Connecting the dots between the Steele dossier and Uranium 1

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, you'd be okay if Trump had the FBI spy on whoever runs against him in 2020 based on "evidence" the GOP made up for him?

You know the answer. If Trump did this in 2020 there would be uproar and any reference to this would be rebutted with 'whataboutism'.

What we now see from the evidence is a group of Clintonites, at the campaign level and in Obama's state dept, trying to rig an election by colluding with Russian agents.

Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing with the author of the controversial, largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier, served as senior vice president of a firm that did lobbying work for Tenex, the U.S. subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian state corporation headquartered in Moscow.

If you think this is nothing?

Think again, and take off the partisan blinders.

As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

There's a big freggin There, there.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: kurthall

People are going to prison, with or with the Dossier.

For nothing that had to do with election rigging.

Golf clap.

I am correct in saying that, these criminal charges against the Republicans in trumps camp are in fact a result of none other than the Russia investigation. Also the 16 other indictments were all a result of the Russia investigation.

There will be more to come, as I have said before, and I was right.

You Republicans have a way of calling the Dems crooked, when the fact is Republicans have been indicted, found guilty and served prison time, around 10 times the amount of the Dems. Yet they are the Crooked ones. Its utterly laughable, the denial in your party.

a reply to: kurthall

You Republicans have a way of calling the Dems crooked, when the fact is Republicans have been indicted, found guilty and served prison time, around 10 times the amount of the Dems.

Bull and Snip.

www.ranker.com...

There's 45.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: kurthall

Nothing in that dossier is real.

A hit piece created by Clinton.

Political hit job.

We'll Carter Page did go to Russia. That's pretty much it.

Interesting side fact, Carter Page was an effective witness/operative in the prosecution of Russian spies.

Uranium 1on the other hand is obvious. As is Hillary's guilt in at the very least gross negligence in losing state secrets to God knows who all.

a reply to: kurthall

lol
grasping at imaginary stuff

not one single instance of wrong doing related to the initial inquiries

did you hear that the president does not wear a seatbelt

be honest and ask yourself what you have to gain at this point with all this nonsensical time wasting

the only thing happening now with the weak ass charges being put forth is assurance that when the tables turn and likely they have turned behind the scenes every single law broken by the dems will be punished fully

digging own hole

you get it because no mercy is being shown you can assure yourself that the same is happening in reverse.

surely you do not think all the broken laws by dems are being ignored at this point

it does not work that way

first you fully account for all wrong doing on one side then apply the same scrutiny to the other side.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Dossier has been partially verified,

where and what parts?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Dossier has been partially verified,

where and what parts?

Google is your friend. If you wanted to know for actual denying ignorance purposes you can easily look them up. Of course I don't think you do, but here is a link anyways.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

So you DO know that bias doesn't prevent a court from using evidence to obtain a warrant right? You don't need to prove that someone is guilty to get a warrant; you just have to establish the possibility of guilt. Something that is allowed with biased evidence. This ENTIRE line of inquiry has been proven to be a nothingburger and Nunes shot himself in the foot with the memo fiasco.

I don't believe there is a meter that can capture the level of confused you actually are on this. First off, it the FISA court, not small claims court.

So what?

Second, the information used to obtain the warrant was the same stuff democrats made up about Trump to fill the dossier.

Lies.

So in essence, you are claiming that third hand lies are good enough to obtain a warrant to spy on Americans.

Nope. You just purposely misunderstood my point.

Clueless isn't even a word I would grace your post with, it's too much of a compliment.

Ad hominem to drive home how you never had a point worth arguing to begin with.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Dossier has been partially verified,

where and what parts?

I think they verified that Russia exists.

We know, of course, that nothing in the dossier that implicates Trump in any wrongdoing, or even anything salacious, is verified. An uncomfortable truth for those still clinging to it.

We DO know however that Russian agents were used to source information that the FBI and DoJ used to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page, and the fact the Hillary campaign and DNC paid for it all. A fact omitted by the DoJ and FBI when seeking the warrant. Both Dems and Republicans have confirmed this omission.

So collusion with Russia IS actually proven, it's just it was Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and members of Obama's administration who are guilty of it.We also know that Hilllary's campaign colluded with the Ukraine to try and influence the election. As we know, though, those that hate Trump don't actually care about collusion at all. If they did they would be screaming for Hillary, members of the DNC, and members of the Obama administration to be indicted. They only care about any narrative, true or false, that can undermine the President because they can't stand the fact he won the election.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Dossier has been partially verified,

where and what parts?

Google is your friend. If you wanted to know for actual denying ignorance purposes you can easily look them up. Of course I don't think you do, but here is a link anyways.

I thought you had some real stuff. LOL!

Trump did business in Russia.....with......../cue scary music/...>Russians

Carter page met with Russians, in......Russia.

The Kremlin tried to influence stupid kids on facebook, but didn't realize that some idiot adults would get wrapped up in Pokemon go.

Yep, that Dossier is DAMNING after all. What an effing joke.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The Dossier has been partially verified,

where and what parts?

Google is your friend. If you wanted to know for actual denying ignorance purposes you can easily look them up. Of course I don't think you do, but here is a link anyways.

I checked out the link and it is lacking in facts.

Tell me if i missed the part where anything in the article is illegal.

No facts of any crime was covered in the he said she said article.


Real ? 4 u

If the investigation has now went into full petty mode against republicans what if anything will stop the investigation from now looking into the wrong doings of the democrats?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So what?

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible. The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization. But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

www.justsecurity.org...

It's sad that as involved in defending the idiot left as you have been here, you still fail in epic proportions to comprehend the FISA court. It's supposed to be difficult to get a warrant to spy on Americans. Which is why the first 3 were shot down. Then the left lied and used the dossier, presented it as "fact", and used it to get their warrant, which was illegal, but don't worry sparky, it's all under investigation and might just come out in the wash.

a reply to: network dude

Sigh... Talking to you is so tiring... You seem to think I don't know what a FISA court is that somehow disproves everything I've said. This is made even worse with your inability to show respect to anyone who disagrees with you's thinking. Ad hominems don't improve your argument. They just make you look douchy.

Which is why the first 3 were shot down. Then the left lied and used the dossier, presented it as "fact", and used it to get their warrant, which was illegal, but don't worry sparky, it's all under investigation and might just come out in the wash.

This is another lie. It's already been proven that the warrant obtained after the Dossier was a renewal of a warrant.

a reply to: UKTruth

So collusion with Russia IS actually proven, it's just it was Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and members of Obama's administration who are guilty of it.We also know that Hilllary's campaign colluded with the Ukraine to try and influence the election.

Damn I missed that one.

THANK YOU for pointing it out.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

www.politico.com...

Team Left had a coalation of the willing.

Ukraine and ex british spies.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Sigh... Talking to you is so tiring... You seem to think I don't know what a FISA court is that somehow disproves everything I've said. This is made even worse with your inability to show respect to anyone who disagrees with you's thinking. Ad hominems don't improve your argument. They just make you look douchy.

Which is why the first 3 were shot down. Then the left lied and used the dossier, presented it as "fact", and used it to get their warrant, which was illegal, but don't worry sparky, it's all under investigation and might just come out in the wash.

This is another lie. It's already been proven that the warrant obtained after the Dossier was a renewal of a warrant.

whining about others being mean to you doesn't make you look douchey at all.

But like I said, the investigation is underway, so who knows what might happen in the very near future.

put some band aids on all the hurt spots, they always help.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: howtonhawky

Read this carefully: To obtain a warrant you just have to show the possibility of wrongdoing. You don't have to prove anything with your initial evidence. The purpose of the warrant is to substantiate the concerns and actually prove if anything was done illegally or not... Y'all seem to be expecting that the investigation had to have fully proven that Trump (actually in this case it was Carter Page) was doing something illegal to get a wire tap. That is beyond ludicrous since if that were already proven then there would be no need for the wiretap. They could just indict and go to court already.

The issue is not that - it's that the court was not given important information about the source of the information to base their decision on. It was willfully withheld. Not only that, as the OP points out the state dept official involved in funnelling information to Steele was a long time associate of the opposition candidate to Trump. That was not disclosed either.
Conflicts of interest abounded and none of it was revealed to the courts.

a reply to: UKTruth

You clearly don't know what the issue is about at all. Typing out a disagreement with me doesn't make you correct btw. You have to actually prove your point.