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.

 

Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

page: 12
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Hey maybe next time you'll warn somebody that it's a download huh?




For whatever its worth (and im not trying to spray a hose on the political trolling you guys seem to be engaged in), but most browsers will open up a .pdf without a download.

You may check your browser plug ins to make sure a .pdf reader is installed and running.




posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Again? She hasn't broken it once to do it again. Releasing the transcripts was not a crime was not illegal. SORRY TRUMP...


Then let the releasing and leaking occur in earnest, from all investigators. We'll see WHO committed crimes once and for all.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Happens to trump companies all the time you mean.
I pulled a retail business through the recession by the skin of my teeth without filing bankruptcy. we had just started doing really well and boom. 2009 came and the market died for luxury items. We reduced staff and inventory, stocked more inexpensive rugs and pulled through. That's how businesses suceed. Not by borrowing and reneging on loans and then fi!ing bankruptcy. When I sold it in 2014 it was thriving again. Still is as far as I can tell when I drive by there.


Must have been hard with a single business....imagine how many Trump has and try again....



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Actually, Fusion GPS was initially paid by the Washington Free Beacon, a very conservative website. The DNC later took it over.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


All files PDF's are downloaded. Many browsers, like Edge in Windows 10, saves the file to a Temp directory, and displays that PDF in the browser. When you clean your Temp files, the PDF is erased.

Not sure about Chrome. Google keeps bugging me to download/use it, which is why I won't download/use it.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok. I read all ten pages and I did not see where it says it's false.
Once again you are taking the words unverified and changing it to debunked.
I'm done.
You're completely disingenuous.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He was telling them about Russia's interference not about trump.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok. I read all ten pages and I did not see where it says it's false.
Once again you are taking the words unverified and changing it to debunked.
I'm done.
You're completely disingenuous.


unverified (ʌnˈvɛrɪˌfaɪd)
adj
not having been confirmed, substantiated, or proven to be true

So your belief is I could say anything i want about you and unless you could prove me false then it is true?

7 more years...7 more years....7 more years.
edit on 1/11/18 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I was referring to another interview that Steele gave actually. That wasn't my interpretation of his words, it was his words.

thehill.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Read the "responses" they are from steele/steeles lawyer

What I quoted comes directly from them



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

I was referring to another interview that Steele gave actually. That wasn't my interpretation of his words, it was his words.

thehill.com...


yeah it is quite different than what he gave under oath in court isnt it



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Ok. I read all ten pages and I did not see where it says it's false.
Once again you are taking the words unverified and changing it to debunked.
I'm done.
You're completely disingenuous.


So your belief is I could say anything i want about you and unless you could prove me false then it is true?




with that argument, you've just created a new fallacy. call it what you want, you earned it.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: trb71

That is not correct and a conflation of events.

1) Yes, Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS, a well known opposition research firm apparently. Almost as quickly as they were hired they parted ways as it was clear Trump would win the nomination.

2) The DNC/Hilary campaign (Via law firm) went to them separately without knowing they had been contacted previously.

3) The Steele Dossier was NOT created or even researched until Steele was contracted AFTER they were hired by the DNC.

All of the above are common knowledge. I googled a source for you:

NY Times


After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates — including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information.


Let's get out of the pit of ignorance please.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

I believe that could easily fall under Argument from Silence.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm on your side here, I think the IC had been trying to get a wiretap on Trump based upon this dossier since May/June 2016 and the FISA court kept kicking it back. Then something happened in October (drunk Papa Dopplepopolus?) which allowed the FISA court to stamp off on it. However, that paragraph refers to the context of the Buzzfeed article under which readers were reading. So what Steele is admitting to here is that the article(published by Buzzfeed) "stressed that the contents of the dossier were 'unverified' and 'unconfirmed' ... 'and potentially unverifiable'." Not that Steele himself had. Is that a fair interpretation?

best,
z

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention this part. The mid-2016 effort was at the behest of Sen. John McCain, which was why Trump, perhaps rightly, sees him as an enemy. So the DNC pays Fusion GPS to get the Steele Dossier not into the hands of the Senate Intelligence Committee who's ranking member is a Democrat, but to the chair of the Senate Armed Services committee, "Republican" Senator John McCain.
edit on 11-1-2018 by Zelun because: details added

edit on 11-1-2018 by Zelun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler




(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.



Jesus, you still can't be confused about this.


A CONTRIBUTION or DONATION.


Paying an oppo research firm for services does not apply. Paying a foreign national for services to the campaign does not apply.


By your definition it would be illegal for a campaign to pay a hotel bill in a foreign country or a foreign airline for flights or employ someone on a Visa.


Bizzare you keep claiming that a Donation or Contribution by a foreign national is the same as employing the services of an international or foreign company.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So by you interpretation, if Don Jr offered to pay the Russian lawyer for dirt, it's ok.

It just getting it for free that is a problem.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.


And just saw this:
Mueller adds DOJ cybercrime prosecutor to his team
www.politico.com...

That hints that he has US persons in his sights with regards to the leaked emails.



Some experts have suggested that the special counsel probe may result in charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the landmark cybercrime law that makes it illegal to aid in a computer intrusion. If any of Trump’s associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could be charged under the statute.


Don Jr. ... Daddy is going to blow his lid when it hits.
edit on 11-1-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

I believe it will be fruit of the poisoned tree kind of stuff


Yes, even if the investigation turns up criminality by Trump team memebers, their lawyers will artgue that this aggregious using paid oppo research in part to spy on ASmericans taints the entire investigation.

This could tank it all.

However, I am more concerned about the idea of the intel community under Obama being used as a weapon to target opponents and strip their civil liberties.

This could be the beginning of a very big investigation into the investigators.


Heh, with all due respect ; Welcome to 2012.

It was obvious that the Obama Administration (and Obama) were doing exactly this 5 years ago! Journalists being spied upon and even being labeled as "Hostile Foreign Agents" ; Congressional and Senate members were being spied upon (hello cloakroom scandal?). I mean, when the public became aware that every and all electronic communication is being monitored congress asked during a hearing 'Are you spying on congressional members' and the Clapper's response was "Members of congress have the same protections as any citizen of the United States" it was very clear he's saying "yes."

Find out a little later, people are being unmasked and their information being circulated to political hacks, it's no wonder congress never followed up on that.... They were essentially being blackmailed to drop the subject ; Without even needing to be told to shut-up !



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually giving a foreign national anything of value in exchange for something of value is a violation of US law.

FEC - Foreign Nationals

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.

Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.


* - 52 USC § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
* - 11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
* - 36 USC § 510 - Disclosure of and prohibition on certain donations

To those wishing to apply these laws towards Trump please bear in mind they also apply to Clinton, who sought info on Trump from Steele, a British national who was paid in addition to the Ukraine government.







 
75
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join