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.

 

Anti-Trump dossier author was hired to help Hillary challenge 2016 election results

page: 1
63
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+46 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
New info here,
www.washingtontimes.com...

I am gonna have to ask "how does the crow taste?



British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election.
He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference. His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London.
The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.


This is redemption for many Trump followers and should only re strengthen their support.



In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.


Exactly as was suspected and theorized all along

The big question is,

How did the FBI not know this?

edit on 17-12-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)



+16 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Definitely a bombshell !!

More gets exposed as time goes on.

The "Russian Collusion" story is all BS 😎

The MSM will however find ways to make people "think" differently ⚔💨



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
New info here,
www.washingtontimes.com...

I am gonna have to ask "how does the crow taste?



British ex-spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the Democrat-financed anti-Trump dossier, said in a court case that he was hired by a Democratic law firm in preparation for Hillary Clinton challenging the results of the 2016 presidential election.
He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference. His scenario is contained in a sealed Aug. 2 declaration in a defamation law suit brought by three Russian bankers in London.
The trio’s American attorneys filed his answers Tuesday in a libel lawsuit in Washington against the investigative firm Fusion GPS, which handled the former British intelligence officer.


This is redemption for many Trump followers and should only re strengthen their support.



In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.


Exactly as was suspected and theorized all along

The big question is,

How did the FBI not know this?

So has Steele been convicted, or is this just a little bit premature?

Also, this is clearly after Steele put together the dossier on Trump. You can tell in the bit where he is talking about the evidence that Steele had "unearthed on the Trump campaign".

edit on 17/12/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)


+15 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't understand your question. Do you know what we're talking about here?
edit on 17-12-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I never saw someone try so hard and still loose.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't understand your question. Do you know what we're talking about here?


I edited my previous post when I realized you'd probably not understand me.




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

one, he was hired by the republicans before he was hired by the dems while the election was in the primary stage.
two... the dems picked him up right after the primary when they knew that trump was gonna be their opponent. ya know, long ago, when everyone thought trump didn't have a chance of winning???

could he have been hired after the election to keep looking and seeing what they can dig up? maybe. but by then, any crimes that theer might be had already been committed and I am pretty sure that the investigators aren't relying solely on the work of one man.



edit on 17-12-2018 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)


+23 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I am so far beyond partisanship it isn't even funny.

I want to see the dirty Repubs locked up right along side of the dirty Dems
edit on 17-12-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)


+15 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Of course the FBI knew. They probably helped set it up.

You'd have to be trying pretty hard at this point to not see everything the FBI has done to prevent the Clintons and their Ilk from getting charged.
They've misplaced entire servers, deleted evidence, repeatedly "mishandled" devices... They even went so far as to wipe out a text message chain recently from some of their insider employees, didn't they?

They're on video, on live TV, removing the black box from a crashed plane containing members of the clinton death list back in the 90's.

Not sure how the FBI is still around, to be honest. The whole agency should have had a clean slate wipe a long time ago. One of the bigger sticks holding the dam to the swamp up, IMO.

They knew. They knew the whole time, and spent your tax dollars covering it up.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't understand your question. Do you know what we're talking about here?


Let me make things even clearer for you:

Steele put the dossier together and it got leaked during Trump's campaign.

Trump won the election (on a technicality).

After the campaign, the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to use the existing dossier to contest the results.

You don't contest the results of a campaign before it is over.

edit on 17/12/2018 by chr0naut because: If there's a smoking gun here, I'd check your forhead for holes. You have things backwards.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't see where it says any of those things.
Try again

However it does say this,


In his most recent London court filing, Mr. Steele is defending against a libel lawsuit by citing a discredited story about a computer server, Trump Tower and a Russian bank.

www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: dawnstar

Fruit of the poisonous tree.

I am so far beyond partisanship it isn't even funny.

I want to see the dirty Repubs locked up right along side of the dirty Dems


You do know that "Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" means that the evidence is not admissible in court. It still shows that someone committed a crime.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't understand your question. Do you know what we're talking about here?


I edited my previous post when I realized you'd probably not understand me.



It still doesnt make any sense. What does him being convicted of anything have to do with his testimony?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't see where it says any of those things.
Try again

However it does say this,


In his most recent London court filing, Mr. Steele is defending against a libel lawsuit by citing a discredited story about a computer server, Trump Tower and a Russian bank.

www.washingtontimes.com...


Of course not.

You want to have his babies.



+11 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So it's obvious that you only care about money spent to influence an election when it was spent by someone you dislike, rather than when that election influencing was intended to help your gal... we see how the game is played, do you?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Aallanon
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't understand your question. Do you know what we're talking about here?


I edited my previous post when I realized you'd probably not understand me.



It still doesnt make any sense. What does him being convicted of anything have to do with his testimony?


Steele was testifying to events that happened after Trump was elected.

Steele wasn't testifying to the events that caused him to assemble the Trump-collusion dossier. The dossier had already been in existence and in the public domain, prior to the law firm of Perkins Coie approaching him.

We know this because by this stage the election was already over and Perkins Coie wanted to contest the results of the election.


+16 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Trump won the election (on a technicality).

Your ignorance is showing. This is not a technicality .




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

lol... maybe I am wrong, was that story about the computer server, trump tower, and the russian bank in the original steele document?
I can find stories about it as far back as the end of oct. 2016... before the election.
again, you don't hire someone to dig up evidence for you to use to contest an election BEFORE you lose an election!!!



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut

So it's obvious that you only care about money spent to influence an election when it was spent by someone you dislike, rather than when that election influencing was intended to help your gal... we see how the game is played, do you?


The election was over at that stage. The result done.

And I didn't like Hillary either.

The electoral choice was like forcing you to eat either cold poo or warm poo. And now you are being rhapsodical about the smell and taste.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



He said the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be in a position to contest the results based on evidence he unearthed on the Trump campaign conspiring with Moscow on election interference.

www.zerohedge.com...
edit on 17-12-2018 by Aallanon because: (no reason given)







 
63
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join