FBI has not verified Trump dossier

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: bastion

How would someone obtain a FISA warrant just off an intel report?

I don't know, but CNNs sources seem to think it played a role:

Washington (CNN)The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

The dossier has also been cited by FBI Director James Comey in some of his briefings to members of Congress in recent weeks, as one of the sources of information the bureau has used to bolster its investigation, according to US officials briefed on the probe.

This includes approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Page, two of the officials said. Last year, Page was identified by the Trump campaign as an adviser on national security.

CNN

Warrant applications were turned down twice before, then they get the dossier and the warrant goes through. What other conclusion can be reached than the dossier at least played a role in the obtaining of the warrant?

 

Also, remember that former FBI director James Comey admitted to leaking information (while he was still FBI director) to a close friend with the intention that the information in those leaks make it to the press in order to get a special counsel appointed.

I'm more an expert on UK defence/intel than US but 99% sure the FBI have to conduct their own investigation rather than rely on outside info before warrants can be issued or even written. It may have been used as a base to corroborate such reports after it was reported to the FBI, but not as the basis for the warrant to be issued.

it.ojp.gov...
fas.org...

a reply to: bastion

They're referring to the documents themselves, not the content.

The content is a well paid for fiction piece.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's such a bogus argument that is full of faults and you are incorrectly using the application of cognitive dissonance. Just because some part of something is not wholly accurate or factual does not mean that something is ALWAYS inaccurate or not factual.

Based on your argument anytime someone agrees with some entity where they have also disagreed with that same entity in the past then they somehow lose any credibility in the basis of that argument? That's ridiculous.

So you're telling me you ALWAYS agree with your parents, friends, family, clergy, co-workers, etc. on any and every topic you have ever discussed? Or would it be more reasonable to say it's human nature to sometimes agree and disagree with someone? Perhaps that someone has a great argument one day and a bad one the next. Perhaps that someone presents an argument backed with facts versus opinion and the next day they present an argument that is weak and has no merit. Does this mean you no longer have any credibility to form an opinion because one day you agreed with them and the next day you did not?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: bastion

They're referring to the documents themselves, not the content.

The content is a well paid for fiction piece.

No they're not, they're talking about the ins and outs of the content - read the quotes, read the articles, research the dozens of respectable news outlets from left or right in various countries whose sources - named and unnamed - have verified parts of the content.

Even Trump Jr had to change the record in regards to what went on about the 'Russian Child Adoption' talks after it went public. Other 'Russian Agents' named in the dossier decared themselves as such and left the US after it became public; i.e Kalugin

a reply to: Outlier13

But the belief in the FBI is so selective is it not? One minute someone believes them then the next they don't and vice versa. What does said belief always hinge on? Someones preconceived notions and biases. To deny that is to ignore the narrative that has been pushed on us for the past year plus.

a reply to: bastion

No it's phony.

They paid millions of dollars and got hoodwinked.



There's no proof.

The proof would have been MSM'd to death before the elections.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: introvert

Nobody but they have also not come out and said yes it is true or we have verified X% of it, and if any portion of it was untrue and it was used to get the warrants there will be problems for them, its just a matter of whos head will roll, or can they find a loop hole.

Of course they are not going to come out and say X% is true. They are in the middle of an investigation.

Also, it does not matter if some of the dossier is false. What matters is what has been corroborated and it appears some of it has been.

Trouble is, nobody is saying that except supposed friends of Steeles who said he said it....and for a book that is being promoted. Can't find any direct quotes from Steele saying it though....

No. The real trouble is people are trying real hard to either discredit or dismiss the Steele dossier in hopes that it somehow absolves those implicated of any wrongdoing, and changes the focus to push blame on others.

a reply to: bastion

That Trump Jr "meeting" was a set up to get Trump's people to handle classified material.

They saw it coming and thus, set up the Manafort indictments.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

"Also, it does not matter if some of the dossier is false. What matters is what has been corroborated and it appears some of it has been."


Also, it does not matter if some of the emails are false. What matters is what has been corroborated and it appears some of it has been.

Funny, you weren't saying that when the shoe was on the other foot.

A jury is instructed about reasonable doubt. The dossier raises a million red flags are far as reasonable doubt goes.

This is not comparable to the email issue.

You are still stuck on that embarrassment and you should just let it go.

a reply to: introvert

The wrongdoing is on the ones who paid the fees.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The wrongdoing is on the ones who paid the fees.

No. The real wrongdoing was done by those being indicted and those that plead guilty.

There may be more to come.

Keep trolling and distracting, fox.

a reply to: introvert

The ones that paid got sucker punched.

a reply to: bastion

No if it was genuine, Trump would have paid to get rid of it right?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The ones that paid got sucker punched.

A punch to the gut can be walked-off. A stint in prison for Trump's buddies, kinda hard to shake that off.

a reply to: introvert

No the prison will be for the ones that paid money.

The time is near.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

No the prison will be for the ones that paid money.

The time is near.

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Why be afraid when what they did was perfectly legal?

You don't make much sense.

FBI has not verified Trump dossier

SOOOO...In other words...

There's STILL "hope"?

Keep that "hope" thing going boys, it won't last much longer...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm sorry but your argument is flawed. You are not taking into account who was in charge of the FBI then versus now. That changes the dissemination of information entirely.

Comey was complicit in not pursuing Hillary as he should have but let's face it...he was told what not to do. Therefore his actions besmirched the name of the FBI. During this time frame, as an objective observer, I found it very hard to believe most of what was coming from the FBI with Comey as the head. He did improper things and perhaps illegal things. Time will tell. That bothered me because prior to the entire HRC investigation I really liked Comey. I thought he was a legitimate stand up guy but he's proved to be otherwise.

Now that he is gone there are revelations coming out that are exposing how politicized and corrupt the FBI was during Obama's tenure and how improper Comey was in his lack of action. This makes me feel perhaps the tide is turning towards the truth. This means I tend to lean towards believing some...not all of what is coming out from the FBI now.

The Trump Dossier just so happens to have dominated the headlines for months. After the article in Forbes came out regarding the dossier I felt the information contained in the article posed a very valid argument for the dossier being completely fake. It just made sense. Does that mean I think President Trump is not guilty of pursuing some unethical tactics during his time prior to becoming POTUS? Of course not. Only a truly naive person would think this way. However, I do not nor will I ever believe he would sell out the United States for personal gain in anyway. No way in hell anyone is going to convince me otherwise. Why? Because you can go through years and years of video, commentary, organized events, etc. where Trump has personally backed and put on that are 100% contrary to someone who wants to undermine and sell out the United States. He's not an eloquent man and his Twitter rants are comical at times. However, that does not make him a Russian agent nor does it make him a bad person. People want to hate Trump because Hillary and Bernie lost. They want and need someone to blame because that type of person is incapable of admitting they lost because their candidate was a poor choice to represent them. They are out of touch with the reality of the US. They base their belief systems of the US as a whole on what they see on TV, read in the MSM, and read on social media. They are not founded in reality.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: xuenchen

I am sorry but according to Christopher Steele this document is at least 70% accurate!!!

How could the FBI not be on the same page!

Trump loves pee pee parties and the Russians have the proof!

LOL!!!

The reason they are not on the same page is because the FBI need objective evidence and which is evidently missing.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The FBI had received the "Dossier" in installments not all at once.

They can't seem to validate all the contents.

I bet they have in fact concluded the information and accusations are false.

So everyone is clear, the F.B.I. has verified some of the information in the dossier.

As for the rest of it, I am highly skeptical myself because of the wild nature of the claims.