• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

The investigation just GRU by another 12 indictments (Mueller Thread v. 18)

And then his core message was a lie, because the source of the funding was mentioned.

This is false.

source
sɔːs
noun
1.
a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.
--------

From where did the funds for the Steele dossier originate? Answer: from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. See:

WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in a dossier made public in January that contained salacious claims about connections between Donald J. Trump, his associates and Russia.

Link
 
Last edited:
Professor Dershowitz on point, as usual:


  • Congress should ask the FBI/DOJ why they deliberately left out the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier
  • Congress should ask why the salacious parts of the dossier (pee-gate) weren't mentioned in the application (assuming it's not contained in the redacted parts)
  • Presumption of innocence only applies to your own side in this partisan climate
  • An indictment is not a guilty plea, but Democrats are improperly taking the indictment of 12 Russians as proof of guilt

 
Professor Dershowitz on point, as usual:


  • Congress should ask the FBI/DOJ why they deliberately left out the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier
  • Congress should ask why the salacious parts of the dossier (pee-gate) weren't mentioned in the application (assuming it's not contained in the redacted parts)
  • Presumption of innocence only applies to your own side in this partisan climate
  • An indictment is not a guilty plea, but Democrats are improperly taking the indictment of 12 Russians as proof of guilt

This should be quick:

1) Because they didn't pay for it. Their firm did, and that was disclosed. No, an article from the Washington post using the word "paid" doesn't change that.
2) Because that would have no bearing on establishing probable cause for a warrant on Page.
3) I'll remember that the next time "Lock Her Up" is being chanted at a rally.
4) 12 indictments for crimes republicans and the white house have kept denying certainly doesn't look good. Feel free to bump this thread if these charges amount to nothing. That, and we do have some guilty pleas.
 
Last edited:
Neither you nor I want to live under a system in which opposing political parties can trigger FBI surveillance of each other without notifying the Court who is funding the background research.

We can both rest easy then, because that didn't happen.
 


@SBJJ

Check this out. If Page is being truthful, the FISA process is in dire need of reform. Also, check out the lunatic comments on the video.


I just checked backed in and I can’t believe a MOD was threatening to shut down discussions on the MAIN aspect of the Application. Yet he was cool with Dredd derailing for 2 pages with nothing but personal attacks
 
Candidate #1 was Trump, not Clinton. Notice that the surveillance application never mentions Candidate #2 in the context of funding.

Jesus Christ. He didn’t even know T ump was Candidate #1
 
Professor Dershowitz on point, as usual:


  • Congress should ask the FBI/DOJ why they deliberately left out the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier
  • Congress should ask why the salacious parts of the dossier (pee-gate) weren't mentioned in the application (assuming it's not contained in the redacted parts)
  • Presumption of innocence only applies to your own side in this partisan climate
  • An indictment is not a guilty plea, but Democrats are improperly taking the indictment of 12 Russians as proof of guilt


To piggyback off @Darkballs as well

1)it was disclosed that a firm paid for it as well as there was a political funding to the dossier

2) a pee tape is irrelevant when you're following a money trail involving money laundering, potential embezzlement, fraud, and conspiracy against a country. Also, seeing as how Page had nothing to do with the alleged pee tape it makes it a moot point . The FISA request was for Page not tRUmp. The pee tape is irrelevant .

3) presumption of innocence sure that exists however when you're not coming to the country to avoid prosecution we can infer you're likely guilty.

4) To get an indictment you need to show a likelihood that a crime was committed via evidence given to a grand jury .Combine that with a refusal to show up in court and you look guilty as shit .

Once again Dershowitz showing he's just out for a check
 
Former NSA Intel. Law chief April Doss had a nice Twitter thread on the FISA info























 
Former NSA Intel. Law chief April Doss had a nice Twitter thread on the FISA info
























Stopped reading when it was stated intelligence officials are independent and not partisan. We have past evidence this is just not true. We have 100% evidence our intelligence community has lied and twisted intelligence for political reasons , and has led us to war. Pure propaganda what that person is spewing

Of course the VAST majority of those working in the agencies are great people. Just like most cops are great people.

But that doesn’t mean everything our agencies or police officers do is morally and legally correct
 
Stopped reading when it was stated intelligence officials are independent and not partisan. We have past evidence this is just not true. We have 100% evidence our intelligence community has lied and twisted intelligence for political reasons , and has led us to war. Pure propaganda what that person is spewing

Of course the VAST majority of those working in the agencies are great people. Just like most cops are great people.

But that doesn’t mean everything our agencies or police officers do is morally and legally correct
I do agree with you not everyone can separate biases from their jobs. However, you're doing her a disservice and yourself by not reading .
 
I do agree with you not everyone can separate biases from their jobs. However, you're doing her a disservice and yourself by not reading .

I read most of it. But I’m not gonna continue reading propaganda. And that’s what it is when it delves into the agencies can do no wrong. It’s crap

I’m so surprised how most WR liberals but this propaganda line. Do you guys give police agencies the same leeway? Because I do not.

There are bad people. Period
 
I read most of it. But I’m not gonna continue reading propaganda. And that’s what it is when it delves into the agencies can do no wrong. It’s crap

I’m so surprised how most WR liberals but this propaganda line. Do you guys give police agencies the same leeway? Because I do not.

There are bad people. Period
Did you read what I wrote? I agreed some cannot separate their biases. Her point is very valid, having partisanship when it comes to federal judges and nat sec is just giving opportunities to our enemies who attack and continue to attack the US and the partisanship needs to stop.
 
Did you read what I wrote? I agreed some cannot separate their biases. Her point is very valid, having partisanship when it comes to federal judges and nat sec is just giving opportunities to our enemies who attack and continue to attack the US and the partisanship needs to stop.

She’s saying by questioning the authority of these agencies is giving opportunities to our enemies. This would be like a police agency saying questioning any police officers actions would be helping criminals

It’s propaganda in my eyes. I guess we just disagree

This comes down to some people believing it’s ok for authorities to withhold some info from the FISA courts and others of us believing it’s not ok to withhold info. We disagree

All of us need to stay consistent if this happens in the future and the roles are reversed
 
I just checked backed in and I can’t believe a MOD was threatening to shut down discussions on the MAIN aspect of the Application. Yet he was cool with Dredd derailing for 2 pages with nothing but personal attacks

Are you high?
 
Well now you're going in circles.

That Politico article is almost six months old and references the document that we got access to yesterday.

We now know for sure that the "footnote" in question does not disclose that the DNC or the Clinton campaign funded the dossier. It just says that Steele was paid to find information that would discredit Trump's campaign. So on this point, Nunes has been vindicated.

We are not going in circles, you are being pedantic and narrow minded again. The Nunes memo states on page 2 section 1A "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campagin, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then know to senior DOJ and FBI officials." That statement is just blatantly untrue, the over 1 page footnote (pages 16-17) clarifying that Source #1 was hired by a law firm to look into Candidate #1's ties to Russia and that Source #1 was "looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign" was ignored in Nunes' attempts to try to magnify the impression of the Steele dossier's purported political bias. The Nunes memo served no oversight function, Nunes' Fox interview served no oversight function, both were clearly dishonest attempts to undermine the Mueller Probe by spreading misinformation to credulous Republicans. Nunes had previously colluded with the WH and had to recuse himself in shame, and if you have any doubts about this going on here as well, just look at how Trump was trying to misconstrue the release of the FISA application yesterday.
 
Ok, now we're moving away from the memo and into Carter Page territory. Just want to make that clear.

FBI had already surveilled Page through the FISC two years prior on suspicion of being a Russian agent. DOJ never brought charges. I guess they didn't find anything justifying a prosecution.

There is nothing illegal or even suspicious about pursuing oil and gas deals in Russia. That doesn't make someone a Russian agent. By a similar standard, some of my own business dealings make me an agent various foreign governments. Also, giving pro-Kremlin speeches does not make one a Russian agent.

The question though was why they were looking at him closely in 2016, not trying to condemn him to federal prison for being a Russian agent.
 
We are not going in circles, you are being pedantic and narrow minded again. The Nunes memo states on page 2 section 1A "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campagin, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then know to senior DOJ and FBI officials." That statement is just blatantly untrue, the over 1 page footnote (pages 16-17) clarifying that Source #1 was hired by a law firm to look into Candidate #1's ties to Russia and that Source #1 was "looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign" was ignored in Nunes' attempts to try to magnify the impression of the Steele dossier's purported political bias. The Nunes memo served no oversight function, Nunes' Fox interview served no oversight function, both were clearly dishonest attempts to undermine the Mueller Probe by spreading misinformation to credulous Republicans. Nunes had previously colluded with the WH and had to recuse himself in shame, and if you have any doubts about this going on here as well, just look at how Trump was trying to misconstrue the release of the FISA application yesterday.


What you and others see and what Waiguoren see are two completely different sides of the same story. He's never going to understand your perspective just like you can't see his. It won't be until a true narrative of the actual events comes out before the two vision get closer to one. Even then, the side that feels their version of events are being shown as false will find whatever tiny shred of wording to justify some part of their rationale.
 
What you and others see and what Waiguoren see are two completely different sides of the same story. He's never going to understand your perspective just like you can't see his. It won't be until a true narrative of the actual events comes out before the two vision get closer to one. Even then, the side that feels their version of events are being shown as false will find whatever tiny shred of wording to justify some part of their rationale.

The key difference is 1 side believe it is wrong that the intelligence community left out info in the application while 1 side believe it is not a big deal.

I ask the other side to imagine that Bernie Sanders gets the nomination. He in turn picks up an anti Israeli settlements/Pro Palestinian advisor. The Trump administration then hires a law firm who then hires a retired Mossad agent to dig up or create dirt about Bernie & Co. The dirt dig up is then taken to the FBI and then presented to the FISA judge. The Dirt plus the aides beliefs about Israeli settlements is used to spy on that Bernie aide.

Do you honestly believe it is right for the FBI to withhold the identity of the Trump Administration as the ACTUAL funder of the dirt used to get the warrant?

I do not want that to ever happen. But at this point and time it’s fair game for this scenario to happen
 
We are not going in circles, you are being pedantic and narrow minded again. The Nunes memo states on page 2 section 1A "Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campagin, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then know to senior DOJ and FBI officials." That statement is just blatantly untrue, the over 1 page footnote (pages 16-17) clarifying that Source #1 was hired by a law firm to look into Candidate #1's ties to Russia and that Source #1 was "looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign" was ignored in Nunes' attempts to try to magnify the impression of the Steele dossier's purported political bias. The Nunes memo served no oversight function, Nunes' Fox interview served no oversight function, both were clearly dishonest attempts to undermine the Mueller Probe by spreading misinformation to credulous Republicans. Nunes had previously colluded with the WH and had to recuse himself in shame, and if you have any doubts about this going on here as well, just look at how Trump was trying to misconstrue the release of the FISA application yesterday.

And Mr. Honesty keep omitting the underlined portion of that quote.
 
Back
Top