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

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: loam

reveals the FBI under James Comey agreed to reimburse the Clinton campaign and DNC for money it spent on the opposition research.

If true, this is just so juicy.....

I think that is inaccurate.

They didn't pay the dnc.

The fbi did however pay Steele, which is probably worse.

Tax money was used by the fbi to pay a guy that was being paid by the dnc to do opposition research against their opponent.

It is outrageous.

Or maybe, if true that they paid Steele, it wasn't for "oppo research of one candidate " but rather because of a threat to the US that needed further investigation?

Maybe Russia was seen as the threat? Just a wild guess there but IF the dossier was to some good degree corroborated, IF it holds to some degree true (it is raw intelligence), don't you think the FBI might be just a wee bit interested??

Then the fbi can investigate themselves.

But ok fine. Alex Jones has said some things that are true in his investigations, such as Hillary's team paid for the dossier.

So you have no problem with the fbi paying him to do research into the corruption of Hillary and obama, right?

Or is it only ok to use tax money to pay private people to go after trump?

Paying Steele to investigate ANYTHING the FBI deems a threat is freaking ok by me. How's that?

Where do you get those words you try to stuff in my mouth??

I dont get what you are trying to say.

Was it ok for the FBI to pay steele because they thought russia was a threat.

Also, it's ok for FBI to pay Steele for anything they deem worthy. Heck, he has intelligence on Clinton? Sure the FBI can pay him for that... see what I'm getting at??

No, they shouldnt be able to pay him for that either. But its not quite the same, because it is not like he was paid by trump to get dirt on Hillary.

If he has dirt on Hillary, he can testify to congress or even the FBI, and then they investigate.

a reply to: six67seven

The FBI has always taken a side. Their very creation was based on it. They defend and protect the constitution. They do not now nor did they ever, work for the president.

a reply to: Sillyolme

See everyone?

Half the people arguing here are saying the dossier was never used for warrants.

Now we have people saying it was at least used for a warrant on Page, but that is good.

Again Silly, we will see what the FBI says about how they used the dossier.

But even if it was just on Page, then everything i said in the OP applies, and this is a scandal of epic proportions.

Glad to have you admitting they used this for a fisa warrant though!

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: six67seven

Answer is in my previous post, once the incoming administration has all of their nominees and appointees in place, agencies and departments restructured they have virtually unlimited power and little or no accountability.

Yeah...so...ummmm...yeah uhh, when do you think they're going to get around to that?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Why not? Do you know a law that says they cant? Police pay informants every friggin day.

Because he is not just an informant, he is being paid by Trumps opponents to do opposition research against Trump.

Again, then you would have no problem with Trump having the FBI use tax dollars to pay people for dirt on Hillary, and be fine with those people colluding with Russia to do so?

Unreal.

a reply to: shooterbrody

This is what will bring them down. I would be surprised if someone hadn't already spilled the beans to save their own neck, remember those who testified already in "closed sessions".

Manafort...for one. This won't bid well for the Trump WH.

a reply to: Grambler

You forget you are dealing with people who had no problems with what the dnc did to sanders.
They flat out do not care how they win, only THAT they win.

a reply to: Grambler

The difference is, the dossier is perhaps real. We don't know yet, but so far much of it, meeting times/places/people have been verified.

And the information used against Clinton were lies. Fabrications. See the difference?

a reply to: olaru12

Yeah because manfort has a long long history with trump.........

Perhaps you should look a bit before the summer of 2016 at who manafort worked for/with.

a reply to: six67seven

I think that's because they are investigating the current president for crimes but I don't know maybe it's political.
Hahaha











😀

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Grambler

The difference is, the dossier is perhaps real. We don't know yet, but so far much of it, meeting times/places/people have been verified.

And the information used against Clinton were lies. Fabrications. See the difference?

So far the dossier has been shown to be incorrect in several areas. But I guess its ok to use it for Fisa areas because some part of it might be true.

What info against Hillary are you discussing?

She and her team lied about paying for the dosssier.

So I guess anyone who investigated and found that out should be paid by the FBI to dig up more dirt on Hillary.

Nevermind if they claimed things that were obviously wrong like Steele did in his dossier about Trump getting peed on or cohen meeting Russians in Prague to collude.

Nope they were right about Hillarys team paying for the dossier, and so now they should be paid by the FBI to get more dirt on Hillary.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Grambler

The difference is, the dossier is perhaps real. We don't know yet, but so far much of it, meeting times/places/people have been verified.

And the information used against Clinton were lies. Fabrications. See the difference?

Please show me where facts have been proved on the Dossier? I read it and checked in to everything I could find and couldn't verify anything was acurate. So apparently your research skills are better then mine so what has been proved to be correct. The only verification I could find was a single meeting supposedly attended by two Russian diplomats may have occurred according to a Ukrainian source.

a reply to: Grambler

These peoples heads are going to explode when they find out manafort worked for the podesta group.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Grambler

The difference is, the dossier is perhaps real. We don't know yet, but so far much of it, meeting times/places/people have been verified.

And the information used against Clinton were lies. Fabrications. See the difference?

Please go to the 3:30 mark where Trey Gowdy talks about a key witness who was involved in and mentioned in the dossier dozens of times. This key witness under oath testified that the every allegation in the dossier was false.

THIS WITNESS TESTIFED UNDER OATH!! This is a person supposedly involved in the creation of the dossier. So if that person says it's all false under oath what do you make of the dossier now? I for one put more faith in the person who is heading up the investigation and the sworn testimony of the witness to any other source of the dossier.


IT IS ALL FAKE!! Listen for yourself.

a reply to: Grambler
FYI
The DEA does a lot of its business based on information from paid informants. I'd like to know, since when did it become illegal for police, any police, to pay for information? They do this every day of the week. It's not illegal.
This is like the idea to shut down news agencies that print news you don't like. Decry the source of information as being illegally obtained when it wasnt. That's because you don't like the information they got. You should also know that as soon as BuzzFeed published the dossier the agreement between Steele and the FBI ended as Steele and his family went under cover to protect them from retribution from moscow . Mother Jones published Steele name the very next day.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes as said above, carter page and manafort had previously been under surveillance, and then those warrants ran out.

They were reupped after they were connected to Trumps campaign.

No..They were re-upped after

A) Intelligence agencies got reports that Carter Page met with Russian operatives while he was in Moscow. These were human intel reports. The Dossier filled in the blanks as to what those meetings potentially pertained to.

B) On Manafort the FISA warrant was re-upped after a Ukrainian journalist released the internal Payola ledger showing Manafort receiving millions in hidden pay-outs from the former corrupt Ukrainian leader who worked with Putin.

In both instances the Dossier was supportive, but not foundational to the warrants.

And in both cases, the material claimed in the Dossier on Page and Manafort has been partially verified thus far.

Just because someone is associated with Donald Trump is not cause to turn a blind eye to treason or espionage.

a reply to: Sillyolme

And there you have it.

Its ok for the fb I to pay people that are being paid by one political party to get dirt on another, and use that info to get fisa warrants to spy on that other political opponent.

How loudly you will shriek of trump does even a portion of this.

a reply to: Grambler

This entire debate is rather pointless, when there is one very simple question you seem to have avoided.

What laws are potentially being violated here?

As we all know, collusion is a generic term and it's is not illegal in and of itself. When Trump's friends were accused of collusion, there were laws cited to show what laws they potentially may have violated.

Can you provide the specific laws that would have been broken, if we assume what you say is true?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes as said above, carter page and manafort had previously been under surveillance, and then those warrants ran out.

They were reupped after they were connected to Trumps campaign.

No..They were re-upped after

A) Intelligence agencies got reports that Carter Page met with Russian operatives while he was in Moscow. These were human intel reports. The Dossier filled in the blanks as to what those meetings potentially pertained to.

B) On Manafort the FISA warrant was re-upped after a Ukrainian journalist released the internal Payola ledger showing Manafort receiving millions in hidden pay-outs from the former corrupt Ukrainian leader who worked with Putin.

Oh nooss you fell for fake news the whole Ukraine thing was fake.

www.bloomberg.com...

As far as carter page his meeting was a speech he gave at an economic school in moscow. No meeting was ever verified. So the only evidence we have I's the dissier. But you can't use that to verify itself that's just silly.

I heard a discussion on the news stating the investigations have verified that some of the meetings cited in the document did occur. Of course, what was said in those meetings have not been verified, nor have they been put to rest.

I'm (we are) speculating on a subject which is still under investigation, but will perhaps have verification in part, or as a whole before long. I think I'll wait until we have more information to make an informed judgment. Of course I love to speculate, but in this case the margin for error is still too high, in both directions. If they had to hire Mueller and his team to sort through all this, we surely can't do it. I'll wait.

And oh, the injustices against Clinton are widely known, or should be?

My assertion remains, that the only thing that matters about this dossier, is whether or not it is true.