dem. Underground) mentions this document as being the President's supposed undoing. Their primary assertion is that this compilation demonstrates the President's "collusion" (word applies to anti-trust laws, not elections) with a supposed "hostile foreign power." Sadly for the Democrats, Russia is not a hostile foreign power. Therefore, even if there were some statute prohibiting "collusion" with a hostile foreign power (there isn't, save cases of declared war), the President couldn't have violated it since the Russians are not declared "hostile."

As usual, the left is reaching for straws to continue building their preposterous case which they hope will end in the President's impeachment. For obvious reasons (including congressional control, popular support, U.S. law and technical definitions), this isn't going to happen. Mueller himself has said they've found no such evidence; Even if they did, for the above reasons it'd be useless. And by the way, releasing truthful emails is a public service - not a crime or "interference."



I apologize if this isn't the right forum, but I truly felt the need to repudiate some of the nonsense I've been reading RE: this heavily debunked/unsubstantiated document. But, then again, I have a dossier stating insert-person-I-don't-like was caught insert-something-damaging-and-unsubstantial after being paid by the opposition to put it together. Do you believe me? I wouldn't.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
why is mueller investigating it, if it's nothing?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Oops. None of the dossier has been debunked.

Sorry.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Oops. None of the dossier has been debunked.

Sorry.



What's been proven then?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

What's been proven to be false?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Unverified and debunked do not mean the same thing.


Nothing has been debunked. Lots of relationships with the wrong kinds of people has been proven.

And Mueller has interviewed the author of the dossier by sending his team to London to talk to the guy.
Why would he do that if the dossier was largely debunked? He wouldn't.

The people who said it's going to be trumps downfall are probably correct.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Sillyolme

Oops. None of the dossier has been debunked.

Sorry.



That's false.

Cohen has never been to the Czech republic and can prove he was not there on the date the supposed meeting happened.
edit on 7-10-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It was commissioned by the President's political opponents. Chris Steele stated the contents were unverified (in this country, that means untrue) and was never designed for public release. It was opposition research, designed to be used against Trump and likely never fact checked.

Literally nothing in that document can be independently verified.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Oooops! Guess you should've taken the time to inform yourself before making public comments, huh?



Cohen has never been to the Czech republic and can prove he was not there on the date the supposed meeting happened.


edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fiverx313


Because of the ridiculous political climate in this country. Uninformed holders of the liberal brain-trust throw around words like "treason" (doesn't apply to non-hostile foreign powers - aka declared war) and impeachment.

Sadly, many members of the GOP congress aren't any better, intelligence wise. Mueller is the result of that.

If there's so much evidence RE: the Russia nonsense, how come none of it has ever been proven/panned out? Just curious, because our government isn't lacking in resources (by any stretch of the imagination).

Amazing how we haven't had anything other than insinuation and innuendo though, huh?
edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Define relationships with the "wrong" kind of people? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

If you're referring to Russians, then you're 100% incorrect. Since Trump is the President (and during candidacy), it is common to meet with non-hostile foreign governments and their representatives.

Should Obama be scolded for meeting with the British or Germans? Of course not. Heads of state meet with foreign governments and ambassadors, that's common knowledge.

So please, elaborate as to whom constitute "the wrong kind of people." That statement demonstrates your ignorance.


The people who said it's going to be trumps downfall are probably correct.


Wrong again. The term "collusion" only exists in anti-trust statutes. Even if the accusations somehow turned out to be true, there is no crime called "colluding with non-hostile foreign power to influence an election." Sorry, but the law doesn't exist. Therefore, it isn't illegal (even if true). Further, the silly people throwing terms like "treason" around need to look up the definition in the U.S. code (the only definition that matters).

So, again, tell me how this will lead to his demise?
edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Lol another thread trying to pretend the dossier has been debunked. What triggered this one? The recent revelation that Mueller met with the ex MI6 agent who authored it?

Lol what I see here are weak attempts by Trump supporters to say “whatever the dossier says, it isn’t true!” “Whatever the FBI concludes, it isn’t true!”

The habitual denialists are gearing up for a major denial hurdle it seems.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie


Why did you ignore the facts presented in my post?

As I said, "collusion" is defined only in an anti-trust law - which does not pertain to elections. Furthermore, there is no such law prohibiting "collusion" with a non-hostile foreign power whos information may or may not incidentally help one candidate over the other.

So, again, even if somehow this information were true (no evidence yet, weird right? keep holding out though...), no crime has been committed therefore where is the story? So the left will continue to be outraged and protest? Aren't they already doing that...?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
100% unproven? Interesting... you do know the dossier is being investigated by the FBI and we don’t yet know their findings— right? So when you say 100% unproven... is that 100% bullsh*t on your part?

And unproven equals not true? Lol okay buddy, laying the denial on a bit thick and premature don’t you think.

Lol but then to cover your ass you basically say “and even if it were true” ... lol so prepping the denial for both possible outcomes?


Sure, buddy, let’s just see what the FBI conclude. We won’t start chanting Lock him up just yet. Fair enough



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

You can chant all you like. As I said, even if there is truth to it (why wait 10 months to disclose it?), no crime whatsoever has been committed. In this country, you have to violate a law as specifically described in a State or Federal statute.

As demonstrated by myself, no such law exists. Only laws pertaining to anti-trust contain any wording about collusion. And there is no law which exists to prevent so-called "interference." Though I should point out, the interference being whined about involved releasing a bunch of truthful emails.

The DNC deserved it, too. After Hillary illegally wiped so many (30,000+) emails of public record off her private/illegal server. Now THAT is illegal.

"Colluding" with a NON-HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER is not illegal.

Thanks for playing, though. I'll wager you, absolutely nothing will come from the investigation even if by some miracle the accusations turn out to be true. I wasn't holding the President's hand during his entire campaign, so I can't say for 100% certainty it didn't happen. But I say, who cares? Time for better relationships with Russia. We could fight global Islamic terrorism together, and counter threats like North Korea and the rise of China.

JUST AS WE DID IN WORLD WAR 2, WHEN THE USSR WAS OUR ALLY

And yes, in the United States of America (not the Communist Commune of lesser-intelligence) UNPROVEN === UNTRUE. Ever hear the expression innocent until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW? Since there is no ACTUAL AND EXISTING LAW that he's accused of breaking, he will NEVER be proven guilty in a court of law. Do you understand that? Follow me so far? There can't be a trial unless he can be accused of breaking an actual law - and not the law of leftist outrage, either. I mean a true, indictable offense AS DESCRIBED VERBATIM in the U.S. code. No such code exists.

OK, so since he his GUILT cannot be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a COURT OF LAW, he will NEVER be "guilty" of any such crime. In legal terms, it means he didn't commit any crime and accusations are UNTRUE until PROVEN otherwise. So yes, unproven does equal untrue.


edit on 10/8/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You guys are funny. You chant lock her up before a judgment has been made and declare Trump innocent and the dossier ‘debunked’ before the findings have been revealed.

You guys don’t like to wait for investigations, do you?


You should go let the FBI know your findings. Let them know it’s technically impossible for Trump or his campaign to have committed any crimes. Also let Trump’s lawyers know. Seems you got it all figured out—� as though you don’t even need to hear the outcome or accept any truth other than the one you’ve created?



edit on 8-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
There is no greater truth to this. Russia is responsible for their own actions, regardless of which campaign it incidentally helped. The content of the leaked emails were truthful, and sometimes the truth hurts when revealed so dramatically. Regardless, even if all of the rumors and innuendo flung at the President are true, no crime has been committed.

The FBI investigates and prosecutes violations of Federal Law, but is also an intelligence agency. They do a lot of counter-intelligence work, which is what a foreign country gathering intelligence on another country's election process is: an intelligence operation. As far as prosecuting violations of Federal Law, actually breaking some Federal Law is a pre-requisite. It isn't something that can be waived, made up on the spot or invented because the angry court of public opinion demand it.

To put it bluntly, no law exists that prohibits what he's been accused of doing. I say accused because this drawn-out investigation has failed to produce any findings in 10 months, so I await the result eagerly. I fail to understand the purpose of publically investigating things that do not fall under the jurisdiction of federal law. Therefore, the only possibility is that the probe is actually a typical counter-intelligence investigation which explains why they aren't providing the general public (without a need to know) any details on the matter.

Think about it. What's more likely? The FBI investigating something that isn't a violation of federal law (look it up, its a fact), or the FBI counter-intelligence investigation is being spun by the liberal MSM as some sort of investigation of the President. The latter is 100% the only possibility. The result (which there will be no result) is the only thing capable of proving me wrong. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, Trump will remain innocent until that very unlikely day comes.
edit on 10/8/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


The Steele Dossier isn't really about proving Trump's collusion, although its there I'm sure, but that he is compromised. And that, my friend, has been shown time and time again.


edit on 8-10-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
...this drawn-out investigation has failed to produce any findings in 10 months...


Not sure you’re aware but the FBI doesn’t typically brief the public on each finding while the investigation is in progress....

And if they DO find anything incriminating for the president of the United States expect every “i” to be dotted and every “t” crossed before they bring that to the public. Adds time.
edit on 8-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

You seem to be willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... based on what?

Others see that what was released from "the dossier" dovetails exactly with the kind of behavior and outlook that we all know Trump espouses.

So you're ... upset ... that some people are operating on logic, and you're operating on emotion?

Hmmm.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The FBI, NSA and CIA disagree, as do Igor Diveykin, Paul Mannafort, Araz Agalarov, Emin Agalarov, Mikhail Kalugin and all the supporting evidence to back up the claims that the Kremlin groomed Trump.

The only parts that aren't substantiated are the prostitutes claims and Cohen being in Prague (he was in fact given the task of cementing a real estate contract in Moscow for the Trump Organisation but detail matters.




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join