Trump Dossier Author Steele Visited State Dept in Oct '16

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks. Not that high an opinion ... I really don't want anyone to look as uninformed as you're making yourself.

Ask yourself who is being sued for defamation and I think it will become obvious.

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.

Prove it. Quit talking out your ass, and prove the dossier, or much of it has been verified. Whatcha got?

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

Eh? The judge is clearly stating the difference between US and UK defamation law. That they were unable to obtain a libel trial which is far more serious and punitive shows the weakness of the claims. Cohen dropped his libel claim a few months back.

In the US the onus is on the prosecution to claim the alleged defamatory statement is false.

In the UK the claims are automatically assumed to be false, the onus is onus is on the defendant to prove their statement to be true.

Libel, slander and defamation law in the UK is unique as the defendant is guilty until proven innocent - the judge agrees Steele can't reveal his sources due to the risks involved and lack of any evidence for the claims the dossier is untrue or Steele has history of fabricating intel reports. He concludes they're abusing the system by playing the legal systems in both countries off each other.

a reply to: bastion

I can certainly acknowledge when I am incorrect and I am wrong about the presumption of innocence in the UK on libel ... must be a Norman precept.

Would you say that the statements of the UK court establish that the material in the dossier is therefore false, or, does this only regard the statements about the Russian oligarch?

Another correction: Chris Steele was not a defendant in the Florida case, apparently.

From the UK case alluded to and linked above...

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.

You really should take your own advice.

originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

You really should take your own advice.

Really? Because I can admit that I made a mistake? Some of you should try it sometime.

Here's the thing: Shooterbrody's article [sic] stated that an English Court had determined that the contents of the Peegate Dossier were false and based that on a quote from the court procedings.

The article, and Shooterbrody (and myself, it turns out) misunderstood that statement because of one fact, helpfully pointed out by Bastion ... in the UK, libel requires that the Defendant prove their defamatory statements to be true.

The phrase "assumed to be false" speaks to a point of British law, not to the summation of the Crown on the accuracy of the entire Steele Dossier.

There, is that better for ya?

a reply to: Gryphon66
I wasn't talking about the conversation between Shooter and yourself. You're embarrassing yourself in general.

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?

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?

Surprisingly/unsurprisingly ... the facts of the matter have been known for quite some time ...

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.

So, we've known for some time that the FBI went to London to meet with the Austrailian ambassodor ... not Chris Steele. Is there more that we've known for some time?

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.

So, not only did Agents "resume their silence" as is typical with investigations after the Clinton fiasco ... but in fact, took extra steps to insure that the investigation into Trump associates WASN'T LEAKED as as to harm the Campaign.

Heh, what do you know.

New York Times - May 16, 2018

Maybe it's time for the Justice Department to stop being the playthings of the never-ending politically-motivated investigations of the Republican Congress?

/shrug

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: 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: 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.

I understand fine. You made an off-topic remark, got called on it, and now you're waffling. It's not part of the discussion, but you post it in the discussion. Are you sure I'm the one that needs to review what they're writing, friend?

As you say, I've been in the topic since the beginning, so, you might imagine I've read what I've written, eh?

I hesitate to add "duh" ...

So, what's your point, don't be coy, if you have an argument, statement, comment, etc. you'd like to make, make it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're correct in all the rest of it and interpretation of the case. It's a stupid law (unique to those three legal matters) from bygone years used to silence journalists. Carter Ruck and Shilling's, the two main UK libel firms charge £500 for writing a warning letter and bare mimimum of £400ph for general case stuff on a 'no win, no fee' CFA agreement - so the system is plagued with threats to sue for millions.

It makes no statement on the content of the material - the UK legal system automatically assumes anything in a defamation case written by the defendant is false (guilty until proven innocent) and the US works on innocent until proven guilty so in the US case the oligarch has to first prove any of the allegations are falsehoods before a ruling can be given - the judge makes no statement on this (as far as I know the US case in ongoing/hasn't begun, but haven't been following US proceedings).

When the case begins it will only look at the claims against the Gubarev as he's the plaintiff and scope of the court case only stretches as far as he, XBT Holdings SA and Webzilla are concerned - with Buzzfeed and Ben Smith being the main two the case is seeking damages against.

Basically they've laid out the boundaries of areas it will and won't look at (pre-trial hearing phase). Most of the case was a fishing expeditions thyhat has been gutted as it's been ruled there'd be a threat to sources lives if named and it's illegal for a journalist, analyst, specialist to be forced to reveal confidential sources in Court, they're looking for gossip and dirt on Steele in the UK court to deny a fair trial in the US - hence the hypothetical QB no defence line

Personal opinion is there's little chance of the suing attempt being successful - Intel reports by their nature aren't facts, (intel services don't consider 99.999999% proof a fact, just very strong evidence) they're reports on what sources on the ground and other intelligence is hinting very strongly towards - think Rumsfeldts, known knowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns speech.

UK raw intel is based around four possible interpretations of intel
- No evidence to support intelligence, claim is demonstrably false, stop investigation
- Some evidence to support intelligence, possibility of claim being true but unlikely and not worth elevating resources
- Substantial evidence to support intelligence, likely to be true elevate resources
- Very Substantial evidence to support intelligence, take immediate action

Steele's report seems to fall into the upper three to higher four category given his experience, track record and reaction to the content and corroboration of intel via numerous European intel agencies from October 2015 - June 2016 (I think Steele's tip off led to the first chatter being picked up by GCHQ monitoring Russian agents phones was on 13th Aug '15 but may have been the 15th) before the US finally started paying attention and met up with SIS in late June - Early July 2016. By it's nature there will be 'untruths' in there but they were never claimed or presented as 'truths' in the first place - there's no basis for defamation and Steele can just cite the Reynold's defence or hundreds of others and walk straight out of court.

a reply to: bastion

Thank you, bastion, your expert analysis is very much appreciated.

Glad to know I didn't muck up the argument too much.

So, if anyone is keeping score here ...

Strzok and another FBI agent went on a mission to London to receive information from the Australian ambassador about Trump Campaign members that had been turned or were cooperating with Russian agents.

Also, the reason this was kept secret was to insure that no leaks about the inquiries got out to the public to damage Trump's campaign as the leaks, and Comey crap had done to Clinton's.

Wow, isn't that ironic.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

every little nugget that comes out seems to be making a bigger and bigger pile

Of bullcrap.

ZOMFG.. you finally got something right!!!!

This whole FISA abuse thing is a HUGE load of crap... time to clean house!

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?).

Thank you for having my back, I had to go earn my paycheck.