Thanks, Sigfreund.

Here is a verbatim portion of one of the reports making up this dossier, representative of the type of statements in the rest of it.

quote:

1. Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.

2. Inter alia, Source E, acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from
the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the WikiLeaks platform.

Source E? Speaking in confidence to a close associate .... of Trump....

How do you verify something like this? How can you say under oath it is true or you believe it to be?

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

Over two years ago, the dossier started to be produced by Steele. The dossier is still a mystery.

Thoughts about the FBI and the dossier:

1. The FBI believed the source (Christopher Steele). A few posts above: The FBI fell in love with the source

2. The FBI wanted the dossier to be true. Strzok, McCabe, & Comey wanted to take down Donald Trump.

3. The FBI was willing to lie and mislead. Sen Grassley has seen part of the Carter Page FISA application and it says the Yahoo News story (Sep 2016) is independent corroboration of the dossier. It was not.

From what we know of the FISA process, the FBI had to declare Cater Page as a Russian foreign agent.

The FBI never shared the full nature of the counter intel investigation with candidate Trump or president-elect Trump.

4. The FBI never talked to Fusion GPS. Why not ? Did Steele hide who paid him from the FBI?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...=article_email_share

Why the CIA Needs Its Own Horowitz Report

Now that the world has digested the Horowitz report, notice how much of the story it doesn’t tell. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is treated as a closed loop when, in fact, much of its decision making was based on intelligence and advice supplied by other agencies.

Michael Horowitz deals with some of this information in a classified appendix, which the public can’t see. Even so, as Justice Department inspector general, he is not authorized to examine and dissect the internal communications and decision-making of other agencies the way he did the FBI’s. Yet the necessity of doing so fairly screams at us.

One thing we learned, because Mr. Horowitz blurted it out in Senate testimony on June 18, is that the Loretta Lynch information, so crucial to Mr. Comey’s actions, has been kept from the public and even members of Congress because it “was classified at such a high level by the intelligence community.” Which is certainly convenient for the intelligence community.

Let’s be realistic. We’ve been told officially many times that Russia didn’t hide its activity in the 2016 race: It carried out its meddling in a blunt, in-your-face manner that would have been seen as a direct challenge to our own intelligence agencies. These agencies, in turn, viewed Mr. Trump as a witting or unwitting Kremlin agent.

We don’t need to speculate about this. The FBI’s Mr. Comey, since Election Day, has been a model of discretion compared with Obama CIA chief John Brennan and Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Mr. Brennan suggested on national TV that Vladimir Putin possesses secret information he uses to control President Trump. Mr. Clapper, also on national TV, called Mr. Trump a Kremlin “asset” whose election was secured by Russian meddling.

Mr. Horowitz finds no convincing explanation of why a month elapsed between the surfacing of the Weiner laptop and Mr. Comey’s action. It might be useful, though, to understand what else was going on between Sept. 26 and Oct. 28. The Yahoo news article based on the Steele dossier had recently appeared. A Mother Jones piece would soon appear. Inquiries about the Steele dossier would have been pouring into the agency. The FBI would soon break off relations with Christopher Steele for speaking to the press. Harry Reid would soon exploit the FBI’s possession of the dossier to try to get its allegations into the media.

An underremarked facet of the Horowitz report reveals just how much illegal leaking to the press FBI officials were guilty of. The same rock needs to be turned over with respect to Mr. Brennan’s and Mr. Clapper’s former agencies. If Mr. Putin’s goal was to make a mockery of U.S. democracy, his most useful if unwitting allies may well have been our so-called intelligence community.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07...rzok-testify-public/

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former FBI official Peter Strzok to appear at a public hearing July 10.

Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte issued the subpoena to force Strzok to appear before both the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees. The hearing will focus on Strzok’s work on both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Strzok’s attorney, Aitan Goelman, said on Monday that his client had retracted a previous offer to testify publicly. Goelman cited a closed-door interview on June 27 with the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees as evidence that Republicans were setting “a trap” for the embattled FBI agent.

Here is a link to a very interesting report on Rod Rosenstein's testimony to congress on 28 June 2017.

The focus is on the fact that Rosenstein said

The public information on the Carter Page FISA Application does not match the briefing Rosenstein received prior to signing the renewal

Rosenstein signed the final FISA Renewal – sometime around June 29, 2017

The article notes that the "public info" comes from the Nunes memo of 2 Feb 2018, the Grassley memo of 6 Feb 2018, and the Schiff memo of 24 Feb 2018.

Rosenstein in his testimony dances around about whether he actually read the FISA application. He does say he was briefed by a team of DoJ attorneys who did review it.

The author (Jeff Carlson) is concluding that Rosenstein is saying what he was briefed on the FISA extension does not match what the congressional committees wrote up about the FISA application. Rosenstein says it is appropriate to let the IG complete the investigation.

The article is worth a read.

https://themarketswork.com/201...sensteins-statement/

https://www.washingtonexaminer...oena-says-his-lawyer

Peter Strzok, the former FBI agent who vowed to "stop" President Trump from winning the 2016 election despite being part of a federal investigation into his campaign, may not show up to testify next week despite being subpoenaed.

Aitan Goelman, Strzok's attorney:

"My client will testify soon, somewhere, sometime. We just got this subpoena today, so I don't know whether or not we are going to be testifying next Tuesday in front of these two particular House subcommittees,"

Goelman said he could not automatically respond "yes" because the two "have come to the conclusion, forced to come to the conclusion, that this is not a search for truth, it is a chance for Republican members of the House to preen and posture before their most radical, conspiracy-minded constituents."

"From our experience with the committee thus far, it is obvious that they don't want the truth. They don't want to hear what Pete has to say,” the lawyer added.

A report from John Solomon (The Hill)

Solomon is talking about texts no one else has publicly mentioned.

http://thehill.com/hilltv/risi...probe-trump-campaign

Memos the FBI is now producing to the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general and multiple Senate and House committees offer what sources involved in the production, review or investigation describe to me as “damning” or “troubling” evidence.

They show Strzok and his counterintelligence team rushing in the fall of 2016 to find “derogatory” information from informants or a “pretext” to accelerate the probe and get a surveillance warrant on figures tied to the future president.

One of those figures was Carter Page

The memos show Strzok, Lisa Page and others in counterintelligence monitored news articles in September 2016 that quoted a law enforcement source as saying the FBI was investigating Carter Page’s travel to Moscow.

The FBI team pounced on what it saw as an opportunity as soon as Page wrote a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey complaining about the “completely false” leak.

“At a minimum, the letter provides us a pretext to interview,” Strzok wrote to Lisa Page on Sept. 26, 2016.

Some internal memos detail the pressure being applied by the FBI to DOJ prosecutors to get the warrant on Carter Page buttoned up before Election Day.

In one email exchange with the subject line “Crossfire FISA,” Strzok and Lisa Page discussed talking points to get then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking DOJ official to sign off on the warrant.

“Crossfire Hurricane” was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related to Russia matters in the 2016 election.

"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him" Strzok emailed Page on Oct. 14, 2016, less than four weeks before Election Day.

Four days later the same team was emailing about rushing to get approval for another FISA warrant for another Russia-related investigation code-named “Dragon.”

another FISA warrant ? Dragon ?

“Still an expedite?” one of the emails beckoned, as the FBI tried to meet the requirements of a process known as a Woods review before a FISA warrant can be approved by the courts.

“Any idea what time he can have it woods-ed by?” Strzok asked Page. “I know it’s not going to matter because DOJ is going to take the time DOJ wants to take. I just don’t want this waiting on us at all.”

Were they concerned about losing a chance to gather evidence at a critical moment? Or maybe, as some Republicans long have suspected, they wanted to impact the election?

The agents got the Carter Page warrant in October and, within two weeks, Democrats in Congress such as then-Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and some media members were raising questions about the FBI withholding word of a probe that could hurt Trump. FBI agents monitored those reports, too.

The day after Trump’s surprising win on Nov. 9, 2016, the FBI counterintelligence team engaged in a new mission, bluntly described in another string of emails prompted by another news leak.

“We need ALL of their names to scrub, and we should give them ours for the same purpose,” Strzok emailed Page on Nov. 10, 2016, citing a Daily Beast article about some of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s allegedly unsavory ties overseas.

“Andy didn’t get any others,” Page wrote back, apparently indicating McCabe didn’t have names to add to the “scrub.”

“That’s what Bill said,” Strzok wrote back, apparently referring to then-FBI chief of counterintelligence William Priestap. “I suggested we need to exchange our entire lists as we each have potential derogatory CI info the other doesn’t.” CI is short for confidential informants.


?? who is Strzok talking about exchanging lists with ?

As the president-elect geared up to take over, the FBI made another move that has captured investigators’ attention: It named an executive with expertise in the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance equipment to be a liaison to the Trump transition.

On its face, that seems odd; technical surveillance nerds aren’t normally the first picks for plum political assignments. Even odder, the FBI counterintelligence team running the Russia-Trump collusion probe seemed to have an interest in the appointment.

These and other documents are still being disseminated to various oversight bodies in Congress, and more revelations are certain to occur.

Yet, now, irrefutable proof exists that agents sought to create pressure to get “derogatory” information and a “pretext” to interview people close to a future president they didn’t like.

Clear evidence also exists that an investigation into still-unproven collusion between a foreign power and a U.S. presidential candidate was driven less by secret information from Moscow and more by politically tainted media leaks.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sounds like we have lots more to learn

Strzok testimony to House Judiciary Comm moved from 10 July 2018 to 12 July 2018.

Strzok testifies in open session on Thursday.

Now it is reported that Lisa Page will testify in closed session on Wednesday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...te/story?id=56465785

The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena for Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who exchanged text messages with FBI agent Peter Strzok critical of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, to appear on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview Wednesday morning, according to congressional officials familiar with the subpoena.

Page's attorney Amy Jeffress said they have been "working with the Committee staff to arrange Lisa's voluntary appearance," suggesting her client needs more time to prepare for an interview.

"We asked the Committee staff to explain the scope of the investigation and provide sufficient notice that would allow her to prepare, which are normal conditions for congressional committees, but these committees have not followed the normal process," Jeffress said in a statement. "The FBI has agreed to provide Lisa with her notes and other documents to allow her to prepare, but they have not provided those documents to date, so we are still waiting to work out a reasonable date for her interview."

"Lisa has cooperated voluntarily with another congressional committee that had no objection to explaining the scope of its investigation or providing sufficient notice for her interview. Lisa also cooperated fully with the OIG investigation and appeared voluntarily for multiple interviews, including after she left the FBI,” Jeffress added.

lawyer for Lisa Page says that Page will not appear before the House committee tomorrow.

Statement:

WHAT?!?!

The Committees have not provided material to the FBI miscreants per their request?

I wonder where they learned that trick?

I didn't know that people who were subpoenaed were entitled to review all questions they were to be asked by the committee.

Of course she won't appear. And nothing will happen. I've given up all hope of ANY justice coming out of this mess. None.

Remember the July 6 deadline for Rosenstein to hand over info after the house passed a resolution? Come and gone.

Our Just-Us system is completely, utterly corrupt and it's not going to change. And the coup against a duly elected president marches on....

And she's a lying bitch. Shocking

quote:

On Wednesday morning, however, Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows tweeeted that Page and her attorneys did review the requested documents at the FBI on Tuesday, and that "Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability."

Via ZeroHedge:

Lisa Page Lying About Access To FBI Docs In Excuse To Bail On Testimony: Meadows

Strzok tomorrow 10 am ET

a joint hearing of two House committees responsible for FBI and Justice Department oversight

C-SPAN3

If it is anything like the closed door session, there will be a lot of "can't answer because of national security", "can't answer because of ongoing investigations", maybe some "5th amendment", and a whole bunch of "it was just chit chat with a friend, never influenced my actions".

Biggest payoff will be video clips that make the news and show what a POS this guy is.

Let's see if the DEMs try to push that the Russia collusion farce is real.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
And she's a lying bitch. Shocking

quote:

On Wednesday morning, however, Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows tweeeted that Page and her attorneys did review the requested documents at the FBI on Tuesday, and that "Her failure to appear before Congress this morning had little to do with 'preparation'--and everything to do with avoiding accountability."

Via ZeroHedge:

Lisa Page Lying About Access To FBI Docs In Excuse To Bail On Testimony: Meadows

Sooo.....why haven't the Deputy Marshalls been dispatched?

I haven't been following this lately but I love how this woman says she has not had enough time to prepare.

Tell me- just how does one "prepare" to tell the truth? This is something which should require no preparation. One has to prepare to lie, but not to tell the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Of course she won't appear. And nothing will happen. I've given up all hope of ANY justice coming out of this mess. None.

Not as long as swamp creature Sessions has anything to do with the DOJ.

Dont worry. Mr. Magoo will hold all the guilty parties responsible. As soon as he sees them. Regards 18DAI