Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep. The guy knew about it more than two months before the public release.
Play with matches, get burned ...
"The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."
They want so badly to turn that fake news into fake history. There is no proof of hacking. Saying it as if it's been proven is a lie.
The fact that the Australian diplomat and Papadopoulos were both aware prior to the dossier release is key. Claims that the dossier was used for any FISA warrant is pure conjecture unsupported by facts.
You're probably right. The FBI should show the FISA application & put this to bed.
Who knows why they did what they did? But they started the investigation in July 2016.
You think the FISA court, which had already turned down at least one FBI surveillance request, granted a warrant to surveil a presidential candidate and his campaign team because an Australian diplomat claimed he was told of Russian activity by a drunk guy over dinner at a restaurant? Does that sound logical to you?
Yep. The guy knew about it more than two months before the public release.
Play with matches, get burned ...
"The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired."
This hubbub about the dossier is just deflection. It confirmed some things the FBI had already figured out, and we would still be seeing an investigation even without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
They want so badly to turn that fake news into fake history. There is no proof of hacking. Saying it as if it's been proven is a lie.
What evidence is there that the DNC was hacked? What evidence is there that it was the Russians? What evidence is there that Russia gave hacked material to WikiLeaks? This should be good.
The investigation should not be providing information until completed, it only creates more publicity and confusion.
Exactly.
Mueller has more important things to do than counter every RWNJ's latest conspiracy theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
