Hannity Confirms Dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

Very loose?

We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

funny, you didnt seem to have that concern wanting an investigation into trump over don jr potentially receiving something of value from a foreign national.

But when its hillarys team and the DNC, all of the sudden we shouldn't spend time money and resources on that investigation.

Funny how you would only be concerned when its about investigating hillary...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?

I am guessing this is the correct answer?

Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.

Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

choking on crow can cause that
i hear its going around

a reply to: introvert

Because a foreign agent was contracted to sway the election. Ie, collusion.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

choking on crow can cause that
i hear its going around

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

But he does not want an investigation into the foreign national steele or his indierct contributions to the DNC and hillarys team that they paid for.

I've never said that.

What I have said is that the evidence we have right now does not indicate Hillary or her campaign were working with a foreign national for the sake of the campaign.

If other evidence arise, investigate all you like.

Now that is not the same situation with Jr. That is different entirely. To compare the two situations is a false equivalence.

Not according to the law that you cited.

It says that accepting something of value either directly or indirectly from a foreign national is against the law.

If you feel the dirt don jr was promised from a foreign national was potentially a thing of value that warranted an investigation, there is no reason at all that Hillary and the dnc paying for and accepting of dirt from a foreign national INDIRECTLY would not also warrant an investigation.

And again, this is the law that YOU cited as proof of why don jr should be investigated.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very loose?

We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying

Yes, very loose.

As we know as of now, there are degrees of separation between Hillary the dossier.

The same cannot be said for Jr, for example. He has direct ties to the foreign nationals in that aspect.

Both are relevant when considering potential violations of law.

That being said, and as I have said before, I do not think anything will come of the Jr stuff. But it does provide a good example to contrast what Hillary and friends are accused of.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

funny, you didnt seem to have that concern wanting an investigation into trump over don jr potentially receiving something of value from a foreign national.

But when its hillarys team and the DNC, all of the sudden we shouldn't spend time money and resources on that investigation.

Funny how you would only be concerned when its about investigating hillary...

I'm interested in context.

What you find funny or not is not my concern.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?

I am guessing this is the correct answer?

Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.

Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.

Did Hillarys team and the DNC acceot the dossier?

Yep.

Was it created by a foriegn national.

Yep.

Ok, there should be an investigation.

You can wiggle around it all you want, you know it is true, and the fact that you are trying to argue so hard that there shouldnt be an investigation into hillary proves your bias.

a reply to: introvert

We will see how it shakes out i guess

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Because a foreign agent was contracted to sway the election. Ie, collusion.

He was contracted for that specific purpose?

Well, that's interesting. Do you have proof of that?

I thought Fusion was hired to do opposition research and they hired Steele.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just want the facts.

But I suppose getting that from Washington is like getting fashion advice from Whoopie Goldberg.

The facts are there are no facts, it's an election year with an embattled president. Congressmen dropping like flies.

The facts are everyone is an oportunist and a pawn.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?

I am guessing this is the correct answer?

Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.

Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?

Ok. There was plenty of probable cause for the FBI to get a warrant to directly obtain a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

They didn't.

The document photographed by Factcheck is demonstrably fraudulent despite Factcheck's claim it was legally certified. Two members of Congress claimed they relied on it as prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama's birth.

So I think the FBI should not be asking for warrants or subpoenas for anything.

They should close shop and stop wasting money and wreaking havoc on the justice system.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very loose?

We are so far apart on view points that im having trouble even comprehending you. Or understanding any potential logic behind what you are saying

Yes, very loose.

As we know as of now, there are degrees of separation between Hillary the dossier.

The same cannot be said for Jr, for example. He has direct ties to the foreign nationals in that aspect.

Both are relevant when considering potential violations of law.

That being said, and as I have said before, I do not think anything will come of the Jr stuff. But it does provide a good example to contrast what Hillary and friends are accused of.

Again your only difference is that don jr met directly, whereas hillary and the DNC were indirect.

Shall we see what the law you provided as a reason for an investogation into trumps team says?

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

The law says both are illegal.

So you claiming that don jr met directly but the DNC and hillary did not are irrelevant in the eyes of the law that YOU cited as the reason to investigate trumps team.

a reply to: Grambler

Accepting something of value, like dirt on an opponent, form a foriegn national is illegal.

They accepted something of value from a US firm that had hired a foreign national.

I know the difference is small, but in the court of law that is a huge difference.

a reply to: introvert

He also wasn't a foreign agent. He was a former agent subcontracted and most likely it was disclosed.

However opossition research has rules. Nobody seems to care to search for what they are or how common it is since they find it more useful to telephone game the spin from their parties msm.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So she was potentially part of a grander conspiracy.

Sure. To use my earlier example, it's also possible aliens are involved in this conspiracy.

At what point is it reasonable to spend time, money and resources to investigate conspiracies that are based on very loose connections or probabilities?

When there is an unverified dossier obtained as 'political opposition research' that says Trump had prostitutes pee on a bed that the Obamas slept on?

I am guessing this is the correct answer?

Political opposition research, regardless of what it finds, is not illegal.

Why are we going to investigate something that is not illegal to do?

Ok. There was plenty of probable cause for the FBI to get a warrant to directly obtain a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health.

They didn't.

The document photographed by Factcheck is demonstrably fraudulent despite Factcheck's claim it was legally certified. Two members of Congress claimed they relied on it as prima facie evidence of the facts of Obama's birth.

So I think the FBI should not be asking for warrants or subpoenas for anything.

They should close shop and stop wasting money and wreaking havoc on the justice system.

That's a nutter rabbit hole I do not go down.

You will have to take that argument somewhere else. I want nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

We will see how it shakes out i guess

Yes, we will.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: introvert

He also wasn't a foreign agent. He was a former agent subcontracted and most likely it was disclosed.

However opossition research has rules. Nobody seems to care to search for what they are or how common it is since they find it more useful to telephone game the spin from their parties msm.

The law disagrees with you.

(3)Foreign national means -

(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or

(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,

(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).

www.law.cornell.edu...

The fact that he was or may still be a spy for the UK actually makes it worse.