Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source

Tanngrisnir said:

Why would I answer a pig-ignorant, loaded question?

Click to expand...

It's a rather simple question, if all this evidence was being destroyed why wasn't someone charged ??

hanger4 said:

It's a rather simple question, if all this evidence was being destroyed why wasn't someone charged ??

Click to expand...

LOL! You should either read the report of give Bob Mueller a call.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself, whistling past the graveyard of collusion with the Russians.

hanger4 said:

It's a rather simple question, if all this evidence was being destroyed why wasn't someone charged ??

Click to expand...

Ask Hillary?

Tanngrisnir said:

LOL! You should either read the report of give Bob Mueller a call.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself, whistling past the graveyard of collusion with the Russians.

Click to expand...

You're right, I'm not fooling anyone, but you're making a fool of yourself. This so called evidence wasn't intentionally destroyed to avoid revelation nor was it known if this information was even useful evidence.

hanger4 said:

Mueller's quote is an independent clause, it did not change. The only way it could have changed is Mueller lied. "did not establish" a conspiracy or coordination is etched in stone, no amount of whining, parsing of words or outright lies by you or anyone else will change that.

You've corrected nothing.

Click to expand...

Your unhealthy obsession with cherry picking a half of a sentence while ignoring the other 400 plus pages is telling. And what it tells us is not at all good or informative.

hanger4 said:

You're right, I'm not fooling anyone, but you're making a fool of yourself. This so called evidence wasn't intentionally destroyed to avoid revelation nor was it known if this information was even useful evidence.

Click to expand...

No, the report clearly states that it was intentionally destroyed. The only one here making a fool of himself is the one ignoranct of the contents of the report for fear of using it and yet who still tries to talk about it.

Still, your self-pwnage is fun!

Cordelier said:

Ohhh... you're misunderstanding me. The only thing I think is amiss is the attitude at the top of the Trump Administration. However, I'm not the fount of all wisdom... I could be wrong and so could you.

One thing I do know for sure is that John Durham is good at what he does. Very good. I've seen the man sink his teeth into something before... and I've seen him follow leads into unexpected directions. The man is like a heat-seeking missile where it comes to corruption and malfeasance. You should probably be aware of this.

Click to expand...

If you think the only thing amiss is the attitude at the top of the Trump Administration, then your perspective of the top of what was our intel services indicates that you've limited yourself in your choice of reading material for too long.
Here ... this is a nice summary to help expand your perspective ... and also timely given our discussion ... funny how that works sometimes ... read the whole thing and challenge what you can ...
FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law | National Review
EXAMPLE:

Tanngrisnir said:

LOL! So you don't actually understand that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' aren't necessarily actual criminal statutes and that impeachment is a political process?

Why am I utterly unsurprised by that and the fact you'd rationalize away twump's subservience to a hostile foreign power?

Click to expand...

How do you define "subservience to a hostile foreign power"?

I assume you refer to Russia, and I would ask "why do we ride to ISS with Russia if they are a hostile foreign power?"

If there is a hostile foreign power that Donald is in the pocket of, odds are it is Israel.

Just to keep things in perspective.....

haymarket said:

Your unhealthy obsession with cherry picking a half of a sentence while ignoring the other 400 plus pages is telling. And what it tells us is not at all good or informative.

Click to expand...

Your unhealthy obsession with pages and pages while ignoring the conclusion concerning a conspiracy or coordination is quite telling.

bubbabgone said:

If you think the only thing amiss is the attitude at the top of the Trump Administration, then your perspective of the top of what was our intel services indicates that you've limited yourself in your choice of reading material for too long.
Here ... this is a nice summary to help expand your perspective ... and also timely given our discussion ... funny how that works sometimes ... read the whole thing and challenge what you can ...
FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law | National Review
EXAMPLE:

"When it is established beyond a doubt that foreign surveillance of and contact with George Papadopoulos was used to entrap a minor Trump aide as a means of providing an ex post facto justification for the earlier illegal FBI and CIA surveillance of the Trump campaign, and when it is shown without doubt that Steele had little if any corroborating evidence for his dirty dossier, Mueller’s reputation unfortunately will be further eroded.

Yet the question is not merely whether a Comey, McCabe, or Mueller is atypical of the FBI. Rather, where in the world, if not from the culture of the FBI, did these elite legal investigators absorb the dangerous idea that FBI lawyers and investigators could flout the law and in such arrogant fashion use their vast powers of the government to pursue their own political agendas? And why was there no internal pushback at a supercilious leadership that demonstrably had gone rogue? Certainly, the vast corpus of the Strzok-Page correspondence does reflect a unprofessional, out-of-control culture at the FBI.

Just imagine: If an agent Peter Strozk interviewed you and overstepped his purview, would you, the aggrieved, then appeal to his boss, Andrew McCabe? And if Andrew McCabe ignored your complaint, would you, the wronged, then seek higher justice from a James Comey, who in turn might rely on a legal opinion from a Lisa Page or a brief from a James Baker? And failing that, might a Robert Mueller as an outside auditor rectify prior FBI misconduct?"​

Click to expand...

Greetings, bubbabgone. :2wave:

Too many "ifs" here, IMO! Whatever happened to integrity and honesty from those we put in charge, and WHY did it become okay to be what it currently is? "Let's pretend" should have no place here! :thumbdown:

Tanngrisnir said:

No, the report clearly states that it was intentionally destroyed. The only one here making a fool of himself is the one ignoranct of the contents of the report for fear of using it and yet who still tries to talk about it.

Still, your self-pwnage is fun!

Click to expand...

Then I await your substantiation that the report clearly states evidence was intentionally destroyed.

Oh, and of course the explanation of why Mueller failed to indict those that intentionally destroyed evidence.

hanger4 said:

Your unhealthy obsession with pages and pages while ignoring the conclusion concerning a conspiracy or coordination is quite telling.

Click to expand...

A vote for near ignorance while rejecting the larger amount of broader information. Now that is a novel approach. It is the Trumpkin way.

haymarket said:

A vote for near ignorance while rejecting the larger amount of broader information. Now that is a novel approach. It is the Trumpkin way.

Click to expand...

I've asked you numerous times how Mueller's quote changed;

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

You failed to answer. You did lie about what Mueller said once, but that too failed.

hanger4 said:

Then I await your substantiation that the report clearly states evidence was intentionally destroyed.

Oh, and of course the explanation of why Mueller failed to indict those that intentionally destroyed evidence.

Click to expand...

LOL! Thanks for admitting you haven't read and are fearful of reading the report.
A. Such substantiation is on page 18. Google it.
B. I'm not part of the investigatory DOJ team. Why don't you call the DOJ and demand answers? Get back to me w/what you find out, hmmm?

bubbabgone said:

If you think the only thing amiss is the attitude at the top of the Trump Administration, then your perspective of the top of what was our intel services indicates that you've limited yourself in your choice of reading material for too long.
Here ... this is a nice summary to help expand your perspective ... and also timely given our discussion ... funny how that works sometimes ... read the whole thing and challenge what you can ...
FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law | National Review
EXAMPLE:

"When it is established beyond a doubt that foreign surveillance of and contact with George Papadopoulos was used to entrap a minor Trump aide as a means of providing an ex post facto justification for the earlier illegal FBI and CIA surveillance of the Trump campaign, and when it is shown without doubt that Steele had little if any corroborating evidence for his dirty dossier, Mueller’s reputation unfortunately will be further eroded.

Yet the question is not merely whether a Comey, McCabe, or Mueller is atypical of the FBI. Rather, where in the world, if not from the culture of the FBI, did these elite legal investigators absorb the dangerous idea that FBI lawyers and investigators could flout the law and in such arrogant fashion use their vast powers of the government to pursue their own political agendas? And why was there no internal pushback at a supercilious leadership that demonstrably had gone rogue? Certainly, the vast corpus of the Strzok-Page correspondence does reflect a unprofessional, out-of-control culture at the FBI.

Just imagine: If an agent Peter Strozk interviewed you and overstepped his purview, would you, the aggrieved, then appeal to his boss, Andrew McCabe? And if Andrew McCabe ignored your complaint, would you, the wronged, then seek higher justice from a James Comey, who in turn might rely on a legal opinion from a Lisa Page or a brief from a James Baker? And failing that, might a Robert Mueller as an outside auditor rectify prior FBI misconduct?"​

Click to expand...

That part right there in bold.... can you tell me exactly what he's referring to? Because as far as I'm aware, it was the Papadopoulos connection that was the tripwire for initiating the FBI counter-intelligence investigation in late July of 2016. As far as I'm concerned, the Steele Dossier thing is a red herring - unless or until Steele's sources and methods can be verified, then as far as I'm concerned, it's gossip. I highly doubt that any Federal Judge granting a FISA warrant would have given it any more credibility than I do... unless they had a greater awareness of Steele's sources and methods.

Cordelier said:

That part right there in bold.... can you tell me exactly what he's referring to? Because as far as I'm aware, it was the Papadopoulos connection that was the tripwire for initiating the FBI counter-intelligence investigation in late July of 2016. As far as I'm concerned, the Steele Dossier thing is a red herring - unless or until Steele's sources and methods can be verified, then as far as I'm concerned, it's gossip. I highly doubt that any Federal Judge granting a FISA warrant would have given it any more credibility than I do... unless they had a greater awareness of Steele's sources and methods.

Click to expand...

The bold was what I've been telling you for days. They needed that tripwire so they created one using PapaD.

Steele's sources were Russian. After 3 years it's bizarre that you're not aware of the details surrounding the birth of the dossier. Truly bizarre.
Haven't you read the parts of the October 2016 FISA warrant application that was made public?

Did you read the entire piece or just what I quoted. What are you challenging?

hanger4 said:

I've asked you numerous times how Mueller's quote changed;

Click to expand...

And you were told quite clearly.

But still you continual to wallow in denial and falsehoods to protect your own fragile political beliefs.

bubbabgone said:

The bold was what I've been telling you for days. They needed that tripwire so they created one using PapaD.

Steele's sources were Russian. After 3 years it's bizarre that you're not aware of the details surrounding the birth of the dossier. Truly bizarre.
Haven't you read the parts of the October 2016 FISA warrant application that was made public?

Did you read the entire piece or just what I quoted. What are you challenging?

Click to expand...

I have read the unredacted portions of the October 2016 FISA warrant application on Carter Page. Are you aware that the words "Steele" or "Dossier" don't even appear in it? Which is unsurprising, since I'm given to understand that the Steele Dossier wasn't fully compiled until December 2016.

I've gone out of my way to avoid reading the Steele Dossier... for many of the same reasons I've always avoided reading any of the Wikileaks material going back to the Bush Administration. Since there's no way of independently verifying the sources and methods utilized in the construction of either, they are meaningless.

What I'm challenging is this assumption on the part of a lot of Trump supporters that there was this mysterious politically-inspired investigation of the Trump campaign prior to the late July 2016 disclosure of the Papadopoulos activities. To my mind, that's an extraordinary claim to make... and I have yet to see anyone provide me with convincing evidence that such an investigation did exist. Who was involved? What were the circumstances? Does anyone know? Or are you just making this up out of thin air?

Opps... I'm going to have to correct my last statement - I found the word "dossier" on Page 18:

"... according to Source #1... Divyeken [who is assessed to be Igor Nikolayevich Divyekin],... had met secretly with Page and that their agenda for the meeting included Divyeken raising a dossier or "kompromat" that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the possibility of it being released to Candidate #1's campaign..."

According to the non-governmental Committee to Investigate Russia website:

"Igor Diveykin is a former Russian security official who now serves as Deputy Chief for Internal Policy. U.S. officials believe Diveykin was in charge of intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the 2016 election.

According to Yahoo News, when Carter Page, one of Trump’s foreign policy advisors, visited Moscow in July 2016 to give a commencement address at school partially funded by Putin-allied oligarchs, he may have met with Diveykin. Similar information turned up in the controversial dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. It is unclear whether the intelligence reports Yahoo News references and the controversial dossier are one in the same. The dossier claims Diveykin told Page the Russians had compromising material on Hillary Clinton and on Trump, and he should keep the latter in mind. Page repeatedly has denied any connection Russian government sources in Moscow. "

Now the question in my mind is whether Steele was "Source #1" or was Source #1 talking to both the Steele and the FBI? Has that ever been established? Secondly, this alleged Divyekin-Page meeting occurred during July of 2016, and so would have been after the Papadopoulos-Mifsud contacts, and roughly concurrent to when the FBI was alerted. Presumably, the FBI wouldn't have become aware of Source #1's information only after it had initiated it's investigation on July 31.

Still though, I find the parallels between the two reported contacts - two independent channels - to be striking, don't you?

jmotivator said:

Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source | TheHill

But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.


.... How can Kilimnick be a known intelligence source for the State Department and have that not be mentioned in the Mueller report? :roll:

The Mueller team appears to have intentionally lied through misrepresentation. He knew that Kilimnick was not a Russian agent, but that fact was classified, so he could use Kilimnick to build his case against Manafort knowing that it would be a federal offense to divulge proof that Kilimnick was actually an Intel source for the United States.

Click to expand...

That's some nice speculation and assuming.

Why Mueller’s team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from its report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Mueller’s Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Any more opinion pieces you want to present as evidence?

Because, I can think of dozens of reasons he wouldn't disclose that for legite reasons. And I can think of no reason disclosing it would have affected Manafort's case.

what you are doing here, is trying to discredit the source, because you don't like the findings.

Your boy committed crimes. Once he loses the election, there is a good chance he will have to flee to a country that doesn't extradite.

Cordelier said:

I have read the unredacted portions of the October 2016 FISA warrant application on Carter Page. Are you aware that the words "Steele" or "Dossier" don't even appear in it? Which is unsurprising, since I'm given to understand that the Steele Dossier wasn't fully compiled until December 2016.

Click to expand...

Oh you've got to be kidding. The warrant application didn't use Steele's name so you don't think he was source they say they relied on?
They didn't use Hillary's name or the DNC either so you don't believe she or they paid Steele?
Incredible. Talk about a deadender.

I've gone out of my way to avoid reading the Steele Dossier... for many of the same reasons I've always avoided reading any of the Wikileaks material going back to the Bush Administration. Since there's no way of independently verifying the sources and methods utilized in the construction of either, they are meaningless.

Click to expand...

Yup. The dossier wasn't verified but there it was in the FISA application tagged as "Verified".

What I'm challenging is this assumption on the part of a lot of Trump supporters that there was this mysterious politically-inspired investigation of the Trump campaign prior to the late July 2016 disclosure of the Papadopoulos activities. To my mind, that's an extraordinary claim to make... and I have yet to see anyone provide me with convincing evidence that such an investigation did exist. Who was involved? What were the circumstances? Does anyone know? Or are you just making this up out of thin air?

Click to expand...

Again ... search "Papadopolus Set Up". Have you done that yet?

haymarket said:

I am basing this on observation, information, education and just plain being sick and tired of being sick and tired of watching this country go to hell on a roller coaster and Trump is greasing the skids as his Trumpkins cheer him on.

It is time we called people out and recognize they are fighting on the side of the deceitful lying devil with the orange skin and bad combover. And there is no excuse for it.

Click to expand...

You are basing that on confirmation bias.

Now if you want to say something that isn't an emotional post version of a primal scream have at it.

Cordelier said:

Opps... I'm going to have to correct my last statement - I found the word "dossier" on Page 18:

"... according to Source #1... Divyeken [who is assessed to be Igor Nikolayevich Divyekin],... had met secretly with Page and that their agenda for the meeting included Divyeken raising a dossier or "kompromat" that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate #2 and the possibility of it being released to Candidate #1's campaign..."

According to the non-governmental Committee to Investigate Russia website:

"Igor Diveykin is a former Russian security official who now serves as Deputy Chief for Internal Policy. U.S. officials believe Diveykin was in charge of intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the 2016 election.

According to Yahoo News, when Carter Page, one of Trump’s foreign policy advisors, visited Moscow in July 2016 to give a commencement address at school partially funded by Putin-allied oligarchs, he may have met with Diveykin. Similar information turned up in the controversial dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. It is unclear whether the intelligence reports Yahoo News references and the controversial dossier are one in the same. The dossier claims Diveykin told Page the Russians had compromising material on Hillary Clinton and on Trump, and he should keep the latter in mind. Page repeatedly has denied any connection Russian government sources in Moscow. "

Now the question in my mind is whether Steele was "Source #1" or was Source #1 talking to both the Steele and the FBI? Has that ever been established? Secondly, this alleged Divyekin-Page meeting occurred during July of 2016, and so would have been after the Papadopoulos-Mifsud contacts, and roughly concurrent to when the FBI was alerted. Presumably, the FBI wouldn't have become aware of Source #1's information only after it had initiated it's investigation on July 31.

Still though, I find the parallels between the two reported contacts - two independent channels - to be striking, don't you?

Click to expand...

It's not unclear. Mike Isikoff (working for Yahoo news) has acknowledged that they got their story from Steele, who wasn't supposed to speak to anyone in the media and he was fired for it.
The FBI used Yahoo News in addition to Steele as separate sources for their Page FISA application even though it was the same source. Naughty naughty. Verification using circular sourcing is a no-no whether intentional or otherwise.
After Steele got fired he kept feeding the FBI through Nellie Ohr (Fusion) to her husband Bruce at the FBI. Also a no-no.

It's pretty clear you're coming at this whole thing from your own narrow perspective.
Your personal lack of curiosity has kept you sheltered from information you'd rather not know.

bubbabgone said:

It's not unclear. Mike Isikoff (working for Yahoo news) has acknowledged that they got their story from Steele, who wasn't supposed to speak to anyone in the media and he was fired for it.
The FBI used Yahoo News in addition to Steele as separate sources for their Page FISA application even though it was the same source. Naughty naughty. Verification using circular sourcing is a no-no whether intentional or otherwise.
After Steele got fired he kept feeding the FBI through Nellie Ohr (Fusion) to her husband Bruce at the FBI. Also a no-no.

It's pretty clear you're coming at this whole thing from your own narrow perspective.
Your personal lack of curiosity has kept you sheltered from information you'd rather not know.

Click to expand...

Here's my thing, Bubba.... full disclosure and all, I'm not Trump's biggest fan. Politically, I consider myself a Democrat - pretty liberal on social issues, maybe center-left on economic ones, and where it comes to national security, I probably have more in common with the Republicans. All of that being said, I don't have any vested interest chasing after the President for things he didn't do... or trying to blow up mole hills into mountains. But by the same token, I'm not going to look the other way if laws get broken our our freedoms and national security is threatened. Patriotism over my partisanship. My only vested interest in this matter is that the rule of law prevails.

So in that spirit, I'm trying to look at this FISA warrant application through the eyes of a Judge... was there probable cause there to issue the warrant? Well, that's hard to assess since about 80-90% of the warrant is blacked-out to me. I think it's pretty easy to assume that those are the portions that don't involve Christopher Steele's allegations. It was Devin Nunes who saw to it that the warrant application was released, and the Steele Dossier was his main point of contention, and so I'm going to assume the parts we know about relate to Nunes' allegations. We can probably guess about some of the contents, though. We know, for instance, that Carter Page was the subject of a FISA Warrant in 2013-14, so I would imagine that information and any pertinent intelligence gained from the surveillance would probably be in there and blacked out. Who knows what else?

But let's say that 85% or so of the evidence didn't exist. Would the 15% pertaining to the Steele allegations be enough to establish probable cause for the warrant? I'm going to say "yes", but based on the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983) which lowered the bar on the standard of evidence required to the "totality of circumstances" test. In the Gates case, the police received an anonymous letter that Gates was selling drugs... and the police used the information in the letter to make circumstantial case for probable cause and obtain a search warrant. Gates argued that since the investigation was initiated by anonymous letter, then the whole basis for the investigation was flawed. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with Gates using the test laid out by the Supreme Court in Spinelli v. US, 393 US 410 (1969) - the so-called Aguilar-Spinelli test - which stated that the credibility of the informant had to to be taken into account before proceeding with the investigation. The US Supreme Court, however, struck down this ruling and the Aguilar-Spinelli test and replaced it with the less-restrictive "totality of circumstances" test that gave law enforcement a freer hand. If Aguilar-Spinelli was still the legal standard and the Steele Dossier was the only evidence supplied, I'd tend to agree with your argument on the FISA warrant. But that hasn't been the case since 1983. You can thank Justice Rehnquist, the author of the Gates decision.

Tanngrisnir said:

LOL! Thanks for admitting you haven't read and are fearful of reading the report.
A. Such substantiation is on page 18. Google it.
B. I'm not part of the investigatory DOJ team. Why don't you call the DOJ and demand answers? Get back to me w/what you find out, hmmm?

Click to expand...

No, the report does no say evidence "was intentionally destroyed." The report does say;

*The special counsel’s office “learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records,” the report said. “In such cases the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with the other known facts.”

Also;

*"faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States,” the report said.*

Coupled with the fact that nobody was charged with destroying evidence makes your statement;

"the report clearly states that it was intentionally destroyed."

incorrect. Not to mention Mueller doesn't know if relevant evidence was even destroyed.