FBI told opposition research group agianst Trump details of Trump investigation

a reply to: GuidedKill

Your English is not very good, is it? Steele was reporting what his sources in Russia told him. They may have made things up. They may have been spreading deliberate disinformation to further the MGB's agenda. The recipients were aware of this and chose not to use it.

a reply to: DJW001


But the FBI already investigated Trump, and admitted they found no evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

OR direct source

www.nytimes.com...

This article explains why Steele disappeared after they found no evidence backing up his claims/of any illegal activity by Trump. He was investigated before the election itself even took place. This is exactly why we are all saying this Mueller business is retalation against Trump, not that we particularly care. Sure it is a waste of tax money and time, but no Trump voter seriously believes Trump will be charged/impeached/convicted of anything relating to this.

All I know is that if charges are going to happen, they better have something way better than the current round of allegations. Because as it stands, what Trump is alleged to have done doesn't break any of our laws.

a reply to: DJW001


What does MGB stand for?

a reply to: Grambler

The russians want to hurt credibility in the US.

The Russians want the American people to mistrust our government, and doubt our ability to know the truth.

Me or other discussing potential wrong doing by the FBI is doing the russians bidding by attacking our system of democracy.

If the FBI is engaged in wrong-doing, it can and should be exposed. On the other hand, inventing lies about our government or our constitutional system in order to undermine is, in effect, treason.

But going directly to Kremlin agents to get dirt on the President is healthy and wanted.

Need I remind you that Donald Trump was not the President at the time, he was a candidate. Candidate research is legal. If there were reason to believe he was dealing with China, it would be legitimate to go to Chinese sources. There are several important distinctions you keep trying to blur. The Clinton campaign hired a detective agency. The Trump campaign was approached by a foreign government. That government was playing both sides for its own ends. The Clinton campaign rejected using the material provided by sources inside that government. The Trump campaign embraced it.

I don't know what else to say. The FBI has already investigated the claims and found no evidence. (source: www.nytimes.com...)

Some people think they can just keep ignoring the findings and restating their own beliefs until the desired result in reached. AFAIK, the definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

No new evidence (or any evidence, for that matter) has come to light to change that. Unless someone is sitting on something huge/totally damning/irrefutable, I don't see this being anything but a waste of our time.

To me, it seems like the United States is finally getting its comeuppance for all the interfering we've done in foreign elections (least of which the Ukraine coup) spanning the last century.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GuidedKill

Your English is not very good, is it? Steele was reporting what his sources in Russia told him. They may have made things up. They may have been spreading deliberate disinformation to further the MGB's agenda. The recipients were aware of this and chose not to use it.

I love how everyone that disagrees with you can’t read.. how many times are you going to use that one?

It would appear your reading comprehension is the thing that is a little off. I’ll try again in simpler terms.

What you just said above casts doubt on the validity of the dossier. It’s basically all rumor and conjecture yet msm and certain people are attempting to say it has be validated and therefore was ok for the FBI to start, begin, open and investigation based off information from the dossier.

Well which one is it? Lies and rumors from second hand sources? Or is it a valid dossier that could of and should have been used to investigate a private citizen and then the sitting US president?

I don’t understand how you don’t see you can’t have it both ways.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: DJW001


What does MGB stand for?

Министе́рство госуда́рственной безопа́сности; the Ministry for State Security. Putin is going to reunite the services.

a reply to: DJW001

Again, me making a thread about the FBI acting inappropriately is treason.

Democrats paying for a foreign agent to get dirt directly from Kremlin agents on Trump is healthy for the country.

You know, like Steeles hard hitting exposing of trump liking to watch hookers pee.

You are exposing yourself for the extremist you are.

And what do you menan Hillary team didnt use it, but trumps did?

So no one on hillarys team mentioned the dossier ever? They didnt give that to the FBI, who launched an investigation into trump?

And what dirt did trump get from russia against hillary he used?

a reply to: GuidedKill

Well which one is it? Lies and rumors from second hand sources? Or is it a valid dossier that could of and should have been used to investigate a private citizen and then the sitting US president?

It is a combination of fact and fiction designed to remind the subject that the Kremlin possesses damaging information that it can use. It is not clear what is true and what is not... but Trump knows. That is the point. Once again, it was not the only evidence used to get a FISA warrant, if it was even used at all.

a reply to: JBurns

A) “a law enforcement source” is not really a public statement by the fbi..

Doesn’t mean it isn’t true either..but..

B) jut because they didn’t find the smoking gun before the election. Doesn’t mean they haven’t since..



MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!

What was your reasoning behind still thinking “there is no collusion “ after the Jr. email spelling out pretty much the exact conspiracy??

I can see someone either not caring if he did or if some thinking hillary was sooo dangerous it was worth any efforts to win.

But how anyone says it is a witch hunt after that email blows my mind..

a reply to: Grambler

Again, me making a thread about the FBI acting inappropriately is treason.

Only if you are intentionally lying to subvert American democracy. Are you intentionally lying to subvert American democracy?

Democrats paying for a foreign agent to get dirt directly from Kremlin agents on Trump is healthy for the country.

I didn't say it was healthy, I said it was legal. The fact that it is legal to investigate candidates is what is healthy. And, again, the Democrats did not hire a "foreign agent," they hired a detective agency. The Trumps dealt directly with individuals claiming to be acting on behalf of the Russian government. See the distinction?

a reply to: JoshuaCox
As has been pointed out many times.

If don jr.s meeting with a russian lawyer that resulted in getting no dirt on hillary is collusion that needs to be looked at.

Then hillarys team and the DNC paying a firm to have a foreign agent get dirt on Trump directly from Kremlin agents that actually did result in getting dirt is even more serious collsuion, and should result in an at least equal investigation into all of the DNC and Hillarys team.

Why was it ok for Hillarys team to pay to get dirt from Kremlin agents, but not ok for don jr. to meet with a russian to see about dirt against hillary?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GuidedKill

Well which one is it? Lies and rumors from second hand sources? Or is it a valid dossier that could of and should have been used to investigate a private citizen and then the sitting US president?

It is a combination of fact and fiction designed to remind the subject that the Kremlin possesses damaging information that it can use. It is not clear what is true and what is not... but Trump knows. That is the point. Once again, it was not the only evidence used to get a FISA warrant, if it was even used at all.

So would you agree if dossier was used or even considered in opening an investigation into Trump that is a problem?

Being that all of it at this point is not validated in any way shape or form. Being that by your own admission it is a collection of rumors, innuendo and half truths? Is that the standard your feel comfortable with the FBI using to open investigations against it’s citizens and sitting presidents?

a reply to: DJW001

The Trumps dealt directly with individuals claiming to be acting on behalf of the Russian government.

Respectfully, that is his job as head-of-state (or President-elect)

You're telling me candidate Clinton never engaged in discussions with individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments?

a reply to: Butterfinger

Agreed.

I never even do them personally.. not because I don’t think some people’s points are great.

I just never think about doing it and instantly start typing.


It is just that something seems fishy with it.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Again, me making a thread about the FBI acting inappropriately is treason.

Only if you are intentionally lying to subvert American democracy. Are you intentionally lying to subvert American democracy?

Democrats paying for a foreign agent to get dirt directly from Kremlin agents on Trump is healthy for the country.

I didn't say it was healthy, I said it was legal. The fact that it is legal to investigate candidates is what is healthy. And, again, the Democrats did not hire a "foreign agent," they hired a detective agency. The Trumps dealt directly with individuals claiming to be acting on behalf of the Russian government. See the distinction?

Yes i see the distinction.

One side met with a russian and received no dirt.

The other side actually paid for dirt from actual kremlin agents, and unlike trumps team actually got dirt.

So yes, what the dems did was far worse.

Acting like paying an intermediary makes it ok is a joke.

a reply to: Grambler


I don't personally understand the anti-Russia sentiment to begin with. But indeed, merely meeting with an individual to acquire "dirt" on your opposition isn't even newsworthy (every campaign in the country does this).

Trump breaking some law would've been disconcerting, but nothing he's alleged to have done actually breaks any US law.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes i see the distinction.

Either you don't, or you are lying.

One side met with a russian and received no dirt.

One side met with agents of the Russian government several times, and dirt was released on WikiLinks. You would have people believe this was a coincidence, and lying about the meetings was perfectly legal.

The other side actually paid for dirt from actual kremlin agents, and unlike trumps team actually got dirt.

The other side paid an agency to get dirt. The agency acquired the dirt through other parties, but the Democrats did not use it. Nothing illegal was done.

a reply to: Grambler

A) No, I am saying he had contacts inside multiple “western” Intelligence agencies..

Maybe eastern ones too..

Dude was a spy and the Brit’s traditionally have a pretty stellar spy outfit.

So I’m assuming they know some of their contemporaries or have done a little international cooperation stuff.

How hard would it be for him to know a couple American agents like to talk too much???


B) the firm is bi-partisan.. it is a mercenary firm.

You pay them, from either party and they go hunt up dirt on whoever your opponent is.

Now that doesn’t mean the dirt is flawless and they double source everything lol..


They were originally hired by a super pac for one of Trunps GOP opponents during the primary.

Once trump won the nomination. They went and offered their services and previously collected intel to the DNC..

WHO HAD TO PAY FOR IT.

a reply to: Grambler

Can you fix your link?