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: GeechQuestInfo
From what I understand, the opposition research in to Trump began with a republican source and once Trump go the nomination, the republican source stopped the research and a lawyer for the DNC/Hillary campaign picked it back up. Which eventually led to the dossier's creation.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra
It does not really. Can you show me maybe I missed them.
Perpetrating a fraud on the court in order to obtain a warrant.
Deprivation of rights while acting under color of law (criminal and civil).
Attempting to conceal evidence of a crime.
Conspiracy
etc
Those claims were softly alluded to at best. This memo is nearly useless without the supporting information.
If it was the IG I would believe it. But not partisan children like Nunes or Schiff for that matter.
It also says carter page fisa was post campaign.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier
Then you need to reread the memo since it lays out several legal violations.
What makes you think he read it in the first place? CNN's synopsis is probably good enough for him, who needs to actually be informed?
Really.
My go to places are wsj, the national review, Ben shapiro, napalitano, and the hill.
But hey you are right if you don't believe one set of liars the default is to believe the other set of liars.
Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, and Justin Amash would be the three people I partially trust.
Sure, maybe they knew Trump was supportive of good relations with Russia (who wouldn't be). Trump has said all along he didn't believe sanctions were necessary, and perhaps Page was simply stating that position (Page exploiting it to his own benefit, even)
But when it comes down to it, what good does Page's word mean? He isn't the POTUS, or Trump. There is zero evidence Trump made any such statement, and there is zero evidence that any alleged crime/speculated event in the dossier even really took place.
Regardless, it was a campaign document (conflict #1) written by someone with stated anti-Trump biases (conflict #2) exploited by agents in the FBI who were also provably anti-Trump/pro-Clinton (conflict #3). I'm sure I'm missing other conflicts, but those three glaring ones jump out.
originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: face23785
It is relevant in that The 2016 FISA warrant relied upon
the dossier and news stories that had been planted intentionally
by conspirators to use in the application.
The news reports were false, and Carter Page is suing Yahoo.
He will also use this FISA Memo in that suit.
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier
Then you need to reread the memo since it lays out several legal violations.
What makes you think he read it in the first place? CNN's synopsis is probably good enough for him, who needs to actually be informed?
Really.
My go to places are wsj, the national review, Ben shapiro, napalitano, and the hill.
But hey you are right if you don't believe one set of liars the default is to believe the other set of liars.
Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, and Justin Amash would be the three people I partially trust.
So replace CNN with one of them? Same difference.
originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.
Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.
Nobody questioning the judges or the process?
Hmm
originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.
Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.
Nobody questioning the judges or the process?
Hmm
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier
If the judge acted in good faith and was fed lies why would we be mad at him/her?
The judge said no twice iirc. It was not until they used lies and the dossier did the judge agree.
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Grambler
You are smart enough to know the truth.
Which kind of makes trying to share facts a moot point.
The Dossier was pretty damn spot on with Page, the execs he met with, the time and place, the exact topics discussed (Sanctions and Rosneft Deal).
You said all it proved was that he went to Russia.
As for this memo.
You guys can rally behind it, but it really is a nothing burger.
Trump can try and use it to have a Saturday Night Massacre...and I can of hope he does.
What is coming is not great for Trump or Supporters in my opinion.
The dossier was wrong about page more than it was right.
It was right that page went to russia, which was public knowledge.
It was wrong about who he met with, and the majority of what they discussed.
Nope.
It was right about what they discussed. Sanctions and Rosneft deal.
It was right that he met with Rosneft Exec (just got CEO vs. VP wrong)
Whether they actually discussed a trade he would not say.
Hopefully you are at least honest with yourself.
Still believe all it got right was Carter Page was in Russia?
The dossier said page discussed removing sanctions in exchange for 19% of roseneft with sechin; that is wrong.
Thanks for the reminder.
You want to see another coincidence that came to pass that was in the Dossier?
How Russia sold its oil jewel: without saying who bought it
MOSCOW/LONDON/MILAN (Reuters) - More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn’t possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.
www.reuters.com...
But you can say that the Dossier is BS because it predicted 19%, not 19.5%...right?
We still don't know the people that 19.5% stake was divvied up to.
originally posted by: jimmyx
sources (confidential) have said the president should release his white house visitor logs, showing all of the Russian spies and the prostitutes that visited him, and trumps tax returns should be shown that will show money laundering from Russian oligarchs......if we are throwing s**t up on the wall to see what sticks, we the American people should have the right to see these.
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: luthier
FUNNY NOBODY is mentioning FISA as the problem.
Looks like people don't actually care about America. They want to punish a party.
Nobody questioning the judges or the process?
Hmm
There are threads about the FISA process in and of itself. This thread is about a memo related to a specific warrant that it appears was obtained through improper means. Feel free to post that in one of the FISA process threads as evidence why the program needs to go away.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier
If the judge acted in good faith and was fed lies why would we be mad at him/her?
The judge said no twice iirc. It was not until they used lies and the dossier did the judge agree.
This is hardly the first time fisa has failed. It's been hundreds of times. Literally.
Besides nunes voted to expand it. He is just as bad as the things he is claiming to care about.