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

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Is it ok to get dirt from russians on your political opponent?

If its not, is it ok to pay an american company to pay someone to get dirt from russians on your pollitical opponent?

You're not asking the right questions.

"Ok" is a subjective term.

What you should be asking is if it is against the law.

Paying a US firm to do research, who in turn employ someone else, is not the fault of the initial client. That is not a choice the initial client made. That is on the firm.

That little nuance can make the difference between what the DNC/Hillary campaign may have done, and what Trump's cohorts may have done.

There is a direct connection with Trump and friends.

There is not a direct connection with Hillary and friends.

Right which goes back to my point.

As long as Trump hires a firm to collude with russians, and there is at least something verifiable in the dirt he gets, he can use tax payer funds to pay for that dirt and use it to help get Fisa warrants to spy on his opponents.

a reply to: Grambler

As long as Trump hires a firm to collude with russians, and there is at least something verifiable in the dirt he gets he can use tax payer funds to pay for that dirt and use it to help get Fisa warrants to spy on his opponents

Collude means to conspire or come to a secret understanding for nefarious purposes. That would not be the same as asking a firm to conduct research, who in turn hire others not necessarily known to the initial client.

That is not conspiring for nefarious purposes. So collusion would not apply.

Also, there is no proof that the opposition research was used to get the warrant. Information within that dossier may have been the catalyst for further investigation and corroboration, but we do not know if the dossier was used in and of itself.

Again, those are the small differences you and many others are unable to recognize. Unable or unwilling.

Which of those remain to be seen.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

As long as Trump hires a firm to collude with russians, and there is at least something verifiable in the dirt he gets he can use tax payer funds to pay for that dirt and use it to help get Fisa warrants to spy on his opponents

Collude means to conspire or come to a secret understanding for nefarious purposes. That would not be the same as asking a firm to conduct research, who in turn hire others not necessarily known to the initial client.

That is not conspiring for nefarious purposes. So collusion would not apply.

Also, there is no proof that the opposition research was used to get the warrant. Information within that dossier may have been the catalyst for further investigation and corroboration, but we do not know if the dossier was used in and of itself.

Again, those are the small differences you and many others are unable to recognize. Unable or unwilling.

Which of those remain to be seen.

Man you are tghe master of changing the goal posts.

So wanting to get dirt from russian intel agents isnt colluding, as long as you hire a firm that does it because you then dont know what they will do.

This is such a ridiculous standard, it again shows how wuill do anything to twist and turnn to not make Hillary or Obama look bad.

So ok I will slightly adjust my above post.

As long as Trump hires a firm WHO HIRES A PERSON to collude with russians, and there is at least something verifiable in the dirt he gets, he can use tax payer funds to pay for that dirt and use it to help get Fisa warrants to spy on his opponents.

a reply to: Grambler

Man you are tghe master of changing the goal posts.

No goal posts have been moved. You just happen to lack the ability to understand the small differences that matter when it comes to law.

That will come in to play in just a moment.

So wanting to get dirt from russian intel agents isnt colluding, as long as you hire a firm that does it because you then dont know what they will do.

So they sought out to specifically get dirt from Russian intel agents when hiring the firm?

What proof do you have of that intent?

This is such a ridiculous standard, it again shows how wuill do anything to twist and turnn to not make Hillary or Obama look bad.

It is ridiculous. Not sure why you made it up. Again, provide proof of that, please.

So ok I will slightly adjust my above post.

Why do you need to adjust it? Did you not say what you meant the first time?

As long as Trump hires a firm WHO HIRES A PERSON to collude with russians, and there is at least something verifiable in the dirt he gets, he can use tax payer funds to pay for that dirt and use it to help get Fisa warrants to spy on his opponents.

Depends. Did he specifically hire that firm knowing they would in turn hire a person that would collude with a foreign nation?

There's the small difference.

Hillary and the campaign did not collude, by definition, but you frame the question in such a manner that their intent implies as much, yet have no proof, but that intent becomes a huge factor.

You've made your work a bit harder now.

a reply to: introvert

Ah Hillary supporters.

It ok to collude with russians, delete subpoenaed material, and accept money from foreign agents,

As long as you say that wasn't your INTENT.

Good stuff.

But I am sure Trump would be just fine with that.

He would just hire a firm that promises to get dirt and not how. Then they get the dirt by colluding with russians, Trump obviously knows that is where they got the dirt, but still uses it to get warrants to spy on his opponents.

Problem solved!

Yep, a precedent you are cheering for.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Ah Hillary supporters.

It ok to collude with russians, delete subpoenaed material, and accept money from foreign agents,

As long as you say that wasn't your INTENT.

Good stuff.

Oh, Jesus.

The rum kicked in, didn't it?

Go home Grambler, you're drunk.

Can't believe that went completely over your head.

Well, I guess I actually can.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Ah Hillary supporters.

It ok to collude with russians, delete subpoenaed material, and accept money from foreign agents,

As long as you say that wasn't your INTENT.

Good stuff.

Oh, Jesus.

The rum kicked in, didn't it?

Go home Grambler, you're drunk.

Can't believe that went completely over your head.

Well, I guess I actually can.

I am home, and tipsy, and yet even in that state I enjoy watching your partisan squirming to make it seem like the democrats can do no wrong.

Honostly we go back and forth, but I like your comments even when they are ridiculous, which in this instance they are.

I am sure trump will do something dumb soon, and then we can argue on the same side.

On a side note, you say only right wing conspiracy theorists are pushing this stuff.

Here is a wall street journal article outlining the bombshells that may be yet to come, including getting fusion gps records, legal looks into the end not disclosing payments to them, just how the fb I and Obama admin used the dossier, and much more

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: Grambler

I am home, and tipsy, and yet even in that state I enjoy watching your partisan squirming to make it seem like the democrats can do no wrong.

What do the Democrats have to do with this? This is about basic logic.

Which it seems you are failing.

Honostly we go back and forth, but I like your comments even when they are ridiculous, which in this instance they are.

Ok. Can you comment on what was posted and not provide your "tipsy" interpretation?

On a side note, you say only right wing conspiracy theorists are pushing this stuff.

I stand by that.

Only Right Wing nuts are pushing your style of nonsensical bull#.

Here is a wall street journal article outlining the bombshells that may be yet to come, including getting fusion gps records, legal looks into the end not disclosing payments to them, just how the fb I and Obama admin used the dossier, and much more

Can't read it.

Pay to play is not my thing.

I can't believe the SECRECY act was so EPICLY ignored.

Don't know if it's been said but Steele was head of the Russian division for MI-whatever.

$9 mil is a lot of bucks. That was taxpayer money right?

Did Steele take the DNC and hillary for a ride? I mean, did they have to really pay for all that BS?
They could have just made it up themselves.

GRAMBLER,

Ah Hillary supporters.

It ok to collude with russians, delete subpoenaed material, and accept money from foreign agents,
As long as you say that wasn't your INTENT.

Good stuff.

Felonies with serious penalties and throw in the CF accepting the money, that's violating the RICO ACT.

Julius and Ethel would be proud.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Crowd strike did not deny the FBI access to the computers. The FBI didn't ask for them. They relied on the report the nonpartisan computer forensics experts supplied.
Relying on previously debunked material is useless to your argument.

Yeah right ...

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers

originally posted by: mhc_70

CNN has devoted just 4 minutes to breaking story of Clinton Uranium One scandal in the last 7 days

isn't it deliciously ironic how all the things been smeared as conspiracies are starting to emerge as truth?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So now suddenly Comey is telling the truth?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: mhc_70

CNN has devoted just 4 minutes to breaking story of Clinton Uranium One scandal in the last 7 days

Maybe because so far there is nothing to report.

a reply to: DJW001

He lied under oath on other points :

LINK



a reply to: DJW001

a reply to: Grambler

A feeble attempt to discredit the true winner of the 2016 presidential election..... Hilary Clinton. The righteous shall never be dissuaded. We shall never admit that Donald Trump fairly won the election and when all else fails, we always have "the old standby", which any collage educated mind can plainly see is factual and more than enough to justify our hatred for that man and the uneducated buffoons who voted for him....Racist, sexist, homophobe, islamaphobe.

We shall never listen to a word he says and instead continue to assign words and phrases that we know beyond any doubt he would say given the chance...... and treat him as if he actually did say them.

Let me assure you now that any perceived wrong doing by the Democrats is nothing more than false allegations intended on distracting the public from the real criminal... Donald Trump..... end sarcasm.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

He lied under oath on other points :

LINK

 

a reply to: DJW001

Good self portrait. Comey always lies unless he says something that supports your narrative. Got it!

originally posted by: BeauDonThorman
isn't it deliciously ironic how all the things been smeared as conspiracies are starting to emerge as truth?

Which set of conspiracy theories are you talking about? Trump has tossed the JFK assassination into the mix now. Have fun.

a reply to: DJW001

Why have you normalized in your mind that it is ok to overthrow foreign Governments, using ISIS, Al Qaeda or any other parties?