(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(03-14-2018, 01:53 PM)Adam2012 Wrote: You mean the same Steele who was commissioned to obtain opposition research by Republicans? 

Abuse of the FISA warrant system? According to that great legal scholar Sean Hannity? 

The FBI interfere in the elections? You mean when James Comey came out about ten days before the election and said he's reopening the Clinton investigation? No, that didn't help Trump, did it?

Hey, I thought Donald was going to bring charges against Clinton. Maybe no evidence. Just like he was going to sue all the women who accused him of "misconduct".

Boy, Donald and his minions (Fox talking heads) can pretty much throw all kinds of stuff out there (no proof required!) knowing that there will be some who actually take the bait. Amazing.

You spin as well as a Whirlpool.

The bulk of your posts are simply insults using Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Do you ever actually provide detail behind your arguments or is this what I should always expect?

Not only is your comment about Steele irrelevant to the point I made, it doesn't help your argument. Fusion GPS was hired by the Washington Free Beacon in 2015, but they ended their research when he was the apparent nominee. In 2016, Hillary / Democrats hired Fusion GPS and then Fusion GPS hired Steele. Unless I'm mistaken, Steele wasn't involved in the Republican request to research Trump. Again, this is irrelevant to my point, and it doesn't mean Hillary (by your definition) didn't collude with Steele (a foreign agent) and the FBI to undermine Trump's candidacy.

I know you think you're the smartest person in every room you enter, but some people have a basic understanding of how the warrant application process works. We already know that the dossier was the basis for the FISA warrant, and without it, it wouldn't have been granted. The dossier was not verified; the verification of an informant (Steele) must be confirmed before using their testimony / observations for the basis of a warrant. Let's ignore that they went against case law and FBI protocal and skip to the times the FISA warrant was renewed. Comey has testified that the dossier was "salacious and unverified". He signed off on renewing the FISA warrant even knowing that the probable cause used to obtain the warrant was unverified. 

The FBI interviewed Hillary without recording the conversation (unheard of), allowed them to dispose of evidence without consequence, and exonerated her before interviewing her about her intent. So, if you think Comey talking about the investigation everyone already knew about hurt her more than clearing her of criminal charges despite despite having probable cause, then I think you make your objection to reality is on full display.

"Maybe no evidence"? They literally said they had probable cause to find that she committed the crime but chose not to charge her. What are you talking about?

I have said this stuff before but you always ignore it and claim no one provides substance or proof. I'd like to see you refute any of this.