Fiat justitia ruat cælum

A Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences. 

"America First" should be manifested by PUTTING COUNTRY OVER PARTY!

I cannot help but believe that any/every Republican who is currently, actively trying to undermine the Mueller Investigation, and/or LOOKING THE OTHER WAY, is either …

• Consciously aware of, and/or possibly complicit in acts of conspiracy involving Russia, Wikileaks, Guccifer 2.0, the Trump Campaign/Administration and the 2016 POTUS ELECTION, or …

• Politically prostituting themselves in order to enact a conservative, oligarch-driven agenda … and willing to do so despite the direct benefits to a hostile foreign power!

that...

or the democrats got caught making stuff up to provide cover for their BS dossier which started the investigation

take your pick

here is my pick

a federal judge just ordered fusion gps to turn over 2016 bank records.

straightlinelogic

• The DOJ is “taking a fresh look” into the Hillary Clinton email ‘matter.’  
• The FBI has launched a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation  the day after the Clinton’s Chappaqua property catches fire .
• Former FBI Director James Comey’s full Clinton memo was released, revealing  felony evidence  of changes which “decriminalized” Hillary Clinton’s behavior. Oh, and  every one of the memos he leaked to his Cornell professor buddy was classified , per a sworn statement by the FBI’s “chief FOIA officer” in a sworn declaration obtained by Judicial Watch.
• The House Intelligence Committee will be granted access to “ all remaining investigative documents ,” unredacted, along with all witnesses

they are all going to go down.

a federal judge just ordered fusion gps to turn over 2016 bank records.

That's because FUSION under oath, asked Grassley to subpoena Deutche Bank records that could reveal Trump involvement in money laundering … it's a Republican deflection intended to obstruct the investigation.

Further, Grassley refuses to release the transcript to the public, of the Fusion 20 hours of testimony. An effort to conceal the truth from the public? 

Give us the whole story, not just the part you prefer to share.

 An effort to conceal the truth from the public? 

That's because FUSION under oath, asked Grassley to subpoena Deutche Bank

No the records were subpoenaed because Fusion was paying reporters to promote the story in the lead up to the election.  

Give us the whole story, not just the part you prefer to share.

Okay. Fusion is the one who insisted that they testify in a closed session, hidden from the public.

Grassley has already invited them back to testify in the open. Fusion refused.  

or the democrats got caught making stuff up to provide cover for their BS dossier which started the investigation

That doesn't address WHY the GOP are overtly doing everything in their power to undermine the Mueller investigation.

No the records were subpoenaed because Fusion was paying reporters to promote the story in the lead up to the election.

Link? 

Okay. Fusion is the one who insisted that they testify in a closed session, hidden from the public.

Do you know WHY? Do you care?

Grassley has already invited them back to testify in the open. Fusion refused.

After the BS they went through in closed session, WHY would the put their head on the block again. Grassley should release redacted transcripts of the closed sessions like he said he would. He has refused to even bring it up for a vote of the Committee. He'd rather leak selected portions that can't be vetted. 

Link?

The judge's decision should be very easy to find. 

 rassley should release redacted transcripts of the closed sessions like he said he would

Fusion, of course, insisted that their testimony be kept confidential. They are free to talk about anything they want to the public, including what they testified to. They wanted their testimony to be secret, but there's  no gag order keeping them from releasing any information they want. 

The judge's decision should be very easy to find.

The judge's decision has NOTHING to do with the motivation for the Congress subpoenaing Fusions bank records. That would have to be a copy of the subpoena itself that states the reasoning. 

Fusion, of course, insisted that their testimony be kept confidential.

Actually, NO, no they didn't. They wanted to review the transcript and INSURE that the names of CONFIDENT CONTACTS were kept CONFIDENTIAL. That being done, they want the transcript released and Grassley refuses to even bring it up for a vote. 

They are free to talk about anything they want to the public, including what they testified to. They wanted their testimony to be secret, but there's no gag order keeping them from releasing any information they want.

Again, they want their testimony to be made PUBLIC. They do not have the authority to release a Congressional transcript. Hell, the members on the freaking committee don't even have that authority. Sheesh. 

Give us the whole story,

the whole story is simple...

they are all going down, the rest is just hearsay, opinion or gossip.

stay tuned as things will get real interesting fast enough for hillary and her gang.

enjoy the show.

Cheers

The judge's decision has NOTHING to do with the motivation for the Congress subpoenaing Fusions bank records

Of course it does. It's in the opinion .Plus, here's the filing laying out the payments to media members by fusion who reported on the matter:

scribd

Actually, NO, no they didn't

Why do you keep making statements that are easily disproved? As Senator Grassley's spokesman  said, " When  faced with a subpoena from the Chairman and Ranking Member , Mr. Simpson refused to provide public testimony, using his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to negotiate for a  closed-door interview ," 

Again, they want their testimony to be made PUBLIC. They do not have the authority to release a Congressional transcript

They can release what the substance of what they said to the public. There's nothing that stops them from that.  Congress can't release the actual transcript, because they forced Congress to keep it secret as part of their agreement to testify. But nothing stops them from saying "this is what we told Congress" and the op-ed they recently published demonstrates that. 

Fusion is playing you for a fool. They demanded secrecy before Congress and are now trying to pretend they want transparency for p.r. reasons, even though they obviously want to maintain secrecy.  They have a standing invitation to testify publicly, which they've refused, and they've refused to release the  information they control. Congress can't stop them from making public any information about GPS they want.

Of course it does. It's in the opinion .Plus, here's the filing laying out the payments to media members by fusion who reported on the matter:

Yet you didn't post the JUDGES DECISION did you? Sheesh. 

Why do you keep making statements that are easily disproved? 

Yet you DIDN'T disprove it did you? You merely deflected. Fusion wants their testimony released to the PUBLIC. 

They can release what the substance of what they said to the public. There's nothing that stops them from that. Congress can't release the actual transcript, because they forced Congress to keep it secret as part of their agreement to testify. But nothing stops them from saying "this is what we told Congress" and the op-ed they recently published demonstrates that.

Here is an article from a source not even you can scoff at:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/trump-dossier-testimony-could-be-published-by-senate-judiciary/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

You can even watch the video of Grassley saying that the committee CAN vote to release the transcript. 

So I don't know where the hell you got your BS that the Committee's hands are tied by some kind of confidentiality agreement BUT the freaking Chair of the Committee says otherwise. 

Fusion is playing you for a fool. 

I'm not the one who's being fooled, nor am I the one deflecting. 

Yet you didn't post the JUDGES DECISION did you? Sheesh. 

Are you familiar with google?  If you think the Judge's decesion help's your case, by all means point it out. Just like Fusion, no one is stopping you from making your points publicly. 

I provided the filing by Congress that lays out in detail what it was seeking.  I've proven you wrong. I've The subpoena covers the record of payments to media members by Fusion. By all means, stop embarrassing yourself and provide something substantive or admit you are wrong, yet again.

I keep proving you wrong on the facts and you keep whining and trying to move the goalposts. 

Sheesh.

 et you DIDN'T disprove it did you? You merely deflected. Fusion wants their testimony released to the PUBLIC

I just proved that Fusion required their testimony be private and that Fusion continues to refuse to testify in public. They are the weak man who starts talking shit and pretending they want to fight when they are being held back and an actual confrontation is not going to happen but who wants to put on a show of how brave he is. They have the invitation to testify in public, they can publicly release the substance of what they testified to.  

Nothing is stopping Fusion from publishing all they have on this except Fusion's desire to keep it secret.

their BS dossier which started the investigation

The dossier hasn't been disproved, in fact most has been verified. Also, it wasn't the dossier that started the investigation but a drunken Trump campaign aide. Get the facts, it will do you a world of good.

bbc

nytimes

Are you familiar with google? If you think the Judge's decesion help's your case, by all means point it out. Just like Fusion, no one is stopping you from making your points publicly.

I asked you for a link and your answer was:

The judge's decision should be very easy to find.

So Sean, YOU were the one that stated that your posit was on the Judges decision, NOT I. 

I provided the filing by Congress that lays out in detail what it was seeking.

But not WHY. Which is the whole issue. 

I've proven you wrong. 

You've proven nothing beyond egotism.

I've The subpoena covers the record of payments to media members by Fusion. By all means, stop embarrassing yourself and provide something substantive or admit you are wrong, yet again. I keep proving you wrong on the facts and you keep whining and trying to move the goalposts.

You haven't linked the subpoena so why are you talking about it. Perhaps you can explain why which journalists and how much they were paid matters because the filing sure as hell doesn't. 

I just proved that Fusion required their testimony be private and that Fusion continues to refuse to testify in public. They are the weak man who starts talking shit and pretending they want to fight when they are being held back and an actual confrontation is not going to happen but who wants to put on a show of how brave he is. They have the invitation to testify in public, they can publicly release the substance of what they testified to.

Why keep repeating the same irrelevance? YOU fabricated some BS about 'confidentiality' blah, blah, blah as his reason he won't release it and that was proven to be BS. 

The ISSUE is that Grassley refuses to bring up a vote to release the TRANSCRPT of their testimony.

I bet my bank account and favorite Jeep that if Fusion GPS's testimony NAILED Hillary Clinton, Grassley would have printed thousands of copies of the transcript on the next fucking day and given them out gratis. 

Are you that hopeless with google?

Here's the ruling. Please disprove my claim now.

scribd

erhaps you can explain why which journalists and how much they were paid matters because the filing sure as hell doesn't. 

You claimed they weren't paid. I proved they were.

Now you want to talk about why it matters?

The ISSUE is that Grassley refuses to bring up a vote to release the TRANSCRPT of their testimony.

The transcript, which Fusion GPS ensured would be confidential, is irrelevant:

If Simpson and Fritsch have evidence of criminal or otherwise corrupt Trump-Russia contacts, why don’t they just tell us what it is. Why do they write a lengthy column caterwauling about how the Republican-controlled committees are supposedly withholding the information they’ve provided? We are not talking about classified information here; we are talking about Fusion’s own investigation. They say the Republicans refuse to release their testimony. Why wait for the Republicans? There’s nothing stopping Simpson and Fritsch from fully disclosing what their testimony was. Why don’t they tell the story instead of complaining about its not being told?

The only thing keeping Fusion GPS's story secret is Fusion GPS.
Read more at: nationalreview

Are you that hopeless with google?
Here's the ruling.

Now was that so hard?

Please disprove my claim now.

So let's see, what was it? Oh, I see it:

No the records were subpoenaed because Fusion was paying reporters to promote the story in the lead up to the election.

The Judge's decision contains NO PROOF of that claim. Thanks for playing. Try again. 

You claimed they weren't paid. 

Actually, I never made such a claim. I invite you to re-read my comments. 

I proved they were.

Actually, you haven't. 

Now you want to talk about why it matters?

My bad. I forgot some are incapable of holding two ideas in their head at the same time. 

The transcript, which Fusion GPS ensured would be confidential, is irrelevant:

You and Andrew agree,

I disagree and so does Fusion GPS and the Committee. 

Actually, Mac, they are trying to get to the TRUTH, something the left wingers don't seem to care about, that's what's got you worried and whistling past the political graveyard. You progressives seem to think that the Democrats, especially the Obama administration and Justice Department were all above board and squeaky clean, or that the Mueller investigation hasn't been tainted, probably irretrievably. Now, it seems, there were a lot dumb clucks involved in the various messes and now the chickens are coming home to roost and some are loudly squawking all about it.

Rex,

I am gratified that you now frequently use the phrase I attribute to Trump apologists …

If only you would use it judiciously instead of as a Pee Wee Herman defense.

No honest individual tries to obviously block an investigation that could possibly reveal, one way or another, what is real and what is not. Only the fear of an inconvenient truth generates that.

No honest individual tries to obviously block an investigation that could possibly reveal, one way or another, what is real and what is not.

OK....just HOW are they trying to block it. The last time I looked, it was still proceeding at a glacial pace. What has happened, though, is that other investigations have started, that target the investigators. If the Mueller investigation is without sin or fault, then the public has a right to know that. Nothing that we have seen so far shows anyone trying to impede or hinder Mueller's investigative processes. To question it's fairness is another matter.

Nothing that we have seen so far shows anyone trying to impede or hinder Mueller's investigative processes.

Except the Trump campaign dude and Trump's NSC dude LYING to the FBI.

Oh and there's the fact that Congressional committees are refusing to give Mueller documents. 

Except that...

Any Attempts To Undermine The Mueller Investigation Manifests "Consciousness Of Guilt"

The latent authoritarianism of lefty progressives becomes explicit. 

The latent authoritarianism of lefty progressives becomes explicit.

That, however, is not a substantive rebuttal; it's a whistle-past-the-grave yard pronouncement.

Let's have a discussion, not a pissin' contest.

It's hard to have a discussion when you make the absurd claim that citizens who question law enforcement strategy are guilty. It's a basic civil right of Americans to question and criticize the actions of the FBI, the DOJ and their local police department. The idea that criticizing the government is evidence of guilt is simply repugnant to a free society. 

You understand it's just partisan b.s. This site was filled with yours, and others, repeated attacks on the FBI during the pendency of the Clinton Email investigation. 

Fiat Justitia Ruat Cælum 

Let's remember you argued that the next time a prominate democrat is in the legal cross-hairs.

Fine! So tell us what was contained in the fake dossier that can prove that some kind of a crime was committed. Remember, it might have been started by the Republicans, but the DNC was only too happy to carry on with the dirty-work. If the left was really concerned about "country above party", it might quit trying to destroy Trump, because it is not going to work. Even if they got rid of Trump, they would still have Pence...their worst nightmare. Elections have consequences. The LWNJ's might get busy and trying winning a few.

It's hard to have a discussion when you make the absurd claim that citizens who question law enforcement strategy are guilty. It's a basic civil right of Americans to question and criticize the actions of the FBI, the DOJ and their local police department. The idea that criticizing the government is evidence of guilt is simply repugnant to a free society.

It's even harder when it begins with a statement the completely misrepresents the posit of the seed, which your comment clearly does.

The seed isn't about questioning law enforcement strategy nor is it about criticizing the government.

It IS about UNDERMINING an FBI counterintelligence investigation for partisan purposes.

Now that THAT is clear, please proceed with a good faith on topic comment. 

Fine! So tell us what was contained in the fake dossier that can prove that some kind of a crime was committed.

The Steele Dossier was never meant to prove ANYTHING. It is a RAW intelligence document. ANY use of the content of the Steele Dossier by Mueller has been and WILL be vetted, cross referenced and backed up by multiple sources including interviews with sources and a paper trail a mile long. 

Now it is PURE SPECULATION that Mueller has used the Steele Dossier for ANYTHING, yet the GOP and Fox are hanging it's content on Mueller and demanding that he answer for it's very existence. It's the only shinny object they have to deflect from the ACTUAL issue of Russian interference in our election, which they seem sadly disinterested. 

Now it is PURE SPECULATION that Mueller has used the Steele Dossier for ANYTHING.

But.....all the lefty libtards here on the forum have said everything in it that is bad about Trump, has been shown to be TRUE!  Oh...who to believe!

The canard of insisting that ALL liberals are of like mind has lost it's luster. Try harder. 

Even if they got rid of Trump, they would still have Pence.

Pence would be a relief from the childish tweets end reported temper tantrums and threats against NATO, the UN and our traditional allies.

Perhaps Tillerson or a real Secretary of State could accomplish something, anything, without being contradicted by a TWEET from the WH.

In fact if Pence replaced Trump, there would probably never be another Tweet by a POTUS.

It's hard to have a discussion when you make the absurd claim that citizens who question law enforcement strategy are guilty.

I made no such claim; I posited what I deem possible motivations behind thwarting and trying to subterfuge an investigation-in-progress … PARTICULARLY SINCE CONFESSIONS EXIST!

Pence will be indicted with Trump, that, for lying with regard to conversations between Flynn, et al and the Russians; as head of the Trump transition team, he was privy to the very information he claimed Flynn lied about!

That was not my comment, it was Sean's. 

The dossier is now the red headed step child that Democrats are running away from. It version 1.0 of the conspiracy, it was Carter Page, the prominent figure in the dossier,  who was conspiring with the Russians and triggered the FISA warrant. Now that went no where, it's magically transformed into Papadapolus' drunk talking in a bar with no mention of Page as the reason for the warrent.  The NYT can't even keep it's story straight over the last year about what led to the FISA warrant. 

But with Steele apparently having lied to the FBI and not been able to provide any proof of the wild allegations he made in the dossier, democrats want to  pretending itmeant nothing again. Just an October surprise that they paid to have planted in the media that ultimately didn't sink Trump's campaign. 

Pence will be indicted with Trump, that, for lying with regard to conversations between Flynn, et al and the Russian

When did Pence testify under oath about his conversations with Flynn. 

Who's next?  Paul Ryan?

Another Tweeter ...

ARTICULARLY SINCE CONFESSIONS EXIST!

Whose confessed to colluding with Russians? That's a huge story. I can't believe I missed it. Please post it. 

Pence need only be a co-conspirator. 

A co-conspirator to what? 

Granted, if the Democrats take the House they will impeach anyone and everyone without any particular basis in reality or law, but the idea that Pence will be removed from office (which will take at least 15 Republican Senators to do) for something of which there is still zero evidence is just preposterous.  

Granted, if the Democrats take the House they will impeach anyone and everyone without any particular basis in reality or law,

If that were true, they would have nailed Bush. 

but the idea that Pence will be removed from office (which will take at least 15 Republican Senators to do) for something of which there is still zero evidence is just preposterous.

I notice that you didn't include Trump. 

We'll have to wait and see what Flynn says Pence knew. 

If that were true, they would have nailed Bush.

Democrats have gotten progressively crazier since then.  The fever swamp dwellers fully control the party and they will impeach Trump for any made up pretext just to satisfy the loons who give them money.  

We'll have to wait and see what Flynn says Pence knew.

About a legal conversation with the Russian ambassador during the transition? Good luck.

You and others are simply wishing at this point. It's impeachment porn with no actual evidence to base your hopes on. When you guys try to make a case, you either make of facts or contradict what's actually been reported/testified to in order to justify your fantasies. 

You might as well hope a unicorn declares Trump unfit for office. 

The fever swamp dwellers fully control the party and they will impeach Trump for any made up pretext just to satisfy the loons who give them money.

Sorry to wake you from your partisan fever dream but the same freaking people that controlled the party in the house are STILL there. So they didn't impeach a POTUS that everyone knows violated the law. 

About a legal conversation with the Russian ambassador during the transition? Good luck.

Why did Flynn lie about it if it was legal? 

You and others are simply wishing at this point. 

You haven't a freaking clue what I'm wishing. 

It's impeachment porn with no actual evidence to base your hopes on.

The only hope I have is that the truth comes out and we figure out a way to keep foreign agents from meddling in our elections. BTW, I don't go for porn, real life works for me. 

When you guys try to make a case, you either make of facts or contradict what's actually been reported/testified to in order to justify your fantasies.

There's no 'you guys' here. I'll stand by the comments I've made here and elsewhere to refute that BS. 

You might as well hope a unicorn declares Trump unfit for office.

Trump is the one making the declaration of his unfitness for office on a day to day basis. 

It's hard to have a discussion when you make the absurd claim that citizens who question law enforcement strategy are guilty.

Or when someone says, "The dossier  project was solely funded by the DNC and Clinton through a cutout months after the Examiner project ended", which is blatantly false.

e dossier  project was solely funded by the DNC and Clinton through a cutout months after the Examiner project ended", which is blatantly false.

Awesome. Show me any evidence that someone else paid for Steele's work.  I'll make this very very simple for you. Steele, the author of the dossier, wasn't hired until the Free Beacon stopped paying for research into public sources. 

But please, provide any evidence that the Free Beacon paid for Steele's work. 

The Mueller investigation has already undermined itself due to the fact that Mueller was involved in the Uranium One deal and therefore has a major conflict of interest as the evidence keeps pointing to actual collusion between Democrats and the Russian government starting with the Bribe scheme that the FBI was investigating at the time the Uranium One deal was made and of which Mueller went to Russia during.  So, you saying that undermining the Mueller investigation is "Consciousness of Guilt" whose guilt are we talking about, Mueller's or everyone else's?

Some liberals get easily confused in the area's of facts and fiction and feelings

Some liberals get easily confused in the area's of facts and fiction and feelings

And some conservatives have little to offer to the conversation other than ad hominem pronouncements.

I'm an independent, who usually votes against the Democrats.

Some liberals get easily confused in the area's of facts and fiction and feelings

Stop the damn projecting.  Republicans wouldn't know a fact if bit them in the ass.  They've been putting out the fake news since Bush, and I'll be damned if I let you gaslight the country again.  Republicans use partisan investigations every time they get the power, EXCEPT when it comes to a republican.  Believe what you want, but don't push that bullshit about 'uranium one' or try to smear Mueller, A REPUBLICAN.  His investigation has already gotten indictments and guilty pleas.  Don't try to pretend there is nothing there.  I think some republicans are complicit in the Russia thing and that's why they are trying so hard to deflect and push fake narratives.  You will NEVER be able to stop the truth from coming out, and all we have to do is follow the money.  As in laundering.  Wait for it.

Thank you Mr. Hannity. 

Thank you , Wolff Blather.

Ohhh burn! /s

The Uranium One deal has been debunked many times; stop getting your misinformation from Fox and Friends; Clinton herself did not cast a vote in that transaction … nine separate agencies voted and the alleged "key" Canadian individual was out of the picture roughly two years before the transaction.

The only part of the Uranium One deal that has been debunked has been how much of the Uranium supply in the USA was sold to Russia.  The actual deal and how it was obtained has not been debunked at all.  Your say-so means nothing towards legalities and whether money exchanged hands illegally.  And, Mueller was involved in the Uranium One deal so he is open to a conflict of interest allegation.

A trip down memory lane:

 Trump Adviser’s Visit to Moscow Got the F.B.I.’s Attention.” That was the page-one headline the New York Times ran on April 20, 2017, above its breathless report that “a catalyst for the F.B.I. investigation into connections between Russia and President Trump’s campaign” was a June 2016 visit to Moscow by Carter Page. It was due to the Moscow trip by Page, dubbed a “foreign policy adviser” to the campaign, that “the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” in September — i.e., during the stretch run of the presidential campaign...

Seven months after throwing Carter Page as fuel on the collusion fire lit by then-FBI director James Comey’s stunning public disclosure that the Bureau was investigating possible Trump campaign “coordination” in Russia’s election meddling, the Gray Lady now says: Never mind. We’re onto Collusion 2.0, in which it is George Papadopoulos — then a 28-year-old whose idea of résumé enhancement was to feign participation in the Model U.N. — who triggered the FBI’s massive probe by . . . wait for it . . . a night of boozy blather in London...

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).....

So now, a new strategy to prop up the collusion tale: Never mind Page — lookee over here at Papadopoulos! But that’s not what they were saying in April, when the collusion narrative and Democratic calls for a special prosecutor were in full bloom. Back then, no fewer than six of the Times’ top reporters, along with a researcher, worked their anonymous “current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials” in order to generate the Page blockbuster. With these leaks, the paper confidently reported: “From the Russia trip of the once-obscure Mr. Page grew a wide-ranging investigation, now accompanied by two congressional inquiries, that has cast a shadow over the early months of the Trump administration” [emphasis added]...

Back in April, they leaked because they figured it would wound President Trump: After all, if the dossier had been used to obtain a FISA warrant, that must mean that the dossier’s sensational allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy were true. That is, the leakers assumed, just as many of us familiar with the FISA process assumed, that the Justice Department would never put information in a FISA warrant application unless the FBI had first corroborated it. 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.

Read more at: nationalreview

We are already beyond feeble republican attempts to change the narrative on the dossier. It has gone beyond collusion, although obstruction and conspiracy are probable, neither are the end.  Follow the money.   The dossier doesn't even matter at this point, and IT WAS STARTED BY REPUBLICANS.  That is just part of republican attempts to side-show and deflect.  YOU CAN'T STOP THIS. 

It has gone beyond collusion,

in other words. There is zero evidence of collusion so we are going to ignore it. 

 The dossier doesn't even matter at this point

Certainly not against Trump. But it does matter if the FBI used unverified opposition research paid for by Democrats to obtain a FISA warrant. It's only remaining relevance is to the possible  misconduct of the DOJ.

T WAS STARTED BY REPUBLICANS.

The "hands up don't shoot" lie  of the  Trump years. It doesn't matter how often it's  proven false, liberals will keep repeating a known falsehood to bolster their imaginary narrative.  

in other words. There is zero evidence of collusion so we are going to ignore it.

It's sad to see that the only way you seem capable to make your 'point' is to truncate a comment in a misleading way. 

Certainly not against Trump. But it does matter if the FBI used unverified opposition research paid for by Democrats to obtain a FISA warrant. It's only remaining relevance is to the possible misconduct of the DOJ.

That canard has already been address here. The FOIA warrant process and the level of conspiracy that it would take for that allegation to be true is galactic. It would have to include intelligence officers, FBI agents, DOJ investigators and lawyers and a panel of FOIA Judges. Seriously, that defies credulity. 

The "hands up don't shoot" lie of the Trump years. It doesn't matter how often it's proven false, liberals will keep repeating a known falsehood to bolster their imaginary narrative.

Now you know how we feel when we read conservative's comments. 

nlevel of conspiracy that it would take for that allegation to be true is galactic. It would have to include intelligence officers, FBI agents, DOJ investigators and lawyers and a panel of FOIA Judges. Seriously, that defies credulity.

That's nonsense. DO you know how the process works? Why would a judge have to be involved? Do you know what a judge does?

The extent of the "conspiracy" would require the lawyers submitting the application to simply not go into detail about the provenance of dossier based information. To simply call the rumors unverified reports without including that it came from paid opposition research. No conspiracy, just judicious drafting of an application. 

That's nonsense.

Actually NO, no it isn't Sean.

DO you know how the process works? Why would a judge have to be involved? Do you know what a judge does?

Yes I do Sean. 

The extent of the "conspiracy" would require the lawyers submitting the application to simply not go into detail about the provenance of dossier based information. To simply call the rumors unverified reports without including that it came from paid opposition research. No conspiracy, just judicious drafting of an application.

That comment proves that you DO NOT 'know how the process works' at all Sean.

The FOIA court has THE most intensive warrant application processes on the Judiciary Sean. There are multiple levels of vetting, multiple sources for each statement of fact and multiple statutory benchmarks. 

If you really ARE interested in the FACTS, there are multiple sources online, some with a lot of legalese, some layman articles that make it very easy to understand. BTFW, I've actually READ both types. You should give it a try. 

he FOIA court has THE most intensive warrant application processes on the Judiciary Sean....I've actually READ both types. You should give it a try. 

You know, you might be a little more creditable if you called the court by it's correct name.  Seriously, repeatedly calling it the FOIA Court while claiming to have some knowledge on the subject isn't a good look. .

This should be obvious, but FISA or FISC Judges,  by necessity, rely on the veracity information presented to them. They do not have the means or methods to perform their own investigation into the sources used by the FBI and they approve 99.7% of requests. The idea that they would have to be "in" on a conspiracy is just silly. If they FBI lies to them, they don't have the means to independently verify the sources. Do you think there's a separate intelligence service for judges that double checks the FBI's work? Because that's the implication of your bizarre claim they would have to be involved in a conspiracy. 

The idea that they would have to be "in" on a conspiracy is just silly.

Which was the POINT of my comment. 

If they FBI lies to them, they don't have the means to independently verify the sources.

No but they sure as hell DO have the means to question lawyer presenting the application about the veracity of the information, which BTFW is documented in the filing. 

It may also interest you that the DOJ lawyers from the National Security Division verify all of the evidence in a FISA application using what is called the “Woods procedures”. If they find any unsubstantiated assertions, they kick it back to the FBI. If the application clears the NSD lawyers, then it has to be signed off on by a Senior DOJ Official. THEN a DOJ lawyer presents it to the FISC.

So NOW 5 levels in the FBI AND 3 levels of the DOJ would have to be lying to the FISA Judges. That is a conspiracy of epic proportions with dozens of government employees, who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, putting their careers on the line.

TO WHAT END? 

Do you think there's a separate intelligence service for judges that double checks the FBI's work? Because that's the implication of your bizarre claim they would have to be involved in a conspiracy.

You either misread my comment or are purposely misrepresenting it. Here it is again:

That canard has already been address here. The FOIA warrant process and the level of conspiracy that it would take for that allegation to be true is galactic. It would have to include intelligence officers, FBI agents, DOJ investigators and lawyers and a panel of FOIA Judges. Seriously, that defies credulity.

Reading is fundamental.

All it takes is someone trying to rush through it even on your argument for the truth to slip through the cracks, or did you forget what supposedly happened in the Cleveland Office of the IRS regarding the applications of TEA Parties for tax-exempt status?  It doesn't require a conspiracy at all, just someone not doing their jobs in the first place.

Reading is fudamental:

It certainly is. You claimed FOIA JUDGES! would have to be in on the conspiracy right here:

"Ilevel of conspiracy that it would take for that allegation to be true is galactic. It would have to include intelligence officers, FBI agents, DOJ investigators and lawyers and a panel of FOIA Judges"

       That is silly. And now that your silliness has been exposed you are backtracking and claiming that's not what you meant.

       Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

All it takes is someone trying to rush through it even on your argument for the truth to slip through the cracks,

False. 'Someone' would be fact checked by another someone, THEN the Judges force them to make an argument based on jurisprudence and the facts as supported by the evidence in the application. 

or did you forget what supposedly happened in the Cleveland Office of the IRS regarding the applications of TEA Parties for tax-exempt status?

Seriously, that is a canard.

One issues I have with the CoC is that we're not supposed to reply to violations, just flag them. Which let's comments in violation to stand while they are addressed, IF they are addressed. 

That is silly. And now that your silliness has been exposed you are backtracking and claiming that's not what you meant.

Nope, I am NOT claiming that is not what I meant. 

What's 'silly is that you seem to be insisting that Judges wouldn't or couldn't be part of a conspiracy that includes EVERY OTHER participant in the process.

What's silly if that you have no issue with the idea that 5 levels of FBI officials and 3 levels of DOJ officials would be part of this conspiracy but balk at including Judges. Why is that?

Aren't you and yours the ones that insist that there is a YUGE problem with 'activist Judges'?

Is your posit that FOIA Judges can't be 'activist Judges'?

Is it that there are NO 'activist Judges'? 

Wouldn't Federal Judges, who has a lifetime appointment, be the prefect members of this 'Deep state' that y'all decry? 

I guess THIS is a topic you won't want to come back to!  Lol

Dammit, I used FOIA instead of FISA again!

I actually forgot about, the constant goal post moving becomes pathetic. There's no fun in repeatedly refuting self evidently asinine statements like "FOIA Judges" would have to be in on a conspiracy.  I get bored of explaining basic procedure and common sense.  

What possible point do you imagine has been gained against what I've said?  

What possible point do you imagine has been gained against what I've said?

What possible point do you imagine would be lost by answering the questions I asked, other than the answers may lead you to realize how ludicrousness of your position. Or perhaps the questions have already caused that revelation and that is why the need to lash out. 

RELATED TRIVIA QUESTION

Who was it that obtained the STEELE DOSSIER, and,

was FIRST TO TURN IT OVER TO THE FBI?

No guesses yet on the trivia question?

Interesting.

RNC

It's irrelevant

Hardly........

Do you want me to answer or leave it a mystery? 

Initials are JM. 

I just saw this but I will bite. According to stories over the last couple of months, some Republican originally attempted to purchase the dossier, but after seeing how much BS was in it, that person declined.

Hillary, however, said..."Hey, let me see that". The rest is history.

some Republican originally attempted to purchase the dossier,

Some 'not for Trump' GOP donor, the Washington Free Beacon,  funded the dossier until Trump won the primary, then Fusion GPS went to the only other possible client.

“I think most serious people understand that,” Clinton said. “This was research started by a Republican donor during the Republican primary, and when Trump got the nomination for the Republican Party, the people doing it came to my campaign lawyer.”
“He said 'yes,'” Clinton added, referring to her campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. “He’s an experienced lawyer, he knows what the law is, he knows what opposition research is.”

and the rest is history.....

he Washington Free Beacon,  funded the dossier until Trump won the primary, then Fusion GPS went to the only other possible client.

You don't seem to know what the dossier is. It's a document containing the work product of Richard Steele, who was hired and paid by HRC and the DNC after the website ended it's research of public information.  It's been proven time and time again, that the website had nothing to do with the dossier. 

OK, so a never Trumper paid Steele for the dossier, and when the never Trumper saw how much of a BS lie the dossier was, even they knew it would go nowhere and dumped it.

Again, after it was dumped, Hillary said "Hey, let me see that"

And the rest is history.

 a never Trumper paid Steele for the dossier, 

Steele was hired by Fusion and started his work after the Washington Beacon ended it's relationship with Fusion.  All of Steele's reporting (the dossier) was paid for by Hillary and the DNC. Since there was no relationship between the Beacon and Fusion GPS when the Dossier was prepared, it was never shown to the Breacon. 

I stand corrected...

saw how much of a BS lie the dossier was

The dossier hasn't been disproved. Most of it has been verified, some is still uncorroborated. Trumpites may wish it were all BS, but the more it get's looked into, the more it is proving accurate.

bbc

politifact

slate

All of Steele's reporting (the dossier) was paid for by Hillary and

False.

"IMO, Any Attempts to Undermine the Mueller Investigation Manifests "Consciousness of Guilt"!"

So far, we have persons who had a money issue before 2016, and a person who told a different story than the FBI already knew.

Soooo....what is Mueller "Actually" looking for again ?