• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judicial Watch Finds Documents Showing Fusion GPS Working Directly With Obama's DOJ to Frame Trump

OpportunityCost said:
I didn't. Papadapolous was approached by Misfud. Who looks like a Western asset not a Russian one. Page shouldn't have been under surveillance and is countersuing the FBI because of it. There was no credible reason to have a warrant on Page.

All of that doesn't preclude the dossier being used as rationale for renewals and later warrants.
Click to expand...



Oh please, Page was hob nobbing with Kremlin officials and oligarchs under the pretense of giving speeches in Moscow. Besides, they have audio tape that his Russians handlers thought he was a "useful idiot" and could be an asset.

Say what you will about papadapolous, but he repeatedly lied to the FBI about his meetings and attempts to hook Trump up with Putin.

The dossier wasn't the only or even the main rationale for the any of the warrants. Four Republican Federal judges reviewed and approved the warrant requests. Are you going to accuse them of wrong doing, too?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Oh please, Page was hob nobbing with Russian officials under the pretense of giving speeches in Moscow. Besides, they have audio tape that his Russians handlers thought he was a "useful idiot" and could be an asset.

The dossier wasn't the only or even the main rationale for the any of the warrants. Four Republican Federal judges reviewed and approved the warrant requests. Are you going to accuse them of wrong doing, too?
Click to expand...

No, I am going to say the FBI hid the nature of the dossier and passed it off as being as credible as some of Steele's previous work product when it was not.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, I am going to say the FBI hid the nature of the dossier and passed it off as being as credible as some of Steele's previous work product when it was not.
Click to expand...

And yet, they've proven a lot of the dossier's allegations. It turns out that Cohen was in Prague after all. Apparently, the FBI has records of his cell phone pings in Prague. Cohen likely knew they had something on him and that's why he may have dropped his defamation lawsuit against Buzzfeed when he did.
 
Last edited:
Notofimport said:
How come nobody wants to dispute the documents?

Seems all the counters are attacking the messenger.

People are aware that judicial watch only makes FOIA requests and then published what comes from them, right?
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is obvious.

They are trained to attack, not action rationally and objectively.

Judicial Watch is no doubt not a liberal operation like the MSM, but you are 100% correct.

All they do is sue for release of public documents, and then they publish what is released.

The screaming about them is just from the intellectually vacant who don't know any better.
 
Moot said:
And yet, they've proven a lot of the dossier's allegations. It turns out that Cohen was in Prague after all. Apparently, the FBI has records of his cell phone pings in Prague. Cohen likely knew they had something on him and that's why he may have dropped his defamation lawsuit against Buzzfeed when he did.
Click to expand...

From the Mueller Report, page 139:

"Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.955 On May 18, 2017, Cohen met with the President to discuss the request from Congress, and the President instructed Cohen that he should cooperate because there was nothing there."956
 
Deuce said:
Typical right wing bull****. Use the word "frame" in the headline and then give absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Click to expand...

the irony of this statement is amazing.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You act like shooting the messenger is a credible tactic. Its not.
Click to expand...
If the debate point is that person X (or group Y) says, "So and so."
Then it is entirely acceptable to discuss whether or not information from person X (or group Y) is reliable or credible.
Otherwise we'd be stuck accepting the say-so of the lame-steam media, right?

However, you are correct that if the debate point is "So and so," then it is not acceptable to say that the debater is a so-and-so.
I hope that clears things up for you.
 
Notofimport said:
How come nobody wants to dispute the documents?

Seems all the counters are attacking the messenger.

People are aware that judicial watch only makes FOIA requests and then published what comes from them, right?
Click to expand...

How am I supposed to dispute documents I haven’t seen? Their link doesn’t work
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If what you say is taken at face value ftsoa, we're still left with the fact that the conclusions in the OP are from a Town Hall columnist.
So, w/e JW did, it's somewhat irrelevant to the conclusions drawn by the columnist the OP cites in the OP.

Second, if the messenger (JW or TH) is not credible, then, by themselves, reports from a non-credible source are insufficient to establish a point.
ymmv
Click to expand...

Ok, this does nothing to refute the documents.

When I hear this type of argument, you might as well be telling me that you cannot refute the documents and are trying to change the subject to the people.

If einstein was a racist, has no impact on the veracity of his theory of relativity.
 
Deuce said:
How am I supposed to dispute documents I haven’t seen? Their link doesn’t work
Click to expand...

Wait, you haven't even seen the documents and are drawing conclusions?

How was this admission supposed to help the case?
 
zimmer said:
Obama administration... just like a 3rd world ****hole banana republic, or your typical tyrannical Communists.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has uncovered and released hundreds of documents showing the Obama Justice Department working directly with Fusion GPS, a research firm hired by the Clinton campaign, to frame President Trump.

Judicial Watch Finds Documents Showing Fusion GPS Working Directly With Obama's DOJ to Frame Trump
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
A) Judicial Watch is nothing more than a conspiracy theory site and has no credibility.

extremeright051.png

Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record.
Click to expand...

B) Linking yourself to Judicial Watch taints your own credibility.
 
zimmer said:
Obama administration... just like a 3rd world ****hole banana republic, or your typical tyrannical Communists.
Click to expand...

Let us know when your theories make it to court.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
If the debate point is that person X (or group Y) says, "So and so."
Then it is entirely acceptable to discuss whether or not information from person X (or group Y) is reliable or credible.
Otherwise we'd be stuck accepting the say-so of the lame-steam media, right?

However, you are correct that if the debate point is "So and so," then it is not acceptable to say that the debater is a so-and-so.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Click to expand...

Well, we know that isn't true. A great deal of posters on this board were accepting Trump's guilt based on reporting.

The cutesy so and so bull**** aside, you don't seem to have a point. Maybe make one.
 
Moot said:
And yet, they've proven a lot of the dossier's allegations. It turns out that Cohen was in Prague after all. Apparently, the FBI has records of his cell phone pings in Prague. Cohen likely knew they had something on him and that's why he may have dropped his defamation lawsuit against Buzzfeed when he did.
Click to expand...

No, dammit, they haven't. Absolutely no one has gone out of their way to prove a damn thing. They just let the allegations sit there so useful idiots will parrot the ones they think are true. Please cite all allegations proven to be true with a reliable source and the proof.
 
Why would anyone trust Judicial Watch they're clearly biased toward Conservatives...
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
A) Judicial Watch is nothing more than a conspiracy theory site and has no credibility.

extremeright051.png



B) Linking yourself to Judicial Watch taints your own credibility.
Click to expand...

Bias and accuracy ARE NOT THE SAME.

It is an insult to everyone's intelligence that anyone tries to conflate the two.

Accuracy relates to the qualities of precision and correctness.
Ripe bananas are yellow is an accurate statement.

Bias relates to how you feel about a certain fact.
Bananas are good / bad.

The two concepts are not interchangeable. Whether you think bananas are good or bad has no impact on how they turn yellow as they ripen.
 
MTAtech said:
A) Judicial Watch is nothing more than a conspiracy theory site and has no credibility.

extremeright051.png



B) Linking yourself to Judicial Watch taints your own credibility.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them "extreme right," either. In the 2016 primary they were obsessed with taking down Hillary and not Bernie, who is far to the left of Hillary who herself is actually fairly right-wing.
 
Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos all confessed to crimes related to the Trump campaign. Other criminal referrals from Mueller are under investigation. Multiple Russian agents are under indictment. All this because a DOJ rep passed information to the FBI, which is of course his job.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
I wouldn't call them "extreme right," either. In the 2016 primary they were obsessed with taking down Hillary and not Bernie, who is far to the left of Hillary who herself is actually fairly right-wing.
Click to expand...

Bernie would never have won in the general election. So taking down Hillary to have Bernie in the general would mean a republican president with near 95% certainty. Hillary as the candidate meant a good chance of a Dem president. So they had a good strategy in doing so which was still supporting their ideology
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Bernie would never have won in the general election. So taking down Hillary to have Bernie in the general would mean a republican president with near 95% certainty. Hillary as the candidate meant a good chance of a Dem president. So they had a good strategy in doing so which was still supporting their ideology
Click to expand...

Except Bernie was doing better in the Rust Belt than even Trump was and there's no guarantee in any way shape or form that taking down Hillary would have taken down the Democrats as a whole.

They're not "extreme-right-wing" they're just morons...
 
Jason Warfield said:
Two problems.

First, the dossier is based on work Steele did for Fusion GPS as research that Fusion was hired to do on Republican candidates....as well as Hillary Clinton herself. The organization that paid for the research had no knowledge of how or who was compiling the information; standard for this kind of thing to protect sources. So, when the Clinton campaign then hired Fusion, they were not only aware that Clinton herself had been researched, but that other GOP candidates had been as well. THAT means that the Obama DOJ, at that moment of time, had nothing to do with the research at that point.

Second, the FBI investigation into members of Trump's campaign...and NOT Trump himself...started about four months PRIOR to the sale of the research material from Fusion. So, the dossier had NO way of "starting" an investigation that had started on its own. When the claims were made apparent to the Clinton campaign, it was deemed serious enough to share with the DOJ and certain GOP such as McCain. The dossier was quickly dismissed by the Obama DOJ and that was stated as such when the FISA court reviewed the data to continue surveillance on those members of the Trump campaign who were thought to have ties with Russia.

Sorry, the facts don't corroborate the claim here.
Click to expand...

Look who you are talking to? No amount of facts matter, the cult members believe whatever they want and are completely void of facts, or any intelligence for that matter
 
OpportunityCost said:
You act like shooting the messenger is a credible tactic. Its not.
Click to expand...

I knew this BS deflection was coming, when the message is complete fabricated nonsense. yes, shooting the messenger is credible. YOu conservatives think just repeating the same lies with no facts over and over is credible. So nobody cares what you dishonest people think is credible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom