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: 8
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler


Yes i see the distinction.


Either you don't, or you are lying.


One side met with a russian and received no dirt.


One side met with agents of the Russian government several times, and dirt was released on WikiLinks. You would have people believe this was a coincidence, and lying about the meetings was perfectly legal.


The other side actually paid for dirt from actual kremlin agents, and unlike trumps team actually got dirt.


The other side paid an agency to get dirt. The agency acquired the dirt through other parties, but the Democrats did not use it. Nothing illegal was done.


You have no proof, none whatsoever that Trumps team wortked with russia to release those emails.

Show me any proof.

Meanwhile, what do you mean the dnc and hillary didnt use the dossier.

Did they give it to the FBI? Do you know the FBI didnt use it for anything?

Did fusion spread the info to many media outlets, that still spread the allegations in it to this very day?

Oh, so it was used.

Again, you distinction that somehow its ok to pay someone to colluded with russia to get dirt is a joke.




posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Can you fix your link?



No its past the allowed edit time.

www.feinstein.senate.gov... cted.pdf

There it is again.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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?


From the testimony there is 2 things the FBI told Steele first there was an investigation. As we know from Comey this is a no no. 2nd thing he was told there getting information from someone in the campaign, obviously in appropriate but does it mean anything? Well on its own no could have heard someone talking to someone in the elevator. We have no idea how he heard this and there fore intent cannot be implied.
edit on 1/10/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler


The FBI, which is supposed to be a non political entity, tasked with keeping our country safe, apparently was giving details of looking into election interference between Trump and russians to a former spy from another country that they knew to be getting paid by an oppo research firm working for Trumps opponent, Hillary.




Except Steele was not working for Oppo research anymore. The report was never used.

at this point in time it is both Steele and the FBI looking to make sure that the Next President of the United States was not being blackmailed or otherwise indebted to the Russians.



So the FBI put its interest in making trump look bad


that right there explains your malformed thinking.

The FBI's interest is in preventing a Russian tool from sitting in the Whitehouse. That is precisely their job. Politics have nothing to do with it.

edit on 10-1-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Can you fix your link?



No its past the allowed edit time.

www.feinstein.senate.gov... cted.pdf

There it is again.


Still broken.

Try using the insert link tool. Its the box with arrow.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler


The FBI, which is supposed to be a non political entity, tasked with keeping our country safe, apparently was giving details of looking into election interference between Trump and russians to a former spy from another country that they knew to be getting paid by an oppo research firm working for Trumps opponent, Hillary.




Except Steele was not working for Oppo research anymore. The report was never used.

at this point in time it is both Steele and the FBI looking to make sure that the Next President of the United States was not being blackmailed or otherwise indebted to the Russians.



So the FBI put its interest in making trump look bad


that right there explains your malformed thinking.

The FBI's interest is in preventing a Russian tool from sitting in the Whitehouse.


On your first point.

Steele was being paid to get dirt on trump.

Did he give back the money he recieved to do that because he was such a patriot? Nope. To claim that somehow this dirt he got, from Kremlin agents, made him some sort of patriotic hero that wasnt being employed to get dirt is a joke.

So by the same token, if trumps team pays a foreign agent to get dirt on Hillary killiong seth rich, and then that person takes the info to the FBI, he was no longer a paid person by trumps team, he is trying to prevent a murderer from getting power.

And again, the report was used.

Or did I just imagine how it was and continues to be used by democrats and the media against trump.

On your second point.

Then why risk the investigation into a "russian tool" by telling a group paid for by his opponent that they knew was giving stories to the press about a possible inside source in trumps team?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler

Can you fix your link?



No its past the allowed edit time.

www.feinstein.senate.gov... cted.pdf

There it is again.


Still broken.

Try using the insert link tool. Its the box with arrow.


Just google feinstein transcript



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Grambler


They think intent matters



It does, but the main point here is that if Grambler is going to make claims, he needs to be able to back it up.

He has a habit of fabricating things out of thin air and making illogical extrapolations.


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

I said this was against trump. It was, as I explained, because he was the one who would be hurt by it.



You are contradicting yourself.

In one sentence you ask where you mentioned the FBI's intent, and then say it was against Trump.

That means you are saying the FBI intended to harm Trump in some manner.

All I am ask for is proof of that.

So far, it appears you are espousing illogical extrapolations.



You are so desperate to deflect for your narrative that you are willing to accept any wrong doing by the intel community until they have written statements admitting that they broke the law to hurt trump.


Ya, that is how the real world works. You have to have proof.

I know you think you can just say things out of thin air and it makes it true, but that is not how the rest of the intelligent world works.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You say things that can be verified (always do), yet I am sure some will REFUSE to see it without a bias for their preferred truth.

The same exact thing they think the Trump base does.

Its insane.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So you come into the thread claiming that the transcript never said steele recieved info from the FBI about the inside source in trumps team.

You were proven wrong as usual.

Then you shift and say that because I used the word against, I am a liar because i can not prove intent of the FBI.

I showed what I meant by saying this was against trump.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
No one knows who the clients are that paid for this research to be done and the dossier that is being mentioned, is the last part of the actual document that was paid for. What is not being stated is that there were 2 different clients all asking for information about Trump. But who those clients are, no one knows. It was never stated who the clients were, only that those clients live in the USA.

And that all of the information that was gathered, is pretty much all public knowledge. The CEO of Fusion eve states that they put in a lot of Freedom of Information requests when doing any sort of research.

Fusion, from what I am able to tell, is an investigation company. Lawyers and law firms hires them to check and look, and the first place they look is at the public information. All of which can be accessed by anyone at any time. They dig and dig deep, and verify all information before it is handed over to the client. Now the information in the dossier was gathered by Fusion, they subcontracted it out to another group in England, and who then went out and checked out about Trump in Russia as Steele that is what he knows, Russia. And at the time that this information was gathered, it was in short, public knowledge in Russia, until the story broke and everyone started to clam up.

But if there was an investigation going on, then it was not Fusion or Steele that dropped the dime but something else that alerted them to that fact and they were doing an investigation on a suspected crime. As there were no arrests, or raids, it was just the information gathering stage.

What is also not mentioned there is that when they got the information that is in the dossier, that there was a discussion as to what to do with it, and it was not get it and hand it over either, but a serious discussion as to what to do with it, knowing that a crime was possibly being committed. And when it looked like the FBI was a political agency, thanks to Comey and the entire reopening the investigation before the election, they stopped giving the FBI any and all information. It was reported and verified that before the election, that Russians were using Trump Tower to launder money.

There were 2 clients who wanted information on Trump, though they were never named, their political affiliations were never stated. So we do not know who they were, if they were Democrat or Republican. In fact the only thing that is stated, is that the clients who wanted this information, are US citizens. In the testimony, every time a question was asked about the clients, it was shot down.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So you come into the thread claiming that the transcript never said steele recieved info from the FBI about the inside source in trumps team.


I said no such thing.



Then you shift and say that because I used the word against, I am a liar because i can not prove intent of the FBI.


Yes. You said this was an act by the FBI against Trump.

Ok. Prove it.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



So you come into the thread claiming that the transcript never said steele recieved info from the FBI about the inside source in trumps team.


I said no such thing.



Then you shift and say that because I used the word against, I am a liar because i can not prove intent of the FBI.


Yes. You said this was an act by the FBI against Trump.

Ok. Prove it.

You said that there were specific words that were needed to show Steele was told this.

Now you lie agian and say you didnt say that.

Typical for you though.

And I showed proof mulitple times how this was against trump, with no intent of the FBI neccessary.

I l;ove it when you comment on my poists.

There is nothing more fun than making you look like a fool over and over.

Please keep going!



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You said that there were specific words that were needed to show Steele was told this.


Nope. Not what I said.

Try again.



Now you lie agian and say you didnt say that. Typical for you though.


Please quote me saying exactly what you claim.



And I showed proof mulitple times how this was against trump, with no intent of the FBI neccessary.


No. You did not. What you have done is making illogical extrapolations.



I l;ove it when you comment on my poists. There is nothing more fun than making you look like a fool over and over. Please keep going!


Yes, I look like a fool by you making claims that I never made or statements I never made.

Good job, I guess.

I'll wait for those quotes.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
your first post.


'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on the quote you provided.

We cannot say for certain what Steele was told by whom and the context in which that was relayed or portrayed to the person at Fusion.


more


It's almost as if no one actually read the quote from the transcript. There are some very specific words used that demand more context be provided before coming to any conclusion.

...

No, it is not clear. There are specific words used that cast much doubt on what we can say for certain.


...

Go back and read the exchange. There is one word that casts doubt on everything. Can you figure out which word that is?




All of this was saying we dont know if the FBI told steele about the source inside Trumps team., which is what the entire OP was about.

Then you change your tune.

I say.

"Ok, now that we admit the FBI did this"

you reply


That they debriefed Steele and had another source of info?

Sure.


But you know this.

You were wrong, then you moved the goal post.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My contention is that you claim to know the intent of the FBI, which was to harm Trump.

You cannot prove that.

What the FBI told Steele was never a point I was debating.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

My contention is that you claim to know the intent of the FBI, which was to harm Trump.

You cannot prove that.

What the FBI told Steele was never a point I was debating.


Yes your initial claim of people not reading the transcript, and it not showing the FBI told steele they had an inside source on trumps team was wrong.

Your claims you never said that were also wrong.

Now that we have shown you were wrong twice, lets proceed.

I dont have a written letter from the FBI saying they released this to hurt trump.

But the release was used to hurt trump, as even its mention by simpson in the transcript is designed to make Trump look worse.

Proving intent is not necessary to show this was against trump. Again, we dont need to know assanges intent to say the release of the dnc emails was against hillary.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Yes your initial claim of people not reading the transcript, and it not showing the FBI told steele they had an inside source on trumps team was wrong.


Again, didn't say that.



Your claims you never said that were also wrong.


What?



I dont have a written letter from the FBI saying they released this to hurt trump. But the release was used to hurt trump, as even its mention by simpson in the transcript is designed to make Trump look worse. Proving intent is not necessary to show this was against trump. Again, we dont need to know assanges intent to say the release of the dnc emails was against hillary.


So you don't have proof of what you claim.

Ok. As long as you made it clear, that is all I needed.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Just saying no proof when it is given isnt a sufficient rebuttal.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Just saying no proof when it is given isnt a sufficient rebuttal.


Just saying it is proof isn't sufficient proof.




top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join