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: Justoneman
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: CB328
Is there anything in this memo that says Trump's buddies aren't guilty?? I didn't think so.
Guilty of what? Obstructing an investigation that never should have happened?
Is that an impeachable offence?
Nevermind that Comey and other DOJ officials have testified repeatedly that the administration hasn't hampered the investigation in any way.
The trump Jr and Hope Hicks are the newest issue.
Comey never really said he wasn't being told to stand down on Flynn. He alludes that the president was making a sort of threat. Then trump steps on his own foot in tweets..
It isn't exactly clear sailing.
"I hope you can drop this, I hope you can let Flynn go" doesn't sound like a threat to me. I think you'd have a hard time convincing the Senate that it was too.
Right now 100% of the Dems will vote to not drop it. Spoiled losers are even worse than rotten winners. At least the winners DID something to WIN.. Damn...
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo
Like the dossier they compiled ????
I am sure they have. And in the process of compiling more....
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
Well, we KNOW the memo is untruthful.
It claims something that is verifiable as false - that Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.”
This is not what Comey testified.
originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!
But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.
You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!
But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.
You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.
Not what Ron Paul would say, if you're going to use his caricature. Paul would want to know why BIG government is overreaching their Constitutional duty to get an 'insurance policy' in case DJT won.. CASE CLOSED....
well said, sir
originally posted by: the owlbear
To all of those calling this the end of the Democratic Party,
What is gained by losing a political party?
Power is centralized into ONLY the Republican Party?
How is it a good thing to have only one major political party?
Communists, the National Socialists of Germany (yeah, those guys), and quite a few other countries went the one party route...With the "death" of the Democratic Party, do we get to add Republicans to such an esteemed list?
I'm not saying justice should not be carried out, it should, and accountability is a word foreign to ALL in DC. And I wish the two big parties would split into two or three parties each with an independent presence and electorate.
Whatever happens, can we all try to be civil? Talk things out rather than going "Nyah, nyah, nyah!!! My side wins!" We all lose when this sort of thing happens.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
Well, we KNOW the memo is untruthful.
It claims something that is verifiable as false - that Comey testified in June 2017 that “the Steele dossier” was “salacious and unverified.”
This is not what Comey testified.
Hrbdis say that the material that was about to be reported in the press was salacious and unverified.
The memo did not lie.
Comey also said in that testimony that he was not allowed to comment on the details of the dossier, but that does not discount what he said above.
BURR: In the public domain is this question of the “Steele dossier,” a document that has been around out in for over a year. I’m not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that’s a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?
COMEY: That’s correct.
COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?
COMEY: I didn’t use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him.
COMEY: The president called me I believe shortly before he was inaugurated as a follow-up to our conversation, private conversation on January the 6th. He just wanted to reiterate his rejection of that allegation and talk about—- he’d thought about it more. And why he thought it wasn’t true. The verified — unverified and salacious parts.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
Here you go! Read and weep folks, we have a problem.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...
"Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information."
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: projectvxn
You know iggy, that meme is the whole story and will best sum it up 100 years from now. Reminds me a bit of the "TeaPot Dome scandal"
www.history.com...
"The scandal involved ornery oil tycoons, poker-playing politicians, illegal liquor sales, a murder-suicide, a womanizing president and a bagful of bribery cash delivered on the sly."
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: MrPlow
What it says...I know it says that the investigations were brought about due to Russians approaching the Trump campaign, not some dossier. So there goes at least one gaping gunshot wound to your own foot. OOPS!
But keep grasping. I certainly do not trust the FBI 100% but I damn sure trust them over some elected partisan politician who will do anything to stay elected and keep his party in power so they can push through an agenda.
You're hanging your wild ass theories on some random FBI agent with a so-called agenda or bias.
Completely ignoring the fact that Strzok was ALSO instrumental in re-opening the investigation into HRC....RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.
Your little "deep state" actors sure aren't deep stating correctly.
Not what Ron Paul would say, if you're going to use his caricature. Paul would want to know why BIG government is overreaching their Constitutional duty to get an 'insurance policy' in case DJT won.. CASE CLOSED....
Ron Paul would also say Nunes was a traitorous twit for sitting on this memo while the vote to expand fisa was happening and Nunez is a total hypocritic for voting to expand fisa.
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
And apparently the Dems have compiled a memo
Like the dossier they compiled ????
I am sure they have. And in the process of compiling more....
Good God, we have been living with the Dossier hanging, now we find it all contrived to excuse treasonous behavior and still some people can't handle it. This says we can no longer deny any of what Grambler and Xcathdra, DBCowboy and so many others have repeatedly stated about the corruption used to obtain "wiretapping" permission on a nominee for POTUS but even worse they did it after he was elected...
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Grambler
If that is the case, then put out the warrant, let we the people see the warrant, and all of the information that goes along with such, get it out in the open and for everyone to see.
This is how it should be viewed: You are on trial. The Prosecuting Attorney, has been caught earlier with tampering with Evidence, in an attempt to show that you are guilty. Would you think that there would be justice if that man was still allowed to proceed and prosecute you?
Nunes, from the get go, has been very political, in an attempt to curry favor. He was seen to get and share documents with the White House and lied about it, only to be shown he lied. Now he is back creating a memo, and yet we are expected to accept this from the direction of a person who already been shown to be untrustworthy.
That should not be, and thus this should be taken with caution and say show us the evidence, all of it, including the Warrant, and all that went with that.
I don't disagree with any of this.
This memo could be untruthful.
I too want to see the Intel behind it.
But if the memo is true, it's damning.
If McCabe testified there would be no warrant without the dossier, it's game over.
Here you go! Read and weep folks, we have a problem.
www.washingtonexaminer.com...
"Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information."
It's paraphrasing the memo not providing evidence of testimony.
originally posted by: MantheDevilsApe
Power is centralized into ONLY the Republican Party?
How is it a good thing to have only one major political party?
originally posted by: FlyingFox
I think this is the tip of the iceberg.
Remember several years ago when the story broke about Soros' owned voting machines being "hacked" in a bunch of foreign elections?
I think this is where things are going in relation to this memo issue.
Also, the rigged primary elections....