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.
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?
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?
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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?
When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?
I am guessing this is the correct answer?
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
choking on crow can cause that
i hear its going around
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler
But he does not want an investigation into the foreign national steele or his indierct contributions to the DNC and hillarys team that they paid for.
I've never said that.
What I have said is that the evidence we have right now does not indicate Hillary or her campaign were working with a foreign national for the sake of the campaign.
If other evidence arise, investigate all you like.
Now that is not the same situation with Jr. That is different entirely. To compare the two situations is a false equivalence.
Very loose?
We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying
originally posted by: Grambler
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?
funny, you didnt seem to have that concern wanting an investigation into trump over don jr potentially receiving something of value from a foreign national.
But when its hillarys team and the DNC, all of the sudden we shouldn't spend time money and resources on that investigation.
Funny how you would only be concerned when its about investigating hillary...
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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?
When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?
I am guessing this is the correct answer?
Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.
Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert
Because a foreign agent was contracted to sway the election. Ie, collusion.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just want the facts.
But I suppose getting that from Washington is like getting fashion advice from Whoopie Goldberg.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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?
When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?
I am guessing this is the correct answer?
Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.
Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Very loose?
We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying
Yes, very loose.
As we know as of now, there are degrees of separation between Hillary the dossier.
The same cannot be said for Jr, for example. He has direct ties to the foreign nationals in that aspect.
Both are relevant when considering potential violations of law.
That being said, and as I have said before, I do not think anything will come of the Jr stuff. But it does provide a good example to contrast what Hillary and friends are accused of.
(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.
Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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?
When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?
I am guessing this is the correct answer?
Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.
Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?
Ok. There was plenty of probable cause for the FBI to get a warrant to directly obtain a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.
They didn't.
The document photographed by Factcheck is demonstrably fraudulent despite Factcheck's claim it was legally certified. Two members of Congress claimed they relied on it as prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama's birth.
So I think the FBI should not be asking for warrants or subpoenas for anything.
They should close shop and stop wasting money and wreaking havoc on the justice system.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert
We will see how it shakes out i guess
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: introvert
He also wasn't a foreign agent. He was a former agent subcontracted and most likely it was disclosed.
However opossition research has rules. Nobody seems to care to search for what they are or how common it is since they find it more useful to telephone game the spin from their parties msm.
(3)Foreign national means -
(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or
(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,
(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).