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.

 

Washington Free Beacon Oringinal Funders of Fusion GPS Research

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

It could also be that they saw he was their only chance to have any power and their only shot to avoid a Hillary Presidency so they decided to just fake their loyalty to get whatever they could while they had a chance.

Which is totally what some of them are doing as long as they can handle the stress of being part of this admin. and not get on Trumps hate list.




posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Well and I think with an outfit like this, the dirt is a commodity, not necessarily something that they need to be commissioned to do. In this case, like a private intelligence operation.


Absolutely. The same with leaks, there is money to be had. Something on the level of Fusion GPS would be of the utmost profit considering the potential.




* Who actually initiated the Russian aspects of the investigation. Was it the DNC, Clinton campaign, Mark Elias, Glenn Simpson?

* Did anyone from outside Fusion GPS sign off on hiring Steele?

* Were the memorandums from Steele (he said he sent 16 separate documents) shared with the Mark Elias (Perkins Coie), DNC, the Clinton campaign, etc.

According to Steele, starting in July, he sent information to an FBI contact himself.


Is it possible that an agent tipped off Fusion GPS? That would make the other points fall into place.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: mOjOm

I kind of admire Fusion GPS. Banking off of both sides.


Yes, high standards of integrity and morals to be Sure. Totally trustworthy.


Honor among thieves. It's a rogues game. Subtlety and skullduggery. To see it on display in a professional format and outside of government entities is, as I've said, fascinating.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The best thing about Trump is that, like all the players on both sides, he is rotten to the core human garbage - but he wears it proudly and doesn't try to hide it. And the more he is out there unabashedly flaunting it the more his enemies try to use to destroy him, but are instead taking the polish off their own draconian dealings and exposing themselves for the wicked fiends they all are.

I'm not convinced Trump is doing this on purpose, but it is still bloody brilliant.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: sooth
The best thing about Trump is that, like all the players on both sides, he is rotten to the core human garbage - but he wears it proudly and doesn't try to hide it. And the more he is out there unabashedly flaunting it the more his enemies try to use to destroy him, but are instead taking the polish off their own draconian dealings and exposing themselves for the wicked fiends they all are.

I'm not convinced Trump is doing this on purpose, but it is still bloody brilliant.


I literally spat coffee.

Oh you, never stop!



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


As far as intel gathering, well now it was the dems that started this fiasco.


We don't know that the Democrats initiated the move to hire Steele though it would be reasonable at this point to speculate as much. But there's also the possibility that it may turn out not to be the case. As far as the "fiasco" goes, it depends on what you consider that to be.

Generally speaking, this stuff never gets out in its raw form. Actually, generally speaking it's domestically sourced research that can then be vetted before being planted in a friendly media outlet.

But remember that according to Steele, he sent info to his FBI contact himself. In that affidavit from the UK court, I believe he also says that he compiled the dossier and gave it to John McCain? Do you recall? I can track down the link.


They were very explicit with the Don Jr story, accepting dirt from the russians was collusion, possibly even treason. The difference is Don apparently received no dirt, and he did not solicit or pay for it.


That's really not the same thing. What did the email to Don Jr say? That the documents came straight from the Kremlin "as part of the Russian government's effort to assist your father's campaign" or something like that? I don't presume that anyone in that meeting told the truth about anything at all. Their first instinct after the meeting was to draft a statement to the public that was a lie and if the NYT wasn't getting ready to release those emails (where did the NYT get them I wonder?), they'd have gone right on pretending that it never happened.

They're about as trustworthy as HRC talking about her emails.

This is a contractor digging up dirt in Russia for a research firm. There's no proof that the DNC/Clinton had any idea what his method of conducting research was. Getting it from possibly current Russian government officials isn't the same as colluding with the government itself, is it?

If a rogue US intel agent sells secrets to a foreigner, is that the US government acting or the agent? I think that's a big part of the detail that you're glossing over so that they're superficially "the same."



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Having dirt on someone, especially in American Politics is like having keys to treasure room. Think about it. When you see campaign ads here in America or keep up with politics, what is the primary message coming to, positive or negative???

Other than Sanders who doesn't run those kinds of ads. Almost every ad coming out is always talking sh*t about it's opponent. Way more of the negative attacks then anything positive about what their choice is going to do.

Then there's the potential leaks like you said.

So hell ya, having some dirt is valuable big time. As long as it's credible anyway. You get caught slinging fake dirt and you'll find it will backfire sometimes. But not always. Sometimes it just takes an accusation and that will ruin someone.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I always wonder about the OP’s true intent. He failed to say that the Free Becon gave it all up long before the dossier and the hiring of a former spy.


No I didn't. Not only is it common knowledge that they did but it's in statement from Fusion GPS that I included in the OP.


That was all on Hillary and the DNC, in the case with Trump the Free Becon is moot,and even demonstrates they couldn’t find anything and so it all had to be created out of thin air.


No, it doesn't demonstrate that Fusion GPS couldn't find anything on Trump to give to the Free Beacon at all. How does it?



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It doesn't even need to be credible, just something that invokes knee-jerking. We've seen in the past that the facts take time, and by that time, the masses have moved on or tuned out.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: sooth

I think that is a bad and short sighted way to see it.

Sure it's entertaining and stuff, but cheering on such behavior and attitude from elected officials openly like that isn't doing any good. It just lowers the bar that is acceptable from these people and just allows them to do it more and get away with it.

That's what got us all here already. Past generations not giving a damn and not caring enough to hold people accountable for what they do in office. Had they put more effort into keeping things in line and people in line things wouldn't be as bad as they are now and we wouldn't be struggling so much now.

If you think the next generations are going to see it as funny that we continued the same stupid pattern of letting power run amok, think again because they'll face a situation even worse than we are.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Right. So let's move to that too because I have a question there as well.

Once they had the dosser from Steele, even if they didn't know if all of it was correct or not, if they did believe certain parts were correct in it and those parts would justify warrants, wouldn't that still be grounds to get them???

Especially if those parts mentioned Manafort or Flynn who actually do raise red flags and we know why. So wouldn't that still be grounds for warrants.

I disagree with them leaking anything they didn't believe to be valid as a way to slander Trump, but aside from that it seems there may be some valid reasons for warrants too.


Yes, it owuld be a problem in this instance for all of the 5 reasons I outlined on my other thread.

But lets look at it this way.

If the FBI got this dossier, knew it was paid for by the DNC, and knew the source were russian agents, but still thought some of the claims could be credible, they could investigate it themselves.

Now they would have to know that this is a very delicate matter, suggesting spying on the parties that paid for this dossiers opponent for election of President would have to require such a high threshold it would be almsot unttainable. Otherwise, people would pay people left and right to spread info to the FBI so that the sitting president could spy on his opponent.

So they would have to be certain to carefully corroborate much of the document.

We know that Fisa warrants were issued sometime in July. The first dossier copy was written sometime in July. That means if the dossier was used to help get Fisa warrants, they spent only a matter of days looking into it before utilizing it to help spy on their bosses (Obama) rival for President.

And as ridiculous as that is, they also possible used tax money to pay Steele. And furthermore, it was eveident with only minimal research that parts of the dossier were wrong, such as Cohen meeting in Prague.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

That's why I said sometimes it just takes the accusation to ruin someone.

That's a risky gamble though too. Because if you get caught knowing pushing that stuff we actually have laws against it. Although even then it's that whole Intent thing that is so hard to prove.

That's the worst part too. Rumors and lies still spread quick and easy, like fire. But the cool water of truth takes a long time to put out the flames.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


So why would it then be illegal for Hilary to pick up where they left off again???


Hillary didn't disclose this to campaign finance that is against the law.

She paid for it with campaign funds!


edit on 27-10-2017 by Diisenchanted because: to add


Also it is illegal to testify before congress that you didn't know of the dossier when in fact your campaign paid for it!

If she really didn't know of the dossier til she heard in the MSM then she is a bigger idiot than I think she is.
edit on 27-10-2017 by Diisenchanted because: to add more



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Grambler

Ok. My question is was it illegal to hire Steele though??

Also, I'm still not sure I get why Intel Gathering with a Government Agent is collusion. That would mean every agent who's gathering Intel from other enemy Nations would be considered Collusion too.


I do not believe it would be illegal to hire steele, though I could be wrong.

Regardless, I dont think it is that big of a deal.

As far as intel gathering, well now it was the dems that started this fiasco.

They were very explicit with the Don Jr story, accepting dirt from the russians was collusion, possibly even treason. The difference is Don apparently received no dirt, and he did not solicit or pay for it.

As I said before, I do not think the first three points I made are near as significant as points 4 and 5.

It makes the dems look like hacks to scream about russian collusion while engaging in the same thing, and to lie about it. And it allowed Russia to interfere in our country in a huge way.

But the real scandal is if the russian sourced dossier that was paid for by dems was then used by the Obama admin in part to get fisa warrants to spy on his opponents (which although there are reports of this from CNN and elsewhere they are anonymously sourced so its not confirmed). And the FBI's unwillingness to cooperate with subpoenas to answer this, and possibly paying Steele themselves.


It wasnt that it was Russian individuals or Russian sources that was the problem. It was working directly with the Russian government that was the problem. One you seem so keen on ignoring to push your DNC/Russian collusion deflection.

Talking Points Brought to Trump Tower Meeting Were Shared With Kremlin

Oh look that lawyer you tried to say was a DNC operative was sharing things with the Kremlin!


Yes, the DNC paid someone to work directly with Russian government officials to get dirt on Trump.

They went out of their way to pay someone for that, and to look for russian officials for that info, and possibly steele paid them (and then was reimbursed by the FBI).

What does your article prove? That lady, who was also heavily involved with Fusion GPS that the dems hired, shared stuff with the kremlin? Did Trump offer anything for the dirt? No. Did he get any dirt? No.

The dems did.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well, maybe they didn't do it because the dossier after all then if the warrants were almost at the same time.

Also, they were only investigating but no info about it was being released officially.

Until McCain put it out there and some place published it that is.

I think if anything those warrants came for other reasons. I mean Trump has ties with Russian Oligarchs from business dealings. He had Manafort in his team. Others in his team kept forgetting about meeting with Russians. Don Jr. admitted they had financial ties to Russia. Banks wouldn't loan to him here so he used banks with Russian ties. Ties to Russian Mob all the way back to the 90's. etc etc.

The FBI had to already know about all that stuff and probably more.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

You can't pay for opposition research with campaign donations???



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Yes ,but you cant lie about it before congress.

You're argument is moot and makes you look foolish.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Couple of points on this. I refuse to believe that Hillary or high up officials in her team were paying 9 million dollars reportedly and had no idea where that money was going or didnt see the results of that money. It defies belief.

We even had wolf Blitzer today commenting on how bad it looks for Podesta to be testifying he didnt know about paying for this while the lawyer paying steele elias was on camera right beside him.

The don jr thing, I dont think it is that big of a deal (though a little shady) to hear someone out even if they claim to be a Kremlin agents and wanting to help your campaign claiming they have dirt on your opponent. It would be shady if you got that dirt and didnt hand it over to authorities, or solicited or paid for that dirt or offered favors in exchange.

The dems did solicit it, and possibly paid some of the Kremlin agents for dirt against donald. However, the fact that they seeeemingly handed over the evidence to the FBI, or were at least aware of that, is one of the reasons I do not think that this on its own is that big of deal.

Again, it makes them look like hypocrites for their attacks about collusion and Trump and Don Jr. and it makes them look bad for lying, and it gave Russia easy acess to cause division in the country, but I don't think it is much bigger of a deal than (other than those reasons) than the Don jr. deal. I would have to see more evidence to change my mind.

However, the real scandal is what did the FBI and Obama do with that russian sourced material when they got it.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
So according to this an alt-right PUBLICATION paid GPS to get dirt on trump for 1 year. They did such a good job that the DNC hired them to get even more dirt on trump in order to help their candidate when a presidential election. Then GPS tried so hard to get that dirt that they went as far as hiring a former british spy.

Do I have this correct?
If I do none of this is looking good for ether party but especially not for the dems and hillary.
The repubs are connected to this shady # through a hack publication while the dems are connected through a former presidential candidate and a party leader.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: JinMI

Having dirt on someone, especially in American Politics is like having keys to treasure room. Think about it. When you see campaign ads here in America or keep up with politics, what is the primary message coming to, positive or negative???

Other than Sanders who doesn't run those kinds of ads. Almost every ad coming out is always talking sh*t about it's opponent. Way more of the negative attacks then anything positive about what their choice is going to do.

Then there's the potential leaks like you said.

So hell ya, having some dirt is valuable big time. As long as it's credible anyway. You get caught slinging fake dirt and you'll find it will backfire sometimes. But not always. Sometimes it just takes an accusation and that will ruin someone.


Lets not let sanders off the hook.

remember after the Gifford shooting how he said it was on Republicans to speak up about how their messsage was causing extremism. The he used that as a fund raaising effort.

Then when his supporter shoot Scalise, he only called out all extremism and didnt make it about his party.

And then in Charlotteville, right back to just blaming right wing extremism.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join