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.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Justoneman
He didn't make up anything and there is no proof anywhere of your claim.
No part of the dossier has been debunked.
Much of it has been verified.
What part of that is so hard for you guys to grasp?
It's not debunked.
None of it.
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
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. He says that for former Crown Servants with the experience and background of the Directors of Orbis, such publication of such raw intelligence reports in this way is simply unthinkable (Cain Paragraph 44) [1/3/10].
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
You really should take your own advice.
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.
... and that's relevant to the discussion how?
WASHINGTON — Within hours of opening an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in the summer of 2016, the F.B.I. dispatched a pair of agents to London on a mission so secretive that all but a handful of officials were kept in the dark. Their assignment, which has not been previously reported, was to meet the Australian ambassador, who had evidence that one of Donald J. Trump’s advisers knew in advance about Russian election meddling. After tense deliberations between Washington and Canberra, top Australian officials broke with diplomatic protocol and allowed the ambassador, Alexander Downer, to sit for an F.B.I. interview to describe his meeting with the campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos.
The agents summarized their highly unusual interview and sent word to Washington on Aug. 2, 2016, two days after the investigation was opened. Their report helped provide the foundation for a case that, a year ago Thursday, became the special counsel investigation. But at the time, a small group of F.B.I. officials knew it by its code name: Crossfire Hurricane.
Those decisions (going public with Hillary info - G) stand in contrast to the F.B.I.’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane. Not only did agents in that case fall back to their typical policy of silence, but interviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a review of documents show that the F.B.I. was even more circumspect in that case than has been previously known. Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. Agents considered, then rejected, interviewing key Trump associates, which might have sped up the investigation but risked revealing the existence of the case.
Top officials quickly became convinced that they would not solve the case before Election Day, which made them only more hesitant to act. When agents did take bold investigative steps, like interviewing the ambassador, they were shrouded in secrecy. Fearful of leaks, they kept details from political appointees across the street at the Justice Department. Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, explained in a text that Justice Department officials would find it too “tasty” to resist sharing. “I’m not worried about our side,” he wrote.
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.
... and that's relevant to the discussion how?
Did I say it had to do with the discussion?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.
... and that's relevant to the discussion how?
Did I say it had to do with the discussion?
You posted it in the discussion.
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.
... and that's relevant to the discussion how?
Did I say it had to do with the discussion?
You posted it in the discussion.
Indeed I did. Perhaps going back to the first few pages of this thread and re-reading the posts by you and Silly would help you understand.
Speaking of Silly..where did she run off to? Still waiting for her proof that most of the dossier has been verified.
originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Justoneman
...Chris Steele has worked as a government contractor for almost a decade. I'd love to see your EVIDENCE that anything he or his company have provided is false...
Is Fo rbes a good enough source for you?
My god, you people are lazy (or intellectually dishonest?).