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.

 

Deputy AG Won’t Say Whether The FBI Paid For Dossier

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah. They forced him to lie.

Who's "they?"


Two agents show up to his office with transcripts of a conversation he had with a russian a year prior. When his recollection of the call did not match the transcripts he is charged with lying to the FBI. That is highly concerning under normal precedures they would have supplied the transcripts to his atty then conducted a formal interview. Not trick him into talking to them under the guise of furthering their investigation. It wasnt right and not a practice thefbi should engage in.




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP




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.

Huh. Interesting. Last I heard, collusion isn't a crime.

And it doesn't matter if anything in the dossier is factual. Got it, thanks.


HAHAHAHAHA

Collusion isn't a crime hey? Mueller's whole purpose is to investigate "Collusion".
According to you now his appointment is a sham, fake, inappropriate because there is nothing wrong with collusion.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted

And if the results are anything other than expected, the results are lies.


No that is not the case.

Are you suggesting that there is no need to make sure that this investigation is being ran in an impartial fashion?

Nevermind we have high ranking members texting they hate trump and need an insurance policy against him winning, this same person being in charge of interviews where trumps team got charged with lying but Hillary's team was not charged with lying when they clearly did, members that were lawyers for Hillary's team, leaks coming from the investigation to hurt trump, and stonewalling congressional oversight committees.

You think none of that needs investigating?



And 16 immunity deals.

How many has mueller given out?




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Two agents show up to his office with transcripts of a conversation he had with a russian a year prior.
Is that what happened? How do you know this? The conversation was when? 2015? January 2016?
edit on 12/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP




Mueller's whole purpose is to investigate "Collusion".

Partly so. But is collusion itself a crime?

He is authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” according to Mr. Rosenstein’s order naming him to the post, as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.” He is empowered to press criminal charges, and he can request additional resources subject to the review of an assistant attorney general.

www.nytimes.com...

edit on 12/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Two agents show up to his office with transcripts of a conversation he had with a russian a year prior.
Is that what happened? How do you know this? The conversation was when? 2015? January 2016?


You didnt know its very concerning. Fbi could have a trascript of a conversation i had last week and im sure id get details wrong.




Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who was fired from Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office investigative team for alleged bias against President Trump back in August, also supervised the FBI’s interviews of former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, according to Sara Carter of Hannity.com. After Strzok was removed from Mueller’s office, he was reassigned to the FBI's human resources department,

Two FBI agents interviewed Flynn on January 24 at the White House; one was Strzok and the other was reportedly a field supervisor in the “Russian Squad, at the FBI’s Washington Field Office,” according to a former intelligence official who was cognizant of the interview.





www.dailywire.com...
edit on 12/14/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Flynn was indicted for lying about a conversation on December 26, 2016. In an FBI interview conducted on January 24, 2017. That is a time span of 1 month, not 1 year.


Fbi could have a trascript of a conversation i had last week and im sure id get details wrong.
Good thing you aren't the National Security Advisor, talking to Russians about sanctions.
edit on 12/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr
Flynn was indicted for lying about a conversation on December 26, 2016. In an FBI interview conducted on January 24, 2017. That is a time span of 1 month, not 1 year.



Your bias is not allowing you to see he was set up. If he was under investigation a lawyer should have been present and a copy of the transcript given to him to remind him of the details. To prosecute someone on their lack recalling content of a conversation is wrong. But Flynn being a fool didntrealize they had the conversation and set him up.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

To think that he would not remember that a topic of the discussion was US sanctions is naive. That's charitable, a more accurate term would be "stupid." Or do you think that Flynn is stupid? He seems to have been capable of fooling Pence. And Trump, or did he fool Trump? Are Pence and Trump stupid?

edit on 12/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

To think that he would not remember that a topic of the discussion was US sanctions is naive. That's charitable, a more accurate term would be "stupid." Or do you think that Flynn is stupid? He seems to have been capable of fooling Pence. And Trump, or did he fool Trump?


What gives you the idea he couldnt remember the topic would have been a short interview. Your making a bias assumption with no facts to back it up. More then likely they were asking him questions about the call since thats why they were there. And obviously soome of his answers differed from the transcript. Throw in the fact the interview was done by a partisan hack who was fired for his views and this stinks like week old fish.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Is the dossier online?.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




What gives you the idea he couldnt remember the topic would have been a short interview.
You're the one who said he couldn't remember a conversation of a month prior. We are talking about a person of very high responsibility. Do you think that he would forget what he was talking about with the representative of a foreign adversary?

In any case, he wasn't indicted for not remembering, he was indicted for, and pled guilty to lying. Lying is not saying "I don't remember."

edit on 12/14/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you take it out of context yeah sure. Im not responsible for how you perceived things. I was discussing how hard it is to remember details but i suspect you knew that all ready and created a straw man argument.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Please explain how I created a straw man argument. You are the one who said that Flynn was set up with a conversation from "a year prior."



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:12 AM
link   
If the excuse that Rosenstein can not comment on the investigation because it could compromise the investigation is a real excuse....
The man should not have been able to answer any questions about the investigation.
Why was he appearing before the committee?



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Many people are in jail for collusion to sell drugs for example, even though they didn't actually sell any drugs.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
There is already info out there regarding the FBI and their relationship with Steele:

After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.

THE WASHINGTON POST
The FBI already admits that they agreed to pay Steele.... but pulled out.

Why couldn't Rosenstein admit under oath that they did not pay him?



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler
No one is free of bias. No one.

Does that mean our judicial system should be scrapped?



You do realize are entire justice system is based on prosecutors and jurors being unbiased. Thats why the term justice is blind comes from.


Justice should be blind and the scales of Justice should not be tipped to favor one side unfairly. Is this not the basis of our system. If these all of accusations prove true, Clinton's supposed statement of "If Trump wins, we all hang" will head all the way to the Top of the Obama Administration that makes Watergate pale by comparison.

That the FBI is delaying oversight by Congress even now is troubling. If there is nothing to see, why does the FBI not comply with Congress's requests.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr




What gives you the idea he couldnt remember the topic would have been a short interview.
You're the one who said he couldn't remember a conversation of a month prior. We are talking about a person of very high responsibility. Do you think that he would forget what he was talking about with the representative of a foreign adversary?

In any case, he wasn't indicted for not remembering, he was indicted for, and pled guilty to lying. Lying is not saying "I don't remember."


I’m going to agree with Phage on this one.

They aren’t going to get him in trouble with a small detail such as Flynn saying a car was blue but yet in his statement a month prior he said it was red. No way that would stick and Flynn and anyone with two brain cells knows this. The lie would have to have been something very significant.

The fact that Flynn plead guilty without a fight just shows how red handed he was.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

You appear to be quite stumblefingered this evening.

In addition to your usual propensity for stating rumor and "leaks" as fact.




I like one of the early Phage's better, that person stuck to correcting errors in threads and posts. This Phage seems to be stuck in a defenseless hole that the Demos have dug for themselves.
edit on 14-12-2017 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join