NYT Bombsell: Papadopoulos not Dossier Behind FBI Launching Investigation

originally posted by: Christosterone
Jesus atlantean....

Y’all are all in on the Russia scandal....

So again, please explain how the Russians caused my wife, parents and I to vote trump...

Newsflash:
Hillary sucks

-Chris

So what gives you the idea that Hillary sucks, exactly? Did you read that online? Were you influenced by what you read online? The Russians propagated many false news stories about Hillary leading up to the election, and allegedly even hacked the DNC and released their e-mails in an attempt to discredit her more. Chances are, even if they didn't influence or amplify your anti-Hillary sentiments, it happened to some people.

Even if you read anti-Hillary stuff online that did not originate from Russia, it easily could have been influenced by disinformation or propoganda campaigns that started in Russia.

a reply to: 3daysgone

I have never bought that Trump colluded with the Russian government or for that matter, that the whole Mercer bunch (Bannon/Conway/Bossie/etc) that took over as Manafort exited, would have been involved in collusion with the Russian government.

I don't believe that the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya is significant either. Quite to the contrary, I think it's just an example of Veselnitskaya and associates doing exactly what they had been doing with various members of Congress in the same period. The information she was peddling wasn't a product of the Russian IC (at least not directly) — it was produced by Fusion GPS.

It never really struck me as reasonable that the dossier was the reason for the FBI's initial investigation. For one, I don't think they would have gotten FISA warrants for Manafort and Page on uncorroborated raw intel from a couple of memos (remember, what became "the dossier" was compiled from something like 16 memos sent over the course of several months, the last 2 pages being added in December). In fact, if the investigation was launched in June, it really doesn't square well with the timeline. There's no evidence that anything Steele had collected had been shared with the FBI or anyone in the USIC early enough for it to have played a major role early on.

I do believe that there was a multifaceted influence operation conducted by the Russians. I also believe that the Russians stole emails from the DNC and phished Podesta. I have no idea what impact that had on swaying voters. I think there were attempts to gain influence within the campaign through some of the advisors (Papadopoulos, Page, possibly others).

I'm not sure about Manafort but would anyone really be surprised? He's been paid tens of millions of dollars in recent years for the express purpose of influencing Western governments on behalf of the interests of Putin and his associates. He's an absolute degenerate.

Beyond that? I think there will be some more indictments coming down from the Mueller team. I hope that includes some of these other lobbyists, including Tony Podesta. Ultimately, I expect that there will be no evidence of Trump colluding and I doubt that there will be enough put together for an impeachment on obstruction. The Dems might try, maybe if they pick up control of one house of Congress in 2018 but short of a "coup" among the GOP, they're unlikely to get the votes for an impeachment and it's hugely unlikely that Trump would be removed from office in any case.

a reply to: darkbake

So what gives you the idea that Hillary sucks, exactly?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Will look throug more of this later.

But at a quick glance, why did Australia wait two months to pass this info on?

Why won't Australia confirm this story?

How is the anonymous sources revealing this info any more credible than the anonymous sources in the cnn article that said the dossier was used for a fisa warrant?

And why is the fbi stonewalling the oversight committee on what they used the dossier for, and what they put in the fisa applications?

a reply to: darkbake

"So what gives you the idea that Hillary sucks, exactly?"

Maybe because anyone with more than one brain cell knows she violated several federal laws concerning the storage and dissemination of classified information.


DUH

a reply to: theantediluvian

After re reading your OP ante, I don't think you even believe it.

You were very careful how it was worded.

"An article published by the New York Times this morning casts doubt on a popular "pro-Trump" narrative"

"What's reported suggests that the possibility of collusion"

"It also details potential evidence linking the Russian government"

"Some other puzzle pieces possibly revealed:"

"The picture painted is"

Mission accomplished NYT.

You have "cast doubt" by "suggesting" the "potential" "possibility" of the "picture painted" actually being true.

Good job. Goebbels would approve.

And more questions I have.

I am not seeing anywhere in this article that Papadopoulos ever alleges to offer anything to Russia for these emails, or at the very least no suggestion that he told the Australian that.

So George tells this guy Russia has dirt on emails from Hillary. That's it, not that trump paid for dirt or anything like that.

Now keep in mind, people had been saying for almost a year at that point that Hillary's server may possibly have been hacked.

So the nyts assertion that NO ONE could have known about this is ridiculous.

If I was a russian scammer trying to influence someone, it would be almost par for the course to say, We have emials from Hillary.

Notice that neither here or in the dossier is it specified where the emails came from. The Russians and wvryine else in The world knew that Hillary had a shady server that people said might have been hacked.

Had The dossier or this guy told Papadopoulos which server they specifacly hacked, that would be more compelling evidence, but just saying we have emails is proof of nothing

So we are to believe that based on this drunk conversation with an australian, and that fact that Carter page went to Russia to speak at the same university that Obama did years earlier, that the fbi decided to wiretap people and start an investigation into trumps team.

All based on a drunk saying Russia has emails.

But what the fbi didn't do is ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE SERVER THAT WAS HACKED!!!!

It doesn't seem to make sense.

Agian, why is the fbi stonewalling the oversight committee on what they used the dossier for, and what they put in te fisa application.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: theantediluvian

Will look throug more of this later.

But at a quick glance, why did Australia wait two months to pass this info on?

Why won't Australia confirm this story?

How is the anonymous sources revealing this info any more credible than the anonymous sources in the cnn article that said the dossier was used for a fisa warrant?

And why is the fbi stonewalling the oversight committee on what they used the dossier for, and what they put in the fisa applications?

Good questions. An even better one... why is this story coming out over a year after the events took place and months after Papadopulous was snared by the FBI for lying to them?

On the face of it, it sounds like a deflection to protect the people that conspired with Russians to produce the dossier and used govt power to push the manufactured dossier to obtain FISA warrants, because that is worthy of jail time.

I want to see this so-called drunken meeting and the details surrounding it out in the open, not filtered through yet more unnamed sources. The NYT have proven they can not be trusted to report accurately.

a reply to: stosh64

Good analysis - and it pretty much sums up the quality of the NYT these days.

Why was getting so much power for republicans by 2016, beginning in 2010, worth all this?
I know there is a reason, I’m just not informed enough to see. Power So important that people working for campaign skirt close to treason.

a reply to: theantediluvian

WASHINGTON — During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

So your incontrovertible 'truth' is a DRUNK GUY ?

LMAO.

All i needed to know that this whole russian collusion drivel is BS was the FISA denying the first warrant. Everything that followed after was just a smear campaign to help HRC win the elction and they failed miserably. HRC lied about the Weiner emails and we now have proof. I shared no classified documents my ass. I hope she gets publicly executed to make an example that the american people no longer tolerate corruption and treason.

All the details that are getting revealed now would have never seen the light of day if HRC was the current preisdent. I want all these sick f#cks to suffer a horrible death. Everything that has the name HRC attached to went horribly wrong. Just look at the Fiji scandal i dug up. All camps were shutdown because sick pedo f#cks ran them.

Upon further review, NVM.

Russia having dirt on Hillary is now a startling revelation? Too bad the DNC never let the FBI or DHS examine the servers.

They write this literally hours after Sen. Graham said the Dossier was the reason for the FISA warrant. Why compile the Dossier, which is a felony, when you have paappapawatever spilling the beans?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: 3daysgone
LOL. Dossier turns out to be fake.....

Well what else can we come up with?

NYT. The fallen empire.

The "dossier turns out to be fake?" The dossier has never been presented as anything more than raw human intel. The focus on the veracity of everything in the dossier within the pro-Trump echo chamber is part and parcel to the notion that the dossier was instrumental in launching the Russian investigation.

A dubious belief stemming from this CNN article that has gained credence through repetition. But I'm sure you don't question the reporting (or specifically, the parts of it that support the narrative you favor) from "the fallen empire" CNN.

Raw human intel? Christopher Steele was a private citizen when he made the dossier. What credentials does a private citizen have in intel gathering? 0

Ya ya ya ya. More liberal B.S. to hide the corruption from the past administration.
a reply to: theantediluvian

a reply to: theantediluvian

This is old and debunked news. The NSA already confirmed that the DNC emails was downloaded by thumb drive and at a time consistent with Washington DC. Also, UK Ambassador Murry said for months he picked up the thumb drive in Washington DC and went to the Ecuadorian embassy and handed it containing the DNC emails to Assange.

Leftists are a bunch of lunatics and pretended that this guy and his confession doesn't exist. lol Still running on the Russian hoax.

a reply to: amfirst1

Do you have a source for this? I have a source that pokes holes in your claim.

The Hill

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: [post=22996966]

How is the anonymous sources revealing this info any more credible than the anonymous sources in the cnn article that said the dossier was used for a fisa warrant?

And why is the fbi stonewalling the oversight committee on what they used the dossier for, and what they put in the fisa applications?

I would also like to know why the FBI is stonewalling for regarding what they used the dossier for, and what they put in the FISA applications. I think the FBI should release the FISA application and explain what else, besides the dossier, was used to justify the investigation. From what I have read, the FBI had plenty of other intel and viewed the dossier with skepticism and as raw intel.

I think that anonymous sources have the right to remain anonymous. However, the credibility of the reporting news organization has to be taken into account. What do they have to lose if it turns out the source is falsified? I might do some research and write a thread on how to wade through anonymous sources effectively.

The FBI is reportedly using the explosive Trump-Russia dossier as a 'roadmap' for its investigation

Paul Wood of the BBC made the claim in an article that was certainly anti-Trump, and reported widely with optimism from liberal media that the Dossier's claims are being investigated by the FBI and would lead to Trump being impeached.