Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 158
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Steele Dossier

    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
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Explain "high level of accuracy". What has been varifies as accurate and in what way?
    To serve man.

  3. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  4. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Explain "high level of accuracy". What has been varifies as accurate and in what way?
    You'd have to ask them, I'm just at the beginning of reading it myself. Perhaps what they describe the the next paragraph?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    All it does is repeat the aligations in the paper.. not how it is turning out to be supported as accurate. If it isn't being coverated then it isn't being found to be accurate. Highly accurate at that. .. that is propoganda talk if it isn't supported.
    To serve man.

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All it does is repeat the aligations in the paper.. not how it is turning out to be supported as accurate. If it isn't being coverated then it isn't being found to be accurate. Highly accurate at that. .. that is propoganda talk if it isn't supported.
    I'm not sure. Perhaps they should post some type of analysis, or maybe they have elsewhere. They do say it shouldn't be taken as evidence, rather as a roadmap.

    For example, I just read the part about Cohen's trip to Prague. Which turns out to be true, yet he so strenuously denied it. I'd bet they're trying to get the rest out of Cohen right now - who he met and what they talked about.

    I think they're saying that as things become known more and more is being fleshed out.

    Certainly not the worthless, politically produced piece of crap right wing media would have us believe.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Surveying various articles, the concensus seems to be that...

    Most of what it claims has neither been proven true or false

    Some elements have been shown to be true in part, such as person X meeting person Y in a given location.
    Some elements have been mostly shown false, also including person X meeting person Y in a given location (different people)
    -- Mostly because these sorts of claims are easier to verify, however, what those meetings were about remains unsubstantiated

    Also, a number of elements about the nature of the efforts to affect the election through information campaigns have been shown to have happened.

    No sane person would come out and claim the document is gospel truth in every respect. The very nature of the thing is essentially hearsay collected by a private investigator. No doubt some or all of it is wrong in some regard. But, some of it may well be true, and at least a little of hit has proven to be true, so we can deduce it is probably more than just a bunch of entirely fabricated material. AKA it is niether "FAKE" nore "TRUTH"

    We probably will never know if many parts of it are true or not, they just aren't the kinds of claims you can eaisly verify.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Certainly not the worthless, politically produced piece of crap right wing media would have us believe.
    Well, right now it falls into the category of gossip. You may value it more than a piece of crap... but i don't value gossip at all, otherwise i would by tabloids.

    I am fine with law enforcement doing due diligence.. depending on possible effects... but only to an extent based on gossip. .. a short extent at that.
    To serve man.

  11. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  12. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    We probably will never know if many parts of it are true or not, they just aren't the kinds of claims you can eaisly verify.
    Or even if it is things we would care about. Do I care that Trump spied on oligarchs? Not really. There'd have to be more. A businessman trying to generate favor isn't surprising. Especially since it says that he didn't partake in any of the offers made.

    Do we believe that too or is that just gossip MT?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    My take on the document was that it was indeed reasonable cause for suspicion and enough to consider an investigation. Especially when some of the elements claimed were well known to the FBI at the time. Manford had already been involved in a case where he was contacted by known Russian operatives (before he was in the Trump campaign). And while the FBI didn't think he'd been working with them knowingly, or did anything for them at the time, it was clear the Russians had their eye on him. When he specifically sought out to be part of the Trump campaign, that had to have set off some serious allarm bells in counter inteligence circles.

    My take on the overall story is I do think, based on the evidence I've seen, that Russia was fiddling with the election, and that they probably were trying to get connections to Trump and his campaign, but that Trump himself probably wasn't colluding in any meaningful way or had any kind of quid-pro-quo going on. Manford is probably the guildiest of the bunch surrounding Trump, he's been into shady influence peddling for quite a while. The others to a lesser degree.

    As espionage goes, the Russians are pros, and Putin is a legit, certified spymaster. All this has really worked out better than he'd likely even imagined it would. Lots of US division, no clear policy agenda, lots of distrust among western governments, etc... But I don't quite think he has Trump dancing exactly to his tune because Trump is a wild card that, while easily manipulated in the short term, is so eratic and self centered that you can never really control him or rely on him for consistent behavior.

    I'm for the investigations, and I find the topic/story interesting, but I don't find it especially important. I wory much more about Trump's potential of starting a war, and for practical concerns, immigration and his trade policy are far more impactful to peoples lives than russian espianage is.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But I don't quite think he has Trump dancing exactly to his tune because Trump is a wild card that, while easily manipulated in the short term, is so eratic and self centered that you can never really control him or rely on him for consistent behavior.
    I'm not so sure.

    First, Trump's base have decided to ignore any of his moral shortcomings - seems character only counts when it comes to democrats. So there's no real threat there no matter what the russians might have in that area.

    As I mentioned previously the dossier states that Trump didn't bite on any of the deals offered, so again no threat. Why not shout that from the rooftops?

    Better to keep discrediting the entire thing I'd say.

    I quit and haven't finished reading it so I don't know if it goes into the Trump Tower meeting with Junior. I can't imagine that they did have a wire on her and wonder if something very unwise was said.

    Wouldn't you say his behavior was pretty consistent with Putin's wishes as regards Europe, Brexit, NATO?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Do we believe that too or is that just gossip MT?
    I am not clear on what you are referencing.

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    First, Trump's base have decided to ignore any of his moral shortcomings - seems character only counts when it comes to democrats. So there's no real threat there no matter what the russians might have in that area.
    not ignore, all the conservatives I speak with don't like trumps personal morals. My argument against him early on... like really early, was that I didn't want a first lady who had posed nude.

    so.. ignored is wrong as conservatives know who he is morally. We just made a conscious choice that his immorality was better than the alternative. What we are learning to ignore is what he says... because he says a lot of stuff that doesn't come to anything, and his actual actions and policies don't reflect every tweet.

    ... but man is it fun watching the media lose its mind over tweets... def worth the price of admission.
    To serve man.

  16. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    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.
    The credibility of an investigator is irrelevant, because he was not a witness to any event described in the dossier. It is the credibility of sources that is of import. The FBI was unable to interview any sources, and got FISA warrants based on rumor. That is against FBI and FISA warrant procedures, which is why the entire investigation smacks of partisan politics by the FBI in an effort to target the Trump campaign and, ultimately, to discredit the Trump presidency.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  18. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    and got FISA warrants based on rumor. That is against FBI and FISA warrant procedures,
    support please

    ---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not clear on what you are referencing.
    As in the god things about Trump in the Dossier, also the negative things about Clinton.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    As in the god things about Trump in the Dossier, also the negative things about Clinton.
    yes the entire document is on the level of gossip. There is a such thing as good gossip, and just because it says something about Clinton doesn't make it not gossip.
    as I said, it doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate. .. but until more evidence is found... it;s all just gossip that the media is spending too much time discrediting themselves by giving it attention. ..
    except for the enquirer and tmz this is their bread and butter.
    To serve man.

  20. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    yes the entire document is on the level of gossip. There is a such thing as good gossip, and just because it says something about Clinton doesn't make it not gossip.
    as I said, it doesn't mean they shouldn't investigate. .. but until more evidence is found... it;s all just gossip that the media is spending too much time discrediting themselves by giving it attention. ..
    except for the enquirer and tmz this is their bread and butter.
    Except the parts that's been confirmed, right?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  21. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,567
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy
    Except the parts that's been confirmed, right?
    Yes..that is why that was my first question. .. waiting on the answer for that.

    It is one thing to gossip that the mailman visited someones wife, it is another to gossip that he is having an affair and fathered twelve kids.
    To serve man.

  22. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  23. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    support please
    FISA Applications Confirm: The FBI Relied on the Unverified Steele Dossier

    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    On a sleepy summer Saturday, after months of stonewalling, the FBI dumped 412 pages of documents related to the Carter Page FISA surveillance warrants — the applications, the certifications, and the warrants themselves. Now that we can see it all in black and white — mostly black, as they are heavily redacted — it is crystal clear that the Steele dossier, an unverified Clinton-campaign product, was the driving force behind the Trump–Russia investigation.

    Based on the dossier, the FBI told the FISA court it believed that Carter Page, who had been identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser, was coordinating with the Russian government in an espionage conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.

    This sensational allegation came from Christopher Steele, the former British spy. The FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work. Nor did the FBI and Justice Department inform the court that Steele’s allegations had never been verified. To the contrary, each FISA application — the original one in October 2016, and the three renewals at 90-day intervals — is labeled “VERIFIED APPLICATION” (bold caps in original). And each one makes this breathtaking representation:

    The FBI has reviewed this verified application for accuracy in accordance with its April 5, 2001 procedures, which include sending a copy of the draft to the appropriate field office(s).

    In reality, the applications were never verified for accuracy.

    What ‘Verify’ Means
    Consider this: The representation that the FBI’s verification procedures include sending the application to “appropriate field offices” is standard in FISA warrant applications. It is done because the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) mandates that the bureau “ensure that information appearing in a FISA application that is presented to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] has been thoroughly vetted and confirmed.” (See House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes March 1, 2018, letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, embedded here.) The point is to assure the court that the FBI has corroborated the allegations in the warrant application in the usual way.

    A hypothetical shows how this works. Let’s say that X, an informant, tells the FBI in Washington that Y, a person in St. Louis, told him that Z, the suspect, is plotting to rob the bank.

    X’s story is unverified; he doesn’t know anything firsthand about Z — he only knows what Y has told him. Obviously, then, the FBI does not instantly run to court and seek a warrant against Z. Instead, the bureau sends an investigative “lead” from headquarters in Washington to the FBI field office in St. Louis. FBI agents in St. Louis then go find and interview Y. Based on that interview, the FBI gathers supporting information (perhaps physical surveillance of Z, scrutiny of available documents and records about Z, etc.). Only then, after debriefing the witness with competent knowledge, do the Justice Department and FBI seek a warrant against Z from the court. In the application, they explain to the judge that they have verified X’s information by interviewing Y and then corroborating Y’s version of events. In fact, if they get solid enough information about Z from Y, there may be no reason even to mention X, whose tip to the FBI was sheer hearsay.

    But that is not what happened with the Carter Page FISA warrants.

    Were the allegations thoroughly vetted and confirmed by proof independent of Steele before being presented to the FISA court? No, they were not.

    The FBI presented the court with allegations posited by Steele. He is in the position of X in our hypothetical. He is not the source of any of the relevant information on which the court was asked to rely for its probable-cause finding that Page was a clandestine agent of Russia. In this context, source means a reliable witness who saw or heard some occurrence on which the court is being asked to base its ruling.

    Steele has not been in Russia for about 20 years. In connection with the dossier allegations, he was merely the purveyor of information from the actual sources — unidentified Russians who themselves relied on hearsay information from other sources (sometimes double and triple hearsay, very attenuated from the supposed original source).

    In each Carter Page FISA warrant application, the FBI represented that it had “reviewed this verified application for accuracy.” But did the bureau truly ensure that the information had been “thoroughly vetted and confirmed”? Remember, we are talking here about serious, traitorous allegations against an American citizen and, derivatively, an American presidential campaign.

    When the FBI averred that it had verified for accuracy the application that posited these allegations, it was, at best, being hyper-technical, and thus misleading. What the bureau meant was that its application correctly stated the allegations as Steele had related them. But that is not what “verification” means. The issue is not whether Steele’s allegations were accurately described; it is whether they were accurate, period. Were the allegations thoroughly vetted and confirmed by proof independent of Steele before being presented to the FISA court — which is what common sense and the FBI’s own manual mean by “verified”?

    No, they were not.

    There Is No Reason to Believe the Redactions Corroborate Steele
    I have been making this point for months. When I made it again in a Fox and Friends interview on Sunday morning, critics asked how I could say such a thing when the warrants are pervasively redacted — how could I be so sure, given all we concededly don’t know, that the redactions do not corroborate Steele?

    The critics’ tunnel vision on the redactions ignores the months of hearings and reporting on this core question, which I’ve continuously detailed. Here, for example, is what two senior Judiciary Committee senators, Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham, wrote in a classified memo early this year after reviewing FISA applications (the memo was finally declassified and publicized over the objections of the FBI):

    The bulk of the [first Carter Page FISA] application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page.

    The senators went on to recount the concession by former FBI director James Comey that the bureau had relied on the credibility of Steele (who had previously assisted the bureau in another investigation), not the verification of Steele’s sources. In June 2017 testimony, Comey described information in the Steele dossier as “salacious and unverified.”

    Moreover, the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that the bureau tried very hard to verify Steele’s information but could provide no points of verification beyond the fact that Page did travel to Russia in July 2016 — a fact that required no effort to corroborate since the trip was unconcealed and widely known. (Page delivered a public commencement address at the New Economic School.) Furthermore, in British legal proceedings, Steele himself has described the information he provided to the FBI as “raw intelligence” that was “unverified.”

    I freely acknowledge that we do not know what the redactions say. But we have been very well informed about what they do not say. They do not verify the allegations in the Steele dossier. I have no doubt that they have a great deal to say about Russia and its nefarious anti-American operations. But the FBI has been taking incoming fire for months about failing to corroborate Steele. No institution in America guards its reputation more zealously than does the FBI. If Steele had been corroborated, rest assured that the bureau would not be suffering in silence.

    When the government seeks a warrant, it is supposed to show the court that the actual sources of information are reliable.

    Plus, do you really think the FBI and Justice Department wanted to use the Steele dossier? Of course they didn’t. They undoubtedly believed Steele’s allegations (the applications say as much). That is no surprise given how much their top echelons loathed Donald Trump. But they were also well aware of the dossier’s significant legal problems — the suspect sourcing, the multiple hearsay. If they had solid evidence that verified Steele’s allegations, they would have used that evidence as their probable cause showing against Page. Instead, they used the dossier because, as McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, without it they would have had no chance of persuading a judge that Page was a clandestine agent.

    Whatever is in the redactions cannot change that.

    There Is No Vicarious Credibility
    To repeat what we’ve long said here, there is no vicarious credibility in investigations. When the government seeks a warrant, it is supposed to show the court that the actual sources of information are reliable — i.e., they were in a position to see or hear the relevant facts, and they are worthy of belief. It is not sufficient to show that the agent who assembles the source information is credible.

    The vast majority of our investigators are honorable people who would never lie to a judge. But that is irrelevant because, in assessing probable cause, the judge is not being asked to rely on the honesty of the agent. The agent, after all, is under oath and supervised by a chain of command at the FBI and the Justice Department; the judge will generally assume that the agent is honestly and accurately describing the information he has gotten from various sources.

    The judge’s main task is not to determine if the agent is credible. It is to weigh the reliability of the agent’s sources. Are the sources’ claims supported by enough evidence that the court should approve a highly intrusive warrant against an American citizen?

    Here, Steele was in the position of an investigative agent relaying information. He was not a source (or informant) who saw or heard relevant facts. Even if we assume for argument’s sake that Steele is honest and reliable, that would tell us nothing about who his sources are, whether they were really in a position to see or hear the things they report, and whether they have a history of providing accurate information. Those are the questions the FBI must answer in order to vet and confirm factual allegations before presenting them to the FISA court. That was not done; the FBI relied on Steele’s reputation to vouch for his source’s claims.

    The FISA Judges
    In my public comments Sunday morning, I observed that the newly disclosed FISA applications are so shoddy that the judges who approved them ought to be asked some hard questions. I’ve gotten flak for that, no doubt because President Trump tweeted part of what I said. I stand by it. Still, some elaboration, which a short TV segment does not allow for, is in order.

    I prefaced my remark about the judges with an acknowledgment of my own personal embarrassment. When people started theorizing that the FBI had presented the Steele dossier to the FISA court as evidence, I told them they were crazy: The FBI, which I can’t help thinking of as my FBI after 20 years of working closely with the bureau as a federal prosecutor, would never take an unverified screed and present it to a court as evidence. I explained that if the bureau believed the information in a document like the dossier, it would pick out the seven or eight most critical facts and scrub them as only the FBI can — interview the relevant witnesses, grab the documents, scrutinize the records, connect the dots. Whatever application eventually got filed in the FISA court would not even allude en passant to Christopher Steele or his dossier. The FBI would go to the FISA court only with independent evidence corroborated through standard FBI rigor.

    Should I have assumed I could be wrong about that? Sure, even great institutions go rogue now and again. But even with that in mind, I would still have told the conspiracy theorists they were crazy — because in the unlikely event the FBI ever went off the reservation, the Justice Department would not permit the submission to the FISA court of uncorroborated allegations; and even if that fail-safe broke down, a court would not approve such a warrant.

    It turns out, however, that the crazies were right and I was wrong. The FBI (and, I’m even more sad to say, my Justice Department) brought the FISA court the Steele-dossier allegations, relying on Steele’s credibility without verifying his information.

    It turns out, however, that the crazies were right and I was wrong.

    I am embarrassed by this not just because I assured people it could not have happened, and not just because it is so beneath the bureau — especially in a politically fraught case in which the brass green-lighted the investigation of a presidential campaign. I am embarrassed because what happened here flouts rudimentary investigative standards. Any trained FBI agent would know that even the best FBI agent in the country could not get a warrant based on his own stellar reputation. A fortiori, you would never seek a warrant based solely on the reputation of Christopher Steele — a non-American former intelligence agent who had political and financial incentives to undermine Donald Trump. It is always, always necessary to persuade the court that the actual sources of information allegedly amounting to probable cause are believable.

    Well, guess what? No one knows that better than experienced federal judges, who deal with a steady diet of warrant applications. It is basic. Much of my bewilderment, in fact, stems from the certainty that if I had been so daft as to try to get a warrant based on the good reputation of one of my FBI case agents, with no corroboration of his or her sources, just about any federal judge in the Southern District of New York would have knocked my block off — and rightly so.

    That’s why I said it.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...teele-dossier/
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  24. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    [B][SIZE=4]Were the allegations thoroughly vetted and confirmed by proof independent of Steele before being presented to the FISA court — which is what common sense and the FBI’s own manual mean by “verified”?
    Is that necessary for a warrant?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  25. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,333
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Is that necessary for a warrant?
    "...To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

    What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

    The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

    The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant..." https://www.justsecurity.org/38422/a...ant-fbi-agent/
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  26. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  27. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Steele Dossier

    They didn't do that? There was an application, no?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •