Why the Dossier may be the most serious political scandal the US has ever seen.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did Obama or ANYONE else for that matter use the information during the election to effect the election? Hell the public didnt know about it until after the election. The media refused to release it until it became known that it was briefed to Obama and Trump in January. If I remember my timelines correctly the FISA warrants were only issued after the persons of interest were off the campaign.

Again with this lie.

Mother jones was reporting on this on Oct. 31.

Main stream media people, that were rabidly anti trump, were in contact with steele about this for months before the election.

1 outlet before the election? Why wasnt it blasted on CNN and MSNBC and WaPo and NYT, ect?

Maybe because unlike the FBI, even they realized how ridiculous this document was.

Since when does the FBI outsource an investigation anyway?

a reply to: Grambler

No that is irrelevant.

First, we absolutely know that some of the dossier is a lie. So what, you are ok using it for fisa warrants as long as a few things in it were right?

How is something that is verifiable irrelevant?

Yo do understand the definition, correct?

That would mean it could be corroborated by other research findings/evidence.

Like I said, this dossier would not stand on it's own in the quest for a warrant.

I dont think its a good precedent to allow a sitting presidents party to pay foreign agents to collude with supposed rival countries, then use tax money to fund that opposition research, and then use that info to get warrants to spy on their political opponents and hope some of it is true when we know for a fact that some of it is false.

So we should dismiss something just because it may contain some aspects that are untrue, even if it does contain info that is verifiable through other sources?

That doesn't make much sense.

Also, The party did not pay a foreign agent. They paid a US company.

That is a very important distinction and you have been shown this many times.

But I understand how you need that lie to keep your narrative going. You know the old tactic...repeat the lie enough and people will begin to believe it.

I am sorry you think that is a good idea.

No, I don't believe the false narrative you just created is a good idea. Good thing that is not what happened here.

I hope it doesnt take Trump doing just that for you to realize how bad of an idea that is.

Oh, so it's about who's president and not what the actual truth is?

Got it.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Pyle

Straight up, do you think the DNC or Hillary or the FBI did anything illegal?

Simple question.

From available evidence no I dont think the DNC,Hilliary,Obama,the GOP, or the FBI did anything illegal in this case.

Fusion GPS most likely violated some law when getting info from Steele but I am not sure since they are a private company and not political group. It would be harder to pin campaign laws on them.

Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, think that the GOP, DNC, Hillary, Obama, FBI are as dirty as sin and have done and will do many more things illegal.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Explain a couple things to me if you don't mind.

1. Hilary was paying Fusion GPS for opposition research which is totally legal. Now, if Fusion GPS decided to look for intel from Steele, is that not allowed??? Also, do we have evidence that Hilary knew about Fusion GPS doing it??? Or was she just paying them for whatever they do as opposition research and they took it upon themselves to use Steele??

2. Once they had the info from Steele, if they believed it was accurate, why shouldn't it be used as evidence for a warrant??? Even if only parts of it were true, Steele was a high level agent which should have good intel. Plus didn't he even admit that he couldn't verify the accuracy of all of it anyway??? Should they have just ignored the whole thing or first verified what was good and what wasn't?? Is it just using possibly bad intel to get warrants that was illegal??? Or at what point did their use of that intel become illegal on their part??? Also, who's accountable for it, Fusion GPS, Steele, Hilary, or the Obama Admin??

I'll answer those.

Re #1: Because when Fusion GPS was retained by the DNC and HRC, they would have been directed to investigate this area. Something HRC was intent on doing, given she knew of Manaforts contacts (Manafort and the Podesta Group worked together for years during the Russian Reset on behalf of Russian interests). This could build on a theme that was already successfully used against Manafort. But you can't hire a proxy to do something for you that if done directly yourself would constitute a violation of law. The idea Fushion GPS would imagine on their own to follow a Russian connection makes no sense. Moreover, Steele was not cheap. I doubt they would have used him if they didn't expect a big return.

Re#2: Please actually read the dossier.

The few pages dealing with Trump, let alone the others, come from Russian (Kremlin) sources and a couple of unnamed Russian hotel workers and a socialite.

www.documentcloud.org...

How reliable does that look to you? If the Russians are not to be trusted, why are we trusting these Kremlin sources now?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: ketsuko

Where did Obama or ANYONE else for that matter use the information during the election to effect the election? Hell the public didnt know about it until after the election. The media refused to release it until it became known that it was briefed to Obama and Trump in January. If I remember my timelines correctly the FISA warrants were only issued after the persons of interest were off the campaign.

Again with this lie.

Mother jones was reporting on this on Oct. 31.

Main stream media people, that were rabidly anti trump, were in contact with steele about this for months before the election.

1 outlet before the election? Why wasnt it blasted on CNN and MSNBC and WaPo and NYT, ect?

Maybe because unlike the FBI, even they realized how ridiculous this document was.

Wrong it was unverified at the time. The news orgs couldnt verify it because it used sources they didnt have access too.

It didnt became a big new story until it came out that President Obama and President Elect Trump had been briefed on it. Even then it wasnt released to the public until Buzzfeed did to the dismay of a lot of media at the time. I do remember the right-wing trying to smear CNN for Buzzfeed releasing the Dossier. Good times.

The document in question has already been proven to be false. If anything in that thing was true it would be on every newspaper front page and the lead on every new cast in the nation not to mention 24/7 on the news stations.
If you know anything about Donald Trump you should know that he is a germaphobe. He would never be in any room where what is known as the ,pee story, would occur.
The DNC and the HC campaign have already stated that they paid for this document after a republican stopped their action after Trump won the nomination. The DNC nor the HC campaign reported this expenditure on their FEC filings that they are required to report during the campaign. That is a felony. Will they be held accountable on this? They haven't been held accountable for anything so far but we will see!

a reply to: loam

Yes you make a good point here.

Seeing as how Manafort worked with the Pdesta group for years, which both lobbied for russsian interests, Hillary and her team would have no doubt known about some of Manaforts dealings.

So when they pay steele (reports of up to 6 million dollars, but sure they were just throwing that money waay and not knowing where it was going lol) to come up with his dossier, they would be able to include factual statements about manafort dealing with Russia, because they worked with him in those deals.

Then the dossier has all of this scandalous info and info easily proven to be untrue.

But it does have some factual stuff in it.

So people are now arguing that its cool, as longs as there was some factual info, it doesn't matter if much of it was outright lies, it should be good enough to use as evidence for fisa warrants.

Again, unbelievably corrupt.

originally posted by: loam

But you can't hire a proxy to do something for you that if done directly yourself would constitute a violation of law.

Try telling that to the NSA.

originally posted by: Pyle


It didnt became a big new story until it came out that President Obama and President Elect Trump had been briefed on it.

The fact of which and the substance of which were promptly leaked immediately thereafter.

Think about that.

I don't think any of it was a coincidence.

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Pyle


It didnt became a big new story until it came out that President Obama and President Elect Trump had been briefed on it.

The fact of which and the substance of which were promptly leaked immediately thereafter.

Think about that.

I don't think any of it was a coincidence.

Buzzfeed wanted clicks so no it wasnt a coincidence. No other group moved to release it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

How is something that is verifiable irrelevant?

Yo do understand the definition, correct?

That would mean it could be corroborated by other research findings/evidence.

Like I said, this dossier would not stand on it's own in the quest for a warrant.

Its verifiable that hillary foundation took money from people involved with uranium one, and didnt disclsoe it properly.

So it is totally fare game for Trump to pay a law firm to pay someone to go to the kremlin (and then also use tax money to pay that agent), write a report that talks about Hillary liking urine and totally being in Putins pocket, and that can be used in part to obtain Fisa warrants to spy on her or her people because there are verifiable facts in there about Hillary getting donations form russian interests and not disclosing properly.

What a great system you are suggesting.

So we should dismiss something just because it may contain some aspects that are untrue, even if it does contain info that is verifiable through other sources?

That doesn't make much sense.

So how much of it do we have to know is a luie before we discount it? If we find out 50 % is a lie, should the FBi still use it for the other 50%?

Tell me this, if it turns out that much of the dossier wasn't true, will you then be upset if it was used in part for Fisa warrants?

Also, The party did not pay a foreign agent. They paid a US company.

That is a very important distinction and you have been shown this many times.

But I understand how you need that lie to keep your narrative going. You know the old tactic...repeat the lie enough and people will begin to believe it.

Absolutely ridiculous. So its ok to collude with russsia if you pay a pawyer to do it?

What a joke.

Oh, so it's about who's president and not what the actual truth is?

Got it.

No, its about that you have constantly over and over again set criteria for investigations or wrong doing very clearly in your words, and then when shown Hillary or the dems did exactly that, you change the goal posts because of "nuance"

Like last night when i9t led you to make such great claims as it didnt matter if Bill clinton met with Puting because Bill wasn't involved in Hillarys campaign, and money to the clinton foundation shouldnt be counted as money to Hillary.

And now here we get the whopper that its ok to collude with Russia as long as you pay an american company to do it.

a reply to: Grambler

$9 million.

www.foxnews.com...

Thats an ample sum.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Pyle


It didnt became a big new story until it came out that President Obama and President Elect Trump had been briefed on it.

The fact of which and the substance of which were promptly leaked immediately thereafter.

Think about that.

I don't think any of it was a coincidence.

Buzzfeed wanted clicks so no it wasnt a coincidence. No other group moved to release it.

'CNN released the fact that it existed before buzzfeed did, announcing an investigator had evidence that Trump was compromised in situations, and the acted shocked when later that day Buzzfeed released the actual dossier.

a reply to: Pyle

What I am suggesting is that Comey or Obama moved to release 'it'.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Grambler

$9 million.

www.foxnews.com...

Thats an ample sum.

Yeah, but nobody in the dnc seemed to ask any question or know that this money was bieng paid for the dossier.

I guess it was probably just a mail clerk that spent this $9 million.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Pyle

What I am suggesting is that Comey or Obama moved to release 'it'.

Why not Trump's leaking transition team? Why did it have to be Comey or Obama?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: Pyle


It didnt became a big new story until it came out that President Obama and President Elect Trump had been briefed on it.

The fact of which and the substance of which were promptly leaked immediately thereafter.

Think about that.

I don't think any of it was a coincidence.

Buzzfeed wanted clicks so no it wasnt a coincidence. No other group moved to release it.

'CNN released the fact that it existed before buzzfeed did, announcing an investigator had evidence that Trump was compromised in situations, and the acted shocked when later that day Buzzfeed released the actual dossier.

Correct CNN broke that it had been briefed to then President Obama and President Elect Trump. It was not released until Buzzfeed did.

a reply to: Grambler

Ok let's start with the Russian Collusion part. It was Steele who gathered the information from his contacts in Russia and Steele is MI6 or something right??? That seems more like Intelligence gathering that collusion. He's an agent of our ally who's getting info from his supposed good contacts within Russia, not colluding with Russia. I mean isn't that how spy intel is gathered??? We don't consider gathering intel to be collusion.

Which I think is a main difference between Steele and Don Jr. Because Steele is an actual agent with trusted contacts (at least as far as he's concerned) and is accountable for the intel he gets. He also has other departments to verify it and stuff like that. I don't imagine Don Jr. qualifies as trusted spy or has the training to do so.

What I'm getting at is I don't know if you can consider Steele to be colluding with Russia by getting intel from his Russian sources. Collusion would be more about us giving them info or exchanging info wouldn't it??

a reply to: Grambler

Its verifiable that hillary foundation took money from people involved with uranium one, and didnt disclsoe it properly.

Not sure what that has to do with this issue, but ok.

So it is totally fare game for Trump to pay a law firm to pay someone to go to the kremlin (and then also use tax money to pay that agent), write a report that talks about Hillary liking urine and totally being in Putins pocket, and that can be used in part to obtain Fisa warrants to spy on her or her people because there are verifiable facts in there about Hillary getting donations form russian interests and not disclosing properly.

That's not even close to what has happened here.

So how much of it do we have to know is a luie before we discount it? If we find out 50 % is a lie, should the FBi still use it for the other 50%? Tell me this, if it turns out that much of the dossier wasn't true, will you then be upset if it was used in part for Fisa warrants?

It will not be used in part. At least I don't think so. But I do believe it canbe used as a starting point to further verify the validity of the it's claims.

Again, verifiable.

Absolutely ridiculous. So its ok to collude with russsia if you pay a pawyer to do it? What a joke.

No. That's not what happened in this case.

Again, you are being dishonest and untruthful.

What is it now, 3 threads now where you create things out of thin air to make your conspiracies work?

No, its about that you have constantly over and over again set criteria for investigations or wrong doing very clearly in your words, and then when shown Hillary or the dems did exactly that, you change the goal posts because of "nuance"

They did not do exactly that. You are conflating and twisting, using purposeful misrepresentation of the facts to create your narrative.

Like last night when i9t led you to make such great claims as it didnt matter if Bill clinton met with Puting because Bill wasn't involved in Hillarys campaign, and money to the clinton foundation shouldnt be counted as money to Hillary.

Oh, you mean the posts in which you made the absolutely idiotic claim that Bill's speaking fees equal collusion with a foreign nation?



Ya, I remember that.

Good times.

And now here we get the whopper that its ok to collude with Russia as long as you pay an american company to do it.

That's not what I said.

There you go lying again.