Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

a reply to: Sillyolme

The only people in trouble are those acting like Putin.

Rigging elections which for those that missed the entirety of the last two years are Trump haters.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Both the law that you linked, and the article that you followed up with showed that this might be illegal.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

What he said was he believes about seventy percent of what's in the report will be verified by Mueller. That doesn't mean the other thirty percent is a lie. That's a spin.
If twenty percent is true trumps in trouble.

I do not need your english to english translation.
His response is in black and white as a record of the court.
There are NO mentions of any percentages in his responses.
You are the only one here with "spin".

You get a source for your allegation that sara carter is a liar?

originally posted by: BestinShow
Both of those entities will take generations to get respect back...and that sucks for the many individuals who work their ass off at the DOJ and FBI and leave their personal bias at home.

For shame...

I hope the upstander's in those departments will root-out the cancer from within, that's the only way they will gain their respect back.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Both the law that you linked, and the article that you followed up with showed that this might be illegal.

Where in that law did it state it was illegal for them to hire a US firm for their services?

originally posted by: xstealth
Breaking now on Fox News, I'll post the video when it's done airing.

Hannnity could not confirm where his own butthole is.

He has proved that countless times.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Collusion isn't illegal and look where we are....

Collusion in what form?

a reply to: introvert

He is stating that nowhere in the US Criminal Code can you find a search result for "Collusion"

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: xstealth
Breaking now on Fox News, I'll post the video when it's done airing.

Hannnity could not confirm where his own butthole is.

He has proved that countless times.

Are you referring to the TICK-TOCK warnings he's given?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Collusion isn't illegal and look where we are....

Collusion in what form?

Colluding is just a word that means scheming with another person. What the scheme is designed to accomplish is where you can find the crime.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

He is stating that nowhere in the US Criminal Code can you find a search result for "Collusion"

Correct.
The charges that legal experts speculate Mueller might bring include:

Obstruction of Justice

the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

a more general conspiracy charge — to defraud the United States —

money laundering.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

He is stating that nowhere in the US Criminal Code can you find a search result for "Collusion"

Which is true, but you can find many crimes that are collusion but in very specific forms.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Collusion isn't illegal and look where we are....

Collusion in what form?

Colluding is just a word that means scheming with another person. What the scheme is designed to accomplish is where you can find the crime.

Exactly. So it is possible they may have colluded and committed a crime. We just don't know in what form.

At this point, I'm not sure they did at all.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That's all internal stuff, American agencies. It was done so that they could better prevent terrorist attacks through shared information and warnings. How was it used against Trump to foreign nations? I'm still not seeing that anywhere.

Thank you for responding.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Both the law that you linked, and the article that you followed up with showed that this might be illegal.

Where in that law did it state it was illegal for them to hire a US firm for their services?

Hahahaha!!!!!

Wow. I guess I will post it again.

You must have missed it the eight or so times I showed it to you.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, from a foreign national is illegal.

Did Hillarys team and the DNC accept the dossier?

Yep.

Was it created by a foriegn national.

Yep.

Here is the article you provided having some experts saying hillarys team may have broken multiple laws.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Now keep in mind, YOU provided both of those sources.

Yet you continue to act baffled that anyone could suggest this was possibly illegal.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: GuidedKill

Haha I NEVER LIE . You just can't handle the truth.
And you hate that I'm always right and can prove what I say. I know it and so do you.
Otherwise I wouldn't be the target of you guys so often. But every post I make generates twenty from your side. Obviously what I say matters. To a lot of you.
I'd be fine with everybody ignoring me the way I scroll past posts I think don't matter. You don't seem capable of that kind of self control.
So organize ...maybe you'll be able to shut me up.

I wouldn't count on it though.

Actually we just like to watch crazy people do crazy things. You're the scape goat of ATS who isn't really all there and goes soo crazy at the sight of Trumps shadow you pass out. We all look at you and giggle..


Thanks for the entertainment....

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

You mean like collusion??

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Collusion isn't illegal and look where we are....

Collusion in what form?

Colluding is just a word that means scheming with another person. What the scheme is designed to accomplish is where you can find the crime.

Exactly. So it is possible they may have colluded and committed a crime. We just don't know in what form.

At this point, I'm not sure they did at all.

In other words, its a fishing expedition.

What you are saying here supports Manaforts motion to dismiss, as there is no clearly defined crime that was to be investigated. Only that collusion (or some sort) was believed to happen...and off fishing they went.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

At what point? When the DNC, that gives money to it's presidential candidate, also contracts oppo research from a firm that then receives information from a foreign agent whom receives it from foreign government agents. When that research leads to unmasking, FISA warrants, and opens up a broad investigation into the the opposing candidate.

And from some accounts, Hillary was all but queen of the DNC at the time. If those accounts are to be believed, Hillary =/= DNC in 2016, Which means she, through the DNC, paid for the info that lead to the above.

If that's not grounds to investigate, I don't know what is.

Ground to investigate something that is not illegal?

That does not make sense.

Both the law that you linked, and the article that you followed up with showed that this might be illegal.

Where in that law did it state it was illegal for them to hire a US firm for their services?

Hahahaha!!!!!

Wow. I guess I will post it again.

You must have missed it the eight or so times I showed it to you.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, from a foreign national is illegal.

Did Hillarys team and the DNC accept the dossier?

Yep.

Was it created by a foriegn national.

Yep.

Here is the article you provided having some experts saying hillarys team may have broken multiple laws.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Now keep in mind, YOU provided both of those sources.

Yet you continue to act baffled that anyone could suggest this was possibly illegal.

BRAHAHAHA this is getting too funny!!!

a reply to: AboveBoard

Grambler found a NYT article that states:

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.

That dovetails with the Intercept article I linked. It's all the same action.