Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

a reply to: Gryphon66

From your very same Vanity Fair article.

How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”

www.vanityfair.com...

Not only has this exact info been shown to you several times, but clearly you read the Vanity Fair article, and yet you are still claiming his sources weren't Russian officials.

Again, who is lying?

a reply to: Grambler

What must be done Monday:

Amazingly, liars react to articles that are posted as reference, when I have encouraged all to read them, and they call that lying.

You can't make this up.

Let's look at the alleged comparison here to the Trump campaigns DIRECT COLLUSION WITH AGENTS DIRECTED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN, eh?

Chris Steele led British Intelligence's Moscow office. He had many contacts in many levels of the Russian government bureaucracy ... right?

So we have a comparison between raw intelligence, covertly gathered by a British spy from his contacts, compared with the direct efforts of lawyers and agents under the direction of Putin himself.

Yes, yes it is clear to see who the liars are here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Gryphon66

Read that again, we have known that Steele's work was paid for first by Republicans and then by Democrats since October of 2016.

You might want to follow yoyr own advice.

From your source:

(Before the former spy was retained, the project’s financing switched to a client allied with Democrats.)

Steele was not hired by Fusion GPS until after the republicans stopped and then the democrats started paying for it.

You make an EXCELLENT point! I did misspeak. The effort was paid for by Republicans before Steele was employed.

Now, care to comment on the actual POINT MADE? We've known for a year that the Democrats paid for the research.

Kinda takes the wind out of your "gotcha" attempt, eh?

Misspeak? I would call that a lie.

And here is what New York times reporters said about the DNC lying about not funding this for over a year.

Maggie Haberman‏Verified account @maggieNYT
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year

twitter.com...

Kenneth P. Vogel‏Verified account @kenvogel Oct 24



When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong."

twitter.com... year-dossier-involvement%2F

You are again lying about us knowing who funded this. People said it was a democrat, but the DNC and Hillarys campaign lied and said it wasnt them. Now we know it was.

Three lies in a row from you.

Again, as you said, everyone should look at who is lying.

Again, we see that there is ZERO interest in the facts. The only intention by the liars promoting the media narrative is to SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION.

Let's repeat ... every effort is being made to SILENCE THE INDICTMENTS that BOB MUELLER his team are bringing via the Grand Jury.

Ask yourselves ... who are the traitors here? That would be the ones DESPERATE to give the President and his associates cover.

Indictments are coming. There is no way to avoid them now. These indictments may rise to the highest levels.

The only play that these lying traitors have left is to cause as much division in the meantime as possible.

They are trying to undermine the FBI, the court system and fundamental agencies of our government.

The time for an accounting has come.

According to BUZZFEED (crap source) Manafort made 13 undeclared and suspicious wire transfers in 2012 and 2013.

FBI Probe Of Paul Manafort Focuses On 13 “Suspicious” Wire Transfers

www.buzzfeed.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Amazingly, liars react to articles that are posted as reference, when I have encouraged all to read them, and they call that lying.

You can't make this up.

Let's look at the alleged comparison here to the Trump campaigns DIRECT COLLUSION WITH AGENTS DIRECTED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN, eh?

Chris Steele led British Intelligence's Moscow office. He had many contacts in many levels of the Russian government bureaucracy ... right?

So we have a comparison between raw intelligence, covertly gathered by a British spy from his contacts, compared with the direct efforts of lawyers and agents under the direction of Putin himself.

Yes, yes it is clear to see who the liars are here.

Yes you lied, and continue to.

You said Steeles sources were not Kremlin officials, when your own article said otherwise.

Now you ignore that lie, and try to say that it was ok for the DNC to pay for dirt from russian officials.

You are sounding desperate, and the fact that you are willing to lie to defend your side is disgusting.

a reply to: Grambler

The only misunderstanding I have is not understanding how on one hand you can scream about Trumps people colluding with kremlin agents to get dirt on Hillary. 

But on the other hand when democrats pay for dirt on trump from Kremlin agents, you then say maybe these Kremlin agents are ok and actually against the russian government.

I know. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Desperate times call for desperate measures: Random comments on Twitter are now being used in the place of facts.

Ask yourselves, why are some so desperate and terrified of what Mueller's investigation is bringing to us?

Keep asking yourselves that question. The answers are coming faster than the liars and traitors think.

a reply to: Grambler

You said Steeles sources were not Kremlin officials, when your own article said otherwise.

Former officials, you know what the word "former" means?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler

You said Steeles sources were not Kremlin officials, when your own article said otherwise.

Former officials, you know what the word "former" means?

Oh boy.

Who was source A?

Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.”

Not former.

And source B is said to still be connected to the Kremlin too.

But now that you know that at least source A was a senior Russian foreign minister, I assume you have a problem with that.

a reply to: Grambler

Well all I can say is...you'll see. You will reject it but it will be clearly explained that there is a big difference between paying an American company for OP research and making a deal to lift government sanctions against a country with a representative of the government those sanctions are against to pay for a continued campaign to smear and hurt a political opponent. A very big difference.
When proceedings are initiated based on the difference it should be clear to everyone.

a reply to: Grambler

A was a senior Russian foreign minister,

Whoops, you did it again. Reading comprehension issues or something else entirely?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Well all I can say is...you'll see. You will reject it but it will be clearly explained that there is a big difference between paying an American company for OP research and making a deal to lift government sanctions against a country with a representative of the government those sanctions are against to pay for a continued campaign to smear and hurt a political opponent. A very big difference.
When proceedings are initiated based on the difference it should be clear to everyone.

Wait now sanctions are being discussed?

So Trump considering lifting sanctions is a big deal, which by the way even left wing snopes admits he didnt do

www.snopes.com...

But the fbi admitting they had evidence that Russian players were trying to bribe people to pass uranium One, and we have proof these players gave Hillary millions, and we have proof Bill met with Putin around the time of the vote, and we have proof Bill then got half a million from a russian state bank, and we have proof that not only was Uranium One past, but Hillarys assistant voted for it.

Thats all nothing.

These double standards are ridiculous.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Which is why his information was taken so seriously. There were several agencies who agreed the information needed to go to law enforcement. The FBI actually dragged their feet on acting on it.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler

A was a senior Russian foreign minister,

Whoops, you did it again. Reading comprehension issues or something else entirely?

No I have no problem.

I assume you are refering to the word "was"

Steele was (see there is that word again) asked who his sources were.

He answered (and then this part is in quotes)“a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Not former as he later says when referencing other sources, but current.

Dont believe me?

If you look at page one of the Dossier (PDF here)

assets.documentcloud.org...

He says the following.

"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin..."

So again, now that you know it is a current kremlin officer, you are surely now torubled by that, right?

 Mr Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up, that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

www.independent.co.uk...


In particular Mr Steele believed that The New York office of the FBI, reported to have close associates of trump advisor Rudy Giuliani were stalling the bureau's involvment.

a reply to: Grambler

What do you think the Magnitskt act is? Come back after you've studied for the test. This is getting tiresome.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
According to BUZZFEED (crap source) Manafort made 13 undeclared and suspicious wire transfers in 2012 and 2013.

FBI Probe Of Paul Manafort Focuses On 13 “Suspicious” Wire Transfers

www.buzzfeed.com...

Interesting if thats what the indictment is over.

Who was Manafort working with in 2012 and 2013?

Oh thats right, the podesta group!

In total fairness, IF Mueller is indicted on these financial crimes, it does not prove that Mueller is going after or not going after the Podestas or Trump.

Bith may be guilty or innocent.

It just is another example of why even after mondays indictment, we still will not know where Mueller is headiing.

a reply to: Grambler

“a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.”

Not a senior foreign minister, which is what you made from that. Could be anything from janitor to clerk, who knows? Not precisely a Kremlin official or even a "current officer", you're reaching and Steele probably just pimped up his whacky source with the use of Newspeak slang right there.

It's a fricken business after all. Read more carefully?