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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.”
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).
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
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;