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

originally posted by: Diisenchanted

We need an special investigator to investigate the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator.

a reply to: Phage

Therein lies the problem, it sucks to have zero confidence in the justice department.

This is the real problem. How can we ever take anything the FBI says or does seriously after this? I mean, anyone who isn't profoundly retarded knows that if the answer to that question was "No, we not pay any money for the Dossier," Rosenstein would have just said that. Giving a vague non-answer like he did just confirms that he realizes the truth will get him trouble. (Deeper trouble.)

a reply to: Diisenchanted

How would he know if it was done behind his back? And in any event, it is pretty clear that Clinton supporters paid for the dossier, not the FBI.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Diisenchanted

We need an special investigator to investigate the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator who is investigating the special investigator.

a reply to: Phage

Therein lies the problem, it sucks to have zero confidence in the justice department.

This is the real problem. How can we ever take anything the FBI says or does seriously after this? I mean, anyone who isn't profoundly retarded knows that if the answer to that question was "No, we not pay any money for the Dossier," Rosenstein would have just said that. Giving a vague non-answer like he did just confirms that he realizes the truth will get him trouble. (Deeper trouble.)

Wrong. It means he knows what answer the questioner is fishing for, and going as far as he can to placate him. He can't say yes because that would probably be a like. On the other hand, "I don't know" is easily spun.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Diisenchanted

How would he know if it was done behind his back? And in any event, it is pretty clear that Clinton supporters paid for the dossier, not the FBI.

Sure initially they did. Bit there have also been media reports saying the FBI paid Steele to keep investigating. Not all right wing media outlets either.

Let's just say the FBI did pay Steele some money. Would that be acceptable? Please answer.

originally posted by: butcherguy
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?

Quoting my own post here.
Why would the FBI decide they didn't want to pay Steele because he had been publicly identified?

Maybe because they knew that his info was bad intel from the start?

And that's what they were saying publicly.

Maybe they were paying Steele for a while.

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.

This testimony is part of that investigation, nitwit. Your logic is like a cop saying he can't tell you why you're being arrested because it's part of an ongoing investigation.

This testimony is part of that investigation, nitwit. Your logic is like a cop saying he can't tell you why you're being arrested because it's part of an ongoing investigation.

A cop can interrogate you without releasing the details of an ongoing investigation though.

And another point. Do you think your local police officials vote in local elections? Is it possible they share their views of candidates with friends or family? Releasing Strozak from duty is just playing it safe. He can discuss anything he likes in a personal conversation. But since it came to the knowledge of Mueller, then it was the best action to remove any sign of bias.

I personally believe that people on the right are setting up their argument/defense in advance in case Trump gets dragged into it. If the entire investigation is a moot point then his involvement would be too. They're trying to invalidate any part of the investigation they can beforehand.

a reply to: Eshel

Can a cop refuse to tell his supervisors what he said in an interrogation?

Because that is what is happening here. The oversight committee has oversight over the fbi and doj investigation, and yet they are being stonewalled.

And would you be ok with a cop texting to another that he was talking to the second in command of his department, and sayin the one guy can't win the mayor election, and if he does,, he will have insurance against that.

Then that cop leads the investigation into that newly elected mayor?

Of course not.

As has been shown over and over, this is not simply that investigators voted or donated to Hillary, it's much more.

Judicial Watch will be after them in court. Sounds like many people in office need to be purged.a reply to: Diisenchanted

a reply to: Grambler

In the context I replied to, I stand by my statement regarding interrogations.

I may have overlooked something, but I still haven't seen any mention of this "insurance" being put in place. If you could link me that to read, I'd be grateful.

Too many people hedging their bets. ("if i win, it's because I was right. If I lose, it's because X caused it)

a reply to: Eshel

Too many people hedging their bets. ("if i win, it's because I was right. If I lose, it's because X caused it)

How about we just get to a point where we are told what our government is doing?
It is OUR GOVERNMENT after all.

a reply to: shooterbrody

How about we just get to a point where we are told what our government is doing? It is OUR GOVERNMENT after all

Fair enough. But there are certain parts that should not be revealed. (meaning parts of investigations). Too much open info too soon can hurt the process.

I believe that with previous technology a lot of power was given to "representatives" to speak on our behalf. (what they understood was our behalf anyway). But with today's tech, I think the general populace could be given a bigger say. Kick out the paid lobbyists and let the American people lobby our own representatives.

But it's like stopping a speeding train at this point. It can be done, but there's going to be some damage along the way.

Fair enough. But there are certain parts that should not be revealed. (meaning parts of investigations). Too much open info too soon can hurt the process.

So when people within the investigation are fired or recuse themselves when should we be told?
Congress does actually have oversight responsibility with respect to the fbi and doj. When should they be told?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted

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

That is what happens when you choose biased people to run an investigation - everyone loses.

I think the FBI gave up investigating so they could put all (our) their resources into back pedaling their nefarious existence, trying to come up with something that will save their face, so they have a job tomorrow.

Incompetent or insubordination usually have people looking for a new job. And congress pushes on like a snail...

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.

It seems to me that this is a yes or no question.

If the FBI didn't pay for the dossier he would have answered the question.

The fact that he wouldn't answer the question makes it seem as if the FBI had a hand in paying for the dossier.

If the FBI did in fact pay for the dossier in part or in full they should not be investigating this issue.

The Muller investigation has no credibility. here

It makes one wonder if the dossier was the insurance policy that Peter Strzok was referring to.

Anything other than a 'NO' is a flat out YES, the FBI paid for the evidence...And when they didn't think they had enough evidence, Steele told them, 'for a little more money, I'll get you more evidence'...And of course his sources are anonymous...

They should all be in jail...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Diisenchanted

How would he know if it was done behind his back? And in any event, it is pretty clear that Clinton supporters paid for the dossier, not the FBI.

It's clear only if you don't if you watch CNN or MSNBC...

Clinton supporters did not pay for the dossier...The Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for it, indirectly...The FBI paid Steele...

So if the Clinton campaign did not pay for it directly, who paid for it? And you will need a source for the claim that the FBI paid Steele. What do you believe they paid him for?

ETA: I don't even have cable TV.

Double post.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Diisenchanted

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

When the major institutions that you rely on to be above the partisan crap have been shown to be in the middle of it, public trust is lost.

Therefore, nothing that is produced will be trusted.

How do you restore public trust once abused and lost?

The FBI is not the only such institution facing this problem.