(01-11-2018 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Ummm...dude. YOU DIDN'T FIND WHAT TENNIS ASKED FOR, which was the assertion was that Steele gave different testimony. We want to see that testimony. Not an article on John McCain. The story you found had nothing to do with Steele's testimony because it had not even happened at the time of that article.
fail
You CANNOT be this ignorant.
Again, the original claim by Tech was as follows:
Quote:he was sued in England and sang a totally different tune when put in the witness stand. Don't recall where I read it, but it's out there.
To which Tennis replied:
Quote:How about do the research before posting crap like that, I looked for proof that he was even sued in the UK, which shouldn't be hard to find if it did happen, surprise surprise, nothing of the sort came up.
Then you posted a link to an article, that while it does mention a lawsuit, in no way provides the proof to corroborate what Tech said, in that Steele sang a different tune. Clearly, the main point of Tech's post was Steele changing his story...not just being sued.
I never was responding to anything Tech said. Some person, who needed handholding, could not find evidence of a lawsuit in the UK. I provided that. Quickly.
Good for you. I looked for it as well...and it took me several minutes and I had to read several articles to find anything on the UK stuff as almost all of them were about the US case. Regardless, tech's main point was still that he changed his tune. Something for which no credible evidence has been posted as of yet.
Why am I not surpised that what takes me 5 seconds takes you a few minutes?
Quote:he was sued in England and sang a totally different tune when put in the witness stand. Don't recall where I read it, but it's out there.
To which Tennis replied:
Quote:How about do the research before posting crap like that, I looked for proof that he was even sued in the UK, which shouldn't be hard to find if it did happen, surprise surprise, nothing of the sort came up.
Then you posted a link to an article, that while it does mention a lawsuit, in no way provides the proof to corroborate what Tech said, in that Steele sang a different tune. Clearly, the main point of Tech's post was Steele changing his story...not just being sued.
I never was responding to anything Tech said. Some person, who needed handholding, could not find evidence of a lawsuit in the UK. I provided that. Quickly.
Good for you. I looked for it as well...and it took me several minutes and I had to read several articles to find anything on the UK stuff as almost all of them were about the US case. Regardless, tech's main point was still that he changed his tune. Something for which no credible evidence has been posted as of yet.
Why am I not surpised that what takes me 5 seconds takes you a few minutes?
Quote:Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee this spring that American intelligence officers did not base their conclusions about Russia's interference in the 2016 election on anything included in the dossier.
Quote:Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee this spring that American intelligence officers did not base their conclusions about Russia's interference in the 2016 election on anything included in the dossier.
A very cleverly worded statement conflating two separate issues.
1. Attempted Russian interference. (DNC hack, soft attacks on state election sites, peddling misinformation on Facebook.)
2. Supposed Russian collusion with the Trump campaign prior to the election.
If I'm not mistaken, there was already talk of Russian interference in the election process prior to the dossier ever being commissioned.
Quote:Manu Raju
@mkraju
·
2h
Grassley writes Fusion GPS asking how Glenn Simpson mistakingly said a “human source” inside Trump camp worked with the FBI when he apparently meant it was info passed along to the FBI by the Australians about Papadopoulos
Quote:Manu Raju
@mkraju
·
2h
Grassley writes Fusion GPS asking how Glenn Simpson mistakingly said a “human source” inside Trump camp worked with the FBI when he apparently meant it was info passed along to the FBI by the Australians about Papadopoulos
Quote:Several people familiar with the probe said Simpson's comments refer to a report from an Australian official who contacted U.S. officials in late July with concerns about a conversation months earlier in London with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. In 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with investigators.
(01-11-2018 12:57 PM)gdunn Wrote: Na. One is sufficient. Keep it out there to see if anyone finds it interesting that they're being sued for defamation. I'm not a lawyer but that means now Fusion has to provide proof of what is stated in the dossier and if they can't, can't they be prosecuted for perjury over their 21 hours of testimony that they really didn't say anything but conjecture and alleged happenings.
No lawyer either but it appears that after Steele shopped his dossier around making all sorts of claims against UK, US, and Russian citizens that were insinuated to be hard fact, he was sued in England and sang a totally different tune when put in the witness stand. Don't recall where I read it, but it's out there.
Oh, and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nigth, so there's that.
How about do the research before posting crap like that, I looked for proof that he was even sued in the UK, which shouldn't be hard to find if it did happen, surprise surprise, nothing of the sort came up.
I don't make an excuse but I've had a bad cold and maybe that slowed down my mental facilities a little bit.
The article I read I believe was posted on realclearpolitics, perhaps yesterday, 10 Jan. And while I readily admit I may be confused about some of the details because I've read so many stories on the dossier and Steele himself (and don't forget that bad cold I mentioned), I don't believe that on the whole I'm off-base with what I asserted.....that Steele once lead everyone to believe that his research on the Trump dossier was solid, but backed way off that position once a lawsuit was filed.
I'll keep looking for the exact article I read. In the meantime, there's this:
Quote: A Russian tech billionaire is asking a U.K. court to compel testimony from a former British intelligence officer who compiled the now-famous dossier on U.S. President Donald Trump’s alleged links to Russia, according to court documents reviewed by Foreign Policy.
The application to the British court, dated Nov. 3, is just the latest legal maneuver in a case that has become emblematic of the international political intrigue that followed Trump’s surprise electoral victory a year ago. The three-way legal battle involves a Russian businessman who says he’s been unfairly linked to the hacking of the Democratic Party, a former spy paid to dig up dirt on a real estate mogul who is now president, and a feisty news organization best known for publishing cat videos and listicles.
The application to the British court seeks testimony from Steele on, among other issues, payments he received, the reasons for the dossier’s creation, sources and methods for its preparation, and information on who it was distributed to, including media organizations.
Lawyers for Steele and Gubarev have been wrangling for months over whether the former intelligence officer will have to testify in the BuzzFeed case.
Compelling Steele to testify in the U.S. case is part of Gubarev’s strategy to demonstrate that BuzzFeed was negligent in publishing the unverified allegations in the dossier. BuzzFeed’s legal strategy, on the other hand, is to use the court case to prove that the allegations contained in the dossier might indeed be true.
Found it. Yeah, I had to look all the way back to YESTERDAY.
Quote:Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly, when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations were not of such “huge significance” after all — as Rowan Scarborough detailed in a Washington Times news story.
One of the libel suits against Steele was filed in London by Aleksej Gubarev, whom Steele accused of participating in Russian intelligence hacking. To defend against the suit, Steele and his attorneys had no choice but to respond to interrogatories. In answering, Steele markedly downgraded the seriousness of his dossier reports.
According to Steele’s courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of “raw intelligence” that were “unverified” and that he passed along because they “warranted further investigation” — i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. He gave them to American and British government officials, he maintains, only because they raised potential national-security threats, not because they actually established any such threats. That, he now says, was for government investigators to figure out. In sum, Steele’s defamation defense is not that what he wrote was true but that his reports “must be critically viewed in light of the purpose for and circumstances in which the information was collected.”
Quote:Steele provided these answers to the court in mid May of 2017. Interestingly, there was one question he refused to answer: When the plaintiffs asked him to identify Fusion’s clients, he responded, “This request is neither reasonably necessary nor proportionate” for purposes of enabling the plaintiffs to prepare their case.
It would be another five months before we learned that the Clinton campaign was paying for this Trump–Russia narrative.
(01-12-2018 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Thanks for posting that Tech.
RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
(01-12-2018 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Thanks for posting that Tech.
RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
I think most, like me, are just waiting for Mueller to finish his work, then all should then become pretty clear.
(01-12-2018 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Thanks for posting that Tech.
RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
I think most, like me, are just waiting for Mueller to finish his work, then all should then become pretty clear.
One wonders if Mueller is being tight lipped with any findings. While on the other hand if he was getting pressure to do something hence the Manafort and George P. revelations which could be nothing in itself. Time will tell. If DJT is dirty throw him out. If not let the man do the job he was elected to do.
(01-12-2018 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Thanks for posting that Tech.
RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
I think most, like me, are just waiting for Mueller to finish his work, then all should then become pretty clear.
One wonders if Mueller is being tight lipped with any findings. While on the other hand if he was getting pressure to do something hence the Manafort and George P. revelations which could be nothing in itself. Time will tell. If DJT is dirty throw him out. If not let the man do the job he was elected to do.
People who have worked with him point to how meticulous he is. He's not going to release anything major until he has every stone turned over.
(01-12-2018 09:19 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Thanks for posting that Tech.
RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
I think most, like me, are just waiting for Mueller to finish his work, then all should then become pretty clear.
One wonders if Mueller is being tight lipped with any findings. While on the other hand if he was getting pressure to do something hence the Manafort and George P. revelations which could be nothing in itself. Time will tell. If DJT is dirty throw him out. If not let the man do the job he was elected to do.
People who have worked with him point to how meticulous he is. He's not going to release anything major until he has every stone turned over.
Let me ask this, if Mueller comes up with zilch, do you think it finally dies?
(01-12-2018 11:22 AM)TechRocks Wrote: RWT, on the one hand one would think that this story would have been all over the place, but then, our MSM would rather post the sensational and then look the other way when a new story might change the narrative they promote.
I haven't looked further for more of the kind of details mentioned in the National Review piece, but others have and they're apparently just not out there. Not that I should be surprised.
I think most, like me, are just waiting for Mueller to finish his work, then all should then become pretty clear.
One wonders if Mueller is being tight lipped with any findings. While on the other hand if he was getting pressure to do something hence the Manafort and George P. revelations which could be nothing in itself. Time will tell. If DJT is dirty throw him out. If not let the man do the job he was elected to do.
People who have worked with him point to how meticulous he is. He's not going to release anything major until he has every stone turned over.
Let me ask this, if Mueller comes up with zilch, do you think it finally dies?
No. trump will wave that flag for the rest of his term.
