• 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!

FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased

Vern said:
This only proves my point that you should find new sources of information because the current ones have again shielded you from the facts. We learned from the "trump stooge 1" that papadapolous started the investigation.

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016

https://thehill.com/policy/national...ulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

Since your sources of information either didn't tell you or you've conveniently forgotten, Papadopoulos bragged that Russia had dirt on Hillary. and as already pointed out, this was accurately described by the dossier.



So Ive proven trump was clearly not right about this and this disproves your "witch hunt" narrative. Oh and Guiliani kinda threw a wet blanket on that narrative when he backtracked and flip flopped that he never said "nobody colluded". Oh and all the guilty pleas and indictments did that too. So no trix, its not a "nothingberder".
Click to expand...

IF you are attempting to make me believe that the UNverified dossier obtained by the Clinton Campaign's legal team, via Fusion via Steele was an insignificant impetus to getting the FISA warrant, nice try.
 
bubbabgone said:
Who's "us".
“We certainly consider it our obligation, because of our trust relationship with federal judges, to present evidence that would paint a materially different picture of what we're presenting,” Comey testified on Dec. 7, 2018. “You want to present to the judge reviewing your application a complete picture of the evidence, both its flaws and its strengths.”
Click to expand...

So should FBI have guessed who paid for the dossier? Why reveal the names of guesses when they didn't even name Trump in that document? Weren't the judges confused about who the Candidate 1 was? What's insufficient about saying the dossier was intended to "discredit" Trump? Can you explain why it matters which org "associated, working with Hillary" cut the check?
 
JasperL said:
So should FBI have guessed who paid for the dossier? Why reveal the names of guesses when they didn't even name Trump in that document? Weren't the judges confused about who the Candidate 1 was? What's insufficient about saying the dossier was intended to "discredit" Trump? Can you explain why it matters which org "associated, working with Hillary" cut the check?
Click to expand...

No guesses necessary. Ohr told them where the dossier came from and Fusion had been paying Steele. If you're suggesting they knew that and never contacted Fusion by the end of October 2016 then we have bigger problems with the FBI than we imagined.
And i just told you why it's important ... in Comey's words.
 
Vern's here. This is special. Who knows what else the dogs have dragged in? I'd better go look.
 
bubbabgone said:
No guesses necessary. Ohr told them where the dossier came from and Fusion had been paying Steele. If you're suggesting they knew that and never contacted Fusion by the end of October 2016 then we have bigger problems with the FBI than we imagined.
And i just told you why it's important ... in Comey's words.
Click to expand...

Fusion wasn't the client, didn't do any work on the 'dossier' and just served as a conduit for money from the client to Steele. There's no earthly reason to name them, because it would mean nothing to the FISC, or anyone else for that matter as it relates to the warrant and whether it was properly granted.

DNC/Hillary campaign ==> Perkins Coie ===> Fusion ===> Steele

What might matter is the ultimate client, because it's their motivations that matter, which were described - "discredit" Trump. Ohr didn't know who that was....
 
Last edited:
bubbabgone said:
Who's "us".
“We certainly consider it our obligation, because of our trust relationship with federal judges, to present evidence that would paint a materially different picture of what we're presenting,” Comey testified on Dec. 7, 2018. “You want to present to the judge reviewing your application a complete picture of the evidence, both its flaws and its strengths.”
Click to expand...

Which we know was not done. FISA powers were CRIMINALLY ABUSED by the Obama Swamp Leftovers in charge of the KGB-FBI/DOJ....
 
JasperL said:
Fusion wasn't the client, didn't do any work on the 'dossier' and just served as a conduit for money from the client to Steele. There's no earthly reason to name them, because it would mean nothing to the FISC, or anyone else for that matter as it relates to the warrant and whether it was properly granted.

DNC/Hillary campaign ==> Perkins Coie ===> Fusion ===> Steele

What might matter is the ultimate client, because it's their motivations that matter, which were described - "discredit" Trump. Ohr didn't know who that was....
Click to expand...

You forgot the FINAL member of the Line of COLLUSION: DNC/Hillary campaign ==> Perkins Coie ===> Fusion ===> Steele ===> KREMLIM-LINKED RUSSIANS.
 
trixare4kids said:
IF you are attempting to make me believe that the UNverified dossier obtained by the Clinton Campaign's legal team, via Fusion via Steele was an insignificant impetus to getting the FISA warrant, nice try.
Click to expand...
Oh look, you are arguing something I didn’t say. I made no point about the significance of the dossier. I addressed the lying conservative narrative that “the dossier started the investigation”. You now know that narrative is false (or can no longer pretend to not know) so you now attack something I didn’t say.

And fyi, the “UNverified dossier” has turned out to be quite accurate.
Vern said:
"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia
Click to expand...

So now you know the dossier was accurate (or can no longer pretend to not know). And fyi, the dossier is more verified that the WMD intel. Hey, if we can invade Iraq then we can certainly put an emotional stunted thin skinned narcissist criminal in jail, amirite?
 
Vern said:
This only proves my point that you should find new sources of information because the current ones have again shielded you from the facts. We learned from the "trump stooge 1" that papadapolous started the investigation.

The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016

https://thehill.com/policy/national...ulos-info-triggered-fbis-russia-investigation

Since your sources of information either didn't tell you or you've conveniently forgotten, Papadopoulos bragged that Russia had dirt on Hillary. and as already pointed out, this was accurately described by the dossier.



So Ive proven trump was clearly not right about this and this disproves your "witch hunt" narrative. Oh and Guiliani kinda threw a wet blanket on that narrative when he backtracked and flip flopped that he never said "nobody colluded". Oh and all the guilty pleas and indictments did that too. So no trix, its not a "nothingberder".
Click to expand...

Go away now and argue your pov with someone else...
Nothing wrong with what I originally wrote below or my sources.

I stand by all of it.

trixare4kids said:
I don't think so...The dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant but as we know now from Bruce Ohr's testimony, it was deemed biased opposition research summer 2016 prior to the time it was subsequently used anyway to obtain the FISA warrant, fall 2016.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the wiretap was approved based on “evidence” including the Yahoo crazy news article speculating that Carter was some dangerous Russian spy, and parts of an anti-Trump “dossier", paid Clinton Campaign opposition research's attorney, Cole Perkins who disguised the costs for the dossier as legal documents. Do you really think the FISA wiretap would have been approved if the court was told of Bruce Ohr's truthfulness as outlined below?

FISA shocker: DOJ official warned Steele dossier was connected to Clinton, might be biased

Even that narcissist Comey said the dossier was salacious and unverified but used anyway to obtain the FISA warrant.
Try harder because none of it has EVER been verified except by partisan fake news "experts"... :lol:

Trump was always right about all of this... "nothing but a witch hunt"
Click to expand...
 
Vern said:
Oh look, you are arguing something I didn’t say. I made no point about the significance of the dossier. I addressed the lying conservative narrative that “the dossier started the investigation”. You now know that narrative is false (or can no longer pretend to not know) so you now attack something I didn’t say.

And fyi, the “UNverified dossier” has turned out to be quite accurate.


So now you know the dossier was accurate (or can no longer pretend to not know). And fyi, the dossier is more verified that the WMD intel. Hey, if we can invade Iraq then we can certainly put an emotional stunted thin skinned narcissist criminal in jail, amirite?
Click to expand...

And you're arguing something I didn't write.
So I guess that makes us done here........
 
trixare4kids said:
Go away now and argue your pov with someone else...
Nothing wrong with what I originally wrote below or my sources.

I stand by all of it.
Click to expand...

trixare4kids said:
And you're arguing something I didn't write.
So I guess that makes us done here........
Click to expand...

Oh trix, I've seen this "feign umbrage" as an excuse to cut and run when a conservative gets in over their heads before. Nobody denies the dossier was used in the warrant. Why shouldn't it be used. Its turned out to be quite accurate and valuable intel. Since I've just proven that, you cant deny it. Oh, is that why you're "feigning umbrage"? Anyhoo, again the lying conservative narrative that the dossier started the investigation. Here's your dear leader repeating hat lying conservative narrative.

Remember it was Buzzfeed that released the totally discredited “Dossier,” paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (as opposition research), on which the entire Russian probe is based! A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!

Even you know that's a lie. Nunes (trump stooge 1) told us that Papadopolous was the source of the "entire Russian probe". So even if we ignore the accuracy of the dossier and all the guilty pleas and indictments, Papadopolous bragging about the Russian hack makes it not a "nothingberder" all by itself. FYI, if you truly "stand by it" you wouldn't so easily cut and run from the facts that prove otherwise.
 
humbolt said:
Vern's here. This is special. Who knows what else the dogs have dragged in? I'd better go look.
Click to expand...

Humbolt, I have to ask, have ever contributed to any discussion. It just seems to me that whenever I read one of your posts you are only whining about me. I just don't understand your emotional need to whine about me.
 
Vern said:
Humbolt, I have to ask, have ever contributed to any discussion. It just seems to me that whenever I read one of your posts you are only whining about me. I just don't understand your emotional need to whine about me.
Click to expand...

I gave up on substance with you a long time ago, Vern. On the positive side, your occasional presence here reinforces my belief that I'm reasonable. Thanks for that.
 
humbolt said:
I gave up on substance with you a long time ago, Vern. On the positive side, your occasional presence here reinforces my belief that I'm reasonable. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry humbolt, I just don't find your "excuse" believable. There is really no excuse for not posting in an honest and intelligent fashion at a debate forum. I've never used an excuse to not prove my point but then my points aren't lies told to me by liars. And fyi, I went back and looked some of our oldest discussions. Seems to me dishonesty and whining is "old hat" for you. As far as I can tell this is the first time you posted to me. From March 2013

humbolt said:
Vern, I didn't say we don't have a revenue problem. Maybe you should go back and read post #13 again. .
Click to expand...

Here's post 13
humbolt said:
I haven't seen that, but it doesn't surprise me. For the left, this just reinforces the notion that we have a revenue problem. I also wonder sometimes exactly who is running the projector over at the CBO, and what movie they're watching. If I were Obama, I'd fire the projectionist over there now, because of the sequester. Ah, I meant furlough the projectionist....
Click to expand...
 
Vern said:
I'm sorry humbolt, I just don't find your "excuse" believable. There is really no excuse for not posting in an honest and intelligent fashion at a debate forum. I've never used an excuse to not prove my point but then my points aren't lies told to me by liars. And fyi, I went back and looked some of our oldest discussions. Seems to me dishonesty and whining is "old hat" for you. As far as I can tell this is the first time you posted to me. From March 2013



Here's post 13
Click to expand...

Context is important, Vern. We as a country always want to spend more than we have, so revenue is always a problem that can be brought up whenever we have a pet project in mind that appears to blow the budget. I've never heard anyone claim they're too rich, either. You have a problem, I think, but It's not me. I am impressed that you went back six years looking, though. You must be bored.
 
humbolt said:
Context is important, Vern. We as a country always want to spend more than we have, so revenue is always a problem that can be brought up whenever we have a pet project in mind that appears to blow the budget. I've never heard anyone claim they're too rich, either. You have a problem, I think, but It's not me. I am impressed that you went back six years looking, though. You must be bored.
Click to expand...

Oh look, you're trying to explain the "context" of your 6 year old falsehood. Humbolt, I'm unconcerned about your latest attempt to spin your 6 year old falsehood. I simply posted it prove you have not given up " on substance a long time ago" with regards to my posts. Your 6 year old falsehood proves you've never used "substance". And Humbolt, you're not the only conservative (or conservative like poster) who's silly attempts to spin the facts fail so you simply resort to whining about me. I see it often.

Now humbolt, instead of dishonestly deflecting from my posts, why not address the fact that I've proven in this thread.

the Russia investigation started with Papadopolous
this fact disproves the lying conservative narrative that it started with the dossier
this proves trump is lying yet again when he says otherwise
the dossier has turned out to be quite accurate

All of this proves that the investigation is not a "nothingberder" which is another lying conservative narrative.
 
Vern said:
Oh look, you're trying to explain the "context" of your 6 year old falsehood. Humbolt, I'm unconcerned about your latest attempt to spin your 6 year old falsehood. I simply posted it prove you have not given up " on substance a long time ago" with regards to my posts. Your 6 year old falsehood proves you've never used "substance". And Humbolt, you're not the only conservative (or conservative like poster) who's silly attempts to spin the facts fail so you simply resort to whining about me. I see it often.

Now humbolt, instead of dishonestly deflecting from my posts, why not address the fact that I've proven in this thread.

the Russia investigation started with Papadopolous
this fact disproves the lying conservative narrative that it started with the dossier
this proves trump is lying yet again when he says otherwise
the dossier has turned out to be quite accurate

All of this proves that the investigation is not a "nothingberder" which is another lying conservative narrative.
Click to expand...

Heh. Given up? That's cute, Vern. Cute.

At least you've reverted to character. The dossier is a joke. It contains little that an honest professional would present as evidence. Steele wouldn't even testify that it was "evidence". Naturally you do, while lecturing others about honesty. You're a hoot.
 
humbolt said:
Heh. Given up? That's cute, Vern. Cute.

At least you've reverted to character. The dossier is a joke. It contains little that an honest professional would present as evidence. Steele wouldn't even testify that it was "evidence". Naturally you do, while lecturing others about honesty. You're a hoot.
Click to expand...

yea humbolt I'm sorry, you're pretending not to see what I've posted in this thread concerning the dossier. Let me post it special again just for you so you cant use that narrative again.

Vern said:
"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia
Click to expand...

and don't forget, trump said nato was obsolete. See how I don't have to "give up on substance" or whine that I had to "give up on substance". And fyi, there were 3 other points I've made and proven. What "substance" can you provide on me proving trump is lying again?
 
Vern said:
yea humbolt I'm sorry, you're pretending not to see what I've posted in this thread concerning the dossier. Let me post it special again just for you so you cant use that narrative again.
Click to expand...


No Vern, I'm not pretending. I haven't seen what you've posted here regarding the bad joke, and I don't intend to.


and don't forget, trump said nato was obsolete. See how I don't have to "give up on substance" or whine that I had to "give up on substance". And fyi, there were 3 other points I've made and proven. What "substance" can you provide on me proving trump is lying again?
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Vern, I'm not wasting my time. You're busy attempting to validate something that can't be validated, and even the author admitted that is so. Move forward with your fevered dreams, but don't expect me to address them. It's inconsequential.
 
bubbabgone said:
"When the annals of mistakes and abuses in the FBI’s Russia investigation are finally written, Bruce Ohr almost certainly will be the No. 1 witness, according to my sources.

The then-No. 4 Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller".​

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...arned-steele-dossier-was-connected-to-clinton

Why does it matter?
From the article ...

And the FBI knew the motive of the client and did not have to speculate: Ohr told agents the Democratic nominee’s campaign was connected to the research designed to harm Trump’s election chances.

Such omissions are, by definition, an abuse of the FISA system.

Besides suggesting FBI and DOJ FISA abuse the stories suggest Adam Schiff was telling fibs to the public too.

Here are a couple of other reports on the subject.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/key-doj-officials-mueller-knew-about-dossier
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/br...ier-author-with-justice-department-colleagues

I didn't see any WAPO headlines on the story today.
Click to expand...

The whole entire Trump/Russia investigation was a sham from the beginning everyone knew it.
This was the backup plan that stozck mentioned in his IM's.

No matter what they still can't remove him from office. they do not have the votes.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Yeah, nobody but other dumb right wingers are going to buy the piles of **** they constantly dump on the forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nobody but other dumb left wingers are going to buy the piles of **** they constantly dump on the forum.
yea that was a bad argument to try and make.
 
Idiometer said:
Oh, good grief! You guys really need some new tin foil hats.

Yes, the Clinton campaign used Fusion GPS for opposition research, after a conservative Never Trump group dropped the original contract with Fusion GPS when it became obvious that Trump would win the Republican nomination. Do you get it? Conservatives originally started this work. A law firm employed by the Clinton campaign, Perkins Coie, picked up the contract. Clinton did not hire Chrstopher Steele, Fusion GPS hired him because he was an expert in the field of Russion covert ops.

BTW, none of Steele's dossier has yet to be disproven, and much of it has been verified. Also, the dossier was not the only source for obtaining the FISA warrant on that idiot, Carter Page. He was already under FBI surveillance beginning in December 2013 due to his association with a known ring of three Russian covert operatives. The FBI already listened in on their conversations and watched their activities. The FISA warrant simply allowed them to tap Page's communications.

Really, there's nothing to see here. Solomon, as usual, is full of ****.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant

you seem to be mistaken none of the dossier was verify before or after the fisa warrant.
i wonder if it had to do with all the anti-trump agenda in the FBI. more than likely.
you should probably double check on things.
 
VanceMack said:
"When the annals of mistakes and abuses in the FBI’s Russia investigation are finally written..."

The problem with that sentence is there were no mistakes. This was deliberate.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is the part that has me worried there was 100% a deliberate action to try and oust an incoming president.
this tells me that the government establishment is too entrenched and frankly it is a bit frightening.

the people elect someone that people in washington do not like and they attempt a coupe to get them out.
 
humbolt said:
No Vern, I'm not pretending. I haven't seen what you've posted here regarding the bad joke, and I don't intend to.
Click to expand...

er uh humbolt, I just posted it to you so you literally have to put quite some effort to ignore that the dossier has proven to be quite accurate. and not for nothing, shouldn't you have attempted to see what I was posting in the thread before you obediently whined about me?

I'm not wasting my time. You're busy attempting to validate something that can't be validated, and even the author admitted that is so. Move forward with your fevered dreams, but don't expect me to address them. It's inconsequential.
Click to expand...
oh look, no wonder you don't have to read that I've proven the dossier was quite accurate: you have an obedient delusion that it "cant be validated" and "the author admitted it". think about it Humbolt, you literally posted "nuh uh I'm right, I don't have read the proof that shows otherwise". And you hilariously claimed you "gave up substance". Sorry humbolt, you cant give up something you never used. Oh and humbolt, don't forget, you've cowardly avoided these points too.

the Russia investigation started with Papadopolous
this fact disproves the lying conservative narrative that it started with the dossier
this proves trump is lying yet again when he says otherwise

I sure am lucky you don't respond with "substance". I really dodged a bullet there.
 
humbolt said:
No Vern, I'm not pretending. I haven't seen what you've posted here regarding the bad joke, and I don't intend to.

Vern, I'm not wasting my time. You're busy attempting to validate something that can't be validated, and even the author admitted that is so. Move forward with your fevered dreams, but don't expect me to address them. It's inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta love it.

When someone doesn't understand why ...
"now I have to ask you to show on what fronts the dossier has been shown to be true and you won't be able to."
and ...
"I asked 'on what fronts the dossier has been shown to be true'?"
is the same as ...
"You're supposed to quote claims from the dossier along with evidence of FBI verified corroboration of each claim."
you know you're dealing with something unique ... but not a Pete Rose kind of unique.

He was so confused he said the first 2 "magically became" the third.
Whoa. Bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom