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

www.npr.org...

FBI Director James Comey confirmed last month that the agency has been investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia since last July, as part of a larger investigation into Russian attempts to meddle with the U.S. election, but said he could not provide any details about the investigation.

They have already ADMITTED to doing this.
It is only upon request for justification their story falls apart.
With no charges for any criminal activity, the us government, for no reason, spied upon american citizens for political reasons.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: kosmicjack

No one tried to cross-check any of the claims of the Steele dossier within the FBI. This is also very suspicious. The content of the Steele dossier was always taken for granted and regarded as more important than its accuracy.

Ex : If Trump's lawyer, Cohen, did meet with Russians in Prague as the report mentions, it would have been straightforward for any inteligence service including US ones, to figure if he really was in Central Europe or in California as he happened to be.

Exactly. So instead of verifying facts in the dossier and knowing they were false, it seems they instead decided to in part use the dossier as reason for fisa warrants to survey people, and then check on the accuracy of the info later.

This is absurd.

They didn't need surveillance against Ameircans to look at Cohens passport or interview him to see if that part of the dossier was true. The same with most of the other claims in the dossier.

But instead the figured they would survey the opponent of the people who paid for the dossier without those targets knowledge, leak that info to the press, and then refuse to comply with congress when they are asked questions.

a reply to: Grambler

Do not forget 2 requests for fisa warrants were denied.
From the fisa court that hardly EVER denies a fisa warrant.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: IAMTAT

Evidence? No, you have a story.

Mueller has evidence. I don't see him saying it's all a worthless effort based on false intel. Do you?

Mueller is the guy that was in charge of the FBI when the U1 thing happened.
He was in charge of what now looks more like a criminal syndicate than a law enforcement agency.

Yeah, we should trust him.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler

Do not forget 2 requests for fisa warrants were denied.
From the fisa court that hardly EVER denies a fisa warrant.

Also a good point.

All the more reason for the FBI to come clean about what exactly they were presenting to the Fisa court as a reason for this surveillance.

If this dossier was any part of that, it is unbelievably corrupt.

These turds are starting to stink up the whole country. Anyone who comes in here defending these actions or attempting to deflect from them are just as guilty as the people who committed the crime...

How can some people call themselves Americans and not have a problem with sitting Presidents using the power of the FED Gov to spy and smear their opponents...Are we a banana republic or third world country? How can anyone be ok with this??

Shameful.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: IAMTAT

Evidence? No, you have a story.

Mueller has evidence. I don't see him saying it's all a worthless effort based on false intel. Do you?

Mueller is the guy that was in charge of the FBI when the U1 thing happened.
He was in charge of what now looks more like a criminal syndicate than a law enforcement agency.

Yeah, we should trust him.

We should not trust him until we see where his investigation leads. I am of the opinion that he may have flipped on his old masters and would actually be the very person we want to expose his cohorts.

The crimes are no blatantly obvious to the world, I imagine that he has been sat down and given to options, fry with the rest or flip and attempt to redeem himself, the guilty are incrementally being exposed.

a reply to: Grambler

Your definition of "foreign agent" is not technically correct.

Steele may be a citizen of another country, but he is not a representative of Great Britain and works as a private citizen now. Not only that, but GB are ALLIES. Russia, who cyber attacked our election in various ways, is NOT an ally. The are an enemy and they want Russian supremacy OVER America.

Other foreign intelligence allies gave intel regarding the Trump campaign directly to the American IC. Should we scorn their "foreign" information as well?

Steele found much more than he anticipated. He was hired to get some dirt and then realized he had a serious situation on his hands. He was very upset the FBI didn't act immediately on it as it was.

Anyway, believe as you will. The truth will out.

a reply to: Grambler

www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

Do not forget about this either.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

An odd thing for an outgoing administration to do, unless...........

a reply to: elementalgrove

It is possible that they flipped him... dependong on what they may have on him.

a reply to: Grambler

I agree with the title. But not with your reasons.

I believe Hillary and the FBI do not want to release the contents of the dossier. The Republicans who started the research with this Analytical dropped it like a hot potato.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
You make good points but I think the dossier is only part of the story.

The broader story, - which includes not only Clinton/DNC/Podesta/UraniumOne but also Manafort/Bannon/Kushner/Wikileaks/Cambridge Analytica - is one of wide scale success by the Russians to not only influence our 2016 election but also to subvert our institutions and destabize the U.S. in general. It's working.

BTW:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

If you accept that Russians could be involved at these levels in our domestic politics, then perhaps it is safe to assume that our government is far more corrupt and compromised than anyone can yet imagine.

a reply to: RazorV66

100X worse than Watergate. Another day of Leftist deflecting from hard evidence that King Obama wiped his ass with the Constitution and handed it to Queen Hillary, and she flushed it down the toilet.

What evidence?

Of course the FISA warrant issue is the worst part of this debacle because this was a sitting President using the FBI and other intelligence agencies for partisan political gain, influencing the FISA court with an unverified and highly unusual document from questionable sources.

Again, do you have evidence of that?

"Opposition Research" doesn't even matter here, it's been going on since the 2 party political system has been in place. If Trump did this, you Leftists would try to burn the White House down.

Uh huh. Sure.

So do you have the evidence or not?

a reply to: MOMof3

The Republicans who started the research dropped it like a hot potato

Honeypot for Hillary ?

a reply to: AboveBoard

Your definition of "foreign agent" is not technically correct. 

It is technically correct.
He is a British citizen.
Not a US citizen.
Either foreign or domestic when it comes to matter of state.
He is foreign and was acting as an agent when he worked on the dossier.

I hope Trump does double down on the FBI, CiA and all the 3 letters. He's very intelligent as he likes to tell us.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Grambler

Your definition of "foreign agent" is not technically correct.

Steele may be a citizen of another country, but he is not a representative of Great Britain and works as a private citizen now. Not only that, but GB are ALLIES. Russia, who cyber attacked our election in various ways, is NOT an ally. The are an enemy and they want Russian supremacy OVER America.

Other foreign intelligence allies gave intel regarding the Trump campaign directly to the American IC. Should we scorn their "foreign" information as well?

Steele found much more than he anticipated. He was hired to get some dirt and then realized he had a serious situation on his hands. He was very upset the FBI didn't act immediately on it as it was.

Anyway, believe as you will. The truth will out.

Fisrt off, as far as foreign agents Steele was an actual spy for the UK. Many of the people that Trumps people are accused of dealing with are not current Russian government employees, so are you saying that it is no problem to meet with them? Of course not.

As far as the UK being an ally, so what? Why should we accept a candidate paying foreign allies to dig up dirt on the opponent. This isnt the same as intelligence sharing.

Remember when Judge Napolitano was called out for saying the UK intel services actually were involved wit this. The UK decried this, and judge was ridiculed. Why? because if it turns out that the UK intel services were actively working on behalf of one political candidate in the US against another, it would be far more collusion than what Russia is accused of. Do we really think this is ok just because they are our ally?

You say other agencies share intel all of the time. Imagine Trump then taking that intel and getting Fisa warrants against his political opponent.

You discuss all of this stuff steele found that he thought was so important. What, like hookers peeing? Or the easily debunked Cohen story?

No matter how you slice it, paying a foreign agent who then uses russian intel (none verifiable and much proven false) to prove russian collusion against your opponent, and then having your political ally Obama use that paid info to get surveillance against that opponent is authoritarian, incredibly corrupt, and far more fangerous than anything Trump is accused of doing with Russia.

a reply to: Grambler

originally posted by: kosmicjack
You make good points but I think the dossier is only part of the story.

The broader story, - which includes not only Clinton/DNC/Podesta/UraniumOne but also Manafort/Bannon/Kushner/Wikileaks/Cambridge Analytica - is one of wide scale success by the Russians to not only influence our 2016 election but also to subvert our institutions and destabize the U.S. in general. It's working.

BTW:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It works for 2 reasons:

- Freedom of speech
- our own government has spent the last 30 years dumbing us down. Cornerstones of American philosophy, such as Caveat Emptor, are wholly absent from our country. Added to this is the tendency for humans to be lazy. There isn't much research about outrageous claims anymore.

The saddest part is that we can correct the issue releativly easily, like forcing online advertisers to disclose who paid for the ad, especially in political ads.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Mueller is the guy that was in charge of the FBI when the U1 thing happened.
He was in charge of what now looks more like a criminal syndicate than a law enforcement agency.

Yeah, we should trust him.

Even the Wall Street Journal is now calling for Mueller to recuse himself : WSJ - Subscription needed