RE: Steele Dossier Mega Thread
With all due respect, and I do mean that.....
This response is so full of holes that I can't believe you think this is 'proof' of any issue
[quote='Redwingtom' pid='14734232' dateline='1509554545']
[quote]Editor’s Note: In this special Just Security article, highly respected former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service, John Sipher examines the Steele dossier using methods that an intelligence officer would to try to validate such information. Sipher concludes that the dossier’s information on campaign collusion is generally credible when measured against standard Russian intelligence practices, events subsequent to Steele’s reporting, and information that has become available in the nine months since Steele’s final report. The dossier, in Sipher’s view, is not without fault, including factual inaccuracies. Those errors, however, do not detract from an overarching framework that has proven to be ever more reliable as new revelations about potential Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin and its affiliates has come to light in the nine months since Steele submitted his final report.[/quote][/quote]
In other words, you have someone whose opinion it is that what is presented is consistent with Russian intelligence practices... which of course is proof of nothing whatsoever. If I produced someone that said it WASN'T consistent, you'd certainly argue correctly that this doesn't prove it isn't either.
[quote]
[quote='Redwingtom' pid='14754951' dateline='1510075475']
More of Steele supported from Carter Page testimony.
[quote]The transcript shows that Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff confronted Page with an email he wrote on July 8, 2016, from Moscow to the Trump campaign adviser J.D. Gordon, saying he had received "incredible insights and outreach ... from a few Russian legislators and senior members of the presidential administration here."
The dossier, compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele, said an "official close to Presidential Administration Head, S. Ivanov, confided in a compatriot that a senior colleague in the Internal Political Department of the PA, Diveykin (nfd) also had met secretly with Page on his recent visit."[/quote]
and my brother's girlfriend's sister said Ferris passed out at 31 flavors yesterday.
I suspect they DID meet... Maybe like Clinton they discussed grand-children and yoga?
[quote]Four months before, a US intelligence source told Yahoo's Michael Isikoff that Sechin met with Page during Page's three-day trip to Moscow. Sechin, the source told Yahoo, raised the issue of the US lifting sanctions on Russia under Trump.[/quote]
Well sure. I suspect lifting sanctions against a country would come up in EVERY conversation with a politician or envoy from a country engaging in sanctions.
[quote]Steele wrote in the dossier that a Russian source close to Sechin said in July 2016 that Sechin and Page had held a "secret meeting" to discuss "the issues of future bilateral energy cooperation and prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia."[/quote]
Once again, well yeah.... I'd assume that we'd want something in exchange for lifting the sanctions, and what we're talking about is bilateral energy cooperation.
Don't know if it is true, but someone who would know told me a long time ago that there was no word in Russian for 'secret'. I suspect it was somewhat metaphorical, but the idea was that there was no such thing as a 'secret' under socialism... but if we throw 'secret meeting' into the conversation, suddenly there is nefarious dealings.
If you like the person, you call it a private meeting. If you don't, you call it a secret meeting.
[quote]The dossier said Sechin offered Page the brokerage of a 19% stake in the company in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Russia.
Page told Schiff that the sanctions issue was "outside the scope" of Baranov's responsibilities, and when asked whether he had spoken to Baranov again after returning the US, Page said he couldn't recall. Page also said he met with an investor-relations official at Gazprom, a Russia energy company, while in Moscow in July and December.[/quote]
Sounds to me like he said 'no'... or at least that such a conversation was inappropriate to link political and personal actions.
Even if 100% true, best you have is that they offered him something and he declined to even talk about it. This is precisely the sort of proof I've said the Russians would have revealed 9 months ago if they had it.
[quote]Asked whether he and Baranov discussed "a potential sale of a significant percentage of Rosneft" in July, Page said, "He may have briefly mentioned it."[/quote]
Sounds like that is precisely what happened.
he said 'maybe we can steer a sale your way' and he brushed it off.
I think it pretty obvious that Page would KNOW that it was outside his ability to negotiate/promise... especially if he was commenting that it was outside Baranov's ability to negotiate/promise.
I swear, you guys REALLY think you have something here and this is what you have?
I obviously don't know... but nobody has shown anything remotely resembling 'proof'. Instead, they simply have SOME evidence to support the most mundane parts of the dossier, and act like this makes the whole thing true and calls for 'proof' to be outrageous.
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2017 02:00 PM by Hambone10.)
|
