Democrats suddenly want us to forget about the Trump dossier (Page 2): peters: You're party is going to jail!!!! MAGA!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

PeterS wrote:

So your assertion is that a judge wouldn't ask for... (show quote)

peters: You're party is going to jail!!!! MAGA!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The judge would not have asked if the dossier was hearsay. You are welcome.

PeterS wrote:

Which would mean that everything in the dossier would be hearsay and wouldn't be used to get a FISA warrant. Thanks for the clarification and now tell Davie that the dossier couldn't have been used to get a FISA warrant.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

PeterS wrote:

Oh come on Davie, JFlorio just said a warrant can't be issued on hearsay meaning the whole dossier couldn't be used. You are climbing the wrong tree and are about to get sprayed....

The dossier wasn't heresay. It was fake direct evidence.

Why would Hillary pay good money for fake heresay when for the same price she can buy fake evidence?

Tip 2:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I was talking about the overheard conversation by the two witnesses would be considered hearsay.

Super Dave wrote:

The dossier wasn't heresay. It was fake direct evidence.

Why would Hillary pay good money for fake heresay when for the same price she can buy fake evidence?

Tip 2:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

PeterS

Super Dave wrote:

The dossier wasn't heresay. It was fake direct evidence.

Why would Hillary pay good money for fake heresay when for the same price she can buy fake evidence?

Tip 2:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

So you're saying that a judge will accept a fake dossier but won't accept one that is hearsay? And the dossier isn't evidence and what if it is fake hearsay? Will the judge still accept it?

PeterS

JFlorio wrote:

I was talking about the overheard conversation by the two witnesses would be considered hearsay.

It's really neither here nor there. The assertion is that the dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant. My point is that the dossier is made up of memo's for which nothing has been verified therefore a judge wouldn't allow it to be used. David insists that it would be used even though in using it where would you direct the warrant? The warrant can't be attached to a citizen so if anyone in the trump organization was picked up on a FISA warrant it was because they were communicating with someone who was wiretapped and being listened to by FISA--not because of the dossier...

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

meridianlesilie wrote:

i get tired of hearing dossier dorksy air head h... (show quote)

I agree with you about what needs to be done and sure enough it would have to be telecast everywhere since THEY surely all have quick methods to change channels.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

PeterS wrote:

One other thing on this--Papadopoulos statement was verified by two witnesses. Why wouldn't the FBI get a FISA warrant just on this. What would be the purpose for using the dossier when it wasn't needed to get a warrant?

Let us look at what you are talking about but like all left leaners, avoiding talking about. Did the Hillary Campaign have anything to do with paying those people? When did they do the hiring and paying and what was their reason for trying to hang Trump before the election and so soon afterward. Could Papadopoulos have been "forced" to talk without that "warrant"? You don't seem to get the whole point beyond what could have been accomplished by the Dems and other left leaners, like Hillary. Man you have your foot deeper in your mouth than "Foot in Mouth" Biden ever managed to do.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

PeterS wrote:

One other thing on this--Papadopoulos statement was verified by two witnesses. Why wouldn't the FBI get a FISA warrant just on this. What would be the purpose for using the dossier when it wasn't needed to get a warrant?

I always have thought that Papadopoulos was brought in after the Mueller group had been appointed and went to work. Can you prove that I am wrong?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

PeterS wrote:

So you're saying that a judge will accept a fake dossier but won't accept one that is hearsay? And the dossier isn't evidence and what if it is fake hearsay? Will the judge still accept it?

I didn't say you can't get a warrant with heresay. That was someone else.

They clearly didn't tell the judge they were presenting fake evidence, and he would have no way of knowing it was fake, and it's not in the judges power to get another investigative body to check the evidence to see if it's fake. Again, this is why the issue is so important.

Refer to tip #2 again.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

The judge doesn't investigate. The judge relies on the honesty of the investigators. You know this.

PeterS wrote:

It's really neither here nor there. The assertion ... (show quote)

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I'm no lawyer. I don't think you can get a FISA warrant on hearsay. I could be wrong. Might be up to the judges discretion. Might have to ask lindajoy. The big deal in this case (actually asked an attorney) is if the dossier is completely fabricated and or unsubstantiated and there's reason to believe the Investigators knew the investigation is tainted. Any convictions base on such evidence would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and said convictions would not hold up.

Super Dave wrote:

I didn't say you can't get a warrant with heresay. That was someone else.

They clearly didn't tell the judge they were presenting fake evidence, and he would have no way of knowing it was fake, and it's not in the judges power to get another investigative body to check the evidence to see if it's fake. Again, this is why the issue is so important.

Refer to tip #2 again.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

JFlorio wrote:

I'm no lawyer. I don't think you can get a FISA warrant on hearsay. I could be wrong. Might be up to the judges discretion. Might have to ask lindajoy. The big deal in this case (actually asked an attorney) is if the dossier is completely fabricated and or unsubstantiated and there's reason to believe the Investigators knew the investigation is tainted. Any convictions base on such evidence would be "fruit of the poisonous tree" and said convictions would not hold up.

I was thinking the same.

tactful Loc: just North of the District of LMAO

JFlorio wrote:

They should be crapping their pants. If only Sessi... (show quote)

I was under the impression Fusion GPS was an independent gathering source?
40,000 pages discredited? seriously.question should be who was bank rolling them? obvious answer would be Clinton's . still subscribe to where there is smoke there is fire,that's why a huge dossier being negated does not seem to hold water if any one has actually read the whole thing which is very possible since it was delivered to congress I believe last summer.just not sure who to.heard rumor it was MCcain and MCconnel and or Ryan.knew it was Republicans just not sure which ones.

2bltap Loc: Move to the Mainland

Look PeterS. Assuming, which is never a good thing to do, the judge wsa a straight shooter and a law follower, he or she would depend and consider the the investigative process and ask a number of questions to ensure that nothing untoward was going on. A judge has to be able to depend on the honesty of those who are bringing the request as he or she is NOT going to investigate the investigators. GOT IT!!!!

PeterS wrote:

So you're saying that a judge will accept a fake dossier but won't accept one that is hearsay? And the dossier isn't evidence and what if it is fake hearsay? Will the judge still accept it?