U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, riclag said:

Why do continue to attack me ,I was giving thanks to another poster for their time and effort . Now your ,referring I'm a Russian troll and  in another comment accusing me of lying when I said that the steel report(opposition research reports) was used during the campaign period in a Fisa warrant.You want to make comments to me and about me, its ok but don't ridicule and insult  me with those insinuations.You and I disagree on many issues but I never insult you 

 

Me-Thanks so much for the time and effort  you put into your very informative comment .Its apparent to me that releasing the fisa transcripts would expose those who have misled facts for political purposes to enhance their narrative .Once the IG office comes out with their report it will shed more light on the hypocrisy behind this investigation  

 

 You-It is hypocritical to investigate Russian interference in the US election?

 

Are you one of the Russian trolls that have been charged?

 

 

It was a legitimate question:  Do you really think it is hypocritical to investigate Russian interference in the US election?  I think it is critical to do so.

 

I do wonder about people who are in denial about the need for an investigation; where they are from, what they are up to, and where their loyalties lie.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

That was a nice way to sidestep the fact that you made a statement, refused to back it up with a source, and then when someone else gave you a source it didn't back up what you said. 

People like you take all the fun out of trolling.   Thank you.

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

I referenced credible news sources, you referenced biased politicians with an agenda.  How do you know what was omitted from the Grassley and Graham memo; have you seen the FISA court submission?

 

How many times have I challenged you to provide evidence that Steele lied, to the British court or anyone else?  Yet you still provide no source for your claim.

 

Another claim you can't defend.  If my anti-Trump rants are all over the forum, you will have no problem finding a few.

 

"I referenced credible news sources, you referenced biased politicians with an agenda."

 

You referenced mainstream news agencies which published articles which they made clear were based on anonymous (and therefore unverifiable) sources.

 

"How do you know what was omitted from the Grassley and Graham memo; have you seen the FISA court submission?"

 

Senators Grassley and Graham have seen the relevant court documents. Yet again, from their memo:

 

"The bulk of the 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, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier."

 

They make it quite clear in the above quote that they have not left anything out wrt what evidence was presented in the application for the FISA warrant. So, they are either stating the whole truth or they are lying. Which is it?

 

And again from their memo:

 

"The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 [of the first warrant application, apparently repeated in the subsequent applications] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “identified U.S. person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS."

 

Again, they are unequivocal about how the source of the dossier was presented to the FISA court. So again, they are either stating the whole truth or they are telling lies. Again, which is it?

 

"How many times have I challenged you to provide evidence that Steele lied, to the British court or anyone else?  Yet you still provide no source for your claim."

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've provided proof that Steele is a liar. The fact that he was sacked by the FBI for breaking his word to them and lying about doing so is all over the same mainstream press that you quote for your unverified anonymous sources. Here's another link, just to remind you:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/4/fbi-authorized-christopher-steele-payments-dossier/

 

And here is proof that he is, through his defence, misleading a UK court:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html

 

"Even if Steele thought his memos needed to be urgently shared with the government, his lawyers insist that the memos were never meant to be publicly released. They say Steele held some off-the-record briefings with reporters before the election but never provided them with documents for publication.

Trump, Putin speak amid ongoing tensions

Therefore, Steele claims that he and his company "are not liable for publication by BuzzFeed," the filing says. "

 

I has already been ascertained that Steele is the person responsible for releasing his dossier to the media. That's why the FBI got rid of him.

 

I will address you comical claim that you don't post rabid anti-Trump rants in a later post.

 

 

[Khun Han]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

I referenced credible news sources, you referenced biased politicians with an agenda.  How do you know what was omitted from the Grassley and Graham memo; have you seen the FISA court submission?

 

How many times have I challenged you to provide evidence that Steele lied, to the British court or anyone else?  Yet you still provide no source for your claim.

 

Another claim you can't defend.  If my anti-Trump rants are all over the forum, you will have no problem finding a few.

 

"Another claim you can't defend.  If my anti-Trump rants are all over the forum, you will have no problem finding a few."

 

From post #142 in this thread:

 

"As much as I dislike using the word "smart" and the name "Trump" in the same sentence, it is possible that Trump was smart enough to not get directly involved in collusion with Russia.  However I think it is very likely that Trump is a sufficiently arrogant micro-manager to have been involved in covering up the collusion of family and friends, and will continue to be involved.  That would not be as satisfying as uncovering the money-laundering, tax evasion, and corrupt conflict of interest deals with Russia and other countries that are certain to exist, but it would be good enough to get him impeached, and a lot easier to prove."

 

From the "Do you think Trump will finish his first term?" thread:

 

Post #4 "Do I want a completely unqualified, clueless, erratic, self-absorbed buffoon to have the power to launch nuclear weapons?  No, I want him removed from office as soon as possible.

 

Cue the "But, but, but....the stock market!" replies."

 

Post #16 "The economy was doing fine before Trump, and his only Supreme Court nomination is appalling.

 

"Rotten to the core doesn't begin to describe Trump."

 

Post #53 "Considering the overall cluelessness of Trump regarding military affairs in general and nuclear deterrence in general, what makes you so confident he won't start a nuclear war?  He's such an insecure egotist he might do it just so people will remember his name."

 

And on and on and on.

 

By the way, the above can't be classed as stalking. I'm merely providing information for which Heybruce has repeatedly asked me.

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

5 hours ago, jcsmith said:

That was a nice way to sidestep the fact that you made a statement, refused to back it up with a source, and then when someone else gave you a source it didn't back up what you said. 

People like you take all the fun out of trolling.   Thank you.

 

Jcsmith's reply was indeed trolling. Regarding what he thought was a witty, cutting reply, I'd tried to guide you gently in the right direction. But you always feign ignorance about any sources which contradict you agenda, despite you taking a huge interest in the subject, So now I've had to (as usual) embarrass you (and Jcsmith) by putting bald facts about this sub-issue straight into your face.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

Jcsmith's reply was indeed trolling. Regarding what he thought was a witty, cutting reply, I'd tried to guide you gently in the right direction. But you always feign ignorance about any sources which contradict you agenda, despite you taking a huge interest in the subject, So now I've had to (as usual) embarrass you (and Jcsmith) by putting bald facts about this sub-issue straight into your face.

Hmm no, not trolling. He just pointed out that you made a statement, refused to back it up with a source, then somebody else gave a source but unfortunately for you it didn't back up your statement.

 

And just like master Trump you just sidestep it and keep on making the same incorrect claim.

[Scott]

Trolling, baiting posts and replies removed.   Continue and receive a suspension.  

 

[Khun Han]

27 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Hmm no, not trolling. He just pointed out that you made a statement, refused to back it up with a source, then somebody else gave a source but unfortunately for you it didn't back up your statement.

 

And just like master Trump you just sidestep it and keep on making the same incorrect claim.

 

I made a statement and backed it up by pointing Heybruce toward Steele's libel trial in the UK. He declined to follow my pointer, and Jcsmith based his comments on this. I have now provided a link which confirms my statement, in my post #213. Can you now agree that Steele, via his defence team, is misleading a UK court in stating that it was not the intention for his dossier to be published, when, in fact, the FBI has confirmed that they got rid of Steele for the very reason that he published his dossier in the media against his agreement with them not to do so, and then lied to them about having done so?

[alanrchase]

 
I made a statement and backed it up by pointing Heybruce toward Steele's libel trial in the UK. He declined to follow my pointer, and Jcsmith based his comments on this. I have now provided a link which confirms my statement, in my post #213. Can you now agree that Steele, via his defence team, is misleading a UK court in stating that it was not the intention for his dossier to be published, when, in fact, the FBI has confirmed that they got rid of Steele for the very reason that he published his dossier in the media against his agreement with them not to do so, and then lied to them about having done so?

Serious question. Do you read your own links?

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

 

Serious question. Do you read your own links?

 

 

Yes. If you're going to point to a part of a link which doesn't pertain to the requested information that the link provides, please try to stay ontopic on the specific discussion or start a separate discussion.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes. If you're going to point to a part of a link which doesn't pertain to the requested information that the link provides, please try to stay ontopic on the specific discussion or start a separate discussion.

Ok, so if you do read them as you claim, do you understand them?

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Ok, so if you do read them as you claim, do you understand them?

 

Yes. Is there something in my link to Steele's UK libel trial, pertaining to his defence strategy, that you think contradicts what I have stated? If it's a different issue raised in the link, please feel free to raise a different discussion. If it's interesting enough, I might even join in.

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes. Is there something in my link to Steele's UK libel trial, pertaining to his defence strategy, that you think contradicts what I have stated? If it's a different issue raised in the link, please feel free to raise a different discussion. If it's interesting enough, I might even join in.

Since you on a continuous basis post links that say more or less the opposite to what you're claiming, I see only 2 options: either you don't read them or don't understand them.

 

But I'm out of here, there is no point in discussing something with somebody who posts lie after lie, and when called out just ignores it.

[attrayant]

11 hours ago, Khun Han said:

Actually, it wouldn't get us back on topic, because this thread isn't about Trump, as much as some people would like it to be.

 

Topic title:  U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump

 

The topic is about Trump insofar as election tampering may have helped him.  And Trump sure seemed to think it was about him because he tweeted about the indictments sixteen times within three days of the news.

 

And circling back around to your professed distaste for professional liars, I'm sure you'll be livid when you see this:

 

Trump spent the weekend tweeting about Russia. He lied, a lot.

 

Lie #1: The indictments prove that Russian hacking didn't affect the election

Lie #2: Trump has always accepted that Russia meddled in the election

Lie #3: Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Topic title:  U.S. charges Russians with 2016 U.S. election tampering to boost Trump

 

The topic is about Trump insofar as election tampering may have helped him.  And Trump sure seemed to think it was about him because he tweeted about the indictments sixteen times within three days of the news.

 

And circling back around to your professed distaste for professional liars, I'm sure you'll be livid when you see this:

 

Trump spent the weekend tweeting about Russia. He lied, a lot.

 

Lie #1: The indictments prove that Russian hacking didn't affect the election

Lie #2: Trump has always accepted that Russia meddled in the election

Lie #3: Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia

Rosenstein said the Russian hacking didn't affect the election. Is he a liar?

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Your second 'thing' is a double negative. Which makes a positive. Which means that you are interpreting Rosenstein as stating that Russian interference affected the outcome of the election. Which means that you are wilfully misinterpreting what Rosenstein stated. Why am I not surprised?

No, what he is saying that the indictment confirms neither  interference or non interference .

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"I referenced credible news sources, you referenced biased politicians with an agenda."

 

You referenced mainstream news agencies which published articles which they made clear were based on anonymous (and therefore unverifiable) sources.

 

"How do you know what was omitted from the Grassley and Graham memo; have you seen the FISA court submission?"

 

Senators Grassley and Graham have seen the relevant court documents. Yet again, from their memo:

 

"The bulk of the 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, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier."

 

They make it quite clear in the above quote that they have not left anything out wrt what evidence was presented in the application for the FISA warrant. So, they are either stating the whole truth or they are lying. Which is it?

 

And again from their memo:

 

"The FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 [of the first warrant application, apparently repeated in the subsequent applications] the FBI stated that the dossier information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an “identified U.S. person” — now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS."

 

Again, they are unequivocal about how the source of the dossier was presented to the FISA court. So again, they are either stating the whole truth or they are telling lies. Again, which is it?

 

"How many times have I challenged you to provide evidence that Steele lied, to the British court or anyone else?  Yet you still provide no source for your claim."

 

I've lost count of the number of times I've provided proof that Steele is a liar. The fact that he was sacked by the FBI for breaking his word to them and lying about doing so is all over the same mainstream press that you quote for your unverified anonymous sources. Here's another link, just to remind you:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/4/fbi-authorized-christopher-steele-payments-dossier/

 

And here is proof that he is, through his defence, misleading a UK court:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html

 

"Even if Steele thought his memos needed to be urgently shared with the government, his lawyers insist that the memos were never meant to be publicly released. They say Steele held some off-the-record briefings with reporters before the election but never provided them with documents for publication.

Trump, Putin speak amid ongoing tensions

Therefore, Steele claims that he and his company "are not liable for publication by BuzzFeed," the filing says. "

 

I has already been ascertained that Steele is the person responsible for releasing his dossier to the media. That's why the FBI got rid of him.

 

I will address you comical claim that you don't post rabid anti-Trump rants in a later post.

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Grassley-Graham memo is a biased collection of carefully selected facts put together for a political purpose.

 

"They make it quite clear in the above quote that they have not left anything out wrt what evidence was presented in the application for the FISA warrant. So, they are either stating the whole truth or they are lying. Which is it?"

 

I suspect lying, or at the very least taking a very flexible attitude towards the truth.  If the Democrat memo giving an alternative point of view is ever release we may be able to find out which.

 

Your Washington Times source doesn't offer proof that Steele gave the dossier to the press.  All it states is:

 

" The Nunes memo later states, “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.” "

 

However, as I already posted, Steele went to the press because he thought the FBI was not taken action on an urgent security matter.  I didn't make that up:

 

" The former intelligence official grew concerned that there was a cover-up in progress. On a trip to New York in October, he was persuaded to tell his story to David Corn, the Washington editor of Mother Jones, who first reported the existence of the material on 31 October. "   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/inside-trump-dossier-handoff-mccains-go-between-speaks-out.html

 

Neither of these sources state that Steele gave the dossier to the press, only that he talked about his investigation, because he feared that the FBI was protecting the President and ignoring an important national security issue.  In view of the FBI's actions during the campaign, that was an understandable fear.

 

Once again, you confuse "payments authorized by the FBI", but never made, with Steele working for the FBI.  Steele was not paid by the FBI. 

 

You have now retreated from your claim that Steele lied to a British court and state that he mislead a British court.  However your quote, meant to support this claim, undermines it, and your claim that Steele gave the dossier to the press:

 

"Even if Steele thought his memos needed to be urgently shared with the government, his lawyers insist that the memos were never meant to be publicly released. They say Steele held some off-the-record briefings with reporters before the election but never provided them with documents for publication.

Trump, Putin speak amid ongoing tensions

Therefore, Steele claims that he and his company "are not liable for publication by BuzzFeed," the filing says. "

 

Your own quoted source refutes your claim:

 

"I has already been ascertained that Steele is the person responsible for releasing his dossier to the media."

 

No, you "hasn't".

 

You seem obsessed with the idea that the FBI pursued an anti-Trump political agenda during the campaign.  How do you reconcile this view with the FBI violating agency policy by conducting a very public investigation of Clinton's emails, re-opened days before the election, while keeping the investigation of Russian ties to the Trump campaign secret?

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

"Another claim you can't defend.  If my anti-Trump rants are all over the forum, you will have no problem finding a few."

 

From post #142 in this thread:

 

"As much as I dislike using the word "smart" and the name "Trump" in the same sentence, it is possible that Trump was smart enough to not get directly involved in collusion with Russia.  However I think it is very likely that Trump is a sufficiently arrogant micro-manager to have been involved in covering up the collusion of family and friends, and will continue to be involved.  That would not be as satisfying as uncovering the money-laundering, tax evasion, and corrupt conflict of interest deals with Russia and other countries that are certain to exist, but it would be good enough to get him impeached, and a lot easier to prove."

 

From the "Do you think Trump will finish his first term?" thread:

 

Post #4 "Do I want a completely unqualified, clueless, erratic, self-absorbed buffoon to have the power to launch nuclear weapons?  No, I want him removed from office as soon as possible.

 

Cue the "But, but, but....the stock market!" replies."

 

Post #16 "The economy was doing fine before Trump, and his only Supreme Court nomination is appalling.

 

"Rotten to the core doesn't begin to describe Trump."

 

Post #53 "Considering the overall cluelessness of Trump regarding military affairs in general and nuclear deterrence in general, what makes you so confident he won't start a nuclear war?  He's such an insecure egotist he might do it just so people will remember his name."

 

And on and on and on.

 

By the way, the above can't be classed as stalking. I'm merely providing information for which Heybruce has repeatedly asked me.

I stand by all the above statements.  Trump is totally unqualified for any military matters, especially nuclear weapons (I suspect I have more experience with nuclear issues than you do).  Trump has a long history of opaque financial dealings that bankrupt partners, and refuses to follow convention and open his finances for outside scrutiny.  Trump is known for micromanaging his businesses, his ego and arrogance are obvious, and his erratic behaviour was on full display during a televised bi-partisan meeting on immigration reform when he first agreed with the Democrats that a "clean" DACA deal was desired, then allowed one of his Republican handlers to reverse him.    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/01/09/feinstein-trump-white-house-immigration-meeting-clean-daca-sot-lead.cnn

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Jcsmith's reply was indeed trolling. Regarding what he thought was a witty, cutting reply, I'd tried to guide you gently in the right direction. But you always feign ignorance about any sources which contradict you agenda, despite you taking a huge interest in the subject, So now I've had to (as usual) embarrass you (and Jcsmith) by putting bald facts about this sub-issue straight into your face.

Read my above reply, most notably the one where you state that you have established that Steele released his dossier to the press and quoted a source that stated the opposite. 

 

I'm not embarrassed.  Are you?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I made a statement and backed it up by pointing Heybruce toward Steele's libel trial in the UK. He declined to follow my pointer, and Jcsmith based his comments on this. I have now provided a link which confirms my statement, in my post #213. Can you now agree that Steele, via his defence team, is misleading a UK court in stating that it was not the intention for his dossier to be published, when, in fact, the FBI has confirmed that they got rid of Steele for the very reason that he published his dossier in the media against his agreement with them not to do so, and then lied to them about having done so?

 

4 hours ago, alanrchase said:

 

Serious question. Do you read your own links?

 

 

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Yes. If you're going to point to a part of a link which doesn't pertain to the requested information that the link provides, please try to stay ontopic on the specific discussion or start a separate discussion.

Once again, read the above posts. 

 

I don't know why you wish to slander your fellow British citizen, Christopher Steele, a man who served your government for over twenty years and is widely respected in his profession.

[riclag]

"I don't know why you wish to slander your fellow British citizen, Christopher Steele, a man who served your government for over twenty years and is widely respected in his profession".

 

Slander is a very serious word . Just because someone serves their GOV at one point and was widely respected doesn't mean there is a consensus for them to be  not doubted.I'm sure there are some highly respected British subjects that find issue with Steele's credibility not to mention others in the American Intel agencies. Example, Steele  gave monies to people for information  and the infoe was from other sources,kinda like a he said she said

 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

"I don't know why you wish to slander your fellow British citizen, Christopher Steele, a man who served your government for over twenty years and is widely respected in his profession".

 

Slander is a very serious word . Just because someone serves their GOV at one point and was widely respected doesn't mean there is a consensus for them to be  not doubted.I'm sure there are some highly respected British subjects that find issue with Steele's credibility not to mention others in the American Intel agencies. Example, Steele  gave monies to people for information  and the infoe was from other sources,kinda like a he said she said

 

Spies giving money for information?  What a shock!

 

Long ago a friend of mine with contacts in the intelligence community explained how "turning" an agent worked--you put him in a room and offered him money until he talked.

 

Obviously there is more to it than just that, but money for information has always been part of spying.

Edited February 20, 2018 by heybruce

[riclag]

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Spies giving money for information?  What a shock!

 

Long ago a friend of mine with contacts in the intelligence community explained how "turning" an agent worked--you put him in a room and offered him money until he talked.

 

Obviously there is more to it than just that, but money for information has always been part of spying.

I guess that's why many of the unsubstantiated allegations  from a he said she said  steel report can't be verified because they are from sources of sources.

Edited February 20, 2018 by riclag

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, riclag said:

I guess that's why many of the unsubstantiated allegations  from a he said she said  steel report can't be verified because they are from sources of sources.

That's how intelligence works, and why the intelligence community places great emphasis on independent verification.  It's also why intelligence officers keep their sources secret; independent verification can be compromised if one source knows who the other sources are.

 

Like it or not, a government has to trust the competence and professionalism of its intelligence community, while also accepting that mistakes will sometimes be made.  Trump prefers to undermine the US intelligence community, while taking what Putin says at face value.  Trump worries me.

[metisdead]

A number of post and replies discussing grammar usage have been removed. 

[attrayant]

Wonderful.  Six posts deleted because of a grammar nazi hijack.  Oh well let's pick up from where we left off.

 

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Rosenstein said the Russian hacking didn't affect the election. Is he a liar?

 

 

The indictment is silent on whether or not Russian interference affected the election.  From the link I supplied to you:
 

Nowhere does the indictment say that Russian social media efforts were irrelevant to the election. If anything, it seems to imply the opposite — listing off a series of large-scale efforts by Russia’s Internet Research Agency (the name its hackers used) to shape the outcome of the election.

 

Now, the report doesn’t outright say that these activities were decisive in helping Trump win. But it also doesn’t say that they had no impact on the election. It’s agnostic on the question, as is appropriate in a federal indictment.

 

To wrap your mind around this, and especially for anyone (you know who you are) who might be confused by the statement "it also doesn’t say that they had no impact on the election", consider these two statements:

 

1. Russian interference affected the election.

2. Russian interference did not affect the election.

 

The indictment contains neither of these allegations.

 

So no, Rosenstein isn't a liar.  But those who quote him as saying that Russian hacking didn't affect the election are reading something into his statements that he didn't say.

[Jingthing]

Yes and he phrased it that way to give "trump" Twitter rant ammunition. He knows his job is at risk. Sad state of affairs that the justice department needs to flatter the twisted ego of a devoloping dictator.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

"I don't know why you wish to slander your fellow British citizen, Christopher Steele, a man who served your government for over twenty years and is widely respected in his profession".

Slander is a very serious word . Just because someone serves their GOV at one point and was widely respected doesn't mean there is a consensus for them to be  not doubted.I'm sure there are some highly respected British subjects that find issue with Steele's credibility not to mention others in the American Intel agencies. Example, Steele  gave monies to people for information  and the infoe was from other sources,kinda like a he said she said

Whomever has a problem with Steele's credibility is subjectively in favor of protecting Trump and other law-breakers.   As for payment: I see no problem in offering or taking payment for professional services.  Everyone needs money for food, rent, transport, mobile phones, etc.  Should Steele be expected to get valuable info for free?  

If I ask a taxi driver or a local person on the street for some detailed important info, I might offer to pay something.   Are Trump fans saying it's inherently corrupt to pay for info?  Jeez, what will they bellyache about next?

 

6 hours ago, riclag said:

I guess that's why many of the unsubstantiated allegations  from a he said she said  steel report can't be verified because they are from sources of sources.

Thus far, no significant assertions in the Steele dossier have been proven false.  As you admit, Steele is a respected professional.  He cares more for the well-being of the US than 30% of Americans (Trump voters) as shown that it was Steele who chose to alert the FBI of the danger to the US - due to Trump, Trump's people, coordinating with Russian agents to subvert a US national election.  Trump Jr didn't tell FBI of Russian agents stealing emails and meddling.  

 

It was also an Australian who, after speaking with Papadopulous in a bar, chose to alert the FBI of foul play.

 

It so happened the FBI was already digging into the law-breaking of Trump and associates, but I'm sure the FBI appreciated added the concerns of Steele and the Australian.

 

Meanwhile, Trump Jr, Manafort, Trump Sr, Sessions, the Kushners and everyone else surrounding Trump kept reverberating the big lie that there were no contacts with Russians.  

 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by boomerangutang

[Slip]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Whomever has a problem with Steele's credibility is subjectively in favor of protecting Trump and other law-breakers.   As for payment: I see no problem in offering or taking payment for professional services.  Everyone needs money for food, rent, transport, mobile phones, etc.  Should Steele be expected to get valuable info for free?  

If I ask a taxi driver or a local person on the street for some detailed important info, I might offer to pay something.   Are Trump fans saying it's inherently corrupt to pay for info?  Jeez, what will they bellyache about next?

 

Thus far, no significant assertions in the Steele dossier have been proven false.  As you admit, Steele is a respected professional.  He cares more for the well-being of the US than 30% of Americans (Trump voters) as shown that it was Steele who chose to alert the FBI of the danger to the US - due to Trump, Trump's people, coordinating with Russian agents to subvert a US national election.  Trump Jr didn't tell FBI of Russian agents stealing emails and meddling.  

 

It was also an Australian who, after speaking with Papadopulous in a bar, chose to alert the FBI of foul play.

 

It so happened the FBI was already digging into the law-breaking of Trump and associates, but I'm sure the FBI appreciated added the concerns of Steele and the Australian.

 

Meanwhile, Trump Jr, Manafort, Trump Sr, Sessions, the Kushners and everyone else surrounding Trump kept reverberating the big lie that there were no contacts with Russians.  

 

 

You forgot but, but, but Hillary!

[Khun Han]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the Grassley-Graham memo is a biased collection of carefully selected facts put together for a political purpose.

 

"They make it quite clear in the above quote that they have not left anything out wrt what evidence was presented in the application for the FISA warrant. So, they are either stating the whole truth or they are lying. Which is it?"

 

I suspect lying, or at the very least taking a very flexible attitude towards the truth.  If the Democrat memo giving an alternative point of view is ever release we may be able to find out which.

 

Your Washington Times source doesn't offer proof that Steele gave the dossier to the press.  All it states is:

 

" The Nunes memo later states, “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.” "

 

However, as I already posted, Steele went to the press because he thought the FBI was not taken action on an urgent security matter.  I didn't make that up:

 

" The former intelligence official grew concerned that there was a cover-up in progress. On a trip to New York in October, he was persuaded to tell his story to David Corn, the Washington editor of Mother Jones, who first reported the existence of the material on 31 October. "   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/11/inside-trump-dossier-handoff-mccains-go-between-speaks-out.html

 

Neither of these sources state that Steele gave the dossier to the press, only that he talked about his investigation, because he feared that the FBI was protecting the President and ignoring an important national security issue.  In view of the FBI's actions during the campaign, that was an understandable fear.

 

Once again, you confuse "payments authorized by the FBI", but never made, with Steele working for the FBI.  Steele was not paid by the FBI. 

 

You have now retreated from your claim that Steele lied to a British court and state that he mislead a British court.  However your quote, meant to support this claim, undermines it, and your claim that Steele gave the dossier to the press:

 

"Even if Steele thought his memos needed to be urgently shared with the government, his lawyers insist that the memos were never meant to be publicly released. They say Steele held some off-the-record briefings with reporters before the election but never provided them with documents for publication.

Trump, Putin speak amid ongoing tensions

Therefore, Steele claims that he and his company "are not liable for publication by BuzzFeed," the filing says. "

 

Your own quoted source refutes your claim:

 

"I has already been ascertained that Steele is the person responsible for releasing his dossier to the media."

 

No, you "hasn't".

 

You seem obsessed with the idea that the FBI pursued an anti-Trump political agenda during the campaign.  How do you reconcile this view with the FBI violating agency policy by conducting a very public investigation of Clinton's emails, re-opened days before the election, while keeping the investigation of Russian ties to the Trump campaign secret?

 

 

Frankly, I find it truly astonishing that you are still trying to spin these issues the way that you are doing.

 

The notion that the two experienced senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham would end their distinguished political careers in ignominy by lying about such a serious matter, and putting their lies on permanent record is so 'out there', it belongs in another universe. Yet, here you are suggesting such a thing!!!

 

Let's get away from all the unnamed sources in news feeds and get back to basics. The Nunes memo is full of facts. It's credible opponents say, not that it contains lies, but that it has omissions. It doesn't matter, with regard to the facts that are actually in the memo, that the authors of the memo may have a political agenda, because the memo is still all facs, even with omissions.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/02/politics/fbi-nunes-memo-full/index.html

 

The memo states unequivocally, citing documentation from the FBI and FISC applications, that Christopher Steele is a liar. This is fact. Maybe  something has been omitted from the memo. So does that make Steele a partial liar?

 

The memo cites FBI information which contradicts Steele's lawyers' submission that he is not responsible for leaking his dossier to the media. Maybe something has been left out. does that mean that the lies that Steele's lawyers are  presenting under his instructions to a UK court are only little lies?

 

And you really are clutching at straws with your point about Steele never getting paid by the FBI. The memo makes clear that he was engaged and then fired by the FBI.

 

"No, you "hasn't"."

 

Reduced to trolling typos now, are you? How old are you?