House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[Mountain Man]

Source: FBI Withheld Notes From Their Interviews With Christopher Steele From Senate Judiciary Committee

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018...ary-committee/

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

Strange, the Forbes article I posted earlier appears to be offline. At any rate, that article mentioned how Steele leaked information to the press, and then the FBI deceptively presented that leaked information to the court as independent corroboration of the memo. At no point did the FBI admit that the information was unverified, and that they were banking entirely on Steele's reputation. In that case, Steele's extreme bias against Trump would seem to be extremely relevant. But again, isn't that for the judge to decide? What business did the FBI have concealing anything from the court?

Steele's bias is not legally relevant. The lack of verification is also not legally relevant. If a woman going through a divorce alleges that her soon-to-be ex did x heinous act, that's grounds for a warrant.

[Mountain Man]

Steele's bias is not legally relevant. The lack of verification is also not legally relevant. If a woman going through a divorce alleges that her soon-to-be ex did x heinous act, that's grounds for a warrant.

OK... but what if the wife had paid a third party to fabricate salacious allegations against her husband, and then law enforcement intentionally misrepresented those allegations as independent and credible? Would that have any legal relevance?

[carpedm9587]

OK... but what if the wife had paid a third party to fabricate salacious allegations against her husband, and then law enforcement intentionally misrepresented those allegations as independent and credible? Would that have any legal relevance?

The problem with this is that the Steele dossier has not been completely verified - but it has elements that have been verified. Nothing in the memo indicates which parts of the memo were used in the FISA warrant, so it is an assumption that the unverified elements were used - and it would be an assumption if I assumed the verified elements were used. This is part of the "cherry picking" noted earlier.

[JimL]

OK... but what if the wife had paid a third party to fabricate salacious allegations against her husband, and then law enforcement intentionally misrepresented those allegations as independent and credible? Would that have any legal relevance?

The FBI's investigation into Carter Page, as well as the invetigation into the Trump campaign, began long before they had access to the Steele dossier. As a matter of fact the Steele dossier corroborated intel that the FBI already had. And you have been running around ranting about how the FISA Judges weren't informed as to the source of the dossier and who funded it. Do you know what we call that nowadays MM? We call it fake news.

[Mountain Man]

The FBI's investigation into Carter Page, as well as the invetigation into the Trump campaign, began long before they had access to the Steele dossier. As a matter of fact the Steele dossier corroborated intel that the FBI already had. And you have been running around ranting about how the FISA Judges weren't informed as to the source of the dossier and who funded it. Do you know what we call that nowadays MM? We call it fake news.

You continue to ignore the fact that Andrew McCabe said on the record that they would have never gotten the warrant without the dossier, and that the FBI never disclosed that the dossier was uncorroborated opposition research paid for Hillary and the Democrats. This was all spelled out in the Nunes memo. Then there's the subsequent Grassley/Graham memo which further confirmed how the FBI deliberately misled the court by presenting a news story that Steele had leaked to the press as though it were independent corroboration of Steele's dossier.

Do you really think if the FBI had made a full and honest disclosure of the facts that any judge would have approved the application?

[Mountain Man]

The problem with this is that the Steele dossier has not been completely verified - but it has elements that have been verified. Nothing in the memo indicates which parts of the memo were used in the FISA warrant, so it is an assumption that the unverified elements were used - and it would be an assumption if I assumed the verified elements were used. This is part of the "cherry picking" noted earlier.

What parts of the dossier have been verified? As far as I know, the only things verified are some random names and a couple of innocuous meetings between Russian persons but absolutely nothing related to Trump or his campaign. The fact that the FBI had apparently been investigating Carter Page for a period of time but had nothing from that investigation sufficient to secure a warrant is significant. It wasn't until the FBI had Steele's made-to-order dossier, and with much deception and concealing of facts that they were finally able to convince a court to agree.

[carpedm9587]

What parts of the dossier have been verified? As far as I know, the only things verified are some random names and a couple of innocuous meetings between Russian persons but absolutely nothing related to Trump or his campaign. The fact that the FBI had apparently been investigating Carter Page for a period of time but had nothing from that investigation sufficient to secure a warrant is significant. It wasn't until the FBI had Steele's made-to-order dossier, and with much deception and concealing of facts that they were finally able to convince a court to agree.

Here is one article summarizing the verified elements: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia...we-know-777116

Of course, it's Newsweek reporting, so I expect we'll get a laughing/rolling face about their credibility. Most assessment sites rate them as left of center with high credibility. Take that for what you consider it to be worth. There are other reports from other sources that align with this one fairly well, so I take its credibility to be fairly high.

[Mountain Man]

Here is one article summarizing the verified elements: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia...we-know-777116

So pretty much nothing at all.

[carpedm9587]

So pretty much nothing at all.

[Starlight]

Is there anything in the Steele dossier that has been proven false at this point?

[Mountain Man]

Is there anything in the Steele dossier that has been proven false at this point?

It seems the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is lost on you.

[Starlight]

It seems the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is lost on you.

Is that a "no"? You're mixing apples and oranges. Stick to the topic of the factual accuracy of the dossier for a moment, and don't get sidetracked by misapplying legal-theoretical principles.

So currently the dossier contains a number of claims that have been subsequently proven true by evidence in the public domain, no claims that have been subsequently proven false by evidence in the public domain, and a number of claims which have to this point been neither proven nor disproven by evidence that has been made publicly available thus far?

So the publicly revealed evidence about the level of accuracy of the dossier would then be consistent with a view that the dossier is mostly or generally accurate and that Steele is indeed a competent and knowledgeable ex-MI6 Russia-expert as he has been represented to be?

[Darth Executor]

the dossier contains a lot of claims that have been proven true like "Moscow is a Russian city". The validity of claims like "Trump hired prostitutes to urinate in Obama's bed" remains a mystery to retarded liberals otoh.

[Starlight]

"Moscow is a Russian city"

COLLUSION!!! Trump is guilty!