- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 39,415
- Reaction score
- 10,099
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
An email chain does not negate physical evidence.
The email chain is physical evidence. Don't you understand how this works?
An email chain does not negate physical evidence.
Obtaining FISA warrants based on a list of unsubstantiated allegations contained in a dossier ( DNC and Hillary funded FBI oppo-research ) should have been very hard indeed...and highly illegal.
Anyone oppo-research firm can cook up a list of lies against the Political opposition
This is interesting. Fusion GPS is headed up by Glenn Simpson who's married to Mary Jacoby. According to WH vistor logs, Mary Jacoby visited the WH in April of 2016, right around the time Clinton and the DNC hired Fusion GPS
Huh, so there's a direct connection between the Obama WH and the dossier
In a June Facebook post, Mary Jacoby brags about her husbands influence in vreating the entire Russia narrative..
Did President Obama Read the ?Steele Dossier? in the White House Last August? ? Tablet Magazine
On the 15th of this month, OIG inspector Michael Horrowitz will be handing over1.2 million pages of documents obtained during his investigation to the House Judiciary commitee
This corresponds nicely with McCabes sudden retirement
Horrowitz seems like a straight shooter. While the Democrats and FBI and DOJ officials involved are doing everythibg they can to obstruct this investigation, Horrowitz is committed to real transparancy.
Check out the OIGs website and its search function...
https://www.oversight.gov/investigations
He has alibis and can provide proof of his movements. You need to work on your ability to see around your partisanship.
The email chain is physical evidence. Don't you understand how this works?
He has no proof but his "word" His passport would not show his trip to Prague if he entered thru the E.U.
An email chain does not place someone somewhere physically. An alibi does, don't you understand how this works?
He didn't provide an alibi, he alluded to one. There's a world of difference between the two. His public statement is a nest of easily disproven lies given the Sater emails.
Bull****. You don't know they are lies, anymore than anyone else does that has not investigated the alibi. If you testify to an alibi...wait for it...you are providing one.
It was damning evidence, gathered by a a well-respected investigator, that indicated an investigation needed to be conducted. And it is. And there is no direct evidence it was the only reason a warrant was granted, you'd post if if you had it. Although that too is irrelevant, it's just Fox news nonsense.
I really don't get what you're even talking about. If someone was hired directly by Hillary Clinton...no, even better. If Hillary Clinton personally investigated Trump and discovered he murdered people and composed that document and sent it to the FBI:
here you are claiming it's:
1. political and therefore discredited (?!)
2.A political document used to secure a warrant.
You do understand that even if everything you wrote was true, which it isn't, it's 100% irrelevant. Politically motivated investigations are investigations. Politically damning evidence is damning evidence. And the investigation is now in the hands of the FBI.
You make no sense. A "well respected" former head of MI6 Russia's intelligence, a long-trusted intelligence gatherer having provided countless actionable items on other issues.
You agree, he's the real deal. Yet you're talking about ****ing NONSENSE. Meanwhile, Steel was talking about this:
This guy literally got his family and went into hiding after the story broke that he was the author of the Dossier. But you're content to parrot the absurdities of Fox news. Gods man. If you think Steele is reputable, why are you ignoring everything he's said and written?!? You guys are inconsistent because it's all lies pushed by Fox/Trump.
The director had said it was unverified.
Thus it becomes whether the FISA warrant was issued based upon an unverified report compiled by a political campaign.
He didn't testify, the SIC canceled his testimony because he wasn't supposed to lie in public like this.
Have you not read the Sater emails?
Round and round, is his alibi valid or not?
Conspiracy theories aside, the only "connection" to the dossier is a respected MI6 agent with a lifetime of Russian informants who provided the information contained in it. Steele is solely responsible for it's content. Content that was so explosive that he turned it over to the CIA in horror. The most horrifying thing is that the entire document is checking out as fact.
The Steele Dossier on Trump Is Looking More and More Real
Your claim looks like nonsense to me.
Please cite this "verification" standard.
Please cite the requirement that FISA warrants only be issued based on such "verified" evidence.
Notice, I am not asking of Comey said the dossier was unverified.
Else, withdraw the claim please.
Oh really ?
Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/
" Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified.
In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10.
He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government."
Not even the dossiers author gives credibility to whats essentially partisans propaganda trash, but the Obama DOJ used it to launch a huge investigation and to obtain FISA warrants which led to the covert surveillance and unmasking of the political opposition prior to a Presidential election
There's a reason the NYTs ran that ridiculous Papadopoulos article. It was a blatant and dishonest attempt to shift focus away from the dossier as the basis for the Russian collusion investigation. The NYTs obviously thinks their readers are a bunch of imbeciles that lack the base intelligence needed to follow a basic timeline.
Do you have any proof, not counting his statement?
Steele staked his reputation on the information he obtained to write the dossier and is rightfully worried that it's disclosure endangers his welfare. Nothing he said there changes one bit of the many VERIFIED accuracies in the dossier. The fact that several high placed russian officials were abruptly removed from their posts soon after the dossier was leaked helps verify the secret nature of what was revealed and the anger of Putin at the leak too.
So, he's guilty until proven innocent according to you?
I do not know what the verification standards are for a FISA warrant request.
I do suspect that an FBI director would know those standards.
I do know that the standard is somewhat less than the 'probable cause' standard in criminal courts.
Thank you for the honest and reasonable reply, they are in short order around here.
Yes, they no doubt had somewhat less than probably cause, so it's entirely justified. Even just the Dossier is enough, much of it being corroborated by multiple sources. But clearly between the Russian-love, the DNC hacking, Wikileaks, the timing etc., it looks really bad. That's what everyone knows...there is a ton of smoke, so we hired an investigator to see what caused the fire. Trump plays fast and loose and has solved problems through bullying and legal threats/action all his life...that's just ill-suited to be in the White House. Remember, this is the guy that harassed Obama for years on the Birther issue, that had zero evidence.
See, defending Trump on the birther issue that went on and on...this just isn't reasonable.Well, there was evidence pertaining to the birther issue-- it came from Obama's autobiography (the publisher subsequently stated there was an editing error, which was cause of the confusion).
Your own claim that they only used the Dossier is "unsubstantiated". Further, you're just shifting words. You said "unverified" before, and couldn't define it, or source it...so now you say "unsubstantiated", which is false. The Dosser is largely supported by corroborated evidence. Certainly enough for "just below probable cause", as you noted...That the FBI apparently used what the director has said was "unsubstantiated" to get a FISA warrant is a problem, in light of the fact the FBI at the same time was agreeing that Clinton had broke the law and saying that it was no big deal.
This is so obvious and so lengthy that you must be kidding with me.1. What exactly has Trump done to show 'Russia-love'?
Then it must be recognized that anyone would offer that up as a reason to doubt the CIA/FBI/NSA, is not serious.2. It must be recognized that Russia has denied hacking the DNC, and Wikileaks has denied that Russia was its source,
See, defending Trump on the birther issue that went on and on...this just isn't reasonable.
Your own claim that they only used the Dossier is "unsubstantiated". Further, you're just shifting words. You said "unverified" before, and couldn't define it, or source it...so now you say "unsubstantiated", which is false. The Dosser is largely supported by corroborated evidence. Certainly enough for "just below probable cause", as you noted...
Did the FBI at that time, verify for themselves the entire contenst of the Dossier, no, of course not...that would require an entire investigation, one for which you may need to get a FISA warrant...
This is so obvious and so lengthy that you must be kidding with me.
Then it must be recognized that anyone would offer that up as a reason to doubt the CIA/FBI/NSA, is not serious.
This doesn't just embarrass the FBI, it discredits the functions of the FISA Court...moreso than it's already discredited.
Everyone suspected the sketchy Steele Dossier was what corrupt FBI and DOJ officials used to get the October 2016 FISA warrant against Trump. FBI and DOJ officials refuse to answer that question publicly.
Despite a hundred different ways congressional investigators have asked the question, and despite numerous on-camera questions to FBI and DOJ officials about the 2016 FISA process, no-one had definitively confirmed the Christopher Steele ‘Russian Dossier’ was the underlying evidence for the 2016 FISA application to gain wiretaps and electronic surveillance upon presidential candidate Donald Trump. UNTIL NOW.
Senator Lindsey Graham just confirmed the sketchy Steele Dossier was used to get the wiretap and surveillance warrant from the FISA court. Brian Kilmead understood what he was hearing was serious, but didn’t quite catch the specific gravity of it.
snip...
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...teele-dossier-was-used-for-2016-fisa-warrant/
1. I didnt say Trumps actions on the birther issue was reasonable. I said that there was evidence it was true-- evidence which was properly explained away as well as evidence produced that it was false (the newspaper announcement).
2. I did not say they only used the dossier. BUT- the timeline seems to be shrinking as to what else could have been used. It appears the FBI went running to the judge shortly after obtaining the dossier.
3. Not really. Whatever 'bromance' one thinks exists between the two, it has to be tempered by the actual policies of the Trump Admin. over the past year. Certainly compared to the policies of the Obama Admin.
4. Its not a question of accepting Russia's denials at face value, or rejecting the claims of the FBI et. al.
If we are going to double down on the Trump/Russia collusion story, then at some point there is a need to start dealing with facts. And as a matter of 'fact' it cannot be said that Russia hacked the Dems (and its not a claim based on the lack of some sort of judicial finding. Its a claim based upon the fact the Dems never permitted the government to assess the evidence).
The lack of evidence is what drives those skeptical of the claims of the Trump/Putin colusion, coupled with the greater evidence appearing (and the dossier is absolute evidence) of Clinton's involvement with the Russian government in getting dirt on Trump.