Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

originally posted by: Grambler
Carter is on hannity.

She says hannity confirmed this too, and hannity said his sources were two congressional members and one DOJ member.

Her sources were similar.

She is saying the odssier was definitely used in part to get a dossier, and what is especially troubling is that senior people like Comey admitted that the only part of tyhe dossier they could confirm was that page went to moscow.

So if her reporting is accurate, the intel community under Obama used a document that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary and sourced from kremlin officials that their senior members admit at the time was largely unsubstantiated as part of the reason to spy on Trumps team.

If true, its devastating to the FBI, the DNC and Hillary, and Obama.

I found this article on the process of obtaining the warrant which I think will be the next revelation from congress.
www.justsecurity.org...

FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough.

So with what we know now, Peter Strzok (fbi), Bruce Ohr (doj) (whos wife worked for Simpson) and, Judge Rudolph Contreras who has recused himself from Manaforts case and is a FISA judge, these people had the opportunity and access to get around the system and use the US intelligence community to spy on their political opponents.
With Strzok and Ohr being demoted and that information not released until MONTHS later there are real problems here.
Especially when the FISA warrant was initially DENIED.
It appears when they did not have enough evidence to obtain the warrant they used political propaganda (which Ohrs wife helped write) to obtain what their evidence could not.
So we have political corruption in the fbi, doj, and the fisa court.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

You are woefully uninformed.
How about you show where Steele admitted the dossier is not true. That crap stinks to high heaven son. There is not a shred of truth in your statement.

But ask me to prove what I say huh? What a joke.

I already posted that in this thread.
Steele in court documents stated the dossier was unverified/untrue.
You, as usual, state your opinion as fact with no supporting information.
Sara Carter is not a liar, and you have no source to show that she is other than your typical morning joe bs line.
You should retract your statement that she is a liar until you have at least SOME kind of source.

a reply to: shooterbrody

What court documents ? Steele has not been in any court regarding this.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Quick question;

You still believe the pee allegations are true, correct?

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: butcherguy



Well, gee, I guess I thought people might want to know what was said. Hannity surely doesn't want you to read this very damning transcript.

You act like I tried to bring up baseball.

I guess I should start a thread with the transcript.


www.yahoo.com...

Not baseball.
But you did not address what the thread is about.
All along, the Obama backers have said that the fake dossier was not used to obtain the FISA warrant.
It appears that the fake dossier was used to obtain thw warrant... in order to spy on a political campaign for POTUS.
This makes Watergate look like child's play.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

What court documents ? Steele has not been in any court regarding this.

You should not make statements about things you CLEARLY know nothing about.
assets.documentcloud.org...

Steeles response in court is "the contents of the dossier(which included the December memorandum) were unverified and unconfirmed and contained unverified and potentially unverifiable allegations.

From steeles own statements.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Pretty sure this is to what BFFT is referring:

With only days until Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The Intercept

I can't find anywhere it says this information is to be shared outside the US intelligence complex, but it did break down walls that had been in place prior.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Im referring to somehow, the information obtained via the FISA warrants made it into the chatter among diplomats. Potentially, one source would be the FBI sharing information with Steele about Trump.

Since its not yet investigated how the information was leaked, the one thing we know for sure is that the FBI looks pretty likely, since they were sharing information with Steele, and COmey obviously has loose lips.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Im referring to somehow, the information obtained via the FISA warrants made it into the chatter among diplomats. Potentially, one source would be the FBI sharing information with Steele about Trump.

Since its not yet investigated how the information was leaked, the one thing we know for sure is that the FBI looks pretty likely, since they were sharing information with Steele, and COmey obviously has loose lips.

And lets not forget, Obama was going out of his way to tell foreign countries including our allies details about the trump investigation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

...

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.

www.nytimes.com...

Truly astounding corruption.

a reply to: Grambler

I was looking for that story, and it seems Google has buried it within the 10 or so search terms I used.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Grambler

I was looking for that story, and it seems Google has buried it within the 10 or so search terms I used.

Yeah thats one reason I like doing threads on articles like that.

It makes it easy to dredge up the articles when they are hidden.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: onthedownlow

What will the other side say when this is done to them?

I think Trump will go that far to prove the case
against Hillary, Comey, Strozk, Lynch etc.

And he would be right to do it.
They are throwing up all the red flags
of guilt. In he mean time, Rand Paul
will be a loud voice against the lawless
surveillance.

Did you catch Rand Paul on Hannity? I think he said a lot more than Hannity heard. Very interesting. Glad you brought up Paul!

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.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Try conspiracy instead.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, this article refers the the same thing I linked to without actually mentioning the EO in question. It's the same activity covered in a slightly different way.

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.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I guess everyone is refusing to see it. Because Obama is seldom in the news anymore and when he is it's a human interest piece. Or it's a real big secret that you happen to have been let in on. I doubt that.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

Yeah, this article refers the the same thing I linked to without actually mentioning the EO in question. It's the same activity covered in a slightly different way.

Oh I know.

The intercept that you linked, which very much dislikes trump, has been calling out anti trump peoples cheering for the weaponization of the deep state the whole time.

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.

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....