What parts of the dossier have been corroborated?

(continued)

Sorry, something is buggy with this post.

The Orbis report also refers specifically to the aim of the Russian influence campaign “to swing supporters of Bernie Sanders away from Hillary Clinton and across to Trump,” based on information given to Steele in early August 2016. It was not until March 2017, however, that former director of the National Security Agency, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, in Senate testimony said of the Russian influence campaign, “what they were trying to do is to drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group.” A March news report also detailed that Sanders supporter’s social media sites were infiltrated by fake news, originating from “dubious websites and posters linked back to Eastern Europe,” that tried to shift them against Clinton during the general election.

Here is yet another corroborated claim.

To take one example, the first report says that Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was responsible for Russia’s compromising materials on Hillary Clinton, and now we have reports that Michael Cohen had contacted Peskov directly in January 2016 seeking help with a Trump business deal in Moscow.

And another.

To take another example, the third Orbis report says that Manafort was managing the connection with the Kremlin, and we now know that he was present at the June 9, 2016 meeting with Trump, Jr., Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Rinat Akhmetshin, who has reportedly boasted of his ties to and experience in Soviet intelligence and counterintelligence. According to an Aug. 21 New York Times story, “Akhmetshin told journalists that he was a longtime acquaintance of Paul J. Manafort.”

Slate source

Okay, so there you have it, there have been corroborations of the dossier. I think that's what Grambler wanted in this thread, is it not? These are just the ones that we know of. We know about these corroborations because it is a simple task to compare the dossier (which was written in the past) to what the public knows now. I do not think there has been any evidence released to the public of Russia grooming Trump or Trump and Russia exchanging money and/or intelligence, at least not released to the public.

As far as other information in the dossier, it really is unknown whether or not it will be accurate or not.

I'm personally of the opinion that Trump was not groomed by Russia, and that Trump and Russia did not exchange money/intel with each other. However, the investigation is ongoing, and I think it is vital for it to continue.

a reply to: Grambler

The more I think about it the more I think phage is right.
Impossible to get an answer to this with out having the information that the fbi, cia, nsa have.

We might get to see that information....20 years from now when it's declassified.

Edit: So yes, until someone comes in here and proves it otherwise, anyone claiming they know for a fact that parts of the dosser are true are making a false claim.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Check out my post above yours, it looks at what was in the dossier and compares it to what we found out after the dossier was written to verify some claims.

Overall, I agree with Phage, it would be hard to know how legitimate the idea that Trump colluded with Russia is without having access to the intelligence community.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
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.

That's why Jeffy needs to appoint a 2nd special prosecutor ASAP to start investigating DOJ and FBI corruption.

They are draggin ass and stonewalling on everything the congress asks.

Congressional committees are gun shy on pulling some serious triggers on these corrupt entrenched douchebags, if they even can.

a reply to: darkbake

So let's go through the claims of things that have been corroborated one by one.

1. Russia stole documents.

That is hardly proof of anything. The fbi itself never looked at the server, there is a solid chance it was a leak not a hack.

There is also a good chance that the dnc, who paid for this dossier, knew they had info get out, and told fusion or Steele this.

And despite the fact that the article says steel couldn't have known this, people had suggested that Hillary's server may have been hacked for a long time, and so do Steele to just say yeah Russia hacked her would have been easy.

And your article says it has been corroborated that trump people like manfort met with Russians to discuss this plan.

That's garbage and has not be proven.

And yes they knew page went to russia, which was public knowledge.

2. Russians were working against Hillary

How is this proof of anything? That is the entire point of the dossier.

Of course that is what they are going to say. Why didn't the dossier also say the Russians were actively putting out anti conerservative messages too, like supporting blm which we found out happened.

And everyone has said for years that Russians push news to affect the elections here. Hardly a striking revelation.

3. Mikhail kalugin.

Yes, as the article in the op says, they said a russian diplomat was actually a russian spy.

Wow. Big stretch there.

4. Manafort

So they said what evryone in Washington knew, that Manafort had shady money dealings.

Funny, the big two people Steele named from trumps campaign, Manafort and page, both had did a warrants against them in the past.

Again, hardly a striking revelation.

5. Ukraine

So trump changing wording to say appropriate assistance is corroboration that trump discussed not arming Ukraine with Russia?

What a joke.

6. Emails

Discussed above.

Even if all of these things were corroborated, none of it even comes close to province the subsistative allegations that trump worked with Russians in a quid pro quo to steal the election.

Not even close.

I could off of the top of my head come up with allgations with things such as this corroborated.

The Clintons were in bed with the Russians. The Russians spread anti trump info (they did in the dossier and after the election).

Bill met personally with Putin (he did). Bill got paid money by a russian bank (he did).

Podesta group had shady dealings with Russians and many other countries (no doubt true)

Memebers of the dnc met with Russians.

Now that this stuff can be corroborated...

Russians told Hillary they know she killed Seth rich.

Russians offered Hillary money to be favorable to russia.

Etc.

The point is the supposed things corborated are basocly benign and have nothing to do with the serious allegations

a reply to: darkbake

Sorry, something is buggy with this post

Yeah it is. Squished it all up against the left side of my screen.

a reply to: darkbake

These three proofs are even more ridiculous.

1. Trump trying to get Bernie supporters.

Uh, duh!

I also must be a trusted source then. I bet in 2018 the democrats try to get third party supporters and never trump republicans.

So now if that happens you have to seriously investigate all of my claims about the dnc killing Seth rich and working with Russians to steal the election.

2. Peskov

This is exact the type of nonsense that proves how shady this is.

So the dossier says Peskov has the goods on Hillary.

Then we find out that Cohen talks to Peskov about a business deal.

And your article claims that is corroboration?

This is the flimsy logic they use in the whole piece.

3. The Manafort russian lawyer part.

Again this is nonsense. We know for a fact that the whole business with the Russian lawyer was set up through Don Jr.

Yet your article is claiming Manafort just being there proves steeles allegations.

Utter garbage.

Manafort was trump campaign manager! If you are going to make a dossier accusing trump of collaborating with russians, of course you are going to say the campaign manager that every knows worked with Russians in the past is the go to guy.

And then the Russian lawyer story they say proves this actually shows Manafort had nothing to do with that meeting compared to Don Jr. Why didn't Steele get that part right?

Again, I can easily say Podesta is the go to guy between Russians and Hillary's team.

Oh what's that, we now know the podestas did work with Manafort and the russians?

Well then all of my allegations now need investigated because my info has been corroborated!

a reply to: darkbake

Slate and Orbis?

Who paid for the orbis report?

orbisbi.com...

Orbis is a leading corporate intelligence consultancy

We provide senior decision–makers with strategic insight, intelligence and investigative services.

We then work with clients to develop and implement strategies which protect their interests worldwide.

Yeah, no problem here.

a reply to: darkbake
off-topic, but how did you fix that buggy post? I still see them on archived threads sometimes too that are years old. Was it broken BB code or something? I have had a few of them myself.

a reply to: Grambler

1. It looks like there is proof that the DNC was hacked by Russia.

One question had been answered: there was definitely someone rummaging around the DNC servers. But who? CrowdStrike checked its records, seeing whether the methods used for the hack matched any they already had on record.

They did. Two groups, working independently, were secreting away information, including private correspondence, email databases and, reportedly, opposition research files on Donald Trump.

"We realised that these actors were very well known to us," Alperovitch says. This is because of a handful of small but significant tells: data exfiltrated to an IP address associated with the hackers; a misspelled URL; and time zones related to Moscow.

"They were called FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, and we could attribute them to the Russian government." Both the groups had a long rap sheet. COZY BEAR - which had been inside the DNC's system since the summer of 2015 - had previously hacked the White House and the US State Department.

FANCY BEAR - which had breached the network separately in April 2016 - had hacked victims across the world, including the German Bundestag. The vulnerabilities were quickly closed, but the damage had already been done.

Wired

Do you have proof that this was a leak and not a hack? Do you have proof that the assertion, backed up by evidence, that Russia hacked the DNC is false?

2. The Russians were trying to infiltrate liberal circles as well. This was probably to get the liberals to become even more extreme in order to alienate them from the general population. However, the proportion of anti-Hillary messages far eclipsed the amount of pro-Hillary or anti-Trump messages.

3. All right, we both agree this was a win for the dossier. Maybe an easy one.

4. Another win. Same thing.

5. This was the only thing Trump changed on his campaign platform. Sure, not absolute proof that he did it because Russia told him to.

6.

There is also a good chance that the dnc, who paid for this dossier, knew they had info get out, and told fusion or Steele this.

So are you claiming that Steele got this particular bit of intel from the DNC and not Russians? Any proof of this?

As far as the publicly known corroborated information proving that Trump worked with Russia to steal the elections, of course it doesn't say that. If it did, that would be major news and change many people's opinion on Trump and Russia.

The investigation is ongoing, and if there is proof of the collusion, it remains under wraps. Mueller will not charge Trump with colluding with Russia unless he can provide proof outside the dossier.

a reply to: darkbake

And now that I can read the source of your article, I can already see it is riddled with outright lies or claims that "anonymous sources" prove that some of the dossier is corroborated.

Tale this part.

We learned that when Carter Page traveled to Moscow in July 2016, he met with close Putin ally and chairman of the Russian state oil company, Igor Sechin. A later Steele report also claimed that he met with parliamentary secretary Igor Divyekin while in Moscow. Investigative journalist Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 that U.S. intelligence sources confirmed that Page met with both Sechin and Divyekin during his July trip to Russia

Their is no proof at all that page met with sechin or divyekin.

This is an outright lie.

What we do have is anonymous sources saying that happened, which is not corrboration of anything.

The article I listed in the op directly mention a the iskoff article, to prove the fisa application was about the Steele dossier.

Interestingly, on September 23, 2016, Yahoo’s Michael Isikoff reported on leaks he had received that the U.S. government was conducting an intelligence investigation to determine whether Carter Page, as a Trump adviser, had opened up a private communications channel with such “senior Russian officials” as Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin to discuss lifting economic sanctions if Trump became president.

It is now known that Isikoff’s main source for the story was Fusion’s Glenn Simpson. Isikoff’s report is rife with allegations found in the dossier, although the dossier is not referred to as such; it is described as “intelligence reports” that “U.S. officials” were actively investigating — i.e., Steele’s reports were described in a way that would lead readers to assume they were official U.S. intelligence reports. But there clearly was official American government involvement: Isikoff’s story asserts that U.S. officials were briefing members of Congress about these allegations that Page was meeting with Kremlin officials on Trump’s behalf. The story elaborated that “questions about Page come amid mounting concerns within the U.S. intelligence community about Russian cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.” Those would be the cyberattacks alleged — in the dossier on which Congress was being briefed — to be the result of a Trump-Russia conspiracy in which Page was complicit.

Isikoff obviously checked with his government sources to verify what Simpson had told him about the ongoing investigation that was based on these “intelligence reports.” His story recounts that “a senior U.S. law enforcement official” confirmed that Page’s alleged contacts with Russian officials were “on our radar screen. . . . It’s being looked at.”

This is exactly the kind of stories of corroboration that I am discussing are ridiculous.

Isikoff main source is the head of fusion, the very company that was paid to get the dossier by the dems.

So fusion is corrborating their own work with providing no proof at all.

The involvement of Intel officials confirming this proves that the dossier was in fact used as a source for a did a warrant, which is damning to hillary, and the entire Intel community and Obama admin,

Who used what comey admitted was a salacious and unconfirmed dossier to spy on their political opponent.

a reply to: darkbake

In regards to the when the DNC knew their systems had been breached:

September 2015 - The FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee's help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.

So, the FBI contacts the DNC IT department and tells them they have a compromised system. DNC genius tech says he/she can't find anything and doesn't tell his/her boss.

A couple of months later:

November 2015 - The FBI reaches out to the DNC again, warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached.

FBI goes back to DNC and says, hey, remember that compromised system we told you you had? Well, it's leaking... DNC says, we had no idea we had a compromised system. (wonder if anyone was fired?)

CNN timeline of DNC 'hack'

a reply to: darkbake

1. First, let's assume it was a russian hack.

The fbi and others had been saying we'll before the Steele dossier that Hillary's unprotected server may have been hacked.

How is Steele having a dossier that said there was a hack after months of discussions about Hillary's unprotected server somehow a startling revelation that proves parts of the dossier are true.

Anyone could have made that prediction, it proves nothing.

Notice the dossier have no specifics on what was hacked, or what info would be released. Just a general claim of hillary had emails that Russia has.

As far as it being a leak?

I have as much proof as there is it was a hack.

The fbi didn't look at the server, corwd strike was the only people that did and they were paid by Hillary's team, crowd strike was wrong in their very next assessment that Russia hacked the Ukraine, some people have said the download speeds were not compatible with a hack but a leak, etc.

2. Yes Russia worked both sides. Yet Steele didn't mention that, did he? Isn't that curious.

Instead he made the claim he was paid to find, that Russia gave dirt on Hillary to trump.

Again, this proves nothing.

3. And 4.

How is this a win for the dossier. It made obvious claims, and people are acting like this somehow is a revelation.

Oh the dossier also spelled trumps name correctly!

I guess that's another win that proves we need an indefinite investigation!

5. The Ukraine thing proves nothing.

First it was no secret that trump was campaigning on improving relations with Russia.

Sevond, the change in language proves nothing.

Now counter this with the uranium one deal, where we know for a fact that people were engaged in illegal activities to bribe people to pass the deal, Bill met with Putin and was paid half a million by a russian bank, the Clinton foundation received big bucks from people pushing the deal, and unlike in the trump situation where urkrainians did get weapons so the Russians didn't get what they wanted, in Hillary's situation they did.

Yet people fight tooth and nail that this proves nothing with Hillary.

If this Ukraine deal is the best they got, it is laughable.

6. I already discussed the email business.

But to answer your question, it is your article saying there is NO PISSIBLE WAY!!!! Steele could have known about the hacks, so this proves his dossier was in to something.

Of course there are the explanations I have on point 1, and the possibility that Steele could have been informed about the hack by the people paying him.

Again, the point is not one of these supposed corroborations gives any reason as to why the dossier should be viewed as credible, especially in light of the known falsehoods in it and that it was paid for by the dnc.

So if it was used in any capacity, especially to obtain fisa warrants, it is horribly unethical and a huge scandal.


But I do appreciate the discussion.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Exactly.

This is the biggest claim of corrboration of the dossier.

That steel couldn't have possibly known that the Kremlin has materials from a hack.

But seeing as how people were shouting for months how Hillary's server wasnt safe and could have been hacked, Anyone could have made that prediction, and many did.

So this proves nothing.

So what are we left with.

Page went to Russia. Yep that was public knowledge.

Manafort had shady money dealings. Again, basically an open secret in washington, evidenced by the fact Manafort already had a fisa warrant in the past.

Russian diplomats were spies. Yep, everyone assumes that.

Trump changes words about ukraine, although he did end up selling them weapons.

Russians sentessages to hurt Hillary. Well yeah, and trump too. This is proof of nothing.

Etc.

The point is, all of these claims are just General statements that would be easy to predict.

This means they mean nothing as corroboration.

originally posted by: Phage
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?

They did inquire, and yet were ignored. As it is a definite point to consider, why not create a thread focusing on it?

I'm sure we've seen more than one "That's not the topic. If you want to discuss that, start your own thread." by some indignant OP in the past.

"So you don't ask them, instead start a new thread?"

Lol...

a reply to: Grambler

Look at this here is the evidence the FBI was talking about its the Facebook ads the Russians paid for. Spent less th en 10.00 supporting Bernie

www.businessinsider.com...#-1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

I haven't even read it. But I'm not the topic.

It's like I could see the future

The OP has asked for something that no one on ATS is going to be able to provide.

And when they cannot, they can refrain from stating that any of it has been corroborated.

I see no issue with it, really. Give the usual suspects enough rope and see what they do with it...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Grambler

Look at this here is the evidence the FBI was talking about its the Facebook ads the Russians paid for. Spent less th en 10.00 supporting Bernie

www.businessinsider.com...#-1

I'd admittedly never looked into that.

That's it? That's the level of corruption with the advertisements the russians allegedly paid for?

4chan does that every day. for free. and better.

At least one item has been proven and that is that Russia was working actively to interfere with the 2016 election. Everybody is in agreement.

The timeline for trump associates and Russian contacts in Moscow and in the United States has been born out in testimony both to Congress and to the FBI. We can safely assume that Mueller has gotten similar testimony.

There are very serious allegations within the dossier the very least of which are sexual.
The story is in the money.
Mueller would not be so interested in a document that wasn't bearing out.

Actually to call it a document or a dossier is incorrect. It's really just a collection of field reports that were submitted by Christopher Steele to Fusion GPS over several months time. They were strung together when they were released but were really quite informal.

Steele is confident that more than seventy and as much as ninety percent of his information will be verifiable. Thirty percent would be extremely damaging to trump.

Before anyone goes off on that seventy to ninety percent because I've already seen why isn't he one hundred percent sure you must remember that Steele wasn't a witness to any of the reports content.
Everything he got was of course second hand.
You also need to remember that Steele has deep Russian contacts and relationships that were forged over his entire career with the British MI organization. Russia was his area of focus. His contacts can be verified as to identify and official position within the Russian government , espionage and intelligence groups or business affiliations.
Steele was no amature.

Mueller is obviously following a money trail and has been working a tightening circle around trump that has donald very nervous.