What parts of the dossier have been corroborated?

So every time discussion of the dossier comes up on ats or elsewhere, people claim that parts of it have been corroborated.

This is used to push back on claims that parts of the dossier have been proven to be flat out false, and nothing of the claims of trump working with the Russians has been proven true.

Now I know some will say perhaps the fbi has found evidence that is true and haven't shared it.

But that is different than saying we know stuff has been corroborated.

So why is it important.

It is looking more and more likely that the dossier has been used for three things.

1. As part of the justification for the ongoing investigation into trumps team and russian collusion, and perhaps the crucial first step.

2. As part of the media's attack on trump.

3. Most importantly, as a possible reason for fisa warrants against trump team members (which would be the biggest poltical scandal in my lifetime)

On point 3, not only did a CNN article claim months ago that the dossier was used for fisa warrants, but more and more evidence is showing this was probably the case.

www.nationalreview.com...

Of course the fbi could just tell us what was in the fisa application, but they won't.

The fact that we know major accusations in the dossier are false is what makes these points so troubling,

For example, we know that the accusation that trumps lawyer Cohen met with Russians to discuss their evil plan are a lie, as Cohen was not only never in Prague, but was at his sons baseball game when it supposedly happened.

And we know that the source of much of the most troubling accusations were Kremlin officials that may have been getting paid for the info.

And we know that comey himself and others have confirmed that the dossier is salacious and unconfirmed.

But despite this, people seek to brush this off by saying parts have been corroborated.

So my question is, which parts?

Of course parts such as, there is a person named Donald trump have been corroborated.

Clearly we can acknowledge that this is not enough to lend creedence to the rest of the document.

So what else?

We know that Carter page went to Russia. He spoke in an open event at a russian university.

So is the fact the dossier said page went to Russia somehow an important corroboration?

Surely not.

So what else?

That Russians wanted to influence the election?

So what? Even democrats have admitted we have known that for decades.

So I am asking, what parts of the dossier have been corroborated that means we should take the allegations against trump seriously?

Cause it is looking more and more like not only was This just a paid hit piece against trump by the dnc and Hillary's team, but that it may have had Intel agents also being involved and using it to spy on and go after trumps team.

a reply to: Grambler

What do you expect? It's America! You are looking for the Truth.

You will not find it easily.

I suggest you just wait.

The media are free ... to lie ... about anything at all. 'merica.

P

a reply to: Grambler

So I am asking, what parts of the dossier have been corroborated that means we should take the allegations against trump seriously?

I don't think anyone here is going to be able to answer that question for you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

So I am asking, what parts of the dossier have been corroborated that means we should take the allegations against trump seriously?

I don't think anyone here is going to be able to answer that question for you.

Then forget about the for me part.

Feel free to post the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated that you feel are important.

a reply to: Grambler

Feel free to post the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated that you feel are important.

I can't do that, and I don't think anyone else here can do so.

The investigation is ongoing. Don'cha know.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Feel free to post the parts of the dossier that have been corroborated that you feel are important.

I can't do that, and I don't think anyone else here can do so.

The investigation is ongoing. Don'cha know.

Ok then those saying they know parts have been corroborated are lying

Got it.

a reply to: pheonix358

The media are free ... to lie ... about anything at all. 'merica.

As is the president.
America.

a reply to: Grambler

Ok then those saying they know parts have been corroborated are lying

Someone on ATS is saying they know what has been corroborated?

a reply to: Phage

Holdin' on to that teddy bear tight, eh, Phage?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Ok then those saying they know parts have been corroborated are lying

Someone on ATS is saying they know what has been corroborated?

Yes I have seen dozens if not hundreds of times on ats people saying we know parts of the dossier have been corroborated.

a reply to: Grambler

Who has even said it?

You should just go ahead and call out by name the people your referring to.

I can't remember anyone that said this but I would like an answer to your question if they did.

a reply to: Grambler


This has been my question every single time someone makes that claim, and nobody even attempts to provide a source to back it up.

They just go sources said...and then change the subject.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Ok, then those saying they know parts have been corroborated are lying

Someone on ATS is saying they know what has been corroborated?

Yes I have seen dozens if not hundreds of times on ats people saying we know parts of the dossier have been corroborated.

Dozens of people?
Ok, I think that they are referring to various reports regarding that, but I can't be sure.
I don't think you're going to find anyone here that know what has been either corroborated or not. But you already knew that. Right?

I don’t know.
It’s currently impossible to know.
It could all be fake. That’s certainly possible.

However, if any of it has been proven, depending on what it is would have to be analysed case by case in regards to what will be released to the public and when to do so.
For any number of possible reasons (national security, flight risk prevention etc)



I actually believe it is a bit of a fallacy to ask for corroboration on information that is being used in a still ongoing investigation, especially when it is common knowledge that evidence isn’t revealed to the public until such time as it is certain such release cannot hinder the investigation.


Basically you’re asking people to corroborate information that they haven’t yet been told is factual, so when they say “I can’t do that”, you can then say “so I win the argument”.

That’s not really how it works though.


If anyone tries to tell you something in the dossier is proven in an attempt to discredit POTUS you have every right to ridicule them...

But if the person you’re debating with is open minded to the possibility something in the dossier being true, there is not much you can do really.

Finding it believable or possible is normal.
Saying it’s absolutely true without confirmation based on hatred is abnormal.

Tear into the second group all day if you wish... I’ll probably join you at some point.

The first group is really just in the same position as you, With the exception of what you find believable or possible, until further information follows.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler

Who has even said it?

You should just go ahead and call out by name the people your referring to.

I can't remember anyone that said this but I would like an answer to your question if they did.

I will not name names.

Here was one from today I saw.

"
Look, all I know is that if Trump is calling it a pile of garbage, it’s probably a pot of gold in reality. A great deal of it has already been corroborated, so I know it’s not a total pile of garbage"

Feel free to search any thread regarding the dossier going back montjs, and in almost every single one this is said.

a reply to: Grambler

Here was one from today I saw.

So, instead of inquiring of that member, in that thread, you decided to create a thread?

a reply to: Irishhaf

They just go sources said...and then change the subject.

Go find a thread were someone said this to you and quote it here.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I have no problem with people saying wait and see before they make up their mind.

That is totally reasonable.

I am discussing the people saying they know parts of it have been corroborated.

And I agree with you, I think of they can not provide meaningful examples, they should not be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

Here was one from today I saw.

So, instead of inquiring of that member, you decided to create a thread?

I did ask that member.

I have asked many members who say this.

I was given no response.

a reply to: Grambler

For clarity, here is the Dossier

If anyone has specific evidence, it should be easy to list which portions are verfied.