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: 7
34
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

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.


Your post makes no sense. Are you saying only the President should be held to account for any nefarious ties to Russia (or any other nefarious ties/ crimes)?

Not sure why the stock response from Trump haters is - but but Hillary is not President. What does that have to do with anything? If Hillary or anyone else, Obama included, have broken the law whilst in public office, it needs investigating.

If the FBI did pay for the dossier and worked with others, including Hillary, to try and set up the current administration then we need to know who was involved so that they can be brought to justice. That would seem fairly obvious, regardless of whether Hillary is President or not.
edit on 17/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Its a valid point Hillary is done politically yet people want to continue to spend money beating a dead horse. Let the investigation finnish so we can learn the extent of Russian involvement in the election. Ultimately anything discovered falls on Trump and Obama not Hillary.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Your post makes no sense. Are you saying only the President should be held to account for any nefarious ties to Russia (or any other nefarious ties/ crimes)?


Where did I say that "only" the President should be held accountable? The fact is that the President of the United States needs to be held to the highest possible level of accountability. Therefore, exposing wrongdoing by someone in power takes precedence over someone whose public service has ended.

ETA: I find it hilarious that you are still trying to push the ridiculous "it's a Democratic conspiracy" theory. Trump got himself into this mess on his own. If people in his campaign got recorded talking to Russians ho were being surveilled, that evidence of FBI wrongdoing, and if their identities were revealed to members of the National Security Council that would not be illegal.
edit on 17-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The fact is the dossier was concocted to illegally spy on an opposing political opponent should be a main concern for everybody.
edit on 17-12-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
The fact is the dossier was concocted to illegally spy on an opposing political opponent should be a main concern for everybody.


Which was it? Concocted? Or was it the result of actual spying, in which case it may be truthful. As far as gathering information on a political opponent, it is perfectly legal. Note that the Democrats did not use the dossier, but someone sent damaging material about Clinton to WikiLeaks. The dossier was evidently compiled by interviewing Russians who knew of Russian activities. The WikiLeak material was from direct illegal hacking against an American citizen. See the difference?



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The dossier, which contents are, "salacious and unverifiable," compared to authentic e-mails?

Absolutley no contest.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me why the Republican party is turning on its own people?

I.E. Muller and Rosenstien

Perhaps its a sign of things to come. If the investigation doesn't turn up any illegalities, you have won a huge political victory. So I say " let it play out".

edit on 17-12-2017 by hoss53 because: was not finished.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

The dossier, which contents are, "salacious and unverifiable," compared to authentic e-mails?

Absolutley no contest.

So you are okay with accepting stolen goods? Good to know.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Based in todays news about Trumps transition emails, it looks like stealing emails is par for the course.

Except the FBI gave Hillary a pass on hers. I dont think Trumps team will get that same soft hand.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps she shouldn't have had them on an unsecured server, eh?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

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



So the answer was a Yes and the ongoing criminal investigation is into the, who and why the FBI paid for it?

That I can accept.




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

Perhaps she shouldn't have had them on an unsecured server, eh?

Those aren't the emails Russia hacked, and you know it.



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

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



So the answer was a Yes and the ongoing criminal investigation is into the, who and why the FBI paid for it?

That I can accept.


The answer was "go away." The FBI interviewed Steele. There is no reason to believe that they were behind the dossier or remunerated Steele for it. Trump, meanwhile, has taken to trying to damage the credibility of America's counter-intellegence agency. Who benefits from that?
edit on 18-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Then how did Wikileaks get those?



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

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



So the answer was a Yes and the ongoing criminal investigation is into the, who and why the FBI paid for it?




That I can accept.


The answer was "go away." The FBI interviewed Steele. There is no reason to believe that they were behind the dossier or remunerated Steele for it. Trump, meanwhile, has taken to trying to damage the credibility of America's counter-intellegence agency. Who benefits from that?



Then who got the $12 mil?

Fusion GPS? Ohrr and Nellie?

Strok?


The DNC and Hillary paid for it. You think Steele did it for nothing?




posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DanDanDat

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



So the answer was a Yes and the ongoing criminal investigation is into the, who and why the FBI paid for it?




That I can accept.


The answer was "go away." The FBI interviewed Steele. There is no reason to believe that they were behind the dossier or remunerated Steele for it. Trump, meanwhile, has taken to trying to damage the credibility of America's counter-intellegence agency. Who benefits from that?



Then who got the $12 mil?

Fusion GPS? Ohrr and Nellie?

Strok?


The DNC and Hillary paid for it. You think Steele did it for nothing?


The FBI already stated that they were prepared to pay Steele for more 'intel' until his name became public.

Would anyone be surprised to find out that they paid for the dossier to begin with?







 
34
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join