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.
“Did the FBI pay for the dossier?” DeSantis asked.
“I’m not in a position to answer that question,” Rosenstein responded.
“Do you know the answer to the question?” the Republican DeSantis followed up.
“I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee…” Rosenstein began.
It seems to me that this is a yes or no question.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted
It seems to me that this is a yes or no question.
It seems to me that you don't understand the meaning of ongoing investigation in the context of public testimony.
I disagree. I think that releasing information can interfere with an ongoing investigation. Doing so can allow witnesses (and others) to "adjust" their testimony, change their story.
This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
a reply to: Phage
We need an special investigator to investigate the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator.
originally posted by: Diisenchanted
To me this is sounding more and more fishy all the time.
“Did the FBI pay for the dossier?” DeSantis asked.
“I’m not in a position to answer that question,” Rosenstein responded.
“Do you know the answer to the question?” the Republican DeSantis followed up.
“I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee…” Rosenstein began.
The fact that he wouldn't answer the question makes it seem as if the FBI had a hand in paying for the dossier.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter
I disagree. I think that releasing information can interfere with an ongoing investigation. Doing so can allow witnesses (and others) to "adjust" their testimony, change their story.
This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter
I disagree. I think that releasing information can interfere with an ongoing investigation. Doing so can allow witnesses (and others) to "adjust" their testimony, change their story.
This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
Yeah, and the way these guys are doing it now is working out so well, right?
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted
And if the results are anything other than expected, the results are lies.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted
And if the results are anything other than expected, the results are lies.
originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: carewemust
I know.
It just goes to show that the real Russian collusion came from the DNC, Clinton, and sadly the FBI.
Let's face it, whether you believe the contents of the dossier are true or false is irrelevant, it was created by colluding with a foreign government the Russians, for the purpose of effecting our Presidential election.