The Steele Dossier

[snackboy]

@ snack, no not focused on it. Just making my point about the nature of the document. Further, YOU may not be saying it.. but the dossier does make the accusation. It isn't simply noting that it was bugged, it is propoganda gossip about what went on there. Which speaks to the mud slinging nature of the document and those who funded it.

So let's take a look what the dossier actually says in regards to the Ritz Carlton - the half a page of the 35 pages you are focused on.

1. However, there were other aspects to TRUMP’s engagement with the Russian authorities. One which had borne fruit for them was to exploit TRUMP’s personal obsessions and [REDACTED BY THE MOSCOW PROJECT] in order to obtain suitable ‘kompromat’ (compromising material) on him. According to Source D, where s/he had been present, TRUMP’S [REDACTED BY THE MOSCOW PROJECT]conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel, where he knew President and Mrs OBAMA (whom he hated) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and [REDACTED BY THE MOSCOW PROJECT]. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to.
2. The Moscow Ritz Carlton episode involving TRUMP reported above was confirmed by Source E, [REDACTED BY BUZZFEED NEWS], who said that s/he and several of the staff were aware of it at the time and subsequently. S/he believed it had happened in 2013. Source E provided an introduction for a company ethnic Russian operative to Source F, a female staffer at the hotel when TRUMP had stayed there, who also confirmed the story. Speaking separately in June 2016, Source B (the former top level Russian intelligence officer) asserted that TRUMP’s unorthodox behavior in Russia over the years had provided the authorities there with enough embarrassing material on the now Republican presidential candidate to be able to blackmail him if they so wished.

Three sources confirmed the story. And a fourth source says that, if they wanted to, Russia could blackmail Trump. It's not a far stretch to believe this to be true. We all know who Trump is and what he's capable of. If you think that his bus tape was just locker room talk, I think that I am not the one being naive.

Still think it's just gossip? If there were videos and you saw them, would you believe them?

About what about the other 34 pages of the dossier?

[Sigfried]

The point is, the Dossier is an attempt to collect dirt on Trump, but contains things that are not a crime by trump.
So why should we care?
If the best answer is, because X event could be used as leverage against him, It still remains to be seen that the event actually occurred. ..so why should we care?

Should we care if the Russian Government was blackmailing Trump? Should we care if the Russians were using spycraft to control US foreign policy? Should we care if Russians are trying to hack US election systems? Should we care if members of the Trump administration were willing spies working for a foreign government.

Ya, I think we should care about that to at least some degree. Those are all concerns raised in the Dossier.

[MindTrap028]

Three sources confirmed the story.

Not really. It is CLAIMED that three sources confirmed the story. You only have one source. The dossier. Further, the people being pointed to are not all talking about the same thing. IE none of them appear to be aware of all the same facts. The only thing they corroborate is that he was at the hotel. .. which is not a big deal.

And a fourth source says that, if they wanted to, Russia could blackmail Trump.

That is an easy claim to make, as someone could have said that about the bus tape. That doesn't mean it is credible... or even interesting. Again, so far not illegal just embarrassing.
For some perspective, the same could have been said about all a whole bunch of presidents.

If you think that his bus tape was just locker room talk, I think that I am not the one being naive.

Well, it was locker room talk, that doesn't make it untrue. We know he is a playboy billionaire.. what is naive about that? Seems to be spot on. It just wasn't deemed to be a big enough issue to not get him elected over Hillary.
It also means that he is less susceptible to black mail in regards to the same kinds of activity.
Like trump with a prostitute would not be as damning compared to if Mit Romney had won and had a prostitute tape.

It's like saying you are going to black mail Trump with naked pictures of his wife. You can try, but the threat is not a really credible one.

Still think it's just gossip? If there were videos and you saw them, would you believe them?

Yea.. it's gossip because no one knows who the people are, or if they are telling the truth. All you have is a report that some people said stuff. Did you hear them say it? Did they tell an official? Were they sworn in or otherwise held responsible for what they say?
No, it is just talk, and hear say.

About what about the other 34 pages of the dossier?

What about it? Back to my main question, what has been corroborated as true? .. basically nothing interesting. Sure Trump could have been at the hotel blowing Putin. .. .. but just because it is possible doesn't make it interesting.

---------

Should we care if the Russian Government was blackmailing Trump?

With what? Gossip? If your hand wringing about the possibility, then you will excuse me if I don't find it interesting or news worthy.

Should we care if the Russians were using spycraft to control US foreign policy?

I think we have a whole agency for that .. have they raised an alarm? Nope.

Should we care if Russians are trying to hack US election systems?

Did the Dossier initiate our concern about that? I really don't think it did, but I would love to be educated.

Should we care if members of the Trump administration were willing spies working for a foreign government.

Do we have reason to believe that.. you know other than gossip?
Nope.

Ya, I think we should care about that to at least some degree. Those are all concerns raised in the Dossier.

Right, to those who a prone to listen to gossip. That doesn't mean the raised concern is credible.
Hence why I say.. sure it is worthy of investigation.. but lets not take it too far, it's just gossip. When we have more, then we should be concerned.

Did you get concerned when Hillary was falling down all over the place, and people were gossiping about her health? At least we had video of that, and people were able to speculate off of evidence.
Imagine all we had were reports from bell hops, that her health was in question. You would have written it off as gossip as well.


-------------
What about the stuff in the dossier that is ridiculous.
Like the prospect of A billion dollar bribe to someone not presumed to be able to win the election (or nomination depending on the timeline.. which is unclear to me).

Or the idea that this all started in 2011 when Trump was a T.V. personality and not a presidential candidate.

Or the idea that Russia is not really very "sharing" with real secrets but their own gossip. The dossier does claim to know what Putin was thinking and doing. I have no clue how plausible that is... but it makes for good gossip.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod.../#5f0d101a6867

This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.

The Orbis report claims, that as the election neared (July 2016), Igor Sechin, Putin’s right-hand man and CEO of Rosneft (Russia’s national oil company) offered Trump a deal that defies belief. I quote:

“Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid-October 2015, a close associate of Rosneft President and PUTIN ally Igor SECHIN elaborated on the reported secret meeting between the latter and Carter PAGE, of US Republican presidential candidate's foreign policy team, in Moscow in July 2016. The secret had been confirmed to him/her by a senior member of staff, in addition to the Rosneft President himself…Sechin’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate Western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.”

This story is utter nonsense, not worthy of a wacky conspiracy theory of an alien invasion.

To offer Trump either the entirety of, or a brokerage commission on, the market value of 19.5% of Rosneft shares—even a 6 percent commission on $12 billion worth of Rosneft shares would amount to an astonishing $720 million—would deplete the cash that Putin desperately needed for military spending and budget deficits, all in return for a promise to lift sanctions if—and what a big “if”—Trump were elected. Rosneft, as a public company, would have to conceal that the U.S. president was a party to this major transaction. This remarkable secret-of-secrets seems to be bandied about to an Orbis “trusted compatriot," a senior member of Sechin’s staff, and disclosed by Sechin himself. I guess there are a lot of loose lips in Rosneft offices.

[CowboyX]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod.../#5f0d101a6867

"Cohen ... claims never to have visited Prague." (your source) Which we now know to be true. (previously discussed in this thread)


I'm also not sure that his claims as to the preposterous nature of the deal necessarily invalidates it.

"In 2012, Rosneft entered into a $500 billion joint venture with ExxonMobil, which at the time was run by current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; it was this mammoth joint venture, apparently, that inspired Putin to award Tillerson the Medal of Friendship in 2013. The oil reserves in the Arctic, the reason for the venture, are estimated to contain 85 billion barrels. At a conservative price of $50 a barrel, that amounts to a staggering $4.25 trillion in potential gross revenue. Trillion, with a T.

These are dizzying numbers — but Putin will not see a kopek as long as the US continues to impose sanctions on Russia. Small wonder, then, that Putin and Sechin want the sanctions lifted as soon as possible. If and when that happens, the Exxon deal would be back on, and money would begin to pour in to the depleted Kremlin coffers.

Whether or not there proves to be collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, Putin clearly preferred Candidate Trump, if for no other reason than the GOP nominee was, and is, much more likely to lift those pesky sanctions than was Hillary Clinton, whom Putin perceived as a mortal enemy. The question is: How much were the Russian president and his cronies willing to pay to affect that result?

Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy who authored the infamous “golden shower” dossier, believed so. In the intelligence report dated 18 October, 2016, Steele observes that Sechin, the aforementioned president of Rosneft, “was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered [Carter] PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”

We do not know if Trump accepted this offer — indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that he was even aware of it — and Page has vehemently denied being the intermediary, or of engaging with Sechin at all (although he does admit to a lot of other weird things).

However, Rosneft did indeed sell off a percentage of its ownership — 19.5 percent, almost exactly what Steele had reported — this past January. The details of the transaction are predictably murky, with shell companies selling to other shell companies, who are owned by different shell companies, and so on to infinity. One reads the names of these ersatz enterprises — Glencore, Intesa SanPaolo, QHG Shares, QHC Holding, QHC Cayman Limited — and one finds one’s eyelids getting heavier, and one falling slowly to sleep."

https://medium.com/@gregolear/the-ro...t-81e87778288f

[snackboy]

Not really. It is CLAIMED that three sources confirmed the story. You only have one source. The dossier. Further, the people being pointed to are not all talking about the same thing. IE none of them appear to be aware of all the same facts. The only thing they corroborate is that he was at the hotel. .. which is not a big deal.


That is an easy claim to make, as someone could have said that about the bus tape. That doesn't mean it is credible... or even interesting. Again, so far not illegal just embarrassing.
For some perspective, the same could have been said about all a whole bunch of presidents.


Well, it was locker room talk, that doesn't make it untrue. We know he is a playboy billionaire.. what is naive about that? Seems to be spot on. It just wasn't deemed to be a big enough issue to not get him elected over Hillary.
It also means that he is less susceptible to black mail in regards to the same kinds of activity.
Like trump with a prostitute would not be as damning compared to if Mit Romney had won and had a prostitute tape.

It's like saying you are going to black mail Trump with naked pictures of his wife. You can try, but the threat is not a really credible one.


Yea.. it's gossip because no one knows who the people are, or if they are telling the truth. All you have is a report that some people said stuff. Did you hear them say it? Did they tell an official? Were they sworn in or otherwise held responsible for what they say?
No, it is just talk, and hear say.


What about it? Back to my main question, what has been corroborated as true? .. basically nothing interesting. Sure Trump could have been at the hotel blowing Putin. .. .. but just because it is possible doesn't make it interesting.

So in summary, you believe that a professionally trained intelligence agent with over twenty years of exemplary service; who worked MI-6, spent many years in Russia as an agent; and provided actionable intelligence to the FBI doesn't know how to do their job despite who hired them. Is that correct? Credentials and experience mean nothing to you?

But even if it doesn't mean anything, you agree that the dossier is hearsay. Established earlier in the thread, hearsay from a trusted source can be used in a search warrant. Therefore, it was proper for the FBI to include the dossier as part of their application to the FISA court. And it was proper for the court to accept the application and grant the Carter Page search warrant. Yes, there was political underpinnings of the dossier, but that was properly disclosed to the court.

[MindTrap028]

I'm also not sure that his claims as to the preposterous nature of the deal necessarily invalidates it.

It is just a little perspective on it. Also, it is not like the dossier was super predictive, IE it was not really classified info that Russia was going to sell that amount.

One more thing. If Trump was offered 700million to broker the deal. Why in the world would he have not done it? I mean, he would have been crowing about how he was responsible for making Russia into a more public place. The biggest deal in history.. yada yada. He would have run on that, and claimed to be a multi billionaire (you know.. because he would probably round up).
That still wouldn't mean anything unless he actually acted or had a clear intention of acting on Russi's behalf. I mean someone did the deal and brokered it. Especially if you consider that there was no garantee of him winning, and what exactly is the time line for when this deal was supposedly offered, and the state of the Pres race? Was trump the candidate or was he still in the primaries?

So in summary, you believe that a professionally trained intelligence agent with over twenty years of exemplary service; who worked MI-6, spent many years in Russia as an agent; and provided actionable intelligence to the FBI doesn't know how to do their job despite who hired them. Is that correct? Credentials and experience mean nothing to you?

On the contrary, I think he did his job really well. He collected the most damning Gossip available for opposition research.

But even if it doesn't mean anything, you agree that the dossier is hearsay. Established earlier in the thread, hearsay from a trusted source can be used in a search warrant. Therefore, it was proper for the FBI to include the dossier as part of their application to the FISA court. And it was proper for the court to accept the application and grant the Carter Page search warrant. Yes, there was political underpinnings of the dossier, but that was properly disclosed to the court.

First of all, your earlier link to the roll of Hear say in warrant applications was very educational, and changed my opinion on that point. Thanks. Secondly, this does not meet that standard. I have never objected to it being used as PART of the application, I have never objected, and have repeatedly agreed that it should be the basis for an investigation.
So.. your not objecting to anything I have actually said or any position I have actually held here. (That is called a straw-man). Maybe you don't really understand my position?

[snackboy]

On the contrary, I think he did his job really well. He collected the most damning Gossip available for opposition research.


First of all, your earlier link to the roll of Hear say in warrant applications was very educational, and changed my opinion on that point. Thanks. Secondly, this does not meet that standard.

Who are you to say that the material of the dossier doesn't meet or exceed the hearsay standard of the FISA court? Don't they make that determination? Did they make a mistake? Again, this boils down trusting people to do their job. And while we shouldn't blindly trust the government, the folks on the FISA court have reviewed and approved thousands of FISA applications. And they even declined a few, including the first one the FBI submitted on Carter Page.

( I have never objected to it being used as PART of the application, I have never objected, and have repeatedly agreed that it should be the basis for an investigation.
So.. your not objecting to anything I have actually said or any position I have actually held here. (That is called a straw-man). Maybe you don't really understand my position?

You're right, I don't understand your position. What is your position?

[MindTrap028]

Who are you to say that the material of the dossier doesn't meet or exceed the hearsay standard of the FISA court?

From what we have it does not, that none of it has been corroborated is another. I didn't appeal to my personal authority on the matter, I am appealing to the definition you linked to, and the information we have so far.

Don't they make that determination? Did they make a mistake? Again, this boils down trusting people to do their job. And while we shouldn't blindly trust the government, the folks on the FISA court have reviewed and approved thousands of FISA applications. And they even declined a few, including the first one the FBI submitted on Carter Page.

Secret court, doesn't get as much leway.
Especially given their "rubber stamp" nature
https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/19122...nment-requests

The link above makes the note that the fisa courts are fundementally flawed, because they are not adversarial in nature, the judge is working WITH the FBI. It's not like if your local cop goes to the local judge.

TEMPLE-RASTON: It may be there are other ways to measure whether the government gets what it wants from a FISA court. The Justice Department says it presented 212 requests to conduct surveillance in the U.S. to the FISA court last year. It says the court modified 200 of them before they were approved. The problem: the public doesn't know why these orders from the government were modified or how they were changed.

That is rubber stamp level. (The above story is from 2013.. sorry about the far right wing nature of the source .. NPR voted trump I think).

ou're right, I don't understand your position. What is your position?

That the dossier is not worthy of the current level of public attention and news, because it is gossip. It is worthy of an investigation by the FBI, but not worthy of a Warrant, especially the kind issued (lawyer/client privileged)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/u...al-issues.html

It tells investigators to exhaust all other ways of obtaining evidence first “to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships.” It also encourages them to use a subpoena if possible. But it also acknowledges that sometimes a search warrant may be justified, even though it is more intrusive, such as if there is reason to believe the recipient would destroy the evidence rather than turn it over.

The dossier lacks corroboration, and the standing assertion (and the One I was responding to) was that it is proving "Highly accurate". Which I have asked for how it was corroborated, and all that we get is non criminal, non secret reference points. Like a guy being at a hotel, or a huge stock trade in the works. Making it currently poorly supported and poorly reasoned.

-- Personal assumptions and bias' and expectations. --
No I do not trust reports created for and by opposition campaigns. They get what they pay for and they pay millions for it. (call me jaded by years of political mud slinging)
No, I do not trust secret courts. They may be a necessary evil, but we should not judge people based on what a secret court ruled. It should be born out with actual evidence, not for whatever passes for justification that rarely gets denied. (Call me jaded by the threat of unchecked gov)
No, I'm not certain as to what level of Internal bias is at play in the FBI. (This is just a passing question mark, because of the general rumblings surrounding several issues and how they converge.. I just don't know).

I think that if all that happens is they get the lawyer guy on some technicality, and not what they actually started after.. it is the only kind of evidence we will ever get that they were incorrect in approving the warrant, and the dossier we stand as incorrect on that point.

[CowboyX]

That the dossier is not worthy of the current level of public attention and news, because it is gossip. It is worthy of an investigation by the FBI, but not worthy of a Warrant, especially the kind issued (lawyer/client privileged)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/u...al-issues.html

I don't see from your support that the Steele dossier was used for that raid.

---------- Post added at 10:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------

From what we have it does not, that none of it has been corroborated is another. I didn't appeal to my personal authority on the matter, I am appealing to the definition you linked to, and the information we have so far.

Which link is that? The one in post 69?

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 PM ----------

Secret court, doesn't get as much leway.
Especially given their "rubber stamp" nature
https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/19122...nment-requests

The link above makes the note that the fisa courts are fundementally flawed, because they are not adversarial in nature, the judge is working WITH the FBI. It's not like if your local cop goes to the local judge.

I don't see in your support where "the judge is working WITH the FBI." Could you explain more?

Having been on the grand jury here for over a year I can tell you that, yes, it isn't adversarial. Only the state is there presenting looking for an indictment. I'm not sure how that's relevant.

[snackboy]

From what we have it does not, that none of it has been corroborated is another. I didn't appeal to my personal authority on the matter, I am appealing to the definition you linked to, and the information we have so far.

You can't say that none of it's been corroborated. You simply don't know. Neither you or I have all the information. The FBI and the FISA court have the information and make a determination based on that information. I trust the FBI and FISA court. You apparently don't.

Secret court, doesn't get as much leway.
Especially given their "rubber stamp" nature
https://www.npr.org/2013/06/13/19122...nment-requests

The link above makes the note that the fisa courts are fundementally flawed, because they are not adversarial in nature, the judge is working WITH the FBI. It's not like if your local cop goes to the local judge.

Did you actually read the article?

JOEL BRENNER: I can tell you that that court has taken a wire brush to certain applications that have come before it. The idea that somehow they put their stamp on everything the government puts before them couldn't be farther from the truth.
....
GERMAN: I don't think it's necessarily a rubber stamp, but it's just that it suffers from these fatal flaws.
....
DASKAL: What you have, I think, is an incredible amount of secrecy about how the court works - often for good reason. But as a result, there is this misperception and fear and assumptions that the executive always gets what it wants, and that the executive is always overreaching, and overreaching more and more with time.

So no, by you're own source, the FISA court is not a rubber stamp. The real problem is the lack of transparency into court applications and proceedings.

That is rubber stamp level. (The above story is from 2013.. sorry about the far right wing nature of the source .. NPR voted trump I think).

NPR is far right wing??? Wow! They are as far left as publicly funded MSM can go. Moving on...

That the dossier is not worthy of the current level of public attention and news, because it is gossip. It is worthy of an investigation by the FBI, but not worthy of a Warrant, especially the kind issued (lawyer/client privileged)

Says you. But not the people who have way more information than you or I.

The dossier lacks corroboration, and the standing assertion (and the One I was responding to) was that it is proving "Highly accurate". Which I have asked for how it was corroborated, and all that we get is non criminal, non secret reference points. Like a guy being at a hotel, or a huge stock trade in the works. Making it currently poorly supported and poorly reasoned.

Yes or no - have you read the dossier in it's entirety?

-- Personal assumptions and bias' and expectations. --
No I do not trust reports created for and by opposition campaigns. They get what they pay for and they pay millions for it. (call me jaded by years of political mud slinging)

Opposition research is important because it exposes to the public illegal and immoral acts committed by the candidate. I have no problem with it. If that's how someone wants to spend their money or time, that's fine by me. It's not my money or my time.

No, I do not trust secret courts. They may be a necessary evil, but we should not judge people based on what a secret court ruled. It should be born out with actual evidence, not for whatever passes for justification that rarely gets denied. (Call me jaded by the threat of unchecked gov)

I'm not judging Carter Page. The purpose of the FISA court is to go to them and say, "Hey, we think this guy Carter Page is a national security risk. Here's the evidence to back up the claim. We would like to investigate further and leverage surveillance tools."

No, I'm not certain as to what level of Internal bias is at play in the FBI. (This is just a passing question mark, because of the general rumblings surrounding several issues and how they converge.. I just don't know).

In my mind, to assume someone can't do their job because of political bias is being disrespectful toward that person. Do you think that each time an administration changes, that all the career civil servants change their political views? But I should note that the top brass in the FBI are Republicans. The fact that they are allowing the investigation to continue should tell you something about the nature of it.

I think that if all that happens is they get the lawyer guy on some technicality, and not what they actually started after.. it is the only kind of evidence we will ever get that they were incorrect in approving the warrant, and the dossier we stand as incorrect on that point.

Realize that the intention of the dossier was not for the FBI. But once Steele saw that something bigger was going on, he gave it to the FBI. I wonder if he had left out that first entry about Trump, if we'd be having this discussion at all.

[CowboyX]

Just a note for possible future reference. I was watching Fox Business this morning and Lou Dobbs refereed to the Steele dossier as "completely discredited".

[MindTrap028]

I don't see from your support that the Steele dossier was used for that raid.

I thought that was a given in this thread.... wasn't it?

Which link is that? The one in post 69?

I don't remember.

I don't see in your support where "the judge is working WITH the FBI." Could you explain more?

Having been on the grand jury here for over a year I can tell you that, yes, it isn't adversarial. Only the state is there presenting looking for an indictment. I'm not sure how that's relevant.

The link was talking about the two fold problem of the court,
1) that it is secret
2) that it is not adversarial in nature.

That leads to the court working with the FBI to stop things like terrorism. Which isn't necissarily "bad", but it means the court is working with the FBI.
This comes out in the outcome of almost all the requests being granted and the appearance of a Rubber stamp.

---------

You can't say that none of it's been corroborated. You simply don't know. Neither you or I have all the information. The FBI and the FISA court have the information and make a determination based on that information. I trust the FBI and FISA court. You apparently don't.

I can say it based off of the information we have available..which is what I did. What can't be said is that the report is turning out to be "highly accurate", which again, was my original point.
It can't be said precisly because we have no corroberating evidence, and none of it has been corberated.. I think even the FBI said that.

Did you actually read the article?

Yes.

So no, by you're own source, the FISA court is not a rubber stamp. The real problem is the lack of transparency into court applications and proceedings.

If it APPEARS to be a rubber stamp. That is SUPPORT for it being a rubber stamp.
Because it is secret all they can say is "trust us it is not a rubber stamp". But even the guy saying it isn't a rubber stamp, is saying it looks like it is. ...

So... Yea, the point is supported. Granted you don't have to agree, and you can just trust the court. That is fine.

NPR is far right wing??? Wow! They are as far left as publicly funded MSM can go. Moving on...

Here is my support. Made clear from 1-25 seconds ish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxX8nvLalE

Says you. But not the people who have way more information than you or I.

All we can go on is the information we have. This is how it currently looks. If there is more or new information then you can offer it as a counter.

Yes or no - have you read the dossier in it's entirety?

no
... never said I did.

Opposition research is important because it exposes to the public illegal and immoral acts committed by the candidate. I have no problem with it. If that's how someone wants to spend their money or time, that's fine by me. It's not my money or my time.

So what?

I'm not judging Carter Page. The purpose of the FISA court is to go to them and say, "Hey, we think this guy Carter Page is a national security risk. Here's the evidence to back up the claim. We would like to investigate further and leverage surveillance tools."

O.k... and?

In my mind, to assume someone can't do their job because of political bias is being disrespectful toward that person. Do you think that each time an administration changes, that all the career civil servants change their political views? But I should note that the top brass in the FBI are Republicans. The fact that they are allowing the investigation to continue should tell you something about the nature of it.

Appeal to emotion. I'm sorry your offended and find it disrespectful. Get over it.

Basically nothing here addresses my point or adds new information.

Realize that the intention of the dossier was not for the FBI. But once Steele saw that something bigger was going on, he gave it to the FBI. I wonder if he had left out that first entry about Trump, if we'd be having this discussion at all.

The less gossip in it, the more it would be not gossipy.

[snackboy]

I thought that was a given in this thread.... wasn't it?



If it APPEARS to be a rubber stamp. That is SUPPORT for it being a rubber stamp.
Because it is secret all they can say is "trust us it is not a rubber stamp". But even the guy saying it isn't a rubber stamp, is saying it looks like it is. ...

Three quotes in your own source that says the court is not a rubber stamp, yet you conclude it is because it's what you want to believe. Got it. Peace out bro - I'm done here.

[CowboyX]

I thought that was a given in this thread.... wasn't it?

No.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

I don't remember.

OK, if you don't have a definition then you can't say a definition has been met or not met. So retracted. Let's not make that claim again without support, ok?

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

The link was talking about the two fold problem of the court,
1) that it is secret
2) that it is not adversarial in nature.

That leads to the court working with the FBI to stop things like terrorism. Which isn't necissarily "bad", but it means the court is working with the FBI.
This comes out in the outcome of almost all the requests being granted and the appearance of a Rubber stamp.

How is this different from any grand jury? Say, like the one I was on? It was secret. I wasn't allowed to talk about the things I heard. How else would this be handled?

As to it not being adversarial, again, how should that be handled. The adversarial nature is in the convincing of the jurors of probable cause. You claim they work "WITH" the FBI. That claim is unsupported.



"The second problem, the ACLU's Mike German says, is that the process isn't adversarial. There isn't the equivalent of a defense attorney to challenge the prosecution's version of events. It's just the prosecution talking to the judge - a little like the grand jury process. [I'd agree]

GERMAN: You have a prosecutor who goes in a room with 23 grand jurors to indict somebody, but the process - because it isn't adversarial - often doesn't come to the right result. [how does he know that?]

JENNIFER DASKAL: There are certain things that just can't be adversarial. They don't work that way." from the NPR source


Indeed, the grand jury isn't a trail and an indictment isn't a conviction. In the year I was on the grand jury we only voted once not to indict - and when I think back on it now they should have been indicted but emotion got the better of us.

and we're not even talking about indictments here, just warrants.

[MindTrap028]

@ snack, yes and the same source says that the court have inherent problems.. which is my point. Sure he is avoiding the " rubber stamp" naming.. but that is just avoiding a term. But I suppose if your just going to ignore any justification for my basic distrust of secret courts.. even while I very reasonable conciede that they may be a necessary evil.. then I suppose we are done. I did appreciate your time and discourse.

@ cowboy.. o.k you are going to have to explain your "no" a little more.

As to supporting the claim. You have to read the thread and keep up. My point .. when I made it doesn't suddenly become unsupported because you ignore it for a few pages and a couple of weeks. It stands right where it was left.. unchallenged and in addressed.

- grande jurries have a hurry of the piers. That is where it gets it's credibility from. That doesn't mean I like the secret part of that suddenly. And of course that has nothing to do with violating a person's rights as I know it.
Such like a warrant does.

PS. It is pretty cool that you were on a grand jury. Why was it so long and so many classes? I have a side issue where I think we should have professional jurrors. As you were one for so long did your experience help you to be a better juror by the end?

[snackboy]

@ snack, yes and the same source says that the court have inherent problems.. which is my point. Sure he is avoiding the " rubber stamp" naming.. but that is just avoiding a term. But I suppose if your just going to ignore any justification for my basic distrust of secret courts.. even while I very reasonable conciede that they may be a necessary evil.. then I suppose we are done. I did appreciate your time and discourse.

I understand your distrust of secret courts and at some level I may share it. But that's not the point. You continue to use terms like "rubber stamp" and "gossip" because that's what you believe those things are even in the face of evidence. That makes it very hard to have a debate. You say the court appears to be a rubber stamp so therefore it is. But that not only oversimplifies the process that takes place, but it also disrespectful toward it. E.g. The Sun "appears" to go around the Earth. Conclusion: The Sun revolves around the Earth. You and I both know that is the wrong conclusion, a conclusion which is disrespectful of the science that went into making the determination otherwise. The court, itself, doesn't necessarily have inherent problems. The problems are perceived due to it's lack of transparency...which makes sense - we are naturally suspicious of what we don't understand. But a perceived problem may or may not actually exist.

I've shown you evidence that the dossier is, at worst, legal hearsay. Calling the dossier gossip from a legal standpoint would mean that it is slanderous. And other than the first entry about Trump and the hotel, there doesn't appear to much be slander in the document.

I've refuted using the term "rubber stamp" of the courts with your own source.

If you could concede those two points, then maybe the debate can move forward.

[MindTrap028]

I understand your distrust of secret courts and at some level I may share it. But that's not the point. You continue to use terms like "rubber stamp" and "gossip" because that's what you believe those things are even in the face of evidence.

Two things, first the "gossip" term. Hearsay is the same thing as Gossip. They are synonymous in meaning,
The central idea is that it is unvarified and from a secondary source, and thus of questionable reliability. You seem to be trying to elivate the qualtiy by changing the word.. when it carries the same meaning.
Of all the positions that I have forwarded here (and this is the central one) this is the most obiviously true, and substantiated one. So, I will not be concieding it. I'm sorry.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor:

(emphasis mine)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gossip
Casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details which are not confirmed as true.

--Hear say as a basis for warrants is valid, according to your link that you provided (and changed my perception things with). However this does not fulfill the use of hearsay for acquiring a warrant.
It simply is not like the example given. Namely. Hear say is when Bob hears Tom say something so he(Bob) goes to the authorities. Then the court requires some other testimony from Bob, like he saw X fact that justifies the belief. This is Tom tells frank that he heard tom say something, so Frank goes to the police.

That is a gossip chain, and is unworthy of a warrant according to the link you gave. So.. you are welcome to change my mind, but the quality is just not there.
It could actually be much worse than that, because the source for the dossier may not have even been original, or even trustworthy. (Like having the ability to even know what putin was thinking or doing).

If it is unworthy of a warrant how did they get one?, you may ask. Well, that leads to the second point.

----- Second thing.. To the point of "rubber stamp"---
We shouldn't be surprised that a secret court issued a warrant based on questionable or substandard reasoning. Does that mean that it absolutely did and had nothing else? No, but we don't know of any, and as far as we understand it, this was the main justification. This just leaves us with the "trust the system" option. Which is fine, I have already said that these courts are probably a necessary evil.

ou say the court appears to be a rubber stamp so therefore it is. But that not only oversimplifies the process that takes place, but it also disrespectful toward it. E.g. The Sun "appears" to go around the Earth. Conclusion: The Sun revolves around the Earth. You and I both know that is the wrong conclusion, a conclusion which is disrespectful of the science that went into making the determination otherwise.

I appreciate the analogy, but it is fundamentally flawed. In the case of the sun, we have evidence that contradicts what is apparent.
That is not the case here. Here all we have is the appearance, and any other evidence is "secret". People were justified and reasonable in their belief that the sun revolved around the earth, because that is indeed what it appeared.
That is what we have here.. We have the appearance, and for that we are justified and reasonable to believe the appearance.

I think you are quibbling over a term here again. First, it is true that the source I sighted said the words "it isn't a rubber stamp". However given the rest of the context and the problems listed as inherent to the system, it does indeed appear to be a rubber stamp system.
Which is all I need to show in order to support the use of the term, and to be reasonably justified in using it.
That said, the larger point is not the term of "rubber stamp", rather it is that secret courts have a fundamental flaw, and that flaw justifies distrust. It is this distrust, which I disclosed as a personal assumption, that is the central issue, and the link certainly supports that.

If you would prefer I use the term "fundamentally flawed" over "rubber stamp" then I will use that going forward. No need for me to be needlessly offensive. For the record, secret, and non-adversarial is fundamental flaw. Why? Because it is one thing for police and prosecutors to work together, it is another for the courts and police to work together. The court is then no longer unbiased and only has an accusing voice in it's court... which is not very fair. .. which is a flaw.

[CowboyX]

@ cowboy.. o.k you are going to have to explain your "no" a little more.

Actually, I not sure if the Steele Dossier were used for the Cohen raid warrant. You're saying it was?

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

As to supporting the claim. You have to read the thread and keep up. My point .. when I made it doesn't suddenly become unsupported because you ignore it for a few pages and a couple of weeks. It stands right where it was left.. unchallenged and in addressed.

There's a 100 posts here, if you offered a definition then you know where it is. Your challenge isn't to the definition (yet) but as to whether it has been met or not. You're claiming it has and I need to know what definition you are talking about to verify it.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------

- grande jurries have a hurry of the piers. That is where it gets it's credibility from. That doesn't mean I like the secret part of that suddenly. And of course that has nothing to do with violating a person's rights as I know it.
Such like a warrant does.

PS. It is pretty cool that you were on a grand jury. Why was it so long and so many classes? I have a side issue where I think we should have professional jurrors. As you were one for so long did your experience help you to be a better juror by the end?

Isn't that what these judges are? Professional jurors?

It's usually 3-6 months but they have to call you back depending on the severity of the case or if new information has to be presented.

I absolutely enjoyed it and took it very seriously...most did, a few didn't. Being a major metropolitan area I saw some of the worst of humanity. The only things that really bothered me were the child sex cases.

---------- Post added at 11:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 PM ----------

If you could concede those two points, then maybe the debate can move forward.

I'm also concerned about this idea of a "secret court" and lack of transparency. Are these proceedings not recorded in any way? Has that been established?

[snackboy]

Two things, first the "gossip" term. Hearsay is the same thing as Gossip. They are synonymous in meaning,
The central idea is that it is unvarified and from a secondary source, and thus of questionable reliability. You seem to be trying to elivate the qualtiy by changing the word.. when it carries the same meaning.
Of all the positions that I have forwarded here (and this is the central one) this is the most obiviously true, and substantiated one. So, I will not be concieding it. I'm sorry.
(emphasis mine)



--Hear say as a basis for warrants is valid, according to your link that you provided (and changed my perception things with). However this does not fulfill the use of hearsay for acquiring a warrant.
It simply is not like the example given. Namely. Hear say is when Bob hears Tom say something so he(Bob) goes to the authorities. Then the court requires some other testimony from Bob, like he saw X fact that justifies the belief. This is Tom tells frank that he heard tom say something, so Frank goes to the police.

That is a gossip chain, and is unworthy of a warrant according to the link you gave. So.. you are welcome to change my mind, but the quality is just not there.
It could actually be much worse than that, because the source for the dossier may not have even been original, or even trustworthy. (Like having the ability to even know what putin was thinking or doing).

If it is unworthy of a warrant how did they get one?, you may ask. Well, that leads to the second point.

In legal terms, which is what we are talking about here, there is no such thing as gossip. Slander is as close as you can get. We are dealing with legal proceedings as you are questioning the value of the dossier toward the application of the FISA warrant. Therefore, we should be discussing on the same legal level. Feel free to call the dossier slander, but then recognize that if it is indeed slander, then Trump has a legal recourse he can take...which he hasn't done so. But "gossip" is a legal unicorn.

----- Second thing.. To the point of "rubber stamp"---
We shouldn't be surprised that a secret court issued a warrant based on questionable or substandard reasoning.

You are speculating. The warrant wasn't issued simply based on the dossier. I've provided a link to the redacted FISA application for the warrant which contains more substance than just the dossier.

Does that mean that it absolutely did and had nothing else? No, but we don't know of any, and as far as we understand it, this was the main justification.

Again, you are speculating. You don't know what the "main justification" was. You assume it's the dossier because that what it appears to be, but you don't know for sure.

I appreciate the analogy, but it is fundamentally flawed.

Wrong.

In the case of the sun, we have evidence that contradicts what is apparent.

Right. WE have evidence. We can make a different conclusion other than what appears to be happening because of science.

That is not the case here. Here all we have is the appearance, and any other evidence is "secret". People were justified and reasonable in their belief that the sun revolved around the earth, because that is indeed what it appeared.

While they may have been reasonable, they were still WRONG! Filling in the lack of evidence with assumptions and speculation doesn't make you justified or reasonable, but sets you up to be wrong.

That is what we have here.. We have the appearance, and for that we are justified and reasonable to believe the appearance.

You are making a conclusion that the court is a rubber stamp because you don't know what's happening, not because you know what's happening.

I think you are quibbling over a term here again. First, it is true that the source I sighted said the words "it isn't a rubber stamp". However given the rest of the context and the problems listed as inherent to the system, it does indeed appear to be a rubber stamp system.

That's not what your source says at all. It appears to be me you're wrong on this issue, so therefore you must be wrong. That's how it works, right? Show me something where the FBI submits an application and the court simply signs off on it. Back up your claim.

Which is all I need to show in order to support the use of the term, and to be reasonably justified in using it.

Uh no. Back up the claim that the court is a rubber stamp for the FBI. Show where the court didn't have a hearing, where the court didn't read the application, where the court didn't review evidence, where the court blindly approved everything that came to them. If those things didn't happen, then you have a rubber stamp.

That said, the larger point is not the term of "rubber stamp", rather it is that secret courts have a fundamental flaw, and that flaw justifies distrust. It is this distrust, which I disclosed as a personal assumption, that is the central issue, and the link certainly supports that.

If [lack of] transparency is the issue, then simply concede the "rubber stamp" terminology.

If you would prefer I use the term "fundamentally flawed" over "rubber stamp" then I will use that going forward.

"Fundamentally flawed" and "rubber stamp" are very different terms.

For the record, secret, and non-adversarial is fundamental flaw. Why? Because it is one thing for police and prosecutors to work together, it is another for the courts and police to work together. The court is then no longer unbiased and only has an accusing voice in it's court... which is not very fair. .. which is a flaw.

Sounds like a topic for another thread.

[Belthazor]

THE STEELE DOSSIER
"What is the Dossier?

In January 2017, BuzzFeed News published an intelligence dossier developed by a former British MI6 intelligence officer who was deemed credible by U.S. intelligence officials. The Dossier raises profoundly disturbing questions about whether there was improper contact between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and about the existence of compromising personal and financial information about Donald Trump. At the time BuzzFeed published the Dossier, it acknowledged that the allegations it contained were “unverified” and that the document contained “some clear errors.”

BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the Dossier has itself attracted a lot of attention. The Dossier is part of ongoing lawsuits filed by parties named in the dossier and may be part of congressional investigations.

Why is it Important?

The Dossier is a human intelligence document or [HUMINT] and therefore should be viewed not as evidence in a trial, but as a road map for investigators. The dossier’s high level of accuracy is rapidly becoming clear.

There are significant takeaways that are largely absent from the conversation about the Dossier:

Christopher Steele is credible. Steele was not just a former UK MI-6 officer; he also worked on behalf of the FBI in the successful FIFA investigation.
Steele and the Dossier were credible enough for former FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to brief President Obama and then-President elect Trump on the contents of the dossier.
Steele was writing the Dossier in real time and it largely contains intelligence related to internal Russian efforts to interfere, not intelligence about the Trump campaign.
Steele was concerned about his safety after the Dossier was released and went into hiding.
While much attention has gone to the salacious tape described in the Dossier, more should be paid to the allegation that for at least 5 years Trump was passing information on Russians living at his properties to Russian intelligence operatives. Steele cites four different sources – a former senior Russian intelligence figure (who is believed to have been murdered in his car on December 26, 2016), a current senior Russian foreign ministry figure, and two Russian emigres; these sources all indicate that Trump had a relationship with Russian intelligence and was providing information on the comings and goings of Russians at his properties. We know that Trump had a vast surveillance system of his properties, and that President Putin and Russian intelligence keep a close tab on Russian oligarchs. We also have separate press reporting that UK, Dutch, French, German, Estonian, and Australian intelligence agencies picked up intelligence on meetings between Trump associates and Russian intelligence going back to 2015.
Below is the searchable Dossier in full as published by Buzzfeed.

It should be assumed that all allegations below remain unsubstantiated until corroborated by independent information.

We have redacted certain lines from the dossier that are both unsubstantiated and profane. All redactions are noted below, and a full version of the text can be found at BuzzFeed News. If these allegations are proven true, they will be added to the site."


Full document - 35 pages

(Please forgive the drive by if these points have been made already as I have not read the whole thread)

1. The fact that Hillary and the DNC paid for the dossier in all or in part is enough reason to raise a skeptical eye, not that that automatically makes it false news, just need to be extra wary as to it's truthfulness.

2. There seems to be conflicting information on how integral the dossier was to the FISA warrant, with some reports that the warrant would not have been issued without the dossier. Also, it appears the FISA court was not told that Hillary and the DNC paid for the Dossier (in part/all).
One would think this would be quite easy to clear up if anyone wanted it to be clear.

3. Investors Business Daily has an interesting take:
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...llary-clinton/
"So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News on Sunday.
Was Hillary The Real Colluder?
Nunes, who heads Congress' investigation into the matter, said it was likely that information "was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now colluded (with) nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. Absolutely amazing."
Clearly, a startling revelation if true.

4. The Washington Examiner has said that Bruce Ohr (4th highest official in the Justice Dept and who's wife worked for the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS that commissioned the Dossier) met with Steele over 60 times since Jan 2016 and will have to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Aug 28th to explain what the meetings were about.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...he-doj-and-fbi