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.

 

FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Nope debrief isn’t a 2 way trade of info..

It is a one way exchange. It is a subordinate answering what they are asked, and doing whatever new thing they have been told to do.

Maybe if they were planning on enlisting his aid in further investigations they might tell him something.. but that is likely perfectly legal.



If I report to the cops you are selling dope, and they say

“we have been looking into him too. Will you help us further investigate by trying to get you to sell me some dope”

That’s probably legal. Especially once an investigation is running.



Where did steele get his info on the FBI having a source inside trumps team then?

Why did simpson state that the debriefing would include details of the FBI's own intelligence?




posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Where did steele get his info on the FBI having a source inside trumps team then?


Do you have a direct statement from Steele to that effect? Or do you have a second party making that claim sfter further information was discovered? Why are you trying to make a case based on what is considered "hearsay?"



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

“Their text messages”

Like government employees can’t have political opinions in their private lives...


Bunches of people think trump is a moron.


The ONLY thing that is relevant is did he falsify evidence???


From what I have seen he was removed over these texts WITHOUT any proof he falsified anything..

If you murder some one, a text from the arresting officer saying he thinks you are guilty and garbage will not be a get out of jail free card?!?!!

The judge and jury are the ones required to be unbiased..


If he broke the law to obtain evidence of falsify it. That is different.


But “well one of the investigators doesn’t like trump. “

Is just a silly excuse.. ..



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?


Where have you been?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I think he misinterpreted the definition of the word “briefing”.

I really don’t think it was intentional.


I think you can usually tell when the person is intentionally pushing propaganda and I don’t think that’s what this is.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Where did steele get his info on the FBI having a source inside trumps team then?


Do you have a direct statement from Steele to that effect? Or do you have a second party making that claim sfter further information was discovered? Why are you trying to make a case based on what is considered "hearsay?"


Simpson testified that this is what Steele told him.

He said this was around October of 2016.

So please show me what further info was available that would have informed steele that the FBI had a source inside trumps team in october of 2016 if it wasnt the FBI telling him that.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Hey, no offense intended from me either, and none taken! Just had to get back at you. And I probably look pretty biased, I usually only bother to comment in Trump/Russia threads when I see see something I disagree with on the pro-Trump side. But in the back of my head I try to stay objective.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

What if the offcier texts he had a meeting with his superiors for an insurance policy in case you were found innocent?

I am sure thats cool too though.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?


Where have you been?


Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Who knows...

Where did Steele get all the info he had going into the debriefing???

Dude was a British spy... a spy working for a BIPARTISAN opposition research firm right??


Or was he a spy unrelated to Fusion GPS??



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Who knows...

Where did Steele get all the info he had going into the debriefing???

Dude was a British spy... a spy working for a BIPARTISAN opposition research firm right??


Or was he a spy unrelated to Fusion GPS??




So he spied on the FBI to know what details they had?

What a joke.

As simpson said, the debriefing included details of the intel the FBI already had.


And the firm wasnt bipartisan.

It was getting dirt only on the republican candidate. Or do you have evidence they were trying to get dirt on democrats too?
edit on 10-1-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Simpson testified that this is what Steele told him.


There were many developments between October and when Simpson testified. These may have informed his recollection.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don’t think that’s a fair representation of that text message , but That’s still not getting you off the murder charge..

He might get fired or prosecuted as well though..

The investigators are not required to be unbiased. The prosecutor isn’t required to be unbiased..

Hell I bet even judges can be biased off the clock...

The only thing relevant is did he falsify or unlawfully obtain evidence.

99% of the time the prosecution and investigation teams think you are guilty as hell.. that is kinda the point.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?


Where have you been?


Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?


What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Simpson testified that this is what Steele told him.


There were many developments between October and when Simpson testified. These may have informed his recollection.


Simpson said Steele told him the FBI had a source inside the trump team in october 2016.

What does when simpson testified have anything to do with that.

Show me the evidence that anyone other than the FBI had any knowledge of someone like Papadopolous and his conversation being known to the FBI in October 2016.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?


Where have you been?


Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?


What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.


Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


What does when simpson testified have anything to do with that.


What part of "subsequent developments may have influenced his recollection" do you not understand? You can't even remember exactly what you implied in your OP, and it is still Wednesday.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Please show me where I mentioned the FBI's intent in the op.

I said this was against trump.


Contradict yourself much?


No.

The wikileaks of hillarys emails were against her.

Do you have proof that wikileaks intended it to be specifically against her?


Where have you been?


Where is what you posted Assange saying he intended to specifically hurt hillary?


What has Assange to do with anything? WikiLeaks is not a one man show. The MGB "leaked" the emails, as Trump's Russian contacts promised.


Wikileaks published the emails.

Show me proof of their intent.



Whether or not WikiLeaks had intent, the people who supplied the emails clearly did. As promised. By Russian agents.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join