It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What parts of the dossier have been corroborated?

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheScale

Many people now, at least in the media, are trying to ignore the dossier.

Even the fbi is stonewalling oversight committee questions about it.

Everyday we seem to find out something new about it.

First it was damning, it was not paid for by the dnc or hillary, and was being used for fisa warrants and other parts of the investigation.

Then ok it was paid for by them, but Steele is a good source.

Then it was ok he used Kremlin agents, but that colliding with Russians to get dirt in an opponent was ok.

Then it was ok some of it is false, but much of it is true.

Then ok it didn't matter that the fbi tried to pay Steele.

Then it didn't matter that fusion paid journalists to push it.

Then it didn't matter that ohrs wife worked for fusion.

Now it's forget about the dossier, it's not that important.

Just like with the Russian hack of the server story.

It is presented as absolute truth, and the more questions are raised, the less it is talked about.




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I know reading long articles sucks for many peopls, but I really encourage reading this one linked in the op.

www.nationalreview.com...

Here are some relevant bits on the timeline of the investigation. (i will be skipping sections for length, so please read to make sure it's in context for yourselves)


The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that, “according to people familiar with his account,” Strzok meant that it was imperative that the FBI “aggressively investigate allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.” In laughable strawman fashion, the “people familiar with his account” assure the Journal that Strzok “didn’t intend to suggest a secret plan to harm the candidate.” Of course, no sensible person suspects that the FBI was plotting Trump’s assassination; the suspicion is that, motivated by partisanship and spurred by shoddy information that it failed to verify, the FBI exploited its counterintelligence powers in hopes of derailing Trump’s presidential run.

But what were these “allegations of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia” that the FBI decided to “aggressively investigate”? The Journal doesn’t say. Were they the allegations in the Steele dossier? That is a question I asked in last weekend’s column. It is a question that was pressed by Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.) and Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee at Tuesday’s sealed hearing. As I explained in the column, the question is critical for three reasons.

...

(2) In June of this year, former FBI director James Comey testified that the dossier was “salacious and unverified.” While still director, Comey had described the dossier the same way when he briefed President-elect Trump on it in January 2017. If the dossier was still unverified as late as mid 2017, its allegations could not possibly have been verified months earlier, in the late summer or early autumn of 2016, when it appears that the FBI and DOJ used them in an application to the FISA court

...


Here, the FBI was able to verify Steele’s claim that Carter Page, a very loosely connected Trump-campaign adviser, had gone to Russia. This was not exactly meticulous gumshoe corroboration: Page told many people he was going to Russia, saw many people while there, and gave a speech at a prominent Moscow venue. Having verified only the travel information, the FBI appears to have credited the claims of Steele’s anonymous Russian sources that Page carried out nigh-treasonous activities while in Russia


I encourage everyone to read the section timeline in this article.

It shows how the timeline of everything we know strongly suggests that the dossier was used for fisa warrants and the catalyst for the investigation, despite, as one shown above, that comey is admitting much later that the dossier is salacious and unproven.

This is damning.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
:/

Trying not to take that personally. Reading long articles does not suck for me.

But thank you for sharing the link, Grambler.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Grambler
:/

Trying not to take that personally. Reading long articles does not suck for me.

But thank you for sharing the link, Grambler.


Oh I didn't mean to imply that sorry.

I meant for all of the people that may be reading.

Honestly that is why I said please read for context yourselves.


edit on 26-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

*whew*

lol



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Nice find.....I'll dive into it tomorrow.

Sounds like we are getting close to GAME OVER time.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Grambler

*whew*

lol

Hahaha!

Yeah that definitely came off as condescending unintentionally.

But I honestly sometimes get overwhelmed with a long article.

I had to go back to that politico article on obama and Hezbollah because it was so long and full of info.

So if anyone else out there thinks I was insulting them for not wanting to read long articles, I am in the same boat sometimes.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It will be on-going until 2024, and then that election will try and say something stupid like

"the GOP admin has been under investigation for eight years for collusion for Russia, do you really want a leader from a party with such controversy? Vote for so and so because we need a vagina in charge, or [insert ethnic minority diversity requirement here] for POTUS today!!"


And that will be what the 2024 election will consist of. Likely 2020 as well. Vote for affirmative action today, because we just cant come up with anything after eight years except baseless accusations. Trust me, mark it down. That is very likely how it will go.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Ivanka/Nikki Haley 2024!



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
www.buzzfeed.com... buzzfeeds take and the aleged leaked document


A dossier making explosive — but unverified — allegations that the Russian government has been “cultivating, supporting and assisting” President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks. The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.


www.documentcloud.org... here is the document leaked by buzzfeed

www.vox.com... Vox take on the matter which is surprisingly skeptical of the document

BuzzFeed published a dossier earlier this week full of unsubstantiated claims about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. Most of the discussion since then has orbited around the veracity of the claims and the ethics of the organization that published them. (For a thorough account, read this explainer by Vox’s Zack Beauchamp.) What has received less attention is the intelligence value of documents themselves. It’s not clear how seriously we should take them, or how seriously the intelligence community takes them. Remember: The dossier isn’t an official document of the intelligence community. As the BBC reported, it’s part of a privately funded opposition research file produced by a former MI6 agent and funded by both Republican and Democratic political operatives. Still, while they’ve yet to corroborate any of the claims outlined in the dossier, American intelligence agencies thought the charges were credible enough to brief President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump about it.


www.newsweek.com... news weeks take on it also skeptical they have a video which ironically sinked up perfectly with the peaky blinders episode i was watching and points out a few inaccuracies in the report and advises skepticism

www.bbc.com... BBC says parts of it are verified ......like the diplomat from russia was a spy (in other news water is in fact wet) which is pretty much standard procedure for diplomats everywhere
and their sources that "confirm it" use this quote to describe it

If anyone looks like a harmless economist, rather than a tough, arrogant KGB man, it is the bland-faced Kalugin. But sources I know and trust have told me the US government identified Kalugin as a spy while he was still at the embassy.
so more un-named sources

newrepublic.com... new republics take ,they call it pee gate because allegedly getting peed on by some Russian hookers is some kind of spectacular revelation into election rigging some how (they cite it could be damming against his character lol like he was elected for his good morals or something) ,and with it now being in the open if true would seem to get rid of any alleged leverage they could have in theory had over him

www.dailywire.com... trump and his lawyers for what its worth dont seem to worried and assumes the investigation will be coming to a close soon,now weather that is the case or not is up for debate but figured id throw in my two cents

www.washingtontimes.com... news weeks take on 13 important days of his presidency posted sort of as a counter point to other articles but with this nice gem of a quote

“I said with the exception of the late great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office,” Trump told a rally crowd in Ohio on July 25. “It’s so easy to act presidential, but that’s not gonna get it done.”
so that kind of sums up his mentality as far as getting stuff done



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I misunderstood, I thought that post was from official intelligent sources not the quote of one of our members.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Oh yeah no problem.

I didn't want to name people because it's against t and c.

But if you look at some of the threads I linked and others about the dossier, you can see people frequently say parts have been corroborated.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

lol!
I'm not even up to date on this stuff.
Is it saying that the hooker was under age?
Because if it isn't than I don't care who trump pays to piss on him.
Prostitution should be legal anyway.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




I didn't want to name people because it's against t and c.

It is??

If so I'm sorry I asked you to do that.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I agree.

But why wait until 2020?

That will likely be the 2018 strategy too.

Democrats are hoping the Russia stuff and sex allegations will be enough for them to win the house.

And they may be right.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Grambler




I didn't want to name people because it's against t and c.

It is??

If so I'm sorry I asked you to do that.


Well it's blurry but I think so.

It more acceptable to respond to a member with something they themselves said in another thread.

But to name people not involved in this thread is not wanted.

I don't blame them though, there is no benefit to calling out specific individuals.

I am asking the question in general, because many have said it, and do not mean to single anyone out.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: M5xaz

Yes great post.

But when provided with that, many say we know parts of the dossier have been corroborated, and nothing you list proves the dossier is not worth looking at.

Thats why I want to know what parts they say are corroborated.



OK
Corroborated by whom ?
Hillary ?
"If-proven-wrong-I-will-look-bad" libtards ?

Let me repeat:

1. The FBI has failed 3 times to Congress on subpoenas regarding "dossier" sources

Some posters claim to know more about the discredited "dossier" than the FBI ?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil
No thank you. Nikki legit believes she swinging a big one, and Ivanka really does not belong in any position beyond Ambassador to a tropical island nation. As pretty as they are, I would prefer established real female leaders with a record in the armed forces. Like Hawaiian Democrat Tulsi Gabbard or Republican Senator Joni Ernst. Tulsi is going to have to back-pedal her attacks on gun rights though if she wants to grab my preference over Joni.
a reply to: Grambler
The easy way to name names without a t&c violation is to simply use the quote feature specifically for the post in question, but not to type out their name in your own reply. Problem solved. Name names all day, and simply refer to them as your citations.

And I agree, they will start doing that BS strategy in 2018. But we know they will drag it all the way.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: M5xaz

Yes great post.

But when provided with that, many say we know parts of the dossier have been corroborated, and nothing you list proves the dossier is not worth looking at.

Thats why I want to know what parts they say are corroborated.



OK
Corroborated by whom ?
Hillary ?
"If-proven-wrong-I-will-look-bad" libtards ?

Let me repeat:

1. The FBI has failed 3 times to Congress on subpoenas regarding "dossier" sources

Some posters claim to know more about the discredited "dossier" than the FBI ?


From what I can tell, yeah.

It is just a comment made to try to legitimized the dossier.

They say parts have been corroborated, but never say what parts.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Prepare to read a series of long posts showing what we know has been corraborated in the dossier.

To start with, let's not forget that the media has been sure to clarify that the dossier was unverified the whole time they have been reporting it.


Almost immediately after the dossier was leaked, media outlets and commentators pointed out that the material was unproven. News editors affixed the terms “unverified” and “unsubstantiated” to all discussion of the issue.


It also looks like Orbis did not make stuff up, that they were really told this by Russian leakers. However, it is entirely possible that those leakers leaked false intel.


In the case of the dossier, Orbis was not saying that everything that it reported was accurate, but that it had made a good-faith effort to pass along faithfully what its identified insiders said was accurate.


The following seems to be a pretty serious claim. This is one that, as far as we know, hasn't been corroborated - but the investigation is ongoing. If Trump gets in trouble for this, Mueller will likely have to provide proof outside of the dossier to justify his case.


Among other assertions, three sources in the Orbis report describe a multi-year effort by Russian authorities to cultivate, support, and assist Donald Trump. According to the account, the Kremlin provided Trump with intelligence on his political primary opponents and access to potential business deals in Russia. Perhaps more importantly, Russia had offered to provide potentially compromising material on Hillary Clinton, consisting of bugged conversations during her travels to Russia, and evidence of her viewpoints that contradicted her public positions on various issues.


Here are a few things that we know have been corroborated.


The most obvious occurrence that could not have been known to Orbis in June 2016, but shines bright in retrospect is the fact that Russia undertook a coordinated and massive effort to disrupt the 2016 election to help Donald Trump, as the U.S. intelligence community itself later concluded.

Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to reportedly discuss the receipt of stolen documents.

Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate.



How could Steele and Orbis know in June 2016 that the Russians were working actively to elect Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton unless at least some of its information was correct?


Let's stop here for a moment. I know there is a Republican effort to say that no, the intelligence agencies do not think that there was a massive cyber campaign ran by Russia in an effort to elect Trump and make Hillary lose.

However, there is plenty of evidence that this IS the case and that Russia WILL attempt to interfere in future elections.

The Russians used trolls to disseminate legitimately fake news about Hillary in order to hurt her chances of winning the election and then amplified these stories across social media with bots. They even used Facebook's advertising platform to target people likely to change their mind from Hillary to Trump in parts of the country where those changes in votes mattered the most.


Consider, in addition, the Orbis report saying that Russia was utilizing hackers to influence voters and referring to payments to “hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign.” A January Stanford study found that “fabricated stories favoring Donald Trump were shared a total of 30 million times, nearly quadruple the number of pro–Hillary Clinton shares leading up to the election.”

Also, in November, researchers at Oxford University published a report based on analysis of 19.4 million Twitter posts from early November prior to the election. The report found that an “automated army of pro-Trump chatbots overwhelmed Clinton bots five to one in the days leading up to the presidential election.”

In March 2017, former FBI agent Clint Watts told Congress about websites involved in the Russian disinformation campaign “some of which mysteriously operate from Eastern Europe and are curiously led by pro-Russian editors of unknown financing.”


The dossier also provided information about Mikhail Kalugin being an undercover intelligence officer that was later verified.


While the Orbis team had no way to know it, subsequent reports citing U.S. officials claimed that Washington-based diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was an undercover intelligence officer and was pulled out of the Embassy and sent home in summer 2016.


Here is something else that has been verified at a later date.


According to the Orbis report, the Russians were concerned about “further scandals involving Manafort’s commercial and political role in Russia/Ukraine.” And, indeed, there have been further scandals since the Orbis reports were written. Those include Manafort being compelled in June to register retroactively as a foreign agent of a pro-Russian political parties in Ukraine, and special counsel Robert Mueller’s and the New York attorney general’s office reported investigation of Manafort for possible money laundering and tax evasion linked to Ukrainian ventures.


The dossier also claims that Russia wanted Trump to go easy on Russia regarding the Ukraine issue.


The quid pro quo as alleged in the dossier was for the Trump team to “sideline” the Ukrainian issue in the campaign. We learned subsequently that the Trump platform committee changed only a single plank in the 60-page Republican platform prior to the Republican convention. Of the hundreds of Republican positions and proposals, they altered only the single sentence that called for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military. The Trump team reportedly changed the wording to the more benign, “appropriate assistance.”


It looks like the Podesta hack may have been known about ahead of time.


Claims: The Russians have further compromising material about Clinton, described as “emails” that they are considering disseminating after the Russian legislative elections in late September.



Analysis: The claim about the emails is significant, offering one of the few indicators that Steele uncovered the existence of the Podesta hack before it became public. (The emails were published in early October.) The vagueness of the description of the material, though, might also be a reference to some other batch of information.


It also looks like the report claimed that Russia was trying to get Democrats in support of Sanders to jump ship and vote for Trump in the election.

(Continued)
edit on 27amWed, 27 Dec 2017 00:12:15 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 27amWed, 27 Dec 2017 00:16:33 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 27amWed, 27 Dec 2017 00:18:33 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join