Two Colleagues Contradict Brennan's Denial of Reliance on Dossier

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ues_contradict_brennan_on_use_of_dossier.html

"Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations."

Surprise, Brennan is a liar.

Common Sense 1 · May 15, 2018

Brennan telling tales again.........

Obama should fire John Brennan
July 31, 2014

In March, at the Council on Foreign Relations, CIA Director John Brennan was asked by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell whether the CIA had illegally accessed Senate Intelligence Committee staff computers “to thwart an investigation by the committee into” the agency’s past interrogation techniques. The accusation had been made earlier that day by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the CIA had “violated the separation-of-powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution.” Brennan answered:

As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn’t do that. I mean, that’s — that’s just beyond the — you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do. {…}

And, you know, when the facts come out on this, I think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong.

Now we know that the truth was far different.

trixare4kids · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ues_contradict_brennan_on_use_of_dossier.html

"Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations."

Surprise, Brennan is a liar.

He's disgraced our country. I have to laugh how he prides himself in being a "nonpartisan American". He's anything but...
I am not surprised to learn that Brennan lied while giving testimony.

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
https://www.realclearinvestigations...ues_contradict_brennan_on_use_of_dossier.html

"Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded memos did factor into the ICA. And James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier.” Without elaborating, he maintained that “we were able to corroborate” certain allegations."

Surprise, Brennan is a liar.

I know this statement by Brennan will definitely prove to be true.

When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.

Sam_Troy · May 15, 2018

trixare4kids said:
He's disgraced our country. I have to laugh how he prides himself in being a "nonpartisan American". He's anything but...
I am not surprised to learn that Brennan lied while giving testimony.

Just like Clapper lied to Congress.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Atomic Kid said:
I know this statement by Brennan will definitely prove to be true.

LOL!! You do know that the FBI and the IG did in McCabe, yes? Listening to Brennan eats your brain cells.

Do I assume that your retaliation in lieu of counterargument means you accept that Brennan perjured himself... like that dumbass McCabe?

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
LOL!! You do know that the FBI and the IG did in McCabe, yes? Listening to Brennan eats your brain cells.

Do I assume that your retaliation in lieu of counterargument means you accept that Brennan perjured himself... like that dumbass McCabe?

Your desperation is amusingly palpable. This isn't going to end prettily for you Trumpsters.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Atomic Kid said:
Your desperation is amusingly palpable. This isn't going to end prettily for you Trumpsters.

Heh. The "desperation" is your inability to actually address the issue at hand and instead attack the messenger.

You are going to be disappointed.

Xelor · May 15, 2018

My God! In the very first sentence in the article is found this: "the salacious and unverified Steele dossier." Well, I'm sorry, but I have neither trust of nor respect for writers who implicitly present as contextually binary that which clearly is not. The fact of the matter is that the Steele dossier has, as far as has been disclosed publicly, is not unverified; it is partly verified. To wit:

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
1. The dossier says Carter Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.
  - Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow.
2. The dossier says that Rosneft officials used their meeting with Page to push for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia for its support of armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine.
  - It is now known that the Trump administration sought to water down a proposed Republican Party commitment to send “lethal weapons” to Ukraine’s army, weapons the Ukrainian army would have used to fight off the Russian-backed separatists.
Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing-state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.
1. The dossier says young adults and swing voters were a central target in the Kremlin's campaign of fake news and social media chaos, with the hope of cultivating their anti-establishment anger against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
  - That assertion's veracity was established in congressional investigations into Russia’s misinformation campaigns during the election.
  - The Kremlin also successfully tricked American activists on the far-right and left into attending protests and signing up for self-defense classes in an effort to accentuate social discord, according to numerous media reports and analysis of Russian social media posts.
Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.
1. The dossier says Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there. The ties have been verified, but the exploits have not.
  - Agalarov and his pop singer son Emin have known Trump for years, and both men worked with Trump on the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013.
  - Emails revealed that Agalarov’s publicist Rob Goldstone had written to Donald Trump Jr. to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who supposedly had dirt on Hillary Clinton, as part of what Goldstone called "Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump." Goldstone allegedly organized the meeting at Emin Agalarov's behest.

Are there assertions in the dossier that have not been proven, as far as is publicly known? Yes. That 100% of of the dossier's claims are unproven (publicly) does not make the dossier "unverified;" however, the fact that parts of the dossier's content have been verified suggests there may be "there" there as go one or more of the remainder of its claims. It'd accordingly be grossly irresponsible not to rigorously scrutinize the remaining claims' verity, particularly insofar as some of those claims, if accurate (wholly or in part), portend existential criminal behavior and/or intents.

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
Heh. The "desperation" is your inability to actually address the issue at hand and instead attack the messenger.

You are going to be disappointed.

Newsflash for you. Brennan is not the issue. Try to stay up with the here and now for change and give up the desperate deflection attempts.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Atomic Kid said:
Newsflash for you. Brennan is not the issue. Try to stay up with the here and now for change and give up the desperate deflection attempts.

Brennan is absolutely the issue. If you can't see the problem with a CIA director lying to congress about an investigation into a presidential candidate then you are part of the problem.

But then that is pretty obvious by now.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Xelor said:
My God! In the very first sentence in the article is found this: "the salacious and unverified Steele dossier." ....

You miss the whole point. If I say that you murdered a hooker behind the Circle K it isn't verification of the claim if I show you've been to a Circle K.

The supposed, and wholly unverified, topics of conversation that you believe happened come straight from (in the most favorable scenario to your point of view) anonymous Russian officials.

Now, please elaborate on what you believe would be the motive for anonymous Russian officials to divulge such information?

chuckiechan · May 15, 2018

Atomic Kid said:
I know this statement by Brennan will definitely prove to be true.

His definition of "America" is the Amerika he believes we should live in.

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
Brennan is absolutely the issue. If you can't see the problem with a CIA director lying to congress about an investigation into a presidential candidate then you are part of the problem.

But then that is pretty obvious by now.

Show me one who hasn't lied or mislead Congress in one way or another at some point in their careers. That's the nature of the business in that sometimes the questions they are being asked forces them into tough choices between disclosure and national security concerns and there definitely already existed some issues and questions pertaining to the incoming administration and our national security with General Flynn being exhibit 1.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Atomic Kid said:
Show me one who hasn't lied or mislead Congress in one way or another at some point in their careers. That's the nature of the business in that sometimes the questions they are being asked forces them into tough choices between disclosure and national security concerns and there definitely already existed some issues and questions pertaining to the incoming administration and our national security with General Flynn being exhibit 1.

You have said the dumbest thing today. Congratulations!

Xelor · May 15, 2018

The rubric article states:

"Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as 'the Christopher Steele information' — was 'added' as an 'appendix to the ICA draft,' and that consideration of that appendix was 'part of the overall ICA review/approval process.'"
- There's no doubt that the relevant parties considered the content of the appendix; only a fool wouldn't. I also have no doubt about the difference between "consider" and "rely." People consider all sorts of things upon which they don't rely. The rubric editorial is one that, by dint of my reading and thinking about the merit of its argument, I've considered and found unreliable.
"[Rogers'] skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House."
- They may, yet they may not. Rogers says that it's clear the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton's changes of winning, but that there's less evidence of their wanting to help Trump. Well whom else could they have wanted to help? Johnson? The doctor running on the Green Party ticket? Seriously? Nobody had any sound basis for thinking that voters might en masse see Trump and Clinton as equally reprobate and thus vote for one of the other two candidates.
- It'd have been nice had the editorial's author provided a link to the specific instance of/public document wherein the NSA "parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt" on the noted conclusion.
- The public NSA report of which I'm aware asserts the same things as the rest of the ICA participant organizations have, save for Putin's explicitly having ordered the the cyberattack.
"The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources.
- Anyone in political strategy/research knows that opposition research is useful if and only if it's accurate. Why? Because nobody needs to engage outside research resources if one is willing to fabricate claims; one need only repeatedly utter them to an ignorant fan-base. Trump's myriad fabrications have made that plainer to see than nose on one's face.
- The veracity or untruth of any given assertion does not depend on who utters it, and the accuracy or inaccuracy of information obtained does not depend on whether or who paid for the research that uncovered the information.
"Clapper broke with tradition and decided not to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts from just three agencies — the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process."
- That remark reads well, but it's pure poppycock. One need only look at what the scope of those organizations' activities are to realize that the only way they're going to have relevant info pertaining to Russians hacking or co-opting the 2016 U.S. political process is if they serendipitously happen upon it. I'm sure they're all aware of instances of Russian hacking, but their scopes don't all include having a purview pertaining to political/cultural intelligence and propaganda operations a foreign actor conducts on U.S. soil.
  - DHS' scope is terrorism, not political espionage and propaganda influence campaigns.
  - The DoD's, thus the DIA's scope is military intelligence about overseas activities and capabilities in service of DoD "customers" ranging from forward-deployed warfighters to the military policymakers to the DoD acquisitions community. I'm sure the DIA is well versed on Russian military matters, but the Russians didn't, as far as we know and as far as the ICA and Steele dossier indicate, use its military to do anything vis-a-vis the 2016 electoral process.
  - The INR (DoS) focuses on diplomatic, foreign policy intelligence.

Sampson Simpson · May 15, 2018

Xelor said:
My God! In the very first sentence in the article is found this: "the salacious and unverified Steele dossier." Well, I'm sorry, but I have neither trust of nor respect for writers who implicitly present as contextually binary that which clearly is not. The fact of the matter is that the Steele dossier has, as far as has been disclosed publicly, is not unverified; it is partly verified. To wit:

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

The dossier says Carter Page held secret meetings in Moscow with Igor Sechin, a Putin ally who is the head of Rosneft.

Page vehemently denied that he met with Sechin. But in November, the House Intelligence Committee released a transcript of Page’s congressional testimony revealing he had in fact met with other Rosneft officials, including Sechin's subordinate Andrey Baranov, during a trip to Moscow.

The dossier says that Rosneft officials used their meeting with Page to push for the U.S. to lift sanctions on Russia for its support of armed separatist groups in eastern Ukraine.

It is now known that the Trump administration sought to water down a proposed Republican Party commitment to send “lethal weapons” to Ukraine’s army, weapons the Ukrainian army would have used to fight off the Russian-backed separatists.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing-state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

The dossier says young adults and swing voters were a central target in the Kremlin's campaign of fake news and social media chaos, with the hope of cultivating their anti-establishment anger against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

That assertion's veracity was established in congressional investigations into Russia’s misinformation campaigns during the election.

The Kremlin also successfully tricked American activists on the far-right and left into attending protests and signing up for self-defense classes in an effort to accentuate social discord, according to numerous media reports and analysis of Russian social media posts.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

The dossier says Azeri businessman Araz Agalarov knew the details about business bribes Trump had allegedly paid in Russia, as well as Trump's alleged sexual exploits there. The ties have been verified, but the exploits have not.

Agalarov and his pop singer son Emin have known Trump for years, and both men worked with Trump on the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013.

Emails revealed that Agalarov’s publicist Rob Goldstone had written to Donald Trump Jr. to set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer who supposedly had dirt on Hillary Clinton, as part of what Goldstone called "Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump." Goldstone allegedly organized the meeting at Emin Agalarov's behest.

Are there assertions in the dossier that have not been proven, as far as is publicly known? Yes. That 100% of of the dossier's claims are unproven (publicly) does not make the dossier "unverified;" however, the fact that parts of the dossier's content have been verified suggests there may be "there" there as go one or more of the remainder of its claims. It'd accordingly be grossly irresponsible not to rigorously scrutinize the remaining claims' verity, particularly insofar as some of those claims, if accurate (wholly or in part), portend existential criminal behavior and/or intents.

You are talking to dishonest, partisan hack deplorables,. they don't care about reality, how dumb their position is, how bogus their so called "sources" are, all the facts to the contrary, they just troll around the forum posting stupid one liners and deflecting. Deplorables indeed

Xelor · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
You miss the whole point. If I say that you murdered a hooker behind the Circle K it isn't verification of the claim if I show you've been to a Circle K.

The supposed, and wholly unverified, topics of conversation that you believe happened come straight from (in the most favorable scenario to your point of view) anonymous Russian officials.

Now, please elaborate on what you believe would be the motive for anonymous Russian officials to divulge such information?

I do not speculate on what be someone else's motivations.

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
You have said the dumbest thing today. Congratulations!

It's time you opened your eyes to the real world.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Xelor said:
I do not speculate on what be someone else's motivations.

LOL! Oh yes you do.

Example: What were Carter Page's motives for going to Russia in July 2016?

Xelor · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
LOL! Oh yes you do.

Example: What were Carter Page's motives for going to Russia in July 2016?

I don't know.

jmotivator · May 15, 2018

Xelor said:
[*]"The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources.

Anyone in political strategy/research knows that opposition research is useful if and only if it's accurate. Why? Because nobody needs to engage outside research resources if one is willing to fabricate claims; one need only repeatedly utter them to an ignorant fan-base. Trump's myriad fabrications have made that plainer to see than nose on one's face.

... you can't be that naive, can you?

I mean, your assertion is so easily destroyed by what you almost certainly believe.

Example: Were the accusations from the Trump campaign against Hillary true? Did they help Trump win?

I am fairly certain that your answers would be "No" and "Yes" respectively....

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
LOL! Oh yes you do.

Example: What were Carter Page's motives for going to Russia in July 2016?

Maybe it had something do with the privatized share of Rosneft worth tens of millions, if not hundreds millions that sold off to a secret buyer shortly after Page had secretly met with a representative of Sechin and Rosneft.

American · May 15, 2018

jmotivator said:
LOL!! You do know that the FBI and the IG did in McCabe, yes? Listening to Brennan eats your brain cells.

Do I assume that your retaliation in lieu of counterargument means you accept that Brennan perjured himself... like that dumbass McCabe?

Brennan is one corrupt little weasel who belongs in prison. Him, Comey, Strzok, McCabe..........they all lied about everything from the dossier to Hillary's email server. And I'll throw Mueller right in there with them.

Atomic Kid · May 15, 2018

American said:
Brennan is one corrupt little weasel who belongs in prison. Him, Comey, Strzok, McCabe..........they all lied about everything from the dossier to Hillary's email server. And I'll throw Mueller right in there with them.

Probably fully appropriate that you have "American" in red.

Two Colleagues Contradict Brennan's Denial of Reliance on Dossier

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Common Sense 1

trixare4kids

Trix has reentered the building.

Atomic Kid

Sam_Troy

Well-known member

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Atomic Kid

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Xelor

Atomic Kid

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

chuckiechan

Atomic Kid

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Xelor

Sampson Simpson

Xelor

Atomic Kid

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Xelor

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd

Atomic Kid

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Atomic Kid