AG Barr Appoints U.S. Attorney To Investigate Origins Of Russia Investigation

[BugI02]

I am unaware, to this date, of any of the disinformation in the Steele graphic novel having ever been corroborated

 

[BugI02]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dossier-still-frustrates-verification-efforts
Years later, Trump dossier still frustrates verification efforts

Last August, House investigators interviewed FBI deputy assistant director Jonathan Moffa about the Trump dossier, the collection of sensational allegations about Donald Trump and Russia compiled for Democrats during the 2016 campaign by the former British spy Christopher Steele. Republican lawyers had a simple question. Had the FBI confirmed any of the claims in the dossier?


Moffa's response set a new standard for non-answers.


"So, I like to talk about this in kind of a living sense," he began. "Though, because the idea is, you're never — you're constantly evaluating that reporting, you're constantly looking at incoming intelligence streams and investigative results. It's not a snapshot in time thing where you would look at reporting and say, it is — we have nothing to refute this today."


Moffa had more. "You have to constantly be sort of doing that," he continued. "And so, our analytic process in looking at this reporting and all reporting, really, is that more ongoing sense. So at the time, we are constantly re-evaluating, as time goes on, is the information here supported by facts we have elsewhere, or refuted by facts we have elsewhere?"


OK, said a frustrated Republican lawyer. What about the dossier? "I was just curious if you analyzed or verified every fact that was in these individual [dossier] reports as they're coming in."


"Got it," said Moffa. "So I have answered that. We, in an ongoing way, were looking at those facts, and doing that research and analytic work to try to verify, refute, or corroborate."


That's how it has gone for Republicans trying to find out whether the dossier's allegations have been corroborated. For more than two years, since the dossier was made public by BuzzFeed in January 2017, Republicans have asked the FBI what it has done to try to verify the dossier's key allegations. They've gotten nowhere, apparently because the FBI has never been able to verify the dossier's key allegations.

Maybe they should have asked the FSB for a swatch of the golden shower sheets? You know, for DNA testing

 

[printcraft]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...dossier-still-frustrates-verification-efforts
Years later, Trump dossier still frustrates verification efforts




Maybe they should have asked the FSB for a swatch of the golden shower sheets? You know, for DNA testing

Well, if we are using the Mueller metric...
Trump didn’t present any evidence that he didn’t get peed on or do any peeing so we can assume impeachable activity occurred.

 

[jamil]

First, context...

It is, indeed. Once again, hence the investigation, as despite some folks believing that the Steele Dossier was completely fabricated, portions of it have been verified.

By whom? Peter Strozk? And when? Before they took it to FISA or after? And which oarts are facts?

Let’s keep opinions out of it if you only want to talk about facts.

I assumed your questions were rhetorical. Ok, I guess not. So, you're asking about people who believe that the Steele Dossier is fabricated. I am not aware of Peter Strozk's opinion of the dossier. However, Dr. Midnight, 17 hours ago, called the dossier "bull****," which I guess you can fault me for believing that such a statement was an indication of disbelief. McGrease, 3 Days ago, called the dossier "bogus." Ok that's a couple. DoggyDaddy, a week ago, called the dossier "Fraudulent." Based on the times I gave, you can determine the "before/after." You also asked which parts are facts. I made mention of one fact earlier in the thread, which I assumed you missed, and then stated if one wanted other facts from the dossier, they would need to look that up themselves. I assume you missed that as well.
So where is this opinion you referenced?

Okay. Let’s try this again. You said parts were verified. That is what the questions I asked are about. I’m asking you to give the facts that establish what was verified. Who verified it. And when it was verified. And say where the facts come from, and when the facts became evident. Was it before or after the FISA warrant?

In case you’re still unsure about what I’m asking, nothing I’m asking is about anyone posting on INGO. It’s just about the facts that support your claim that some of the things in the Steele dossier have been verified.

Why is this so hard? Why do you assume lines between that must be read into my questions? BTW, those last two questions are rhetorical. But I would like to know what facts you’re aware of that lead to your confidence about some of the things in the dossier. All I’ve seen is an article that quotes Steele saying some of the stuff is true.

 

[2A_Tom]

Thou art quite optimistic, Sir.

 

[Kutnupe14]

First, context...






Okay. Let’s try this again. You said parts were verified. That is what the questions I asked are about. I’m asking you to give the facts that establish what was verified. Who verified it. And when it was verified. And say where the facts come from, and when the facts became evident. Was it before or after the FISA warrant?

In case you’re still unsure about what I’m asking, nothing I’m asking is about anyone posting on INGO. It’s just about the facts that support your claim that some of the things in the Steele dossier have been verified.

Why is this so hard? Why do you assume lines between that must be read into my questions? BTW, those last two questions are rhetorical. But I would like to know what facts you’re aware of that lead to your confidence about some of the things in the dossier. All I’ve seen is an article that quotes Steele saying some of the stuff is true.

Ok... let's set some baselines:

Did you see this post?

"like"
-The Russians hacked the DNC, which was previously unknown

There's more, but I'll allow those who want to look a chance to see for themselves.

Second portion of the baseline: do you think that it is fact that the Russians hacked the DNC?

If your answer is yes to both baseline questions, then you have your verified claim concerning a portion of the Steele Dossier, assuming you believe US Intelligence agencies. But if want to disbelieve US Intelligence, then you're essentially admitting that the only way you would call something "verified," is if you saw the act committed yourself.

All the elements of my initial claim have been met. As to the "when" in relation to the FISA warrant, I'm not sure I understand you. If conventional wisdom is that the Steele Dossier was used to grant the FISA warrant, then you have answer as to the "when." I see no reason to speculate further, as, like I said that claim has been verified. I don't care about the "when." It appeared in the dossier, and was subsequently proven to be true. What you are asking I made no comment on, and is Segway into another topic.

 

[MCgrease08]

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report, released last month, dispelled all those wild theories while hardly mentioning Steele, except for a passing reference to his dossier being "unverified." That's significant, because the FISA request from October 2016 that rested heavily on Steele's information was marked "verified application" before the FBI submitted it to the court.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...t-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged

 

[MCgrease08]

And btw, the Steele Dossier did not reveal that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. That info came out in June of 2016 in a report by a cyber security firm called CrowdStrike, which the DNC called into to investigage after the breach.

The analysis that alleged that Russia was behind the DNC server breach was carried out not by the U.S. government, but by the private security group CrowdStrike.

CrowdStrike is the sole source of this claim, with their June 2016 report, “Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee” being the basis of the DNC’s Russian hacking allegations.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/06/24/...ryone-is-ignoring-about-the-russia-dnc-story/

ETA: The FISA warrant application (that included Steele's bogus info) wasn't submitted and approved until Oct. 2016.

OCT. 2016: Steele goes to the State Department to brief officials there on his reports. (Nuland is not present.)

OCT. 12, 2016: Steele compiles a report saying “buyer’s remorse” was setting in within Russia over the operation to support Trump. The report does not mention or discuss any Trump campaign associates.

OCT. 18, 2016: Steele compiles a report saying a source had “confirmed [a Putin ally's] secret meeting in Moscow with Carter Page in July.” The report says that during the meeting, Page expressed interest in a deal: in exchange for “stake” in an international business, Trump would lift sanctions on Russia. While Page told ABC News in April 2017 that during that trip to Russia he may have talked with a high ranking official in passing, he said that in other conversations the issue of easing sanctions may have come up, but “if it was, it was not something I was offering or that someone was asking for.”

OCT. 18, 2016: Steele emails Ohr in the early morning, saying he has “something quite urgent” to discuss. They talk over Skype.

OCT. 19 AND OCT. 20, 2016: Steele compiles two reports alleging Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, met with Kremlin officials months earlier in Prague. The reports say the meeting took place in August and was intended to limit the damage from the exposure of “Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page’s secret meetings in Moscow with senior [Russian] regime figures in July 2016.” Cohen has denied the reports.

LATE OCT. 2016: Steele continues to share his findings with the FBI.

OCT. 21, 2016: The FBI files an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, looking for authority to secretly monitor Carter Page’s communications. The application mentions Papadopoulos, discusses Russian efforts to recruit Page in 2013, details Steele’s information about Page, cites news reports about Page and other Trump campaign staffers’ sympathetic tone toward Russia, and lays out 28 pages’ worth of statements that are still classified. The application says: “the FBI believes that the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [Trump’s] campaign.” The application also notes that Steele and Fusion GPS were “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit” Trump. Senior FBI and Justice Department officials, including Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, sign off on the application. A judge nominated to the federal bench by George W. Bush, Rosemary Collyer, approves the surveillance. (Page has since claimed "falsehoods from the dodgy dossier ... started this whole thing against me.")

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russia-probe-timeline-moscow-mueller/story?id=57427441

 

[2A_Tom]

That's nothing but right wing click bait.

You need to post something from CNN or the NYT that says that the steel dossier was discredited!

Otherwise we know that it is just Trump Worship Chorea. TWC

 

[ghitch75]

That's nothing but right wing click bait.

You need to post something from CNN or the NYT that says that the steel dossier was discredited!

Otherwise we know that it is just Trump Worship Chorea. TWC

that post should be in purple right???...

 

[MCgrease08]

That's nothing but right wing click bait.

You need to post something from CNN or the NYT that says that the steel dossier was discredited!

Otherwise we know that it is just Trump Worship Chorea. TWC

You mean like this New York Times article published back in April?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/steele-dossier-mueller-report.html

But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out.

Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries.

 

[2A_Tom]

What you fail to understand is that in taking the Libprocrat TWS side I need not have anything to back up my assertions.

 

[NKBJ]

Oh my gosh people still think this is about left versus right?

 

[Dead Duck]

Oh my gosh people still think this is about left versus right?

No.
It's all about wrong versus right?

Oh.
So yes it IS about left versus right?

The Left is Wrong and the Right is Right.
And anyone who doesn't believe that is racist, homophobic and is an islamophob. Yeah. That's it but I don't know why. Just that it's what the internet has rammed down my throat for how long now? So back at you!

 

[jamil]

What you fail to understand is that in taking the Libprocrat TWS side I need not have anything to back up my assertions.

I am falling behind on my terminology. I know what a libprogcrat is. Now what is TWS?

 

[2A_Tom]

Sorry, I meant to type TDS.

 

[jamil]

Ok... let's set some baselines:

Did you see this post?



Second portion of the baseline: do you think that it is fact that the Russians hacked the DNC?

If your answer is yes to both baseline questions, then you have your verified claim concerning a portion of the Steele Dossier, assuming you believe US Intelligence agencies. But if want to disbelieve US Intelligence, then you're essentially admitting that the only way you would call something "verified," is if you saw the act committed yourself.

All the elements of my initial claim have been met. As to the "when" in relation to the FISA warrant, I'm not sure I understand you. If conventional wisdom is that the Steele Dossier was used to grant the FISA warrant, then you have answer as to the "when." I see no reason to speculate further, as, like I said that claim has been verified. I don't care about the "when." It appeared in the dossier, and was subsequently proven to be true. What you are asking I made no comment on, and is Segway into another topic.

I saw the post. I don’t doubt the intelligence community as much as I doubt the Democratic infected media’s reporting. It has been pretty shaky in the last 3 years especially. It’s been hit or miss.

My reply to you was going to be:

1) it’s not a known fact that the Steele dossier was the original source of the information that Russia hacked the DNC. You believe it presumably because you read some news report. I’ve not heard your version reported. So I wasn’t going to take your word for it. Since we’re only looking at facts, I was going to ask you to supply your source. Or just ask if you got that from Rachel Maddow.

2) it doesn’t matter anyway. This thread is about the investigation into why Trump was under “surveillance”. The DNC doesn’t have anything to do with that. So when I ask you to show me what was verified in the dossier, I kinda thought you’d show something that is relevant to getting the FISA warrant. That was what we were discussing when you started us down this path.

Since MCgrease did such a good job of digging up what appears to be actual journalism, I guess you kinda still owe some facts.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I saw the post. I don’t doubt the intelligence community as much as I doubt the Democratic infected media’s reporting. It has been pretty shaky in the last 3 years especially. It’s been hit or miss.

My reply to you was going to be:

1) it’s not a known fact that the Steele dossier was the original source of the information that Russia hacked the DNC. You believe it presumably because you read some news report. I’ve not heard your version reported. So I wasn’t going to take your word for it. Since we’re only looking at facts, I was going to ask you to supply your source. Or just ask if you got that from Rachel Maddow.

2) it doesn’t matter anyway. This thread is about the investigation into why Trump was under “surveillance”. The DNC doesn’t have anything to do with that. So when I ask you to show me what was verified in the dossier, I kinda thought you’d show something that is relevant to getting the FISA warrant. That was what we were discussing when you started us down this path.

Since MCgrease did such a good job of digging up what appears to be actual journalism, I guess you kinda still owe some facts.

The dossier made a claim, and that claim was verified. The onus is on you if you debunk that the Steele Dossier was the first to make that claim, not me. Not that it matters, because as already know the dossier was the basis of the FISA warrant, right?
Have you even read the actual dossier?

 

[Dead Duck]

The dossier made a claim, and that claim was verified. The onus is on you if you debunk that the Steele Dossier was the first to make that claim, not me. Not that it matters, because as already know the dossier was the basis of the FISA warrant, right?
Have you even read the actual dossier?

You mean there is a REAL dossier out there that has been ACTUALLY verified by NON-BIAS investigators? Who knew?



And all this time I thought there was only that one fake dossier that was made up and purchased by Hillary Clinton to start the proceedings for a warrant to get the ball rolling to discredit and de-throne President Trump.










.....and why would there even be a need to "debunk" or investigate a fake dossier? (other than backtrack it's origins and prosecute all those involved in it's creation)

It's like giving any credibility to people or organizations that were started with complete lies.
You know.... like Black Lives Matter and every ******* that kneeled for the national anthem. But they're still going even after "Hands Up Don't Shoot" was completely made up.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Kut knows this is crap just like planting evidence on bad guys to get an arrest or lying about seeing something for PC

sad that someone made a living enforcing laws has no problem with the justice system being abused in a coup attempt