Well.......at least the mask is off the MSM. I use to get tired of their protestations that they were "neutral journalists".

Bullshit. They are and always have been leftist trash. Too bad ole Lisa won't be contributing from a prison cell. Regards 18DAI

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://theconservativetreehou...analyst/#more-193595

The notoriously political DOJ lawyer who was assigned to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page , has joined notoriously political DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissmann as a paid MSNBC analyst. The media are not even pretending any more.



JUST ANNOUNCED: @MSNBC welcomes Former FBI Lawyer @NatSecLisa as an NBC News & MSNBC National Security & Legal Analyst.

Somebody needs to ask Page why the hell she would be involved in editing (falsifying) a 302.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


JUST ANNOUNCED: @MSNBC welcomes Former FBI Lawyer @NatSecLisa as an NBC News & MSNBC National Security & Legal Analyst.

They always take care of their own, don't they?

Grenell for the win.

As predictable as the sun rising tomorrow.

She was part of the biggest political hoax \ lie in America Politics so she has the skills to work for the MSM.

Consider all the people who told the Truth about Russian Collusion under oath then lied to the public on TV. Previously I used to question the media, now I know they're flat out lying.

All news is fake. Some of it is true, but it is all fake. Can't trust a single bit of it even if some of it happens to be the truth.

and buried in all the news crap this week was the fact that the Hildebeast lost her court case and will be forced to testify about her emails, as well as a few other things I'm sure

too bad its not until September - I'd like to see her in orange next week

Ted Cruz (and Duncan Hunter) doesn't like Rod Rosenstein very much

and poor Lisa Paige - gets a job at MSNBC because she's not very good at being a $2 whore

interview w Lindsey Graham at link:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/61...483001#sp=show-clips

Graham says that 4 people interviewed the Steele dossier sub source and the sub source said the dossier was bar talk and gossip.

The sub source was interviewed by the FBI in Jan 2017, Mar 2017, and May 2017. The interviewers were a FBI case agent, an intel analyst and 2 other people.

Graham has requested to interview these 4 people. He said he has been denied.

XXXXXXXXX

Who denied him ? Is this more Dir Wray obstruction ? Someone at DoJ ?

quote:

Who denied him ? Is this more Dir Wray obstruction ? Someone at DoJ ?

I do not know, but...it may not be a coverup and it could have something to do with the Durham investigation. Pure speculation but I could see DOJ holding back on a few things if they thought it might taint something Durham is looking at.

I personally am a little suspect at all of the Republican interest in subpoenaing people to testify in public all of a sudden. Yes it is an election year but what can they really accomplish? They could really be trying to get info out or they could be trying to "pollute" the "jury pool" (i.e. public) if Durham does recommend some prosecution. I don't trust a single senator WRT Obamagate. To quiet for too long; they are all complicit.

I just hope Durham is playing it straight and narrow. As far as Barr goes I am still iffy on him but with these protests the last few weeks he seems genuinely angry at the disregard for law and order and I am starting to think he really wants to get it right and make a difference. (There was a show on last night about LA in '92 and they had some clips of the then AG Barr and IMO he did that right; almost an exact mirror of his response today, which I think it correct. The guy must be having a serious case of deja vu lol).

I've waited this long, a few more months won't matter.

^^ I can see how you'd be concerned about Republicans who've been in DC long enough to sink roots into the swamp. On the other hand, public hearings produce public records, so prosecutors are free to follow up on any admissions or leads that might pop loose when someone testifies before a congressional committee. At a crude level it works more or less the same as when the cops ask you to tell the same story 1500 times over just to make sure that you tell it consistently. The big difference is that any witnesses from the swamp have to tell their story in a way that meets a set of legal criteria and a separate set of political criteria, and witnesses often stumble when trying to meet two different agendas every time they answer a question.

BTW, something else to look out for - Lisa Page will undoubtedly be asked to speak to this whole thing on-camera for MSNBC. Every time she does, she runs the risk of making some sort of admission or giving the DOJ some sort of lead to follow up on. She can pretend to somehow be protected by the First Amendment, she can pretend that any effort to follow up with her is somehow harassment of the media or a critic who's "speaking truth to power". Having said that, every word that comes out of her mouth is still potentially a live ball, whether legally or politically.

You know, when I heard the news about Page, news that came right after Sen. Johnson was authorized to subpoena her, my first though was "This is so NBC can provide her the lawyer when she testifies on Capitol hill. They'll get the scoop".

Its the Lefts way of providing funds for her
legal fees. Publishing a book is another way!

I got a bit overwhelmed and have never really read the long DoJ IG Horowitz report that came out in Dec 2019.

Different stories and posts triggered me to look at small sections from time to time. And that has happened again.

Just some snips from the report starting about pg 184:

Bill Priestap - Strzok's boss

Priestap was surprised to find that Steele's early work for the FBI had only been "minimally corroborated". Priestap had thought that Steele had a long record of reporting that had withstood judicial court-of-law scrutiny.

The FISA application said that Steele's earlier reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings"

A validation report on Steele did not include any assessment of Steele's work on the dossier. When the Validation SSA was asked about that, he said "we did not find any corroboration for the Steele election reporting". The Validation agent was asked why that was not reported, he said "it's not common practice for us to go in and state the negative upfront"


Priestap expressed surprise that the validation report left out that there was no corroboration of Steele's election reporting.

this is way beyond clown shoes

Strzok told the IG that validation reports are rarely helpful.

cont'd

From the IG report,

Steele used a primary sub-source for information.

The primary sub-source used a network of sub-sources to gather info for Steele. Steele himself was not the originating info for any of the info in the dossier

The FBI did claim they corroborated some of the dossier. What was corroborated ? Primarily routine facts about dates, locations, and occupational positions that was mostly public source info.

sounds like open research - that is what Fusion GPS does

The FBI interviewed the primary sub-source in Jan, Mar, and May 2017. Steele never told the FBI who the primary sub-source was, but the FBI figured it out.

Who interviewed the primary sub-source in Jan 2017 ?

FBI Case Agent #1
FBI Supervisory Intel Analyst
2 representatives of the DoJ NSD (National Security Division)

Who from NSD ?

David Laufman and his deputy

Laufman is now in private practice. His first client was Monica McLean who was Christine Blasey Ford's "beach friend" when Blasey wrote her claims about Justice Kavanaugh.

What did the primary sub-source say ?

- he (she ?) had not seen Steele's reports until they became public

- Steele misstated or exaggerated in multiple sections of the dossier

- the sex tape story was rumor and there was no confirmation. Steele wrote that the story was confirmed by a senior western staff member of the hotel

- Steele was never told that Sechin offered Carter Page a brokerage interest in $ 10 billion deal

- the primary sub-source never thought Steele would put his statements in reports or present them as facts

- the primary sub-source said his statements to Steele were "just talk" that he heard in conversations with friends over beers

- some of the statements, including the sex tape, were made in jest

Steele did not have good insight into how many layers there were between the sub-sources and the persons quoted. It could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay.

In contrast to what the dossier says, the sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on

After the 2016 election, Steele tasked him (her ?) to find corroboration for the election reports. The primary sub-source found no corroboration The primary sub=source had reported there was no corroboration to the Crossfire Hurricane team in Jan 2017

The primary sub-source said that Steele presented as "fact" things that were his or Steele's "analytical conclusions" and "analytical judgments"

The Russian ability to blackmail Trump was the "logical conclusion" of a sub-source.

here is the kill shot:

In Carter Page FISA warrants #2 and #3, the FBI told the FISA court that the FBI found the "Russian based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative"

But the FBI never told the FISA court that the "truthful" primary sub-source said the Steele material was unreliable, uncorroborated gossip and multiple layers of hearsay

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

OAN is doing a complete investigative series on the Steele dossier. It follows the Senate hearings and page by page analysis of the pulp fiction.

Michael Flynn related

most of this from Techno Fog Twitter

John Gleeson, Judge Sullivan's hand-picked amicus in the Flynn case, filed his brief today. Gleeson bases his justification of the Flynn investigation on Papadopoulos' statement to Downer

Flynn's "frontal assault on the integrity of the investigation" was "deliberately obstructive" and reflects "a complete disregard for the judicial process."

?? Flynn defends himself against an FBI set up trap and Gleeson calls that a frontal assault on integrity. At this point the FBI and the former Flynn prosecutors have no integrity whatsoever.

Gleeson calls the DoJ Flynn dismissal "a gross abuse of prosecutorial power"

the dismissal is the first "just" thing the DoJ has done re Flynn

and Techno Fog notes:

one of the signers of the Gleeson input is David O'Neil. This David O'Neil is one of the attorneys for Sally Yates.

Techno Fog:

Did David O'Neil - the attorney for Sally Yates - assist Flynn amicus John Sullivan?

O'Neil's name is on the brief.

Don't forget -

Yates is a material witness in the FBI/DOJ misconduct as to Flynn (and the Carter Page FISA renewals).

What a circus

this is a big one

Catherine Herridge has published the Annex A to the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment

It is material straight from the dossier

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herrid.../1271078302871158786

Highlights: (cut and paste)

An FBI source, using both identified and unidentifed subsources, volunteered sensitive info

We have only limited corroboration of this reporting

the source is an exec of a private intel firm and former friendly intel service

some of the sources' contacts have been corroborated in the past

source was not compensated by the FBI

Putin ordered the influence effort to defeat Clinton whom Putin "feared and hated"

straight from the dossier

the source claimed that Donald Trump and his top campaign advisors worked w Russia to beat Clinotn and fully knowledgeable of Russia leaking Clinton emails

the Kremlin had cultivated Trump for at least 5 years

straight from the dossier

Kremlin has fed Trump info on Clinton and others for years

Russians have compromising material on Trump

a Trump advisor was offered financial renumeration to change sanctions on Russia

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

When did they show this to Donald Trump ?

This was from a classified annex to the 2016 ICA.

Remember - Comey briefed Trump one on one, but supposedly Comey only talked about the pee tape. Nothing else from the dossier. So who saw the classified annex ?

poor copy. link to doc:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/i...0-%20ICA%20Annex.pdf

from:

https://dailycaller.com/2020/0...pher-steele-dossier/

Flynn oral arguments tomorrow

live stream

https://t.co/qhsGRYafXD?amp=1

https://twitter.com/molmccann/.../1271172711075721216

9:30 am