This lady poses the $64,000 question.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
The $10 million dollar question is what exactly is the DOJ hiding? They seem like they don't want anybody to see anything about the Trump dossier.
Hypothetically, how bad would it be if the Clinton campaign paid for it, turned it over to a friend in the FBI, and that friend decided to attempt to use it to derail Trump's campaign and/or presidency despite it being an uncorroborated bucket of shit? I wonder what it was that Andy, Peter, and Lisa discussed as an "insurance plan..."
Except for the fact that much of the Fusion GPS dossier has already been corroborated by the intelligence community.
The GPS founders are saying Republicans are doctoring the confessional testimony to suit a narrative. Not surprising, just funny to watch how far the pubes will go circling the wagons, and the puppets dance right along to his tune.
Easy solution: release it all, along with the specifics of who hired them, who they hired to assist them, an accounting of everyone who saw their reports or excerpts thereof leading up to Nov. 2016, and a detailed timeline.
Republicans don’t want that box of sh!t to get thrown in the fan. Money laundering by the campaign?
Oh, the Fusion GPS co-founders say there was nothing wrong with their approach. If they say so, then it must be.
Seriously, never, ever change.
Seriously, never, ever change.
Like the special prosecutor or Fbi is going to have updates about the evidence they've found? That's the expectation?
Criticize away, he gives enemies plenty of fodder needlessly.
I'll flip it back to you. Just can't believe sheeple would distrust the D.C. intelligentsia's narrative, huh?
What narrative? If it's their narrative I can evaluate it. If it's the Biff crowd's narrative of the IC's narrative God only knows. The IC was screaming that Biff was compromised in the summer of 2016.
Biff said the election was rigged but then he won. Should I not believe him?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fusions-russia-fog-1515024911
The Fusion duo portray themselves as valiantly working to “highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties” by providing the FBI with “intelligence reports” that corroborated “credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia.”
For exercising their “right under the First Amendment,” Fusion laments that it has been subject to Congressional harassment and a “succession of mendacious conspiracy theories,” including by us. Oh my.
Fusion is talented at producing dirt for hire, including for Russians to smear human-rights activist Bill Browder. The problem is the veracity of its work, and the cofounders don’t name a single example in their op-ed of something that proves the dossier’s claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Eighteen months after the dossier hit Washington, the FBI, special counsel Robert Mueller and Congress have also offered no public validation of its collusion allegations.
The Fusion boys pat themselves on the back for “having handed over our relevant bank records,” but the firm stonewalled Congressional committees for most of 2017, refusing to divulge the names of its clients (the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee) and even suing to prevent access to its bank records. In court documents, Fusion has also admitted to paying journalists during the election, though it refuses to disclose the names, amounts or purposes of the payments.
As Mr. Browder notes on Twitter, the Fusion op-ed also “conveniently omits” that it “worked for Russian gov’t interests trying to repeal Magnitsky Act [sanctions] at the same time [it] was working on the dossier.” Mr. Simpson met with his Russian client, Kremlin-connected lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, before and after she sat with Donald Trump Jr. in Trump Tower in June 2016.
Mr. Simpson continues to claim he knew nothing about her Trump meeting and that she knew nothing of his Steele dossier work—though you’ll have to take his word for the coincidence. As for Fusion’s deep concern about “an attack on our country by a hostile foreign power,” the firm’s concern about Russia—and its human-rights abuses, for which the Magnitsky sanctions were imposed—would seem to stop at its bank account.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/03/senate-panel-hits-back-at-fusion-gps-over-op-ed-claims/
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...teele-dossier-collusion-narrative-falls-apart
Thus, the authors assure us, “We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling.” Instead, the dossier that Simpson, Fritsch, and Steele were trumpeting as a smoking gun during the 2016 campaign is now portrayed as having merely “corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.” That one source? Why, Papadopoulos, of course. (The op-ed here links to the Times’ blockbuster Papadopoulos report this past weekend.)
Just one problem: What did the Justice Department and FBI do when the FBI received reports from these sources? They got a FISA warrant for Carter Page.
As I explained in my aforementioned column, to get a FISA warrant to surveil an American citizen, the government has to show the FISA court probable cause that the citizen is engaged in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power (here, Russia), which activities may involve violations of federal criminal law. If the FBI had such information about Page, it certainly did not get that information from Papadopoulos — that’s clear from the Statement of the Offense filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller when Papadopoulos pled guilty a few weeks ago. To date, the only source we know of for such allegations against Page is the dossier. And at present, there is no basis to believe such allegations were ever verified by the FBI (wholly apart from the fact that they are highly unlikely on their face, and that Page has both vigorously denied them and filed a libel suit over them).
Thus, the authors assure us, “We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling.” Instead, the dossier that Simpson, Fritsch, and Steele were trumpeting as a smoking gun during the 2016 campaign is now portrayed as having merely “corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp.” That one source? Why, Papadopoulos, of course. (The op-ed here links to the Times’ blockbuster Papadopoulos report this past weekend.)
Just one problem: What did the Justice Department and FBI do when the FBI received reports from these sources? They got a FISA warrant for Carter Page.
As I explained in my aforementioned column, to get a FISA warrant to surveil an American citizen, the government has to show the FISA court probable cause that the citizen is engaged in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power (here, Russia), which activities may involve violations of federal criminal law. If the FBI had such information about Page, it certainly did not get that information from Papadopoulos — that’s clear from the Statement of the Offense filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller when Papadopoulos pled guilty a few weeks ago. To date, the only source we know of for such allegations against Page is the dossier. And at present, there is no basis to believe such allegations were ever verified by the FBI (wholly apart from the fact that they are highly unlikely on their face, and that Page has both vigorously denied them and filed a libel suit over them).
Summary of the lefties here in regards to all of the stench flocculating from their side:
Summary of the lefties here on Trump collusion:
Summary of the lefties here on Trump collusion:
Summary of the lefties here in regards to all of the stench flocculating from their side:
Summary of the lefties here on Trump collusion:
It's not on libs any more though, is it? Why aren't they prosecuting her? Wtf are you guys waiting on?
Pretty obvious point. If she broke the law why won't this administration do something? The OP is about why covering for Biff, btw. I didn't bring up hillary.
The rhetoric + total lack of action from the Republican government is comical.
Possibly a valid point, but not the subject of this thread.
Well, actually, the excerpts are from the WSJ and National Review Online. The author of the NRO article, who is no huge fan of Trump, is a former Assistant US Attorney for NY, who successfully prosecuted the World Trade Center (1993) bombers. I dare say he knows what he's talking about.
The New York Times. The same one that wrote in November that the Iranians had united with their regime against Trump. #fakenews
A difference of opinion on the proper means to prosecute terrorist combatants, proves your point exactly how??? If anything, it proves exactly the opposite. When he prosecuted the guys in 1995, he was doing his job as directed by his superiors. Also, maybe that experience changed his views.
Is that you, Vlad?
Go get her! Again!
Katrina Pierson is what you're reading huh?
The first one says that Beauregard is gonna investigate Hrc. K. I dont know, go get her again. The second is a crazy loon and I didn't read it. Did she settle out with bannon, trump or the mooch? Is she in the admin?
Ostensibly that is what the committee has and is choosing to sit on....
Similar threads
