Special counsel indicts 13 Russian nationals in Russia investigation

Absolutely. If something was done with the research that was somehow illegal, then that could be a chargeable offense. But, there is no evidence of that having happened.

The law doesn't care what was in Steele's heart of hearts.

If it is stated that the reason for viewing the document is to show exigency that's perfectly legit. If it was claimed that the content was true and THAT was the issue and it was known that wasn't the case, then that would be a big problem.

It's been made clear that the dossier was NOT provided as truth - only as justification for exigency.

Asked and answered, many times, and not just by me. You're twisting the facts of this case in order to attempt to create something that wasn't legit. YOU SHOULD NOT DO THAT.

Yeah.

You've got nothing but lies and innuendo.

 

As we all know, Hillary Clinton is your obsession. Yours alone (yours and Donald Trump's that is).

 

She has been on a bender since her book of excuses tanked.

 

Seriously? I thought it would be a fictional best seller!

 

You should have taken the suggestion too. "Read back". DT commented on Hillarys loss. Voter supression, he says.

 

It's not illegal to write an unverified and uncorroborated dossier to give to a candidate so she can wave it around like it was
an honest document.
It IS illegal to then use that document as the basis to cause the FISA court to act in response to said unverified and uncorroborated
rumors. I suppose you also think it's okay for a cop to wave a bag of planted drugs around in front of a judge in order to get an arrest warrant?

And neither do I. It isn't Steele who is at fault here.
He's just giving the customer what she wanted. The fault lies with the people who took Steele's dossier to the FISA court and got a warrant out of it. Is that too subtle for you to follow?

If the FBI took the dossier to court knowing it was mostly unverified second hand rumor that's a big problem for them.
If they took the dossier to court claiming it painted a true picture, not even knowing if it did or not, that's also a big problem for them.
Either way they are fraudulently attesting to something they shouldn't be.

And the court just said, okay, a pack of lies, but hurry up and spy anyway? Really?

Oooh, what a jolly way to just turn your back on the whole messy problem and walk
off. Your answers are all duplicitous and highly dubious and I guess that's why I keep covering the same problems due to your non answers.
I'll just take this as your way of admitting you are losing ground steadily.

 

Hillary is the lefts obsession. Specifically her loss in 2016, and whom they might scapegoat for that.

 

I would hope a lying powerful sociopath at the highest levels of government would be everyone's problem.
There are a lot of dead bodies lying in Libya, for instance, due to Mrs. Clinton's lust for power and money.

 

The dossier was not all wrong by any means. It identified individuals, etc.

That was information that the principles could use as a warning to coordinate stories, cover their tracks, dispose of what might become evidences, etc.

The document supported exigency whether it was 100% true or not.

And, it was identified that it was a document that would have to be considered as politically motivated.


You've got nothing. The Nunes memo (that some staffer wrote) was designed to be misleading.

 

We need to find out if Michael Moore colluded with any Russians to hold the event. Perhaps the FBI could start and investigation into him and his close associates and their activities and bank records.

 

Her loss is yours.......

 

Just because it had names in it doesn't make it right and credible.

What information and what stories by whom?

Not without it's credibility being established which it wasn't.

No it didn't and withheld information that would have confirmed it totally was.

 

Read my post. I didn't make such a claim.

Oh, good lord!! The FBI applied for a FISA warrant. They needed to show it was necessary, which in part means that the investigation is time critical - that slower methods would be ineffective. The argument was that if the principle saw information leaking about him, he would take action to foil an investigation - EVEN IF the leaked information is false.

No, the argument did not depend on the dossier being true. It depended on it leaking to the public and spooking the target of the investigation. That doesn't require the dossier to be true.

It was stated in the FISA application that the dossier was politically motivated. Thus, information in the dossier couldn't be considered to be fully truthful.

Again, the dossier wasn't considered truthful.

 

When will Mueller indict someone he can take to court and get off these PR paper "indictments"?

 

It was a premise of your statement

"The dossier was not all wrong by any means. It identified individuals, etc."

Which principle for what actions, the dossier is full of fake ones and the FBI had not confirmed anything and they knew the Clinton campaign had to use as political dirt, it was released to the public. And no the Constitution does not say that if there is a time critical factor you get to lie when applying for a FISA warrant and what was so time critical about spying on a no longer working for the campaign volunteer anyway.

Yes presenting it to a court as a truthful document to obtain a warrant is critical to the FBI telling the judge it was credible and to assert that a police officer can go to a judge and hand them a piece of paper of allegations and tell that judge that they have no evidence any of this is true or even who is saying it and get a warrant is preposterous.

And let's not forget the new judge has just demanded the FBI turn over all the evidence including the statements of the FBI interviewing agents in the Flynn case, the ones where they say they did not believe he was lying, for a further review.

Nope, that it came from a politically motivated group, and unnamed group, and in a footnote. It should have been in the first paragraph is bold letters that it sought by and the paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign and obtained from a an unregistered foreign agent who got it from Russian propaganda masters. Why did they hide all that?

But was presented to the judge as truthful else why did they present it to him as their essential piece of evidence. Gee your honor here's our essential piece of evidence but don't consider it truthful.............just absurd. Else the judge should be impeached for granting the warrant and any evidence obtained by the warrant tossed. Which BTW a judge might do anyway.

 

That's not the same as saying it was all true or that it was presented as the truth.

The FBI did not lie.

That's why there was a caveat attached saying it was a politically motivated document.

Isn't this getting repetitive?

That's his job. It doesn't imply wrongdoing.

Hide? I don't see any evidence of hiding. We're talking serious judges here. Suggesting they don't read the material or ignore footnotes is ridiculous. Plus, you have no evidence that claims in the dossier were treated as truth.

No. See above - over and over.

It was essential in that it showed exigency - which is a serious requirement. That didn't require treating ANYTHING in the dossier as being true. The fact of the document leaking names and making claims was significant regardless of whether the names and claims were accurate.

 

Obviously you don't know the meaning of the term "tacitly".

Low turnout was because of the Russian bot/troll voter suppression tactics. They knew that it would be to your beloved BLOTUS's advantage so they relentlessly attacked Hillary with falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

The Russians focused their efforts on swing states so obviously those were the ones that they targeted.

While I had nothing definitive up until the latest indictments I was aware that something was amiss. Critical thinking skills means not just accepting everything at face value. Now that the pieces are falling into place my suspicions have been validated.

 

And flying unicorns will make all your dreams come true!

 

Your obsessive fixation with Soros is NOT my problem and does not negate the FACTS that were provided.

 

CA is NOT a swing state so the Russian hackers would not have bothered to waste their time on the CA voter roll since it would have been glaringly obvious if it had gone for your BLOTUS because millions of Dems were prevented from being able to cast their ballots.

Much smarter to do it in small swing states where only 25k voters needed to have their information hacked. Given GOP minority voter suppression it would be much harder to detect the difference in the rolls.

This is why the EC is vulnerable and needs to be either fixed or scrapped IMO.

 

Complete and utter bovine excrement.

Multiple states reported instances of voter suppression.

https://www.thenation.com/article/w...w-suppressed-200000-votes-trump-won-by-23000/

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...aws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/

 

That you are incapable of recognizing the facts in question is not my problem.

 

Apparently you have no problem at all with the Russian hacking the election in order to alter the outcome.

 

Thank you for tacitly admitting that your subject matter knowledge of this topic is woefully lacking.

The Russian duping of the alt right was to use them as the means to disseminate the disparaging disingenuous disinformation about Hillary.

In that regard the Russians succeeded in ensuring that tens of millions of voters who would otherwise never have encountered the negative canards about Hillary were exposed to them.

The Russians effectively used the alt right like a virus and infected the thinking of millions upon millions of voters as a result of using that strategy.