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: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Diisenchanted

if this turns out that they paid for it then at worst this entity needs to be disbanded or at least all obama appointees and sycophants need to be fired . also it needs to be determined if ag or obama put them up to it if so we charge them with trying to interfere with election and if found guilty.


Buying it may not mean anything depending on why. If they bought it to specifically get a fisa warrant thats a problem. If they bought it as part of an investigation thats fine the FBI will pay informants. If Obama was involved in this huge problem though i think its unlikely he was involved.




posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dragonridr


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.


That's his problem for not requesting it or one or exercising his rights.


But Flynn being a fool didntrealize they had the conversation and set him up.


Or, rather, Flynn being a fool thought he could weasel out of it by lying, and he got caught. Bigly.


Wrong they didnt treat it as an interview where he would have had a lawyer there and didnt tell him he was under investigation.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Phage


Ill answer, at this point how can we accept anything they say?

Innocent or guilty with all the perception of double dealing by people, all the targeted leaks meant to sway public opinion, investigating agents seeming to be unable to control their personal feelings.

We should all have some semblence of doubt over any result they claim is the truth, since as of late the FBI seems to have forgotten what Integrity means.


Well in Muellers defense he did remove the FBI agent who showed bias. Im beginning to think his investgation took him away from collusion and hes heading in new directions.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If it was behind closed doors, I think it would have been a different story. However, with it being a public hearing where all can hear and listen in, then the rules on handling and stating on classified information would apply and thus could not be.


However, as this was with the Justice department, then it would indicate that there is an active investigation going on, and any information that is given would ruin any case, and thus if there is any law that is broken from it. It would not be allowed as evidence in a court of law.



posted on Dec, 14 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Not the most reliable of sources there.

But do you think he didn't know who he was talking to?
He lied to the FBI. He admits it.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Not the most reliable of sources there.

But do you think he didn't know who he was talking to?
He lied to the FBI. He admits it.


With his job he spoke with the fbi all the time. As to admitting it i would to take the fine and save 100000 in lawyer fees. Its a charge that a judge will hit him with a fee because he pleaded out.

He knew he just met with them the day before involving his job. His mistake was he didnt think he was under investigation. Had he realized it his atty would have stopped the meeting requested the transcripts and set up an official meeting with lawyer present. His inexperience sunk him he figured that out when the Justice Department notified the White House on Jan. 26 that Flynn may be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, because of discrepancies between his account of the phone calls and what intelligence officials found.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

Because it was a public hearing and the question concerned an ongoing investigation.


Sounds logical

But than I have to ask; what's the point of public hearings and over sight if no one ever has to answer anything.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

With his job he spoke with the fbi all the time.


His inexperience sunk him

I see a contradiction.



Its a charge that a judge will hit him with a fee because he pleaded out.
Yes, because he is guilty of worse crimes and has information that Mueller wants.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

Because it was a public hearing and the question concerned an ongoing investigation.


Sounds logical

But than I have to ask; what's the point of public hearings and over sight if no one ever has to answer anything.

Some questions must be answered. Questions about ongoing investigations cannot be. And the Senators know that. The question was theater.

edit on 12/15/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

With his job he spoke with the fbi all the time.


His inexperience sunk him

I see a contradiction.



Its a charge that a judge will hit him with a fee because he pleaded out.
Yes, because he is guilty of worse crimes and has information that Mueller wants.


If he ws guilty of worse crimes it would have been in the indictment. If it isnt included in the indictment he has no protection. Lets say he commits treason if its not in the plea deal he can be tried for it. His lawyers are not going to work out a plea deal where it doesnt cover their client. There is no worse charges.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

Because it was a public hearing and the question concerned an ongoing investigation.


Sounds logical

But than I have to ask; what's the point of public hearings and over sight if no one ever has to answer anything.

Some questions must be answered. Questions about ongoing investigations cannot be. And the Senators know that. The question was theater.


Exactly people are making a big deal when he cant answer those questions in a public forum and we have alot of grandstanding for the base.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dragonridr


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.


That's his problem for not requesting it or one or exercising his rights.


But Flynn being a fool didntrealize they had the conversation and set him up.


Or, rather, Flynn being a fool thought he could weasel out of it by lying, and he got caught. Bigly.


Wrong they didnt treat it as an interview where he would have had a lawyer there and didnt tell him he was under investigation.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...


He still has the right to not answer questions, which he didn't do. Instead, he lied. And got caught.

That's his own fault.

gatewaypundit? No thanks.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
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.




Yeah, and the way these guys are doing it now is working out so well, right?

Is it? Do you have preconceptions on how the investigation(s) should turn out?

I don't, I expect the truth of the matters at hand were ever they lead. I expect the special investigator to be vetted to avoid any possibility that could lead to doubt about the outcome. I don't think that is happening right now. Its at the point I don't trust the DOJ oversight committee that found the text that showed contempt and bias toward trump and favor Clinton
edit on 15-12-2017 by jlafleur02 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Ill give you that, but for every one that gets caught being severely biased, how many are smart enough to keep their traps shut.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
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.




Yeah, and the way these guys are doing it now is working out so well, right?

Is it? Do you have preconceptions on how the investigation(s) should turn out?

I don't, I expect the truth of the matters at hand were ever they lead. I expect the special investigator to be vetted to avoid any possibility that could lead to doubt about the outcome. I don't think that is happening right now. Its at the point I don't trust the DOJ oversight committee that found the text that showed contempt and bias toward trump and favor Clinton


Contempt for Trump is inevitable for someone who respects the law. The agents also voiced dislike for Clinton, and especially Sanders. Their bias has to do with honesty and intelligence, not party. The bottom line is that eventually the evidence will speak for itself. In an investigation like this, it is better to have someone motivated to expose the truth rather than one inclined to cover it up.

ETA: There is an entire industry dedicated to sowing doubt, and a major foreign power that has been trying to discredit the FBI since its inception.
edit on 16-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
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.




Yeah, and the way these guys are doing it now is working out so well, right?

Is it? Do you have preconceptions on how the investigation(s) should turn out?

I don't, I expect the truth of the matters at hand were ever they lead. I expect the special investigator to be vetted to avoid any possibility that could lead to doubt about the outcome. I don't think that is happening right now. Its at the point I don't trust the DOJ oversight committee that found the text that showed contempt and bias toward trump and favor Clinton


ETA: There is an entire industry dedicated to sowing doubt, and a major foreign power that has been trying to discredit the FBI since its inception.


Indeed - and for 18 months you have been a willing participant in the said industry - wittingly or unwittingly.
edit on 16/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

ok you don't like trump thats fine. what about clinton and her aides? so much stuff comes out and nothing is done. we need the truth not cover up



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: jlafleur02

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

This is a public institution and should be subject to immediate release of all of the information.
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.




Yeah, and the way these guys are doing it now is working out so well, right?

Is it? Do you have preconceptions on how the investigation(s) should turn out?

I don't, I expect the truth of the matters at hand were ever they lead. I expect the special investigator to be vetted to avoid any possibility that could lead to doubt about the outcome. I don't think that is happening right now. Its at the point I don't trust the DOJ oversight committee that found the text that showed contempt and bias toward trump and favor Clinton


ETA: There is an entire industry dedicated to sowing doubt, and a major foreign power that has been trying to discredit the FBI since its inception.


Indeed - and for 18 months you have been a willing participant in the said industry - wittingly or unwittingly.

No, I have been reminding people that is what is going on. You, however....



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: jlafleur02
a reply to: DJW001

ok you don't like trump thats fine. what about clinton and her aides? so much stuff comes out and nothing is done. we need the truth not cover up

Hillary Clinton is not the President, remember? We need to make sure that the people in power have our best interests in mind,not Russia's.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 17-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join