Trump Dossier Author Steele Visited State Dept in Oct '16

a reply to: shooterbrody

Youre quoting material paraphrased for an article in a propaganda rag.

Here is a link to the actual court proceding in the UK that was supposedly referenced.

From that document regarding the dossier:

Mr Steele, concluding that the intelligence reported on in the December Memorandum was of considerable importance to the national security of the US and the UK, and therefore needed to be analysed further, investigated and verified, provided a copy of the same to a senior UK government national security official acting in his official capacity; and a copy to Fusion by enciphered email, with an instruction to Fusion to provide a hard copy to Senator John McCain of the United States, via Mr David Kramer, a former US State Department civil servant and an associate of Senator McCain.

further

On 10th January 2017 the US Defendants (Buzzfeed - G)] published an online article entitled “These Reports Allege Trump has Deep Ties to Russia” (“the Article”), accompanied by a link High Court Unapproved Judgment: No permission is granted to copy or use in court Double-click to enter the short title Draft 21 March 2018 11:56 Page 4 to the dossier. It is not known who provided the dossier to the US Defendants. Mr Steele’s evidence is that he was “horrified and remains horrified that the US Defendants published the dossier at all, let alone without substantial redactions.” He considers that this may have compromised the sources of his intelligence, putting their lives, their families and their livelihoods at risk.

What Shooter's propaganda article doesn't tell us is that Buzzfeed (and Steele) were sued for defamation both in US and UK courts. The document linked above and cited from is the UK proceedings.

It is submitted that the court is able to infer from the wide-ranging evidence sought in the Request, far beyond what is required for the purposes of the Florida proceedings, that the US Plaintiffs’ intention is not primarily to obtain evidence for trial, but to conduct a wide ranging investigation in order to attack the credibility of Mr Steele and his sources. There has been no attempt in the Florida proceedings to analyse how the evidence sought is relevant to the issues between the parties in the Florida proceedings. The inference that can be drawn is that the US Plaintiffs want a public platform to attempt to discredit the dossier as valueless. This would increase the pressure on Mr Steele not to defend the QB proceedings and could put the well-being of his sources in jeopardy. The court should therefore infer that the application is brought for an impermissible purpose and that the court therefore has no jurisdiction.

The conclusion of the UK court was that the attempts to discredit Steele were no more than a "fishing expedition."

With the recent news that Obama gave a stand-down order on active countermeasures against Russian interference, not to mention the whole Uranium 1 debacle, and then the admin conspiring with foreign agent Steele who colluded with Russians and was willing to manufacture a document using black propaganda not to mention Veselnitskaya working with Fusion GPS--the real Russian collusion all points back to the last Admin to include the State Dept AND the disgraced FBI. Thank you shooterbrody for the update on the recent court proceedings as it should clarify even more for folk that are still trying to understand this snakey mess of a political hit job.


As good a break down as any:

What we did not know on election day was that the Christopher Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, that the dossier itself may have been part and parcel of a Kremlin disinformation campaign, and that a FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance) court apparently used one of its most bizarre claims to approve the surveillance of a Trump campaign advisor. We also have learned that the Steele dossier was commissioned by an opposition-research firm—Fusion GPS—that had Russia among its main clients.

In light of these disclosures, investigators must now determine if the leaders of the Democratic Party, not Trump, colluded with the Kremlin to produce what the Russians call “black PR” against Trump.

Fo rbes

Not to mention that it's been determined that the real Russian interference was to cause divisions in our society and political system and the supporting evidence of that to include the crap dossier and ALL the folk sticking up for Steele would suggest that it certainly worked and that at least those apologists--very present here--are indeed unwitting stooges for the Kremlin. Sorry if that sounds mean but that's what some of you are and all of the evidence makes it clear to everyone but yourselves.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I said that Horowitz was investigating.
And Horowitz said that he is.
The question was if Strzok had prior knowledge of the Steele dossier. Prior knowledge would mean that he knew about it before or while it was being created and was in contact with Steele about it.

Oh, don't waffle now. You had linked Steele and Strzok and that Strzok's visit to London was to help prepare the dossier as an "Insurance policy."

The problem is, as I pointed out, the only thing you can prove is that Horowitz has been asked to investigate the matter, and he confirmed that he is.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ya.. That's what I said.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: The GUT
I'm sorry...
Are you saying Steele was fired from the state department?
Your sentence structure makes it hard to decipher.

He was let go by the FBI for lying and leaking in connection with the bogus dossier. How ironic that...the same folk that let him go have been outed--and also fired--for doing the same things.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, let's see what the document linked actually says rather than relying on your biased summation ... eh?



From from "admitting that its crap" indeed, Steele said what he has always said that the dossier provided to Fusion GPS was raw intelligence.

Even at this late date, I am still amazed to see how some will distort easily discoverable facts.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ya.. That's what I said.

Ya, that's what you said and you can't back 90% of it up.

Thanks.

a reply to: The GUT

Can you show us this current news that Obama gave a "stand down" order on Russian interference from a reputable source?

You toss in "the Uranium 1" debacle for what reason? There's zero wrong-doing proven in the Uranium One deal (except of course in the minds of those befuddled by MSM.)

Do you have evidence of the Administration "colluding with Agent Steele" (who hasn't been a British Agent since 2009) to create the dossier?

Steele and his company are experts on Russia and Ukraine. Can you dispute that?

Can you provide evidence that anything in the dossier was proven false? Irrelevant really because what Steele provided was raw intelligence.

Can you prove that any of that was the primary evidence for FISA warrants? Because the facts contained in the IG report state quite clearly otherwise. There's nothing in the IG report about it; it's in the transcripts from Congressional meetings, my mistake.

Etc. etc.

As BlueAjah, you are very talented at spinning a narrative ... I just wonder if you have facts to actually back it up.

a reply to: The GUT

Could you at least be up front enough to make it clear that your Forbes article is an opinion piece?

Thanks.

a reply to: The GUT

Patently false.

Steele was “suspended and then terminated” as an FBI source for what the bureau defined “as the most serious of violations” – an “unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”

Fox News

a reply to: Gryphon66

My post was patently true---his unauthorized "leaking" that he denied doing. Therefore: leaking & lying. To be honest I find you a joke so don't expect me to reply to you very often. Even when I do it's not for your benefit. I expect that's the same for many here. That you have so little support should tell you something. However, at least you do some reading unlike some of the other Kremlin stooges so there's that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny you choose to quote all but what the "judge" had to say.....

“In the [Queen’s Bench] proceedings the key issue is whether Mr. Steele/Orbis were responsible for the publication of the defamatory statement. Thus, the factual enquiry in the English proceedings will not focus on the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation which is presumed to be false, and the QB Defendants have not contended otherwise.”

"presumed to be false, and the QB Defendants have not contended otherwise"
a very flowery way to say it is crap

but, hey believe what you like...what the guy himself submits in court shouldn't count right....

a reply to: The GUT

You claimed he was fired for "lying and leaking" ... in fact, he was fired for revealing that he had worked for the FBI previously.

Thanks for sharing your opinion of me; I'll admit, as we have discussed before, in my view you're pretty much a has-been that is still trying to keep your hand in. Your writing is not bad, but your ability to reason is non-existent.

If all your statements are that loosely based on the facts as we see here, let me encourage you, don't bother responding to my questions above, obviously your responses would be equally reality-challenged.

a reply to: shooterbrody

You quoted that from the propaganda piece you're citing. I quoted from and provided the actual case proceedings from the UK (that your article cherry-picks fallaciously.)

Here's the sad thing. The "defamatory allgation is presumed to be false" that you're so proud of PROVES that the cases brought against Steele in Florida and in London (the defamatory allegation) were presumed FALSE ... not Steele's dossier.

That's why you should be careful what you read; you bought into a rather stupidly false assertation.

a reply to: Gryphon66
www.judiciary.uk...

58. In the QB proceedings the key issue is whether Mr Steele/Orbis were responsible for the publication of the defamatory statement. Thus, the factual enquiry in the English proceedings will not focus on the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation which is presumed to be false, and the QB Defendants have not contended otherwise. (This is contrary to the position in the Florida proceedings where the US Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the allegations are false).

no matter the "propaganda piece"(your term) the quote from the judge remains(the same as in your link) and the judge speaking for the court says the dossier is false and steele has not contended otherwise
I do not think a sitting judge in england would presume to call an open case in florida false

but believe what you like

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
www.judiciary.uk...

58. In the QB proceedings the key issue is whether Mr Steele/Orbis were responsible for the publication of the defamatory statement. Thus, the factual enquiry in the English proceedings will not focus on the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation which is presumed to be false, and the QB Defendants have not contended otherwise. (This is contrary to the position in the Florida proceedings where the US Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the allegations are false).

no matter the "propaganda piece"(your term) the quote from the judge remains(the same as in your link) and the judge speaking for the court says the dossier is false and steele has not contended otherwise
I do not think a sitting judge in england would presume to call an open case in florida false

but believe what you like

*sigh* Let me break it down for you again. Last time.

Buzzfeed and Steele were sued by a Russian Oligarch for libel in the UK and in the US.

You're trying to cite from the UK findings which were that the defamatory allegation (made by the Russian against Steele and Buzzfeed) was presumed false.

This is because in English and American law, someone accused of something is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The allegation made by the Russian is presumed false because it wasn't proven.

Get it?

a reply to: Gryphon66
The same "defamitory allegations" are sited again in 93. and in more detail which spells out exactly to what the judge is referring. Steele does not deny the dossier is false in the eyes of the english court.
i.e. the dossier is crap

93. In any event, it is plain that the issues in the Florida proceedings justify questioning on a broader scope of subjects than that proposed by Mr Steele, those issues include the following: - i) whether the alleged defamatory allegations about the US Plaintiffs contained in the dossier published by the US Defendants are true;

a reply to: shooterbrody

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

The American Defendants are BuzzFeed and Steele. The American Plantiff is the Russian oligarch who alledged that defamatory accusations were made against him.

The UK case turned in part on Steele's defense against the fishing expedition as I previously pointed out.

a reply to: Gryphon66

lol
you have quite a large opinion of yourself
you having a different opinion of a court document in no way embarrasses me

like I posted previously, believe what you like

a reply to: CB328

But the dirt comes from Russia. Is the dirt still good?