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.

 

Justification for the Steele dossier shows a warrant should be issued to spy on Obama and Hillary

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

It's chapter two at trump university. Name calling, bullying, discredit and attack attack attack. If someone bleeds you get extra credit.




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I have yet to see a point by point breakdown of what was verified as opposed to what wasn't...can you provide that? I mean you must have seen one since you "know" its been mostly verified and credible.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude



the Steele Dosier (which I believe you still think has validity) 

Which I know has validity and so does everybody else except his base. Most of it has been validated. So sorry. You can call it fake if you like but it's not going to change the fact that it's not.


Kind of hard to have those discussions between the two parties when you feel like Trump has this massive amount of evidence against him....

But I never saw you speak ill of Hillary's emails or connections to uranium one (Russian), or even the fact that dossier put money into the hands Russians.

The whole Russia angle is playing every side, and also planting disinformation if their tactics are still the same. The combination of these tactics puts doubt in American people for the system.

It's working, and frankly it's working extremely well.

Every time someone take a partisan angle on the issue to blame the other party, we ignore the root problems.

Welcome to America's broken political system. But the people who pull the strings are elated.
edit on 8-2-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




It's not fair, it's not right, it's not legal, it's not moral, it's not Constitutional


This works best if you stamp your feet and pump your arms while crying at the top of your lungs.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
everyone that think steeles credibility and the seriousness of his claims were reason enough to spy on people


Wait, there are people that think this..???

Complete dullards!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude



the Steele Dosier (which I believe you still think has validity) 

Which I know has validity and so does everybody else except his base. Most of it has been validated. So sorry. You can call it fake if you like but it's not going to change the fact that it's not.


Maybe it's all true. Maybe Trump enjoys getting pissed on, while being a germaphobe. It really doesn't change my question to you, or was that one too hard to understand?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker




But I never saw you speak ill of Hillary's emails or connections to uranium one 


And you won't here me chime in on stupid conspiracies. Hillary was not charged with anything and careless isn't a crime now or ever. U1 is a joke. You should let it go. As an argument it doesn't hold water.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Pee is steril though. My cousin had a case come through his office a few years back and a lady tried to have an ex charged over peeing on her toothbrush and the expert testimony was it was not harmful in the least and the case was thrown out. So I guess he can be a germaphobe and still enjoy the pee =P
edit on 8-2-2018 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker




But I never saw you speak ill of Hillary's emails or connections to uranium one 


And you won't here me chime in on stupid conspiracies. Hillary was not charged with anything and careless isn't a crime now or ever. U1 is a joke. You should let it go. As an argument it doesn't hold water.

Being careless when handling top secret information is a crime.
In fact, being careless while driving is a crime.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

What kind of info on trump could they get if, as trump insists, he wasn't really part of the campaign in the first place and was officially off the campaign when they got the warrant?

Where is your disconnect occurring on this?

If he spoke to people that were part of the campaign, there would be incidental information to be gathered.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Too hard to understand? What is wrong with you? There is no proof they spied on trump now or ever. They have already made that announcment. You're gonna keep stumbling over this fact . They did not spy on trump. They did not wire tap him. Trumps own appointed IC has already determined that. So don't use it as an argument anymore because it's a flat out lie.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

If you follow what has happened with the NSA, as in Snowden... you would know that they collect every communication that is made.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CriticalStinker




But I never saw you speak ill of Hillary's emails or connections to uranium one 


And you won't here me chime in on stupid conspiracies. Hillary was not charged with anything and careless isn't a crime now or ever. U1 is a joke. You should let it go. As an argument it doesn't hold water.


But paying for information from advisories is a crime.

I remember when everyone was up in arms Don Jr. Met with a Russian lawyer for oppo research.

My whole point is the two parties make it impossible to talk about the root of our problems. It's always "who did worse".

I'd they're both playing dirty, that's bad. How about we address that? Or the amount of money behind campaigns, as if that doesn't influence decisions made after a win.

Edit: also I've never heard of a defense against committing a crime of carelessness.

Do you really think you get access to top secret info without being told the rules?
edit on 8-2-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Well if you followed the news, yesterday the infomant on the Uranium One scandal, Douglas Campbell, testified to congress about what he saw going on with russia in their efforts to buy Uranium.

Bacially he says that these russians, a couple which have actually been charged with crimes related to bribing, were actually bribing hillary and Obama connected people. In fact he goes on to say that he gave the FBI info that russia was helping iran with their nuclear program as well.
Now keep in mind, Campbell had worked for the CIA or FBI for decades.

William D. Campbell is a former lobbyist for Tenex, turned 'whistleblower' against his native Russian boss connected to the Russian Company Rosatom.
Campbell ran a company, the website of which was taken down, called Sigma Transnational, and did not suggest the firm was a lobbying centre...not too sure yet what it was supposed to be!
The company website listed four other employees and advisers, although one had died years earlier. A second employee listed said in a court document that she never worked for the company but had agreed in 2014 to pay Campbell to list her as an employee and allow her to use the Sigma name in a business deal.
He was considered as an unreliable witness at the time of his Russian boss's trial for fraud, who I think had the charges dropped. Campbell may not be who he says he is, and may use another name/s at times.
I think using The Hill, or AP as a direct source is not the best idea, and use Reuters agency, and also anything you can find on US trial cases. Using Campbell to sideline Steele, is propagating disinfo, especially since it took you long enough to admit that the dossier was only part of the FISC warrant, and since it was also the likes of Breitbart and The Hill who pushed the same, 'dossier only' agenda.
Do your own research as much as possible is the best meme, but it is a lot more difficult...otherwise you are just taking sides.


edit on 8-2-2018 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

Too hard to understand? What is wrong with you? There is no proof they spied on trump now or ever. They have already made that announcment. You're gonna keep stumbling over this fact . They did not spy on trump. They did not wire tap him. Trumps own appointed IC has already determined that. So don't use it as an argument anymore because it's a flat out lie.


So during the time they were looking into Page and Manafort, not ONCE, NEVER, did they do so while either of them were in Trump towers, or anywhere near Trump? Why would there be such a safe space offered?

I don't think you understand any of this.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude



the Steele Dosier (which I believe you still think has validity) 

Which I know has validity and so does everybody else except his base. Most of it has been validated. So sorry. You can call it fake if you like but it's not going to change the fact that it's not.


Still waiting...and I see that I wasn't the only one who asked you to back that assertion up too. Convient how you skip replying to those posts and just keep on spouting off as if you've proved or backup your OPINIONS with anything factual.



I have yet to see a point by point breakdown of what was verified as opposed to what wasn't...can you provide that? I mean you must have seen one since you "know" its been mostly verified and credible.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude



the Steele Dosier (which I believe you still think has validity) 

Which I know has validity and so does everybody else except his base. Most of it has been validated. So sorry. You can call it fake if you like but it's not going to change the fact that it's not.


What; I'm not part of his base and haven't seen one claim in it "validated." Please show me what parts have been validated, and how.

I've seen you say this before; I've seen you proven wrong, and I've also seen you fail to provide any sort of information that could even insinuate something was "validated."

Stop repeating non-sense; if it's validated, post it. The problem is, it's not, nothing in it is, and not even the left or the DNC is claiming it's valid at this point.

It's a proven fraud at this point and everyone is in agreement. It's now being uncovered that details in the dossier were fed to Steele from the Clinton campaign; so he didn't just author it, he was a proxy author.
edit on 8-2-2018 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Campbell worked with the cia as far back as the 1990s.

Complaining about sources is juvenile,

The hill posts many left leaning or anti trump articles.

But as long as they have any article critical of hillary, they must be liars according to you.

Only 100 percent anti trump sorces are reliable to you. Right?

As far as the dossier, if the memos are accurate, the dossier was the bulk of the application, and McCabe admitted there would have been no warrant without the dossier.

And let's not forget, there is much evidence behind Campbell's story, such as people having been arrrsted, money actually going to the Clinton foundation, etc.

But you go ahead and ignore that and say I am spreading disinfo.


edit on 8-2-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude



the Steele Dosier (which I believe you still think has validity) 

Which I know has validity and so does everybody else except his base. Most of it has been validated. So sorry. You can call it fake if you like but it's not going to change the fact that it's not.


What; I'm not part of his base and haven't seen one claim in it "validated." Please show me what parts have been validated, and how.

I've seen you say this before; I've seen you proven wrong, and I've also seen you fail to provide any sort of information that could even insinuate something was "validated."

Stop repeating non-sense; if it's validated, post it. The problem is, it's not, nothing in it is, and not even the left or the DNC is claiming it's valid at this point.

These sort of Orwellian "shout down with lies" tactics are the reason I'm being slowly pushed into his base. The fact that D and R and MSM and ridiculous internet posters have all decided he must be eliminated by any means possible is one of his few redeeming qualities.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Wasn't Campbell paid $50,000 by the FBI? Seems like a waste if they didn't think he was reliable. And if they didn't pay him, that should be easy to refute. Why prevent him from testifying earlier if he didn't have embarrassing or incriminating evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join