(02-02-2018 02:26 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The fake dossier might be the biggest scandal in the history of US politics. The only question is who was tugging the puppet strings: Hillary or Obama?

Again, what's fake in it?

(02-02-2018 02:26 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The fake dossier might be the biggest scandal in the history of US politics. The only question is who was tugging the puppet strings: Hillary or Obama?

Hillary wrote the check, Obama sent his FBI to do the grunt work. Never thought they would get caught.

Tip of the Iceberg.

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 01:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrat colluded with a foreign agent to fabricate a dossier, which was then used to influence the election and wiretap American citizens.

Traitors. Firing squad time.

Well they paid Russians to influence the election.

Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 01:22 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Democrat colluded with a foreign agent to fabricate a dossier, which was then used to influence the election and wiretap American citizens.

Traitors. Firing squad time.

Well they paid Russians to influence the election.

Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well they paid Russians to influence the election.

Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well they paid Russians to influence the election.

Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

(02-02-2018 02:32 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:26 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The fake dossier might be the biggest scandal in the history of US politics. The only question is who was tugging the puppet strings: Hillary or Obama?

Hillary wrote the check, Obama sent his FBI to do the grunt work. Never thought they would get caught.

Tip of the Iceberg.

How about a tip of a credible source...instead of your wet dream fantasies?

(02-02-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

What that statement confirms is the majority of the document is fake because it was "minimally corroborated."

(02-02-2018 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

McCabe testified uner oath that they would not have received the fisa warrant without the dossier. game, set, match

If you are having problems understanding this, its a no wonder you were fooled on what an insurance deductible is.

When Trump said you guys were stupid, that was an understatement.

(02-02-2018 02:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:26 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  The fake dossier might be the biggest scandal in the history of US politics. The only question is who was tugging the puppet strings: Hillary or Obama?

Again, what's fake in it?

I don't know. It was however put together by a person that the FBI first suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI called most serious violations. It casts some doubt as to Steele's integrity IMO.

(02-02-2018 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

Do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

The first bullet point of the memo literally says the Steele dossier (created for the DNC and Killiary), formed and essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.

What about that is confusing to you? Further, McCabe was quoted in saying that no surveillance would've been sought without the Steele dossier information.

(02-02-2018 02:40 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

What that statement confirms is the majority of the document is fake because it was "minimally corroborated."

Ummm...no. What it means is that it's next to impossible to prove something didn't happen, or is fake. Things in the dossier have been corroborated...the GOP memo says so.

So, blanketly calling it fake is a complete and total lie. It's nothing more than a stupid trump talking point and you should stop using it if you want to be taken seriously.

Just because you can't confirm something does not mean that it did not happen.

(02-02-2018 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Bless your heart.

What part of the bolded part is false?

What's fake in the dossier? And cite your sources.

And also provide evidence from the FISA court that the dossier was used to authorize the continual renewal of the warrant.

Further, how was it used to influence an election when it was first reported about a week before the election in a Mother Jones article that nearly every one never saw or read?

Geez dude, I asked a simple question, what is false in the part that was bolded. I'll give ya another chance even though it appears you've already answered by not answering.

I already told you. The dossier was not fabricated, it was not used to influence an election and we don't know for certain it was used to obtain the warrant, much less used on citizens, plural. It may have only been used on Carter Page, if even on him. Other than that, nothing was wrong with what you bolded.

Quote:* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.

I'm guessing that until Andrew McCabe whispers those words directly in your ear, you'll continue to claim you're not certain. That's fine if that's the way you wish to defend a position.

After all this time, what part of the dossier has been proven accurate? Trump visited Russia? Russians live in Russia?

Steele leaked the details of the dossier hoping to influence the election.....his own version of an October Surprise. That he chose Mother Jones is his problem, not mine. Having said that, I do believe the story was picked up and spread around from there. In fact, I think I heard a liberal mention Russians within the last week or so.

(02-02-2018 02:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

McCabe testified uner oath that they would not have received the fisa warrant without the dossier. game, set, match

If you are having problems understanding this, its a no wonder you were fooled on what an insurance deductible is.

If in fact that is what happened(and I believe that is the case based on the fact that the GOP wants the transcripts released) then I agree.

(02-02-2018 02:42 PM)DownEastPirate Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

Do you even believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth?

The first bullet point of the memo literally says the Steele dossier (created for the DNC and Killiary), formed and essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.

What about that is confusing to you? Further, McCabe was quoted in saying that no surveillance would've been sought without the Steele dossier information.

Application does not tell you at all what went on in the court proceeding in relation to it. Nor does it tell you what other evidence may have been used to approve the warrant many times over.

Additionally, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the GOP's spinning here.

(02-02-2018 02:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:40 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

What that statement confirms is the majority of the document is fake because it was "minimally corroborated."

Ummm...no. What it means is that it's next to impossible to prove something didn't happen, or is fake. Things in the dossier have been corroborated...the GOP memo says so.

So, blanketly calling it fake is a complete and total lie. It's nothing more than a stupid trump talking point and you should stop using it if you want to be taken seriously.

Wrong.

You should read the Memo and stop talking in circles.

(02-02-2018 02:43 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:40 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:33 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

given the fact that we are actually talking about a document that was used in a court proceeding, its the party's responsibility, the one making the claims (in this case, the author of the dossier) to prove that the allegations are true. Not the other way around...

I don't believe we know this for a certainty...nor do we know to what extent it was used, if it was. FISA court filings are typically mountainous. Way more than a couple page dossier.

McCabe testified uner oath that they would not have received the fisa warrant without the dossier. game, set, match

If you are having problems understanding this, its a no wonder you were fooled on what an insurance deductible is.

If in fact that is what happened(and I believe that is the case based on the fact that the GOP wants the transcripts released) then I agree.

If he did testify to that, that COULD only indicate that was his feeling. Without word from the court, we just don't know for certain. Sorry.

(02-02-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Source?

The fake dossier

Again, any time you want to post credible sources of what's fake in the dossier, I'll gladly read them.

The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

"2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News -- and several other outlets – in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed."

Seems it may have been corroborated by the same source that wrote the dossier. Steele's integrity and honesty also are questionable.

"a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September -- before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October -- but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling -- maintaining confidentiality -- and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI."

If all this is true then the dossier at best is questionable.

(02-02-2018 02:45 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:40 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 02:35 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  The Memo Section 4:
"After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony --- "salacious and unverified."

Thanks. So you confirmed that it was corroborated to some extent. Read, not fake. Additionally, salacious and unverified DO NOT equal fake!

What that statement confirms is the majority of the document is fake because it was "minimally corroborated."

Ummm...no. What it means is that it's next to impossible to prove something didn't happen, or is fake. Things in the dossier have been corroborated...the GOP memo says so.

So, blanketly calling it fake is a complete and total lie. It's nothing more than a stupid trump talking point and you should stop using it if you want to be taken seriously.

Wrong.

You should read the Memo and stop talking in circles.

I've already read it.