Continuing to investigate the investigators.

[LostMarbels]

but the information was not gathered illegally. Will you accept this?

No.

Not any more than the purchase of Zyklon B by the Nazis was just an innocent business transaction. There was illegal intent behind the actions.

 

[LostMarbels]

There is nothing illegal about someone going to a Home Depot purchasing a machete, nylon rope, Garbage bags, and Zip ties. Once that person's wife disappears and is fond bound with zip ties, duct tape over her mouth, killed/dismembered by a machete, and thrown away in multiple trash bags... now it's a different story once you find that Home Depot receipt, isn't it?

You are attempting to isolate their crimes form the documented premeditation, and demonstrated intent.

 

[Tom 1]

The FBI is a part of it. Surprise, surprise they defended their own interests.

Ahhh I get it. If anything contradicts your fantasy, it’s because they’re all part of the plot. Gottit.

 

[Tom 1]

No it's not. This opposition research was used in the commission of a crime multiple crimes. They used it to lie to the courts using it as a form of substantiation for warrants. And had people prosecuted over it.

Even in the first sense, they did not disclose this opposition research as is required by law. So no. Neither coming nor going did they ever follow the law.

Please get to a point. One crime, just one single thing you can clearly show was an illegal act and has been shown to be illegal. Someone charged and convicted of anything in relation to anything you have said, or just formally charged. Just one example please, to get started.

 

[Kentonio]

There is nothing illegal about someone going to a Home Depot purchasing a machete, nylon rope, Garbage bags, and Zip ties. Once that person's wife disappears and is fond bound with zip ties, duct tape over her mouth, killed/dismembered by a machete, and thrown away in multiple trash bags... now it's a different story once you find that Home Depot receipt, isn't it?

You are attempting to isolate their crimes form the documented premeditation, and demonstrated intent.

No, I'm not trying to do that. You are making a whole long list of accusations about illegality, and I'm asking you to prove some of them. Not by simply referring to others in an endless example of circular logic, but to pick out one and actually prove it stands on its own merits. Because that's how justice actually works, and if you can't do that then you can't prove it in court either.

To take your example, buying those things would indeed look deeply incriminating, however it wouldn't be enough to convict you. It's circumstantial, and sometimes even things that seem obvious can turn out to be nothing of the sort.

 

[LostMarbels]

No, I'm not trying to do that. You are making a whole long list of accusations about illegality, and I'm asking you to prove some of them. Not by simply referring to others in an endless example of circular logic, but to pick out one and actually prove it stands on its own merits. Because that's how justice actually works, and if you can't do that then you can't prove it in court either.

To take your example, buying those things would indeed look deeply incriminating, however it wouldn't be enough to convict you. It's circumstantial, and sometimes even things that seem obvious can turn out to be nothing of the sort.

What you are saying is not wrong. It's not illogical even. The issue is... how much information over the last four years have you dismissed outright? I believe you are ill-informed. Maybe not even understanding the position I hold in the first place, because you never even paid it any mind.

It tends to be peoples position to mock, ridicule and dissuade me from, or about my stance Rather than to actually understand it.

 

[Fantine]

What a waste of taxpayer money! The current administration creates fires (scandals) on a daily basis--so Graham decides to sort through the ashes of imagined scandals of yesteryear.
Vote him out. John McCain was able to bring out Graham's good qualities, but after his death Graham lost his Jiminy Cricket.

 

[Kentonio]

What you are saying is not wrong. It's not illogical even. The issue is... how much information over the last four years have you dismissed outright? I believe you are ill-informed. Maybe not even understanding the position I hold in the first place, because you never even paid it any mind.

It tends to be peoples position to mock, ridicule and dissuade me from my stance than to actually understand it.

I have zero interest in ridiculing you, and neither do I have any interest in dismissing information outright. The one thing I do insist on however is putting any information up to fair scrutiny. You'll notice I didn't just dismiss your first point about illegality with the Clinton campaign, I actually said I think illegality DID occur, just not in the manner you think.

If you think I'm ill-informed, then informed me, but please accept that I'm going to scrutinize information on its merits, I'm not going to believe something just because.

 

[Tom 1]

What you are saying is not wrong. It's not illogical even. The issue is... how much information over the last four years have you dismissed outright? I believe you are ill-informed. Maybe not even understanding the position I hold in the first place, because you never even paid it any mind.

It tends to be peoples position to mock, ridicule and dissuade me from my stance Rather than to actually understand it.

There’s a constant flood of nonsense from pro-Trump ‘news’ sites over there; the fact that there is a lot of it doesn’t make any of it true. The main purveyors of it know it’s nonsense - Steve Bannon summed up the thinking when he described D Trump junior as ‘the kind of guy who believes what he reads on Breitbart is true’. The GOP do it too, making a big hoopla of one pointless investigation after another, even having the gall to claim success when their own investigations reveal nothing worth bothering with. It’s all smoke and mirrors, nonsense piled on top of nonsense. The best that can be said of any of it is that your average GOP politician is great at putting on a sincere face and making it sound like they have something to say.

You can’t prove any of this stuff because none of it is true. I don’t see how that can be any more obvious. The isolated factoids thrown into the mix only serve to highlight how absurd the conclusions are.

 

[LostMarbels]

I have zero interest in ridiculing you, and neither do I have any interest in dismissing information outright. The one thing I do insist on however is putting any information up to fair scrutiny. You'll notice I didn't just dismiss your first point about illegality with the Clinton campaign, I actually said I think illegality DID occur, just not in the manner you think.

I don't have a problem with you or I wouldn't have engaged in conversation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement. I actually appreciate the conversation.

So what illegality do you think occurred?

If you think I'm ill-informed, then informed me, but please accept that I'm going to scrutinize information on its merits, I'm not going to believe something just because.

We have discussed these issues before. This is not the first time you and me talked about this. Where do I go? I don't even know what I need to say right now.

 

[Kentonio]

I don't have a problem with you or I wouldn't have engaged in conversation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement. I actually appreciate the conversation.

So what illegality do you think occurred?

I think they committed the same campaign finance crimes that everyone has been skirting around committing since Citizens United opened the funding floodgates. The idea that a SuperPAC can spend whatever it likes as long as it doesn't 'coordinate' with the campaign, is and always has been a nonsense. Never the less the Clinton campaign probably broke that law, and so did something illegal that they should be held to account for.

The reason I don't buy into the secrecy theory is because SuperPACs also have to declare their spending. It's not like anyone would have been fooled by CTR paying for the research not Clinton's campaign directly. Also as I said paying for the research itself wasn't illegal. The Clinton campaign could have done it directly and broken no laws.

 

[LostMarbels]

I think they committed the same campaign finance crimes that everyone has been skirting around committing since Citizens United opened the funding floodgates. The idea that a SuperPAC can spend whatever it likes as long as it doesn't 'coordinate' with the campaign, is and always has been a nonsense. Never the less the Clinton campaign probably broke that law, and so did something illegal that they should be held to account for.

The reason I don't buy into the secrecy theory is because SuperPACs also have to declare their spending. It's not like anyone would have been fooled by CTR paying for the research not Clinton's campaign directly. Also as I said paying for the research itself wasn't illegal. The Clinton campaign could have done it directly and broken no laws.

I guess I do not understand what you are attempting to imply. Did they break the law in your opinion or not?

 

[Kentonio]

I guess I do not understand what you are attempting to imply. Did they break the law in your opinion or not?

Yes absolutely. But the crime was the funding, not the obtaining of the information.

 

[LostMarbels]

They are talking about this topic live. Right now. No on questions whether these events or illegalities happened. We have all the evidence, we know it happened. No one understands why no one is doing anything about it. There is enough information to hang the Trump admin for negligence if no one acts on this.

 

[Kentonio]

They are talking about this topic live. Right now. No on questions whether these events or illegalities happened. We have all the evidence, we know it happened. No one understands why no one is doing anything.

It's FOX and Judicial Watch, what did you think they're going to say? Would you watch the Rachel Maddow show for an opinion on Trump?

 

[Tom 1]

They are talking about this topic live. Right now. No on questions whether these events or illegalities happened. We have all the evidence, we know it happened. No one understands why no one is doing anything.

Lol of course they don't question it. It's Fox! Once again, please start with one thing you can demonstrate as having been illegal, just one single thing someone has been convicted of or charged with. Probably you can find something. A bunch of hairsprayed crazies on the TV waving their pitchforks about is not something to be taken seriously. Find a person who did something who was involved in this who has been charged with or convicted of a crime, that would be a starting point.

 

[LostMarbels]

Yes absolutely. But the crime was the funding, not the obtaining of the information.

This doesn't make any sense to me. There was no 'opposition research' they knowingly paid Christopher steel to come up with stuff against Trump. They knew it wasn't true. They needed substantiation to continue going after Flynn and Page.

It's FOX and Judicial Watch, what did you think they're going to say? Would you watch the Rachel Maddow show for an opinion on Trump?

It doesn't matter. You take what is said and research it to see if it is real. I don't trust any of them.

 

[essentialsaltes]

View attachment 285436
Chairman Graham Releases Information

The public release of this information is a good sign that there will be no indictments. You don't just blast your trial evidence over the airwaves. This is just some harmless mudflinging to rile up the rubes.

 

[LostMarbels]

The public release of this information is a good sign that there will be no indictments. You don't just blast your trial evidence over the airwaves. This is just some harmless mudflinging to rile up the rubes.

In this election cycle I do not put it past being necessary to get the information out before it is silenced. Force the topic into awareness by forcing it to be discussed. No doubt the MSM and fact-checkers are all over this making it even more widespread.

 

[Kentonio]

This doesn't make any sense to me. There was no 'opposition research' they knowingly paid Christopher steel to come up with stuff against Trump. They knew it wasn't true. They needed substantiation to continue going after Flynn and Page.

That's not what happened. Fusion had been paid by Republicans who wanted material to use against Trump in the primaries. In Spring of 2016 it was clear Trump was going to be the nominee so the Republican funders ended the contract. Shortly afterwards the Democrats took over that contract. Fusion were not told what to look for, they worked on a broad remit. The following is what Fusion CEO Glenn Simpson testified to congress under oath.

"MR.SIMPSON:I that's I think covered -our client relationships are confidential, and so I can't get into what anyone specifically told me. I think I can speak more broadly and say that it was an open-ended look at Donald Trump's business career and his litigation history and his relationships with questionable people, how much he was really worth, how he ran his casinos, what kind of performance he had in other lines of work."

At the point this happened Fusion GPS hadn't even hired Christopher Steele to conduct research. Steele was hired as a contractor in June, delivered his first report to Fusion on June 20th, and made his first contact with the FBI on July 5th.

If you haven't already done so, I'd strongly advise you to read the congressional transcript from Glenn Simpsons appearance. He explains very clearly what happened.

Read the full transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder's House intel panel testimony on the Trump dossier

Please bear in mind that he gave this testimony under oath and thus penalty of perjury. It might be worth asking whether the things you've heard that disagree with it were made under similar conditions, or whether they were just people's opinions/theories.