Clinton and DNC Paid For Research That Led To Russian Dossier

a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

He clearly states even though it's "Trumps DOJ" that the people who work there don't support Trump and therefore are stonewalling no matter who's DOJ it is. He clearly thinks this is an issue.

Did you watch the video??

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

He clearly states even though it's "Trumps DOJ" that the people who work there don't support Trump and therefore are stonewalling no matter who's DOJ it is. He clearly thinks this is an issue.

Did you watch the video??

So ... there's mass insubordination at the FBI? Seems like they need to do some housecleaning.

Sounds like BS. Are you telling me that the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI can't get Trey Gowdy what he needs? Are you really going to try to float that lead balloon.

Jesus Christ.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

Did you watch the video??

It's amazing how you have to ask this to everyone who comments on the video. They either didn't watch it or only heard what they wanted to hear.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Its irrelevant if they used this company before. So tryingtouse it as a defence is nothing but attempted deception. The real issue is simple did the FBI go on a witch hunt and did it influence the FISA courts. Both of which would be difficult to prove if notimpossible.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Exactly right thats why hes grandstanding,he has to find someone to link all these facts together. And if he does they would need to be willing to testify to it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

He clearly states even though it's "Trumps DOJ" that the people who work there don't support Trump and therefore are stonewalling no matter who's DOJ it is. He clearly thinks this is an issue.

Did you watch the video??

So ... there's mass insubordination at the FBI? Seems like they need to do some housecleaning.

Sounds like BS. Are you telling me that the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI can't get Trey Gowdy what he needs? Are you really going to try to float that lead balloon.

Jesus Christ.

I'm not saying that...I'm only posting an interview with Trey Gowdy where he directly states that. It appears he is flying that balloon and it doesn't appear to made of any lead...Seems it's gaining altitude just fine.

Attack the message not the messenger

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: pavil

You'll have to explain to us a) how the existence of the Peegate Dossier is illegal and b) why established facts no matter the source are not proper evidence for a FISA warrant.

Of course, you could also prove that the FISA warrants actually were based on nothing more than the Peegate Dossier ... but I wouldn't want to ask for too much.

A.)If the Dossier could not be verified and it was the driving force for finally getting the FISA warrants, isn't that messed up to you? Using unverifiable statements as the Basis of a FISA warrant?

What established facts were used to get the FISA warrants after failing to get them previously? It must have been new info. If so, what was that info and where was it gleaned from? You seem to be aware of what "established facts " were used for the FISA, do share please?

Isn't this why we are having this investigation? To find out those details and if the FBI paid Steele as well?

Yes, I'm aware lots of "ifs". That's why we should investigate and find out the actual facts of this matter. Do you not agree or do you just blindly trust your Government always does the right thing?

B.) You aren't actually impling any evidence, no matter how it's gathered, is admissible in a court proceeding, are you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

You mean the current FBI under the authority of Sessions DOJ?

Why would the Trump Administration be stonewalling Gowdy again?

He clearly states even though it's "Trumps DOJ" that the people who work there don't support Trump and therefore are stonewalling no matter who's DOJ it is. He clearly thinks this is an issue.

Did you watch the video??

So ... there's mass insubordination at the FBI? Seems like they need to do some housecleaning.

Sounds like BS. Are you telling me that the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI can't get Trey Gowdy what he needs? Are you really going to try to float that lead balloon.

Jesus Christ.

On another note how exactly would the left respond to a house cleaning at the FBI by Trump...

Let me guess, Obstruction of Justice

a reply to: Gryphon66

JW has documentation that the FBI said they had no files and when JW pointed out that the JD said they did the FBI had to come clean and give the documents up . The FBI says it will need a few months to review the documents before releasing then ... I think it was a total of 30 documents .

a reply to: Gryphon66

They also work with Prevezon Holdings owned by Denis Kaysyv (son of a Russian Oligarch). Complaints were lodged against them with the DOJ in 2016 for failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act based on their lobbying for foreign interests (Russian), but they said they only helped in "civil matters".

Was that connected to Russia?

Going back in time we see that is was Mother Jones with the very first mention of it back in October 2016:

And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

We also see that the FBI is in direct contact with the "former senior intelligence officer," (Steele)

Fast forward to January 2017:

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.

The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump’s relationship with Moscow. They were drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the documents, which it said were “unverified and potentially unverifiable”.

So it was indeed McCain who originally presented the dossier to the FBI.

The reports were initially commissioned as opposition research during the presidential campaign, but its author was sufficiently alarmed by what he discovered to send a copy to the FBI.

This confirms Mother Jones by saying that the author of the dossier (Steele himself?) sent the dossier directly to the FBI.

Comey was grilled on this and had this to say:

Another Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, questioned Comey insistently at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Tuesday on whether the FBI was pursuing leads on Trump campaign contacts with Russia.

“Has the FBI investigated these reported relationships?” Wyden asked.

Comey replied: “I would never comment on investigations … in a public forum.

Well, we know now that he had no problem leaking information in non public forums and had an anonymous twitter account with which to issue commentary.

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

The Guardian

In October 2016 the warrant is issued:

The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA. Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear warrant.

Archived Heatstreet article

Comey is very cagey when asked directly about the dossier:

CASTRO: Thank you. And thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation and for your testimony today. I wanna take a moment to turn the Christopher Steele dossier, which was first mentioned in the media just before the election and published in full by media outlets in January. My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele's dossier are looking more and more likely, as though they are accurate. First, let me ask you, can you describe who Christopher Steele is?

COMEY: No, I'm not gonna comment on that.

CASTRO: Are you investigating the claims made in the dossier?

COMEY: I'm not gonna comment on that, Mr. Castro.

Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election

By looking at the transcript provided above, it is obvious that the democrats are leaning heavily on the Steele dossier.

For reference:

The Dossier itself

a reply to: GuidedKill

He can get access to everything he needs but not everything he wants. The judge involved in the FISA warrant is not required to divulge why he made the decision. And the DOJ doesnt have to show him what information was given. That is truly what he wants but from a legal standpoint the DOJ wont release it. Remeber the FISA court has its own rules and to change them requires congress to rewrite the laws that created it.

a reply to: GuidedKill

So you posted a video you have no reason to believe has substance or makes any rational sense in the context of our discussion?

Very well then.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: GuidedKill

So you posted a video you have no reason to believe has substance or makes any rational sense in the context of our discussion?

Very well then.

So Trey Gowdy talking about exactly what we are discussion in the OP doesn't make any rational sense and is out of context??

OK...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: GuidedKill

He can get access to everything he needs but not everything he wants. The judge involved in the FISA warrant is not required to divulge why he made the decision. And the DOJ doesnt have to show him what information was given. That is truly what he wants but from a legal standpoint the DOJ wont release it. Remeber the FISA court has its own rules and to change them requires congress to rewrite the laws that created it.

That's seriously messed up if we can't have any oversight on the FISA court process. Sounds like they can do whatever they want and not have to explain why they did it. Can't know what evidence was used or why the warrants are approved.

What could possibly go wrong? Surely the Congress's intelligence committees can have that info.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Gryphon66

Its irrelevant if they used this company before. So tryingtouse it as a defence is nothing but attempted deception. The real issue is simple did the FBI go on a witch hunt and did it influence the FISA courts. Both of which would be difficult to prove if notimpossible.

How is it irrelevant if the Democrats used Fusion GPS in 2012? It's very relevant. It demonstrates history and relationship. I'm not defending anything here Dragon. I'm stating the facts.

The fact his that it's not news that the Democrats have done opposition research in the past on opponents, and that they have used Fusion GPS to do so. The straight-line connection you want to draw is absurd.

If it is impossible to prove whether an allegation is true or not ... it's not fact, it's belief. Belief is all you have.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: Gryphon66

They also work with Prevezon Holdings owned by Denis Kaysyv (son of a Russian Oligarch). Complaints were lodged against them with the DOJ in 2016 for failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act based on their lobbying for foreign interests (Russian), but they said they only helped in "civil matters".

Was that connected to Russia?

They're an international firm; they do business all over the world.

Are you saying that anyone doing business with Russia is guilty now?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: GuidedKill

He can get access to everything he needs but not everything he wants. The judge involved in the FISA warrant is not required to divulge why he made the decision. And the DOJ doesnt have to show him what information was given. That is truly what he wants but from a legal standpoint the DOJ wont release it. Remeber the FISA court has its own rules and to change them requires congress to rewrite the laws that created it.

He is not talking about the FISA court only about the FBI and what info they used to launch an investigation.. They are the oversight committee and the FBI answers to them as well as the President. The info Gowdy is asking for is not protected by anyone or anything in the FISA court because that is not what he is asking for.

Sheesh....

a reply to: Gryphon66


Are you?