What if its found out that Obamas state, justice,intelligence depts colluded with russians

[Sho Nuff 719]

verified info/sources ? Surely wasn't when the dossier was presented as evidence. Correct ?

Comey has admitted that.

Comey has? Are you again trying to state that salacious and unverified refers to the entire thing?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Fact: original FISA warrant on Manafort ended before he was affiliated with Trump and that information is being used as leverage for information on Trump.

[drobeski 3,061]

Comey has? Are you again trying to state that salacious and unverified refers to the entire thing?

do you have evidence that his statement didnt ?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Fact: original FISA warrant on Manafort ended before he was affiliated with Trump and that information is being used as leverage for information on Trump.

Link to support this claim?

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Sho, just once, try swimming away from the bait.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

verified info/sources ? Surely wasn't when the dossier was presented as evidence. Correct ?

Comey has admitted that.

 

Of course the names haven't been verified publicly. Fwiw many who have analyzed the dossier think that D is either Aris Agalarov or George Millian and E is Felix Sater, and those make sense especially Sater. - If you think that's not him, that's fine, but if Sources D & E are invented why are we saying they are Russians planting information?

 

Again to be clear Comey's 'salacious and unverified' reference was to the Ritz hotel claim, that was specifically Source D who made that claim and then Source E confirmed if that helps. I'm just saying if they are invented - then there are no Russians colluding here, but if they are real then you have to concede they at least knew Trump (Sater was in business with him, so was Agalarov) or at least explain who they really were if they weren't the actual Russians doing the colluding.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Sho, just once, try swimming away from the bait.

 

Nah...I will continue to point out that drobeski is passing off lies and half truths when I see fit.

Its odd that some of you take more offense to people correcting facts than you do with people posting complete crap.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Of course the names haven't been verified publicly. Fwiw many who have analyzed the dossier think that D is George Millian and E is Felix Sater, and those make sense especially Sater. - If you think that's not him, that's fine, but if Sources D & E are invented why are we saying they are Russians planting information?

 

Again to be clear Comey's 'salacious and unverified' reference was to the Ritz hotel claim, that was specifically Source D who made that claim and then Source E confirmed if that helps. I'm just saying if they are invented - then there are no Russians colluding here, but if they are real then you have to concede they at least knew Trump (Sater was in business with him) or at least explain who they really were if they weren't the actual Russians doing the colluding.

when did Comey make this distinction or is that something you and snuff are taking the liberty to do for him ? Surely you have a link that proves Comey selectively used the term salacious and unverified for each claim made in the dossier. Right ? I'd like to see the link and the breakdown for each claim.

[Sho Nuff 719]

do you have evidence that his statement didnt ?

 

A. You made a claim...how about you back it up that it was fact before claiming it was.

B. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that his statement was in reference to the personally sensitive information in the dossier. From his own testimony

 

At the conclusion of that briefing, I remained alone with the President-Elect to brief him on some personally sensitive aspects of the information assembled during the assessment.

The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.

 

 

Salacious and unverified refers to the bolded...that is why full context is always important.

Stop posting lies and falsehoods as if they are fact.

 

Now...you started this thread about Hillary, not Trump...yet you deflect to lies about Mueller's investigation.

How about posting just one actual verfied fact to back up your initial post in this thread about the DNC and Hillary and so on. Thus far...all you have is that Steele used Russian sources. Something that is not illegal or even collusion (or any definition of the word as it relates to the other side of the coin at this point).

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

when did Comey make this distinction or is that something you and snuff are taking the liberty to do for him ? Surely you have a link that proves Comey selectively used the term salacious and unverified for each claim made in the dossier. Right ? I'd like to see the link and the breakdown for each claim.

 

In his June 2017 testimony, Which was right after Trump fired him.

 

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. I want first to ask you about your conversations with the president, three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. The first was during your January 6th meeting, according to your testimony, in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance. Is that correct?

COMEY: That's correct.

COLLINS: Did you limit that statement to counterintelligence invest — investigations, or were you talking about any FBI investigation?

COMEY: I didn't use the term counterintelligence. I was briefing him about salacious and unverified material. It was in a context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. My reading of it was it was important for me to assure him we were not person investigating him. So the context then was actually narrower, focused on what I just talked to him about. It was very important because it was, first, true, and second, I was worried very much about being in kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation. I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over him in some way. I was briefing him on it because, because we had been told by the media it was about to launch. We didn't want to be keeping that from him. He needed to know this was being said. I was very keen not to leave him with an impression that the bureau was trying to do something to him. So that's the context in which I said, sir, we're not personally investigating you.

COLLINS: Then — and that's why you volunteered the information?

COMEY: Yes, ma'am.

 

 

- The Edgar Hoover reference is very obviously about the sort of stuff that Hoover had on Kennedy about sexual affairs. There's obviously a connection to "the salacious and unverified material" which the alleged Ritz incident would clearly be.

 

The stuff about what they knew about active measures would be counterintelligence, which Comey said he was clearly not talking about.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Fact: original FISA warrant on Manafort ended before he was affiliated with Trump and that information is being used as leverage for information on Trump.

 

Ok, good example. This has nothing to do with Page. Why didn't Nunes address this Fisa? What's wrong with what you claim?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Dr. O, to follow up, part of the problem is that to say that Russians colluded with Steele (and the others) you have to explain who Sources D & E are. If they are Agalarov and Sater like many think you have to start by conceding that they had been "close associates" and business partners of Trump's. But Trump claims he had no business contacts with Russia. So is Trump just lying, or are these sources someone else? Then who? Or do you think they were totally invented and they don't exist?

[Casual Observer 597]

 

Of course the names haven't been verified publicly. Fwiw many who have analyzed the dossier think that D is either Aris Agalarov or George Millian and E is Felix Sater, and those make sense especially Sater. - If you think that's not him, that's fine, but if Sources D & E are invented why are we saying they are Russians planting information?

 

Again to be clear Comey's 'salacious and unverified' reference was to the Ritz hotel claim, that was specifically Source D who made that claim and then Source E confirmed if that helps. I'm just saying if they are invented - then there are no Russians colluding here, but if they are real then you have to concede they at least knew Trump (Sater was in business with him, so was Agalarov) or at least explain who they really were if they weren't the actual Russians doing the colluding.

The dossier stated that Trump was offered various business deals in Russia, none of which Trump took up. The only thing out there is the Miss Universe pageant, which occurs before Trump runs. The dossier also states that the Russian Gov't. offered dirt on Hillary. Which dirt was that? Seems she had enough public dirt on her already. I've seen no evidence of this supposed collusion whatsoever, which is odd for a guy that was under electronic surveillance. (And on that point, the NSA has all of our digital communications stored for many years now).

Moreover, as is done constantly by you guys, you use the phrase "Russian Collusion" but do not distinguish between government-directed activities and any business deals or potential business deals with people that happen to be acting in their own private stead and interests that have nothing to do with the Russian gov't. spying or subversion activities.

[Casual Observer 597]

Dr. O, to follow up, part of the problem is that to say that Russians colluded with Steele (and the others) you have to explain who Sources D & E are. If they are Agalarov and Sater like many think you have to start by conceding that they had been "close associates" and business partners of Trump's. But Trump claims he had no business contacts with Russia. So is Trump just lying, or are these sources someone else? Then who? Or do you think they were totally invented and they don't exist?

You are assuming that the statements attributed to these unknown individuals are true. In the cruelest of ironies, this amounts to a soviet-style system of "justice".

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

You are assuming that the statements attributed to these unknown individuals are true. In the cruelest of ironies, this amounts to a soviet-style system of "justice".

No I'm not. Let's say they're false. Ok they're false. Are these lies that Agalarov and Sater invented?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

The dossier stated that Trump was offered various business deals in Russia, none of which Trump took up. The only thing out there is the Miss Universe pageant, which occurs before Trump runs. The dossier also states that the Russian Gov't. offered dirt on Hillary. Which dirt was that? Seems she had enough public dirt on her already. I've seen no evidence of this supposed collusion whatsoever, which is odd for a guy that was under electronic surveillance. (And on that point, the NSA has all of our digital communications stored for many years now).

Moreover, as is done constantly by you guys, you use the phrase "Russian Collusion" but do not distinguish between government-directed activities and any business deals or potential business deals with people that happen to be acting in their own private stead and interests that have nothing to do with the Russian gov't. spying or subversion activities.

I'll follow up on this, as you have more, but I myself am not a fan of the word collusion. I don't think that in itself is a crime unless we're talking about what is the goal of the collusion.

 

But keep in mind that Dr. O is talking about collusion between the Russians and the Us Government. Ok fine say for argument's sake (and this is a different thread after all, there's already is one for that) there is no collusion in the Trump campaign, let's unpack how this would work with the US Gov and see how it would go.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'll follow up on this, as you have more, but I myself am not a fan of the word collusion. I don't think that in itself is a crime unless we're talking about what is the goal of the collusion.

 

But keep in mind that Dr. O is talking about collusion between the Russians and the Us Government. Ok fine say for argument's sake (and this is a different thread after all, there's already is one for that) there is no collusion in the Trump campaign, let's unpack how this would work with the US Gov and see how it would go.

collusion with government/russia is the least of my point...just pointing out the hypocrisy of the claim. The whole point is the investigation itself, and was it an "insurance policy" ? Were the state, intelligence and justice department's weaponized to attack and go after a political opponent ? To cover up crimes of the previous administration ? There's a lot of smoke there.

And if its found out that that is the case , will the likes of snuff, yourself et al care or will you think that's ok ?

This thread should encompass all of it. From the Hillary investigation, the crowdstrike findings and the fact the FBI was never allowed to see or touch the server (absolutely insane, since when does the FBI rely on 3rd party to do its investigations )

 

They all tie in....

[Sho Nuff 719]

collusion with government/russia is the least of my point...just pointing out the hypocrisy of the claim. The whole point is the investigation itself, and was it an "insurance policy" ? Were the state, intelligence and justice department's weaponized to attack and go after a political opponent ? To cover up crimes of the previous administration ? There's a lot of smoke there.

And if its found out that that is the case , will the likes of snuff, yourself et al care or will you think that's ok ?

If its actually found by a legit investigation and not claims from you , Pundit, or Nunes...yes I will care and prosecute anyone found guns let if a crime.

But thus far there isnt really any smile of illegal activity or massive cover up of crimes that you are claiming.

[Mike Honcho 4,007]

from an evidence standpoint for sure.

We know the DNC/Hillary operative whom the FBI relied on to launch the investigation into Trump used Russian sources. It's fact. It cannot be argued.

 

 

Fact, they claim they were investigation page way back as far as 2013 but didnt not attempt to get fisa until using "unverified and salacious" political opposition research from steele.

Another fact, Papadopolous claimed to be original target, yet no FISA on him.

 

Fact, they lied and cheated and will go down for their crimes.

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

Ok, good example. This has nothing to do with Page. Why didn't Nunes address this Fisa? What's wrong with what you claim?

Perhaps because Nunes is only concerned about Russian collusion.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Perhaps because Nunes is only concerned about Russian collusion.

Was anything improper about the Manafort FISA?

And Nunes only seems concerned with running cover for the White House.

[drobeski 3,061]

Was anything improper about the Manafort FISA?

And Nunes only seems concerned with running cover for the White House.

cover for what? Collusion?

[Sho Nuff 719]

cover for what? Collusion?

Perhaps. Do you think Nunes has acted truthfully thus far in the past year?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Perhaps because Nunes is only concerned about Russian collusion.

Ok. There doesn't seem to be any problem with the Manafort indictment then.

[drobeski 3,061]

Ok. There doesn't seem to be any problem with the Manafort indictment then.

not at all, his crimes were pre trump anyway. I hope mueller goes after everyone involved in his crimes including Podesta, I sure hope mueller does his best to try to recover some credibility when it comes to clear displays of bias. Going after the podestas would go a long way towards that.

[Sho Nuff 719]

not at all, his crimes were pre trump anyway. I hope mueller goes after everyone involved in his crimes including Podesta, I sure hope mueller does his best to try to recover some credibility when it comes to clear displays of bias. Going after the podestas would go a long way towards that.

His credibility is well intact drobs.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

not at all, his crimes were pre trump anyway. I hope mueller goes after everyone involved in his crimes including Podesta, I sure hope mueller does his best to try to recover some credibility when it comes to clear displays of bias. Going after the podestas would go a long way towards that.

The last superseding indictment included crimes during the campaign & transition.

 

If there's a problem with the investigation Manafort can bring it up himself pretty soon, trial has already been set.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Ok. There doesn't seem to be any problem with the Manafort indictment then.

Problem? We'll see in court.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

collusion with government/russia is the least of my point...just pointing out the hypocrisy of the claim.

 

The whole point is the investigation itself, and was it an "insurance policy" ?

 

Were the state, intelligence and justice department's weaponized to attack and go after a political opponent ? To cover up crimes of the previous administration ? There's a lot of smoke there.

And if its found out that that is the case , will the likes of snuff, yourself et al care or will you think that's ok ?

This thread should encompass all of it. From the Hillary investigation, the crowdstrike findings and the fact the FBI was never allowed to see or touch the server (absolutely insane, since when does the FBI rely on 3rd party to do its investigations )

 

They all tie in....

 

This thread is about your the theory where really the US Gov is involved in purposefully taking down Trump. But the Russians as you might point out are definitely part of that. It's not a good sign if you can't even so much as speculate how they were involved in the dossier in a way in which they would be colluding that way.

 

I never get the insurance policy thing. The FBI was getting ready to brief Trump on a wide variety of subjects involving intelligence in two days. It was well reported - back then - that the IC was unsure if Trump was a security risk and how much they should trust him with classified information. It makes total sense to imagine a conversation where Page or others were saying that the FBI should limit what they told Trump because of security concerns while Strzok would argue that telling Trump everything in the brief made sense like an insurance policy in the event he was elected. Because if he was elected and he learned they held back then he would hate them and he would also need to be fully briefed to be president. This seems like the most sensible understanding of that.

 

As for your last part, I agree, please just start unpacking it.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Problem? We'll see in court.

 

Exactly.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

The dossier stated that Trump was offered various business deals in Russia, none of which Trump took up. ...

 

Ok, here's another example. If the dossier is a invention of lies by Russian government and the DNC why wouldn't they just lie here and say that Trump had lots and lots of deals in Russia?

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

...The dossier also states that the Russian Gov't. offered dirt on Hillary. Which dirt was that? Seems she had enough public dirt on her already. ...

 

 

Let me say I somewhat agree with you here. The dirt described in the dossier (basically surveillance by the Kremlin) is different than the dirt that came out (hacked DNC data).

 

But we're trying to prove Russian collusion with the DNC here. Why would the Russians (via the Sources A (a "senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure") & D (likely Agalarov) reporting this to Steele), Steele and the DNC want to plant this particular seed? If you're the Russians, you think Hillary will win, you support Hillary, and you're plotting with Steele to make this dossier public, why would you want to make a good chunk of the American public mad at you for seemingly opposing the candidate you really support?

[drobeski 3,061]

Let's not forget, the author of this salacious and unverified dossier was "desperate trump not get elected", yet the FBI on multiple occasions portrayed him to the FISA court as a reliable witness.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Let's not forget, the author of this salacious and unverified dossier was "desperate trump not get elected", yet the FBI on multiple occasions portrayed him to the FISA court as a reliable witness.

Because his history has been that of a reliable witness.

And desperate why? Perhaps because of what he had learned during his work?

[drobeski 3,061]

Because his history has been that of a reliable witness.

And desperate why? Perhaps because of what he had learned during his work?

history is irrelevant, that statement along with the fact he was a hired gun for Hillary and the DNC destroys any sense of credibility for him and consequently the FBI investigators involved.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Let's not forget, the author of this salacious and unverified dossier was "desperate trump not get elected", yet the FBI on multiple occasions portrayed him to the FISA court as a reliable witness.

 

The Fisa application said that the Source (Steele) was "likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." If they're trying to trick the court, why say that?

[drobeski 3,061]

 

The Fisa application said that the Source (Steele) was "likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign." If they're trying to trick the court, why say that?

if they're not tryimg to trick the court, why not mention that quote and the other major factors that question his credibility? Why did they use him? Even you have to admit his credibility is shot on that quote alone.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

if they're not tryimg to trick the court, why not mention that quote and the other major factors that question his credibility? Why did they use him? Even you have to admit his credibility is shot on that quote alone.

I think his credibility is in question with the quote I posted. Hence I think the judge was looking at other factors.

[SaintsInDome2006 128]

Dr. O it's your theory - why would a Republican judge grant a FISA order solely and totally on the word of a source who - as the judge was told - was looking to discredit a candidate? IMO he or she wouldn't and didn't.

[lickin_starfish 1,477]

Fact: Any male who voted for Hillary is a Beta Cuck.