It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
130
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I'm still waiting for some (any) avowed ATS leftist to say that if Hillary did anything wrong, she should be punished.




I have been saying that over and over. Now, please return the favor and say: if Donald Trump knowingly laundered Russian money or knowingly accepted help from the Russian government during the campaign, he should be removed from office and punished to the full extent of the law.


If he committed crimes he should be haeld accountable.

Accepted Russian help? Thats vague, but i will say it could be significant.

However, if thats your standard, we now have proof that not only did Hillary team pay for the dossier that was from russian intel and therefore took russian help, but its quite possible Obama used russian help to get fisa warrants.

So I imagine you are now calling for their prosecution.




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

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

I started typing up an additional response, but it was getting meaty so I figured it'd be better to compose it into a proper thread (havent been doing many lately).

Although I concur it was all time hatchet job case study, I argue its only a piece in the jigsaw puzzle that is what I argue is undoubtedly The Story of the Decade:
Machine Guns, Lipstick, Google & Dirty Dossiers (or how to start a New Cold War & rig an election)

I declare arming Al Qaeda to overthrow Syria, which triggered this avalanche of using Russia as the scapegoats for everything, that is just the most brazen over the top BS I know about. Especially since nobody not even Republican's / conservatives seem to care.



edit on 26-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Guilty of what? It is perfectly legal to hire a private detective. If Fusion brought Steele on, that was their doing, not Hillary Clinton's. Now, can you not see the difference between soliciting information from individuals in Russia who claim to have gossip about a political candidate, and knowingly accepting help from the Russian government?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler

CNN is saying the Dossier was the creation of a "rogue" element of the Clinton campaign. She didn't know about it until a few months ago.

They've pretty much dismissed it.




Ah Hillary and Obama. they here about everything that is damaging to them "on the news"

What a joke.


This dossier scandal is just a cherry on the big "Modern Watergate on Steroids" cake. Uranium One is the big party cake itself. Obama/Hillary/Lynch/Comey and others will pop out of it..."Surprise!"



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

Nice spin!!!

Notice the article that you cited was from today after noon, saying that just today that the FBI responded that they will finally comply.

Notice my thread was made well before noon today.

For you to try to spin that I was somehow misleading is ridiculous.

Now that the FBI is going to respond, and if they admit they did use the dossier as part of the justifications for Fisa warrants, then surely you will admit that this is outrageous, right?


I said at the end of the post it's breaking news, so being wrong on that point can be forgiven.

It's only outrageous if the dossier was the sole reason for the FISA warrant, like you're implying in this thread. Otherwise, it's just another small piece of evidence in a much larger case.


No. If the dossier was used at all it is outrageous, period.

For all of the reasons I outlined.

Again, this would lead to a sitaution as follows.

Trump goes to fisa and says he has evidence that Hillarys team has met with russians, including her husband, the podestas, and others. He has evidence that they have taken money for the foundation from Russians, and failed to disclose properly.

And he also paid foreign agents for a dossier that says Hillary was going to be a puppet for putin, and committed all sorts of other crimes.

therefore, because those other things are prven true, Trump should now be allowed to survey all of her team, should be able to spread this info far and wide, and it will be ok for it to be leaked to the media.

The dossier was paid for propaganda by the targets political opponent, and relied on the same russians that are claimed to be meddlers and lairs that Trump was accused of working with. If this document was used at all, it is corruption of the highest level.

So, you're also assuming Obama had a personal hand in paying for the dossier? Everything I've read puts it directly on the DNC and maybe Clinton.

Where's evidence of Obamas direct involvement? If what you're saying is correct, then whatever the GOP is guilty of lays directly at Trumps feet as well. Going by the same logic used to blame Obama here.

Or does that only apply to the left?


I think you are confused.

I am not saying that Obama paid for the dossier (however it appears the FBI was going to pay steele but thats another can of worms).

I am saying the person he was endorsing for President did. Then he took that dossier, and used it to attack his political opponent by getting fisa warrants.

So no, I am not blaming Obama or accusing him of paying for the dossier. I am saying he used what he knew was a paid opposition research to a foreign agent who used russian intel to be allowed to survey his political rival.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I'm still waiting for some (any) avowed ATS leftist to say that if Hillary did anything wrong, she should be punished.




If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

I'll wait.



Fail.

I've been on record for months saying that if Trump is guilty, fry his butt.

But it is nice for a leftist to actually say that they want Hillary punished if she did anything wrong.

Are you a right winger? You constantly call yourself a "classic liberal", but you assume I'm talking about you when I say "right winger"...

Hmmmm.




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

If Trump did anything he should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the left wingers here say that whatever Trump did doesn't subtract from what Hillary might have done..

(Not that I consider myself a "right-winger," but I didn't want you to wait too long.)

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

That is true unless the previous administration continues to control them subversively-through whatever means necessary-to make them comply to their previous and presently put-upon narrative.

Undermining to the obvious severe extent in this case has hurt Trump by putting him on the defense, calling for impeachment and constantly controlling the FBI, etc and effectively removing his power to lead the country the way it was chosen by the people.

Sick, big games. This is Trump's biggest fight in his life and not one he expected. This is what happens when a non-politician is elected to has to deal with the filth that has become the US Government. Not just the Obama Admin.-this goes back generations.

Great post Grambler-as usual.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I thought the biggest scandal was the Prison Industrial Complex and the "war on drugs." Oh, and contrary to what the right wing has been trying to brainwash you into believing since the canonization of St. Ronald Reagan, the Cold War never ended. This is why Russia keeps trying to demonize NATO. This is why Russian subs still shadow American ships. This is the whole raison d'etre for RT and globalresearch.can.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

Nice spin!!!

Notice the article that you cited was from today after noon, saying that just today that the FBI responded that they will finally comply.

Notice my thread was made well before noon today.

For you to try to spin that I was somehow misleading is ridiculous.

Now that the FBI is going to respond, and if they admit they did use the dossier as part of the justifications for Fisa warrants, then surely you will admit that this is outrageous, right?


I said at the end of the post it's breaking news, so being wrong on that point can be forgiven.

It's only outrageous if the dossier was the sole reason for the FISA warrant, like you're implying in this thread. Otherwise, it's just another small piece of evidence in a much larger case.


No. If the dossier was used at all it is outrageous, period.

For all of the reasons I outlined.

Again, this would lead to a sitaution as follows.

Trump goes to fisa and says he has evidence that Hillarys team has met with russians, including her husband, the podestas, and others. He has evidence that they have taken money for the foundation from Russians, and failed to disclose properly.

And he also paid foreign agents for a dossier that says Hillary was going to be a puppet for putin, and committed all sorts of other crimes.

therefore, because those other things are prven true, Trump should now be allowed to survey all of her team, should be able to spread this info far and wide, and it will be ok for it to be leaked to the media.

The dossier was paid for propaganda by the targets political opponent, and relied on the same russians that are claimed to be meddlers and lairs that Trump was accused of working with. If this document was used at all, it is corruption of the highest level.

So, you're also assuming Obama had a personal hand in paying for the dossier? Everything I've read puts it directly on the DNC and maybe Clinton.

Where's evidence of Obamas direct involvement? If what you're saying is correct, then whatever the GOP is guilty of lays directly at Trumps feet as well. Going by the same logic used to blame Obama here.

Or does that only apply to the left?


I think you are confused.

I am not saying that Obama paid for the dossier (however it appears the FBI was going to pay steele but thats another can of worms).

I am saying the person he was endorsing for President did. Then he took that dossier, and used it to attack his political opponent by getting fisa warrants.

So no, I am not blaming Obama or accusing him of paying for the dossier. I am saying he used what he knew was a paid opposition research to a foreign agent who used russian intel to be allowed to survey his political rival.

Isn't it just as reasonable to assume the FBI took the initiative and used the dossier as part of the evidence for the FISA warrant, on their own, without Obama directing them to do it?

That's what the FBI normally does, so I'm wondering what the evidence is that Obama was involved, other than just naturally assuming he was involved because you don't like him.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Guilty of what? It is perfectly legal to hire a private detective. If Fusion brought Steele on, that was their doing, not Hillary Clinton's. Now, can you not see the difference between soliciting information from individuals in Russia who claim to have gossip about a political candidate, and knowingly accepting help from the Russian government?


No, I cannot see the how paying foreign agents and Kremlin agents for dirt on your opponent is not accepting help from the russian government.

If trump also accepted help like this, he should be held accountable in the same manner.

But both of those pale in comparison to then using that russian help to get fisa warrants to spy on your political opponent, spreading that info, etc.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: underwerks


If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

If Trump did anything he should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the left wingers here say that whatever Trump did doesn't subtract from what Hillary might have done..

(Not that I consider myself a "right-winger," but I didn't want you to wait too long.)

TheRedneck

Hell must have frozen over, because I agree with you on something!




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I'm still waiting for some (any) avowed ATS leftist to say that if Hillary did anything wrong, she should be punished.




If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

I'll wait.



Fail.

I've been on record for months saying that if Trump is guilty, fry his butt.

But it is nice for a leftist to actually say that they want Hillary punished if she did anything wrong.

Are you a right winger? You constantly call yourself a "classic liberal", but you assume I'm talking about you when I say "right winger"...

Hmmmm.



Point of information: classic liberalism favors laissez faire economics, free trade, and small, representational government. It's a pity that propagandists have so twists the language that people don't even know what words mean any more.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: underwerks

Nice spin!!!

Notice the article that you cited was from today after noon, saying that just today that the FBI responded that they will finally comply.

Notice my thread was made well before noon today.

For you to try to spin that I was somehow misleading is ridiculous.

Now that the FBI is going to respond, and if they admit they did use the dossier as part of the justifications for Fisa warrants, then surely you will admit that this is outrageous, right?


I said at the end of the post it's breaking news, so being wrong on that point can be forgiven.

It's only outrageous if the dossier was the sole reason for the FISA warrant, like you're implying in this thread. Otherwise, it's just another small piece of evidence in a much larger case.


No. If the dossier was used at all it is outrageous, period.

For all of the reasons I outlined.

Again, this would lead to a sitaution as follows.

Trump goes to fisa and says he has evidence that Hillarys team has met with russians, including her husband, the podestas, and others. He has evidence that they have taken money for the foundation from Russians, and failed to disclose properly.

And he also paid foreign agents for a dossier that says Hillary was going to be a puppet for putin, and committed all sorts of other crimes.

therefore, because those other things are prven true, Trump should now be allowed to survey all of her team, should be able to spread this info far and wide, and it will be ok for it to be leaked to the media.

The dossier was paid for propaganda by the targets political opponent, and relied on the same russians that are claimed to be meddlers and lairs that Trump was accused of working with. If this document was used at all, it is corruption of the highest level.

So, you're also assuming Obama had a personal hand in paying for the dossier? Everything I've read puts it directly on the DNC and maybe Clinton.

Where's evidence of Obamas direct involvement? If what you're saying is correct, then whatever the GOP is guilty of lays directly at Trumps feet as well. Going by the same logic used to blame Obama here.

Or does that only apply to the left?


I think you are confused.

I am not saying that Obama paid for the dossier (however it appears the FBI was going to pay steele but thats another can of worms).

I am saying the person he was endorsing for President did. Then he took that dossier, and used it to attack his political opponent by getting fisa warrants.

So no, I am not blaming Obama or accusing him of paying for the dossier. I am saying he used what he knew was a paid opposition research to a foreign agent who used russian intel to be allowed to survey his political rival.

Isn't it just as reasonable to assume the FBI took the initiative and used the dossier as part of the evidence for the FISA warrant, on their own, without Obama directing them to do it?

That's what the FBI normally does, so I'm wondering what the evidence is that Obama was involved, other than just naturally assuming he was involved because you don't like him.


No that is not reasonable.

There is absolutely zero chance that the FBI was getting fisa warrants about the nominee for President of one of the major political parties without consulting with the president.

This is further buttressed by the fact that Obama went out of his way to spread this info as far as possible, even to foreign allies.

Are you starting to see just how corrupt this is?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

That has been my position since well before the election. It's nice for someone to accept that it is my position.


Investigate everything and everyone fairly, and let the chips fall where they may.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

I'm still waiting for some (any) avowed ATS leftist to say that if Hillary did anything wrong, she should be punished.




If Hillary did anything she should be punished!

Now that that's out of the way, I'd like to see the right wingers here say that whatever Hillary did doesn't subtract from what Trump might have done..

I'll wait.



Fail.

I've been on record for months saying that if Trump is guilty, fry his butt.

But it is nice for a leftist to actually say that they want Hillary punished if she did anything wrong.

Are you a right winger? You constantly call yourself a "classic liberal", but you assume I'm talking about you when I say "right winger"...

Hmmmm.






I've been called everything and labeled as everything by many here.

I appreciate that you've actually taken the time and remembered that I do prefer the term, "Classical Liberal".


I think that if anyone is guilty of a crime that they should be punished, regardless of ideology or party.


The problem I see is that the left is so immersed in identity politics, that to condemn Hillary is paramount to condemning themselves, hence a level of irrationality often exists.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What makes you think the informants were government agents? They probably were, and I suspect that the whole dossier is deliberate disinformation originating in the Kremlin. We are seeing it achieve its intended purpose: muddyingn he political waters further and driving the wedge between the political factions deeper.

But getting back to the legality of it--which you have already claimed you are not interested in- the Clinton campaign is at least twice removed from the informants, whereas Donald Junior sat in the same room with someone purported to be an agent of a hostile foreign power.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


One, we have evidence from a lot of sources earlier in the year saying this was possibly used for Fisa warrants.


From what I could find yesterday (or the day before), we only have the one original source for that claim and it's the source of the CNN article that JadedAndCynical linked. Admittedly, I could be wrong but I looked at probably a dozen other articles making the same suggestion and none of them had their own sources.

Out of curiosity, have you actually looked at the Steele Dossier?

What I'm getting at here is have you for instance, looked at what it contains regarding Manafort specifically? In order for the claim that the Steele Dossier was inappropriately used to obtain a FISA warrant for Manafort to be viable, I would expect two things to be true:

1. It actually contains information that, if presented, would be persuasive to the FISA court.
2. The dossier is the singular source for this information.

Manafort's name is mentioned 18 times in 2 sections.


-Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to mask more extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries

Detail

Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.


The rest are in the section about Manafort's exit from the campaign:


RUSSIA/UKRAINE: THE DEMISE OF TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER PAUL MANAFORT

Summary

-Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in western media. Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail

–PUTIN and Russian leadership remain worried however and skeptical that YANUKOVYCH has fully covered the traces of these payments to TRUMP’s former campaign manager

-Close associate of TRUMP explains reasoning behind MANAFORT’s recent resignation. Ukraine revelations played part but others wanted MANAFORT out for various reasons, especially LEWANDOWSKI who remains influential

Detail

1. Speaking in late August 2016, in the immediate aftermath of Paul MANAFORT’s resignation as campaign manager for US Republican presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, a well-placed Russian figure reported on a recent meeting between President PUTIN and ex-President YANUKOVYCH of Ukraine. This had been held in secret on 15 August near Volgograd, Russia and the western media revelations about MANAFORT and Ukraine had featured prominently on the agenda. YANUKOVYCH had confided in PUTIN that he did authorise and order substantial kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this.

2. Given YANUKOVYCH’s (unimpressive) record in covering up his own corrupt tracks in the past, PUTIN and others in the Russian leadership were sceptical about the ex-Ukrainian president’s reassurances on this as relating to MANAFORT. They therefore still feared the scandal had legs, especially as MANAFORT had been commercially active in Ukraine right up to the time (in March 2016) when he joined TRUMP’s campaign team. For them it therefore remained a point of potential political vulnerability and embarrassment.

3. Speaking separately, also in late August 2016, an American political figure associated with Donald TRUMP and his campaign outlined the reasons behind MANAFORT’s recent demise. S/he said it was true that the Ukraine corruption revelations had played a part in this but also, several senior players close to TRUMP had wanted MANAFORT out, primarily to loosen his control on strategy and policy formulation. Of particular importance in this regard was MANAFORT’s predecessor as campaign manager, Corey LEWANDOWSKI, who hated MANAFORT personally and remained close to TRUMP with whom he discussed the presidential campaign on a regular basis.


That's it. And we can pretty much toss item #3 as it has no bearing on anything (though, as an aside, there are other sources claiming Lewandowski had personally animosity for Manafort which is understandable since he essentially pushed hm out of the campaign).

As for the other items. We know that Manafort's name did in fact show up in a ledger of illicit payments (aka "The Black Ledger"), found alongside stacks of money during the Ukrainian anti-corruption investigation. That was confirmed publicly by Ukrainian officials and in fact, we all know that it was that information hitting the US media that resulted in Manafort ultimately leaving the campaign. Whether the details of that Putin/Yanukovych meeting are accurate is mostly irrelevant.

Manafort of course questioned the authenticity of the ledger but at least some of the payments detailed wer e confirmed. Point here is that the significant details are all common knowledge.

From that section, the only other interesting tidbit is the claim that Manafort was "commercially active in Ukraine" up until March. I'm sure the FBI could easily corroborate that with a few clicks though. For instance, when was his last trip to Ukraine? It's known that he continued to work in Ukraine at least through 2015 (working for the PoR, reporting to Yanukovych's former chief of staff). I don't know that it would be significant for the purposes of obtaining a FISA warrant though.

So now we're left with the first mention of Manafort (technically second but that first line about "happy to have the media..." isn't much of anything). The question you should ask yourself is does it seem plausible to you that the following paragraph would be enough to persuade the FISA court:


Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.


It doesn't even pretend to be anything more than unqualified hearsay. It's literally a rumor. Do you *really* believe that was enough to get the FISA court to sign off on a warrant? Or even that it's enough to have been the straw that broke the camel's back? I don't.

Is the FISA court presided over by moronic clowns? Maybe? I dunno. But I think the idea that the dossier was crucial to getting the Manafort warrant is far-fetched to say the least.
edit on 2017-10-26 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I thought the biggest scandal was the Prison Industrial Complex and the "war on drugs." Oh, and contrary to what the right wing has been trying to brainwash you into believing since the canonization of St. Ronald Reagan, the Cold War never ended. This is why Russia keeps trying to demonize NATO. This is why Russian subs still shadow American ships. This is the whole raison d'etre for RT and globalresearch.can.


That's not a scandal. That's just business as usual.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Not one of those claims makes any sense whatsoever.



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join