Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    The Steele dossier //
Page 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 146

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
The Steele dossier // Login/Join 
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
When AG Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton met at the secret airport mtg in Phoenix, Clinton had a secret service detail and Lynch had an FBI detail
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
President Trump will visit the UK next month.

Devin Nunes sent the President a letter w a suggested list of questions.


Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of HighZonie
posted Hide Post
Happy Birthday Attorney General Barr

William Pelham Barr is a two-time United States Attorney General. He was appointed by Donald Trump as the 85th Attorney General, and has served in that role since February 14, 2019. He had previously served in the position from 1991 to 1993, in the administration of George H. W. Bush. Wikipedia
Born: May 23, 1950 (age 69 years), New York, NY

Attorney General Barr puts former intel bosses on notice



The Collusion Delusion is in his cross hairs. Cool Cool Cool

* Diligentia Vis Celeritis *
"Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle .... They conquer by strategy."
- Sun Tsu - The Art of War

"Fast is Fine, but Accuracy is Everything" - Wyatt Earp

Posts: 2891 | Location: Arizona Highlands - Pine Tree Country | Registered: March 25, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said on Wednesday he is certain that someone on foreign soil was "running operations" against the Trump campaign.

The House Intelligence Committee ranking member was invited onto Fox News to discuss a letter he sent to President Trump with a list of questions to ask British Prime Minister Theresa May about the Steele dossier when he visits the United Kingdom next month.

Host Sean Hannity asked Nunes about the possibility that members of the U.S. intelligence community in the Obama administration "outsourced what would be illegal intelligence gathering" to allies such as the United Kingdom.

video of interview:

"I think we can be sure about one thing and that is that on foreign soil, someone was running operations against Trump campaign people Nunes said.

"Now, we don't know if that was our government, if it was the British government, or if it was some type of firm of some kind that was doing it. But I think it is definitely a fact, Sean, that at least on British soil , possibly on Italian soil, there were activities going on that we need to get to the bottom of."

Nunes: Not getting answers from the FBI

Nunes' letter, obtained by the Washington Examiner, cites a report from the Telegraph published over the weekend that said the leaders of MI5 and MI6, the United Kingdom’s top intelligence agencies, were briefed about Steele’s dossier shortly after the 2016 election, before Trump was told about them.

One subject of Nunes' letter to Trump is Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud, the man who told former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos the Russians had damaging information about Clinton

Although special counsel Robert Mueller's team portrayed Mifsud, London-based professor, as a Russian asset with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin in their 448-page report, Nunes says they decided to "cherry pick" information from news reports, leaving out that he is described as a Western intelligence asset. Nunes specifically noted that Mifsud has a lot of ties to U.S., British, and Italian intelligence services.

Nunes told Hannity that he believes Mueller's team, which he dubbed the "Mueller dossier team," knew British intelligence had warned their U.S. counterparts about Steele's credibility.

Nunes: There is no possible way that British intelligence folks read the Steele dossier, and didn't just laugh.

Nunes: If the FISC court doesn't go after the people that lied to them, it will not be believable that we should have such a secret court.
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
Just read the article on the declassification memo on Conservative Treehouse and I love the pic they posted at the end Smile

President Trump’s Declassification Directive Outlines Specific Process and Direction…. Posted on May 23, 2019 by sundance Now that President Trump has officially designated the Declassification Memorandum we can review the specifics for process, content and timing. Our previous research led to a set of expectations for the directive. Now, that we have the directive in hand, we gain increased clarity of purpose.

♦ First, President Trump has assigned ownership of the Directive to U.S. Attorney General William Barr. This part was predictable because the purpose of declassification would be to facilitate a DOJ review of how the intelligence apparatus was used in the 2016 election. Additionally, because the DOJ review encompasses intelligence systems potentially weaponized in 2016 for political purposes and intents, President Trump carries: (a) declassification authority; but also: (b) an inherent conflict. In this DOJ endeavor candidate Trump would have been the target of corrupt agency activity; and therefore would be considered the target/victim if weaponization were affirmed by evidence. To avoid the conflict President Trump designates the U.S. Attorney General as arbiter and decision-maker for the purposes of declassifying evidence within the investigation: …”The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling classified information.” (link) Additionally, AG Bill Barr does not need to assemble the intelligence product for approval by the executive (Trump). Instead the office of the president is granting the AG full unilateral decision-making as to each product being considered for declassification. This is a huge amount of trust from the President to the Attorney General, and a big responsibility for William Barr: [Sec 2] …”With respect to any matter classified under Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 (Classified National Security Information), the Attorney General may, by applying the standard set forth in either section 3.1(a) or section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence that relates to the Attorney General’s review referred to in section 1 of this memorandum.” (read more) The position-designate slightly works around custom insofar as the intelligence hub, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (Dan Coats), is given conference – but the decision making is designated to the Attorney General (Bill Barr). Essentially the DNI will be following the instructions of the AG for this Memorandum. This is slightly unusual; but given the purpose, necessary and expected.

♦ Secondly, following protocol, the Memorandum is specific to the agencies carrying the documentation that will be reviewed by the Attorney General: The Secretary of State (Pompeo); the Secretary of Treasury (Mnuchin); the Secretary of Defense (Shanahan); the Secretary of Energy (Perry); the Secretary of Homeland Security (McAleenan); the Director of National Intelligence (Coats); the Director of the CIA (Haspel), and the Attorney General himself (Barr). The agencies give insight into the intelligence product (ie. evidence) being reviewed. The Treasury and Energy agency was surprisingly notable: Considering the purpose of the Memorandum: “The Attorney General is currently conducting a review of intelligence activities relating to the campaigns in the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters“… The appearance of Treasury and Energy would indicate the pre-existence of investigative evidence; that would be subject to ongoing DOJ review; and potentially be part of ongoing proceedings. Potential target issues could include: (1) an investigation of Uranium One; (2) an investigation of the Clinton Foundation; and, (3) an investigation of matters related to payments to Iran. Treasury would come into play with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); which was part of the Uranium One process and also included the Dept. of Energy. Additional related matters could include George Papadopoulos $10k (Treasury); and The Clinton Foundation. [Obviously this is supposition, but there are not too many alternate investigative pathways for intelligence within Treasury and Energy.] The absence of FBI in the memorandum designation is not unusual as the FBI is an internal agency of the DOJ where Barr already has supervision and decision-making authority. However, that said, one does have to wonder where current FBI Director Christopher Wray, current Deputy Director David Bowditch and current FBI legal counsel Dana Boente line-up within the DOJ investigation itself.

♦ Third, within the memorandum the President does not allow AG Bill Barr to delegate authority. However, all agencies are required to respond to Barr’s authority. The purpose of the Declassification Directive also appears to permit the DOJ Inspector General to include classified material in the body of the upcoming report on FISA abuse; this memorandum is granting AG Bill Barr the autonomy to make that decision and declassify that content.

♦ Lastly, regarding the timing of release…. While the purpose of the authority is to empower AG Bill Barr to collect, process and declassify intelligence product that is part of the DOJ investigative review, this does not preclude the public release of intelligence information in advance of the IG report on potential FISA abuse. Much of the intelligence information may be collected external to the IG review parameters (FISA process), and may be released independently as part of stand-alone declassification that pertains to weaponized DOJ, FBI and CIA political activity. Ultimately the decision to release, and the timing therein, is now in the hands of U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

Posts: 9560 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
bigger government
= smaller citizen
Picture of Veeper
posted Hide Post
The CTH breakdown of this is well worth the read. It's especially interesting with regards to the DOE and Treasury links.

Sundance wasn't kidding when he explained all this as the "Big Ugly" very early on.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken
Posts: 8414 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Part 2 of the The Mark Steyn Show interview with George Papadopoulos is now out.
It is interesting hearing straight from the source.

Link to original video:

Link to original video:
Posts: 370 | Registered: June 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
A new name in the mix.

Svetlana Lokhova is a British academic who works at Cambridge. Lokhova was born in Russia but has a British passport.

Stafen Halper claimed she had an affair w Michael Flynn.

She has sued Stefan Halper, the Wall Street Journal, the NY times, the Washington Post, and MSNBC over stories which suggested she had contact with Gen. Michael Flynn on behalf of Russia

Svetlana Lokhova filed the suit Thursday in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking more than $25 million in damages from longtime University of Cambridge academic Stefan Halper as well as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post and MSNBC.

Lokhova alleges that Halper and the news outlets conspired to spread a false narrative that she approached then-Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn on behalf of Russian intelligence at a seminar dinner in England in 2014 and that Flynn and Lokhova had an intimate relationship.

Over time, as public attention focused on links between the Trump campaign and Russia — and after Flynn was fired from his role as national security adviser by Trump in February 2017, individuals hostile to Trump and Flynn seized on the alleged connection to Lokhova as evidence that Flynn had been compromised by Russia, she alleges in the suit.
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
comments about AG Barr investigating the attempted coup:

James Comey:

"Investigate whatever you wish about 2016 but don’t forget the people of the FBI must investigate and stop Russian efforts in the 2020 election. What impact will loose talk about “spying” and disgraceful talk about “treason” have on FBI agents and analysts?"

People like me no longer give a fuck what bothers FBI agents.

Maybe talk (and action) about spying and treason will stop the FBI from trying to interfere in elections and take down a sitting president they don't like.

This won't heal until the FBI feels a lot more pain and they acknowledge what they did.

John Brennan:

“The concern is that very, very precious source and methods of the United States intelligence community as well as our partners and allies abroad — those who share this sensitive information with us,”

So sick of hearing "sources and methods". The FBI and CIA have been hiding behind that screen like the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

or maybe "The king has no clothes" is also appropriate.

On a scale from 1 to 100, w 100 being the worst, the election impact by the Russians was a 2 or less. The biggest thing they did was to expose how the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders. How terrible (not).

The negative impact by the FBI/CIA was a 95 or more. They lied and attempted to frame multiple Trump campaign personnel. They leaked their lies to their favorite media tools, and then pointed to the planted stories as "proof". Too bad that "method" got exposed.

Then Mueller worked for 2 years to feed the DEM impeachment frenzy.

Why would we care about protecting sources and methods used to overturn a legitimate presidential election?

And it is very clear we need to overhaul the way the FISC court works. That has become a rubber stamp for anything the FBI puts in front of it.
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
Agree 110%
Posts: 9560 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
Originally posted by sdy:
comments about AG Barr investigating the attempted coup:
John Brennan:

“The concern is that very, very precious source and methods of the United States intelligence community as well as our partners and allies abroad — those who share this sensitive information with us,”

Yeah. It’s looking ever more likely that John Brennan was the principal orchestrator of the effort to tar President Trump as a Russian colluder. He doesn’t have an effective way to stop AG Barr’s investigation of the origin of that tarring effort, but the “revelation of source and methods” theme is his weak effort to impede it.

Look about you.
Posts: 5984 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
I read a quote from Brennan a few days ago to the effect that Trump was "trampling" the authority of the DNI by giving Barr permission to declass what he needed. My first thought was "Really"??? The DNI works for the President, not the other way around. To me this was a peek into Brennan's Soviet-style mindset of the intelligence aparatus being more powerful than ANY government official.

I agree he was at the heart of the coup, no doubt.
Posts: 9560 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
This is a post about Samantha Power (Obama's rep to the UN in his second term)

I despised Samantha Power.

Various aspects of this are being reported by Sara Carter, OANN, and PJ Media.

Some time ago, during congressional testimony, Samantha Power was asked why she ordered about 300 cases of unmasking of U.S. citizens from the NSA database. By ordering the unmasking, she found out who the U.S. person was that was captured in a foreign communication such as a phone call. The normal procedure is that the U.S. person is not identified.

S Power denied she had done that many. The big question, that never got answered, was "Well, who did order the unmaskings if Power did not do it" .

The new story is that one of the things AG Barr is looking at is those Samantha Power unmaskings.

According to OANN's Jack Posobiec, Power was targeting calls made about Israeli settlements.

Jack Prosobiec (OANN):

Samantha Power targeted any call made about Israeli settlements for unmasking. When she found Gen Flynn making calls she opposed, she passed information to Sally Yates who opened Logan Act investigation. DNI Coats has now reviewed all unmaskings

White House plans to declassify documents showing that Samantha Power was on a “one-woman crusade” for the Palestinians and against Israel in 2016. Repeated unmakings were used to ensure her effort did not fail

During the transition period in 2016, incoming Trump officials disagreed with the Obama administration's policy on Israeli settlements and made phone calls to world leaders regarding an upcoming vote in the United Nations to condemn Israel.

Information about these calls was leaked to the media.

Foreign Policy reported in February of 2017:

Nearly a month before Donald Trump was sworn in as president, Michael Flynn, his national security advisor designate, and other members of the president’s transition team launched a vigorous diplomatic bid to head off a U.N. Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.
The effort represented a fitful first foray into global diplomacy by Trump’s transition team, bearing hallmarks that have become familiar in the weeks since he took office. Their efforts were marked by a brusque disregard for diplomatic protocol and a hasty pressure campaign that changed few, if any, minds.


In Washington, Trump aides pressed allies, including Egypt and Britain, who both played critical roles in helping the Palestinians draft the measure, to oppose the resolution.

“We were all under pressure” from either Israel or the Trump administration, said one Security Council diplomat.

Nikki Haley, the president’s pick to serve as U.N. envoy, sought frantically to reach Samantha Power, then still serving as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, calling her office and cell phone number, a U.S. official told Foreign Policy. Power’s advisors suspected Haley would try persuade Power to veto the resolution, and she did not take the call.

In New York, Flynn himself placed calls to foreign ambassadors on the U.N. Security Council, including those from Uruguay and Malaysia, the latter one of four countries that put the resolution to a vote.

In December 2015, the Obama administration was caught spying on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government and sweeping up the content of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers.

Power was not an intelligence official, she was the U.N. Ambassador. Why was she unmasking anyone, let alone making hundreds of such requests? And why would she keep up this feverish pace right up to the moment she departed the White House?

The context was U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which stated that Israel’s settlements on the West Bank are a “flagrant violation” of international law with “no legal validity.” The incoming Trump administration was urging the Obama administration to veto the resolution. In addition, it appears that members of Trump’s team were lobbying allies to defer the vote, or to vote against the resolution. It sounds as though the Obama administration was lobbying allies in the other direction, trying to undermine the policy of the new administration, although this isn’t entirely clear.

In the event, the resolution passed 14-0 on December 23, 2016, with the U.S. abstaining.

Samantha Power


UN Resolution 2334 passed in the UN on 23 Dec 2016.

Originally initiated by Egypt, the resolution was co-sponsored by New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal, who stepped in a day after Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi withdrew the measure amid pressure from Israel and President-elect Donald Trump.

a number of high-profile Democrats issued public statements urging Obama to veto the resolution.

Most notably, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, one of the most prominent Jewish members of Congress and the new Senate minority leader, said he had “spoken directly to the administration numerous times” and “in the strongest terms possible” urged them to veto.
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Glorious SPAM!
Picture of mbinky
posted Hide Post
I despised Samantha Powe

Agreed. She is ignorant and she was placed into a position of power. A bad combination. I honestly feel she was the patsy for all of the unmasking that the Obama administration did.
Posts: 9560 | Registered: June 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post

Rasmussen polls:

" Just 34% of voters know that the compilation of the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."

thats why Comey gets away w saying "to this day" he doesn't know if the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier

better news:

64% of voters believe the FBI knew a controversial dossier was unreliable when they used it to obtain a search warrant against President Trump’s 2016 campaign

49% favor having the Department of Justice investigate whether the FBI illegally spied on the Trump campaign.

29% are opposed

22% are not sure
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
Hopefully we will soon know more about the Carter Page FISA warrants.

What has been released so far is extremely redacted. Based only on what has been provided so far, here is a summary of issues in the original warrant of 21 Oct 2016. More info could change the perspective on these items.

Page 2: Carter Page is “an agent of a foreign power” Wrong

Page 4: Carter Page: “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law” Wrong

Page 9: “the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign” Wrong

Page 15: “the FBI has learned that Page met with” Igor Sechin and Igor Divyekin. This information was provided by FBI confidential human source (Source #1). Christopher Steele is clearly Source #1.

The FBI and Mueller never verified that Page met with either Sechin or Divyekin. Also note this is straight from the Steele dossier that James Comey said wasn’t a critical part of the FISA warrant.

Page 15: “the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to Source #1” Wrong

Bruce Ohr warned the FBI that Steele was desperate to keep Donald Trump from being elected.

The State Dept warned the FBI that Steele’s reporting had known inaccuracies and that he was anxious to get his dossier material to the press before the election.

Page 16: “The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1’s ties to Russia.” Stunningly wrong

“identified U.S. person” = Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS
“Candidate #1” = Donald Trump

Page 16: “The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.” Misleading

How stupid could the FBI be to only “speculate” that Glenn Simpson was “likely” looking for information to discredit Donald Trump ?

Glenn Simpson testified that the FBI never interviewed him.

Remember that Perkins Coie lawyer Mark Sussman went to FBI General Counsel Baker and provided “evidence” that Trump Tower was secretly communicating with Russia through Alfa Bank computers. That meeting was 19 Sep 2016.

“Coincidentally” Steele had a 14 Sep 2016 report where he described a Putin relationship with “Alpha” bank. The named “Alpha” bank leaders were the ones who led the real Russian Alfa bank.

The “secret communications” link between Trump Towers and Alfa Bank computers was later debunked.

Page 18: The FBI writes that Carter Page met with Divyechin, and the possibility was discussed of the Russians providing the Trump campaign with compromising material against the Clinton campaign. Wrong again. And also the warrant is literally verbatim from the Steele dossier.

Page 21: “a July 2016 article in an identified news organization reported Candidate #1’s campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure Political Party #1’s platform would not call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces” Wrong

“identified news organization” = Washington Post

A Ted Cruz delegate proposed a Republican Party Platform amendment that called for providing Ukraine “lethal defensive weapons”. The “lethal” phrase was changed to provide “appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine”

Page 22: “an identified news organization published an article (September 23rd News Article), which was written by the news organization’s Chief Investigative Correspondent, alleging that U.S. intelligence officials are investigating Page with respect to suspected efforts by the Russian Government to influence the U.S. Presidential election.” Reminder – that quote is straight from the FISA warrant.

The FBI relied on a news article to tell the Court that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating Page? Why not ask the CIA representative who sat in the FBI counterintelligence spaces ?

The news article in the above quote is the infamous Yahoo news story written by Michael Isikoff. Christopher Steele briefed Isikoff on dossier material and then Isikoff wrote his article based on Steele’s inputs. Inputs that all proved wrong.

Recently FBI Dir Wray was asked by congress if he knew of any FISA warrants that were based on false information. Wray replied “Not that I am aware of”


Page 23: “Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI. (redactions) .. The FBI does not believe that Source #1 directly provided this information to the press.” Wrong Wrong Wrong

By the time of this original warrant, Steele had already briefed New York Times, Wash Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN. And he had briefed the State Dept. Glenn Simpson testified to congress that the press briefings had occurred. Steele admitted in court depositions that the press briefings had occurred. Some news media got briefed more than once.

Pages 23 and 24: “the Senate Majority Leader wrote to the FBI Director, and citing the reports of meetings between” Page and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” (Sechin) “that needed to be investigated by the FBI.”

Senate Majority Leader = Harry Reid

The FBI and Mueller never charged Carter Page with anything. Comey: “the dossier wasn’t a critical part of the warrant”

Pages 24, 25, and 26 : A paragraph tells the court that Trump administration officials tried to distance themselves from Carter Page when the news stories broke in Sep 2016. Of course we know now these stories were all lies.

The warrant explains that Carter Page wrote a letter on 25 Sep 2016 to FBI Dir Comey and called the accusations “garbage”. Page offered to meet with the FBI. The FBI didn’t interview Carter Page on these charges until March 2017. By that time they had an extension FISA warrant against him.


Page 32: “the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian Government” Wrong

The FBI writes that “based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page (redacted) … and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power”

Page 53: “The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures”

Page 54: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct”

Verification section Signed by an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (name redacted)

Page 55 starts a Certification section that is signed by James Comey

The Certification section states that “At least a significant purpose of the authorities requested herein is to obtain foreign intelligence information”
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The former British spy who produced a dossier describing alleged links between Donald Trump and Russia will not cooperate with a prosecutor assigned by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review how the investigations of Trump and his 2016 election campaign began, a source with knowledge of the situation said.

Christopher Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team, said the source close to Steele’s London-based private investigation firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.

Trump has given Barr broad authority to declassify intelligence materials related to the investigations. Last week Trump ordered the heads of U.S. spy and law enforcement agencies to cooperate with Durham.

Steele, who had previously collaborated with the FBI on issues such as corruption in the global soccer organization FIFA, was hired in 2016 by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based private investigations firm working for lawyers representing the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Steele produced for Fusion GPS a set of controversial and sometimes salacious reports describing alleged contacts Trump and his team had with Russians before the election

Trump says Steele’s “fake dossier” was a key factor behind the investigations and what he claims is a broader “witch hunt” against him. He also accuses senior intelligence officials of improperly “spying” on his campaign.

According to documents declassified by the Trump administration, the FBI cited Steele’s reporting as partial justification for electronic surveillance targeting Carter Page, a one-time Trump campaign advisor with business dealings in Russia.

The source close to Steele’s company said Steele would not cooperate with Durham’s probe but might cooperate with a parallel inquiry by the Justice Department’s Inspector General into how U.S. law enforcement agencies handled pre-election investigations into both Trump and Clinton.

Steele also cooperated with Mueller’s investigative team, voluntarily submitting to two interviews in September 2017. He also gave written testimony to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee in August 2018, the source said.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment, and a spokesman for Durham declined to comment.


Steele's testimony to Mueller should be made public
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
James Comey has an article in the Wash Post today

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that

Comey lies through the entire article. Let's take it apart

Part 1

It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign, and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

Comey says the FBI saw the attack in Mid June 2016. But Papadopoulos knew about it seven weeks before the FBI

really ?

From CNN:

September 2015 - The FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee's help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious .

November 2015 - The FBI reaches out to the DNC again, warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached .

March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

But Comey says the FBI saw the attack in mid-June 2016. Maybe nobody told Comey

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails, and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

The adviser here is Geo Papadopoulos. Comey says Papadopoulos talked to a "Russian agent". When did the FBI declare Joseph Mifsud to be a Russian agent ? The FBI interviewed Mifsud in a Wash DC hotel lobby in Feb 2017. Mifsud said he had no advance knowledge of Russia having Clinton emails.

So the man who triggered the entire counterintel operation denied having advance knowledge. The FBI let this "Russian agent" go and he has disappeared

And Comey thinks the coup accusations are "dumb lies"

Comey: nobody in the Trump campaign told us about this. Well, Papadopoulos has testified he never told anyone in the campaign about Mifsud mentioning Clinton emails. Papadopoulos was having doubts about Mifsud's credibility

Fox News was broadcasting in early May 2016 that Russia had thousands of Clinton emails. Maybe Comey should have watched Fox. "nobody told us"
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
Part 2 of Comey article

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

"what should we have done ?" How about a defensive briefing to Donald Trump? Comey kept telling Trump in private that Trump was not a target of the investigation. But of course Comey was lying to Donald Trump.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were on to them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.

didn't want to smear Americans like Carter Page, Geo Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Donald Trump, etc.

And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

"why would we keep it a secret?" because you had no proof of anything. Almost all the news media would not publish the dossier because there was no verification

"The much maligned Peter Strzok, the alleged kingpin" Oh no Comey. You were the kingpin. Strzok deserves every bit of maligning and much more

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help

no spies. Stefan Halper, Azra Turk, several others. They pretended to be friends and never said they were "investigators" (spies)

By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

what a fire storm would have erupted if the FBI had gone public that it was declaring Page to be a Russian foreign agent with no proof. We know the FISA warrant had major lies to the court
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
Part 3 of Comey article

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.

so why did Comey do the 28 Oct letter to congress?

Comey: “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president , my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls,” Comey writes in his new memoir.

And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

Comey really goes over the top on this one.

McCabe leaked a story that was harmful to Clinton. Read the IG report on McCabe. McCabe was leaking because he knew the WSJ was writing articles that revealed his wife took 700k from the DEMs for her political campaign. And that McCabe had been accused of burying the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe was trying to save his ass.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense.

right. AG Barr says the FBI story doesn't add up. Barr has more questions now than when he started asking for explanations.

The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.

good people. McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker and Comey himself. The dumb lies all belong to James Comey
Posts: 15544 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 146    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    The Steele dossier //

© SIGforum 2020