Sen. Dianne Feinstein releases Fusion/Trump Dossier over objection of Republicans (Page 3): AM. A. G. A...

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

arapaho wrote:

Republicans have spent years investigating Hillary Clinton without finding anything she could be charged with.

Republicans are currently a few months, but much less than the two years we can expect, into investigating the Trump campaign.

Given what has already been turned up with indictments and convictions it appears that it will be Trump that falls, and probably hard too.

Given Trump's current dramatics it seems he is well aware of the eventual outcome.

AM. A. G. A

arapaho Loc: America

Hemiman wrote:

AM. A. G. A

When we lock him up it will help.

currahee

These Dem investigators are paid to grab any straw they can.

arapaho Loc: America

currahee wrote:

These Dem investigators are paid to grab any straw they can.

It is a bunch of Republicans. Appointed by Republicans and managed by Republicans.

Kevyn

PeterS wrote:

After Republicans backed off their promise to rele... (show quote)

Every bit of this should be public and televised, Americans deserve to know who conspired with our Russian adversaries to steal the election.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

PeterS wrote:

So tell me Blade, what part(s) of the dossier have you cons managed to prove false? Any? This is the reason for all the smoke and the need to paint the FBI as tainted. Typical ad hominem approach--if you can't attack the text then you attack who wrote it, and in this case who reviewed it...

If it is revealed that Steele's "Russian dossier", A Bipartisan Dossier of Collusion, was used to secure a FISA warrant with which the Obama administration spied on a political opponent, this will make Nixon look like a choir boy.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

At every turn, Democrats get tangled in their own ‘collusion’ web.

Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research that led to the Trump dossier.

Why the shift in emphasis? Because the Democrats and their media accomplices are doing what they do best: controlling the terms of the public discussion in order to obfuscate.

Democrats now own the dossier. That is a problem. The dossier was supposed to be seen as a roadmap of Trump collusion with Russia. But now, the dossier is emerging as a campaign dirty trick that was itself compiled through collusion between the Democrats’ contractor and Russian sources. Hence, focus on the dossier has become counterproductive. Better to refer to the research that led to the dossier, which widens the lens to capture some Republican involvement in an initial anti-Trump research project.

In reality, only after this project was taken over by Democrats were new operatives hired and the dossier created. Still, Dems and their media allies figure the facts are vague enough that the early research can be conflated with the eventual dossier, thus implicating Republicans — and obscuring the Democrats’ singular culpability.

Clever, but it’s not going to work. After a year of Democrats pounding the Trump-Russia drum, it won’t help them to tee up the dossier (and, of course, the research!) as a bipartisan undertaking. Not when it turns out that collusion itself is a bipartisan undertaking.

On the dossier, let’s get this straight: There would be no dossier were it not for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. My own previous reluctance to finger the Clinton campaign has been proven wrong by the Post’s reporting. (And in a correction to its original story, the Post itself has noted that left-leaning Mother Jones reported in October 2016 that the compendium now known as the dossier was a Democrat-funded research effort.)

Forbes: The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

Did Comey Really Testify That the Entire Steele Dossier Was Unverified?

Andrew C. McCarthy published a piece yesterday arguing that there is a “dossier scandal” (As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale) that undermines the narrative of Russia collusion put out by the New York Times. McCarthy argues that the FBI used the infamous Steele dossier to form part of an application for a warrant to a FISA court, despite the “fact” that Comey had dismissed the dossier as “salacious and unverified”:

Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting. Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele’s allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

CONT'D

PeterS

Loki wrote:

What part have you Libs managed to prove true?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/t

We aren't the ones running the investigations. The dossier has been in the hands of you cons for over a year and you haven't been able to prove nary one thing false.

PeterS

Blade_Runner wrote:

If it is revealed that Steele's "Russian dossier", A Bipartisan Dossier of Collusion, was used to secure a FISA warrant with which the Obama administration spied on a political opponent, this will make Nixon look like a choir boy.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

At every turn, Democrats get tangled in their own ‘collusion’ web.

Have you noticed that we are no longer talking merely about “the Trump Dossier”? Ever since the Washington Post’s startling revelation this week that the dossier was commissioned and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, there’s been a subtle tweak in the coverage. Now, reports allude to the research that led to the Trump dossier.

Why the shift in emphasis? Because the Democrats and their media accomplices are doing what they do best: controlling the terms of the public discussion in order to obfuscate.

Democrats now own the dossier. That is a problem. The dossier was supposed to be seen as a roadmap of Trump collusion with Russia. But now, the dossier is emerging as a campaign dirty trick that was itself compiled through collusion between the Democrats’ contractor and Russian sources. Hence, focus on the dossier has become counterproductive. Better to refer to the research that led to the dossier, which widens the lens to capture some Republican involvement in an initial anti-Trump research project.

In reality, only after this project was taken over by Democrats were new operatives hired and the dossier created. Still, Dems and their media allies figure the facts are vague enough that the early research can be conflated with the eventual dossier, thus implicating Republicans — and obscuring the Democrats’ singular culpability.

Clever, but it’s not going to work. After a year of Democrats pounding the Trump-Russia drum, it won’t help them to tee up the dossier (and, of course, the research!) as a bipartisan undertaking. Not when it turns out that collusion itself is a bipartisan undertaking.

On the dossier, let’s get this straight: There would be no dossier were it not for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. My own previous reluctance to finger the Clinton campaign has been proven wrong by the Post’s reporting. (And in a correction to its original story, the Post itself has noted that left-leaning Mother Jones reported in October 2016 that the compendium now known as the dossier was a Democrat-funded research effort.)

Forbes: The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

Did Comey Really Testify That the Entire Steele Dossier Was Unverified?

Andrew C. McCarthy published a piece yesterday arguing that there is a “dossier scandal” (As the Dossier Scandal Looms, the New York Times Struggles to Save Its Collusion Tale) that undermines the narrative of Russia collusion put out by the New York Times. McCarthy argues that the FBI used the infamous Steele dossier to form part of an application for a warrant to a FISA court, despite the “fact” that Comey had dismissed the dossier as “salacious and unverified”:

Slowly but surely, it has emerged that the Justice Department and FBI very likely targeted Page because of the Steele dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research screed disguised as intelligence reporting. Increasingly, it appears that the Bureau failed to verify Steele’s allegations before the DOJ used some of them to bolster an application for a spying warrant from the FISA court (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court).

Subsequently, however, former FBI director James Comey told a Senate committee that the dossier remained “salacious and unverified.” Obviously, if the FBI had not verified the dossier by the time Comey testified in June 2017, then the Bureau cannot possibly have verified the dossier when DOJ sought the FISA warrant nine months earlier, in September 2016.

CONT'D

If it is revealed that Steele's "Russian doss... (show quote)

How is the dossier a campaign dirty trick? Both the Senate and House investigations have the dossier at their disposal and if anything in it is false they have the power to revel it. So what have they reveled--anything? As for the FISA warrant the FBI already had the Australians stating that Papadopoulos knew the Russians had emails that would embarrass Hillary. So the only way Papadopoulos would know that is if he were in contact with the Russians and that right there would be justification for a FISA warrant. If the dossier was used it would only be because it was a corroborating evidence.

PeterS

Kevyn wrote:

Every bit of this should be public and televised, Americans deserve to know who conspired with our Russian adversaries to steal the election.

Ubetcha--as someone I don't rightly remember used to say...

mactheknife

PeterS, we don't have to prove the negative (that Trump did not collude with the Russians) but the left has to prove the positive (that Trump colluded with the Russians). That is the way that evidence works. So far, you have come up miserably short and it is clear that the dossier is nothing but a desperate, dirty trick. Good luck.

PeterS

currahee wrote:

These Dem investigators are paid to grab any straw they can.

The democrats don't have any investigators though I truly wish we did...

PeterS

arapaho wrote:

It is a bunch of Republicans. Appointed by Republicans and managed by Republicans.

I don't think cons quite understand that...

mactheknife

There are lots of ways that Papadopulous might have gained that knowledge with he, himself being in contact with the Russians. For example, he might have been told that by a third party.

PeterS

Loki wrote:

Mueller has had HOW LONG to prove any "collusion?"

Not as long as Trey had to prove Hillary guilty. Shouldn't Mueller have at least as long as Trey?

PeterS

mactheknife wrote:

There are lots of ways that Papadopulous might have gained that knowledge with he, himself being in contact with the Russians. For example, he might have been told that by a third party.

If that was the case he wouldn't have had to lie to the FBI and he would have had nothing to plead guilty to...