Comey: Dossier Was Unverified Before And After FBI Used It To Obtain Spy Warrants

The real scandal is that the FBI, without any incriminating evidence to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, opened a counterintelligence investigation, "Crossfire Hurricane". With a nod from the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans, who just happened to be their political opponents.

a reply to: Propagandalf

That's the real Third World Banana Republic sh!t. That's the sort of antics you expect to hear from some place like Venezuela or Nigeria, the president using the intelligence complex against his opponents.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Propagandalf

That's the real Third World Banana Republic sh!t. That's the sort of antics you expect to hear from some place like Venezuela or Nigeria, the president using the intelligence complex against his opponents.

If they get away with it, they'll do it again.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
The real scandal is that the FBI, without any incriminating evidence to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, opened a counterintelligence investigation, "Crossfire Hurricane". With a nod from the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans, who just happened to be their political opponents.

Watergate

A couple of guys break into a hotel looking for papers and communications about his opponents campaign = enormous scandal, story of the century for the press, nixon forced to resign

Obama

Had his intel agencies spy on his sides opponent using unverified oppo research that his party paid for, to be able to look at almost all communications of opponent = no big deal at all, press is uninterested and tells people that are interested that they are hurting America by questioning it

That is a far bigger problem by an exponential magnitude than anything Russia could do

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: Propagandalf

That's the real Third World Banana Republic sh!t. That's the sort of antics you expect to hear from some place like Venezuela or Nigeria, the president using the intelligence complex against his opponents.

And that is what I and others have said since day one

It’s not just that they did it, but the fact that now it is out in the open, and still so many people not only don’t have a problem with it, but cheer it on

Truly we have enetered the world of 1984, where intelligence agency corruption is cheered for and praised as a tool to defeat ever morphing charges of corruption done by the people deemed enemies by those agencies

a reply to: Grambler

while thinking about all this today, I am more confused than ever. Here's why:
1. Trump porked some "ladies of the night". (nobody but Trump denies this)
2. Trump's lawyer payed them to keep quiet so as to not screw up his election. (again, only Trump denies this)
3. Trump had/has plenty of money to where this wouldn't be as simple as using campaign finances
4. I don't see anyone denying any of this, only some people saying he's going to jail for evah.

Grambler, you have been consistent in all this and have shown others (myself included), how to keep justice at the forefront of all this, so you deserve to at least be recognized for that. But how does this equal a bad thing? I'm trying hard to look at this without my political bias, and I still just don't see the crime.

And to all those who think there is still a Russian in the woodpile, super, when and if they announce their ties to Trump, we can all decide how we feel about that, but how does this even pass the smell test with previous accounts of the same?

a reply to: network dude

There is no crime that I see there

The crime is “trump bad, take him down by any means necessary!”

If paying an extortionist to keep quiet is a crime because it is a campaign expenditure, then so is getting a hair cut to look good for the campaign

Thus every hair cut should have to be disclosed, or else that would be a crime

Not to mention Congress actually has a slush fund to keep sexy allegations quiet, so why wouldn’t every person who has used that fund and been running a campaign be guilty of the same crime?

At best they can allege some sort of campaign finance violations, those as the Edwards case showed, it unlikely charges would stick

Let’s not forget, Obamas team was charged with fifnance violations, and they paid a fine and it was no big deal

I have to admit I am shocked that Cohen got raided in the middle of the night, and this is the best they could come up with

I thought and still do think someone of trumps wealth would surely have committed more concrete financial crimes

The point is, in Washington, where almost everyone is slimy, having investigative and intel agencies that selective allow some crimes to occur (like Hillary’s side) but charge people they don’t like with the same crimes because they don’t like them, then the peoples vote no longer matters at all

a reply to: odzeandennz

The problem is everything is political. BOTH sides should be appalled and demand unbiased agencies working for the PEOPLE.

a reply to: Grambler

Worse, it looks like it was all set up by British Intelligence. Trump needs to declassify.

originally posted by: Propagandalf
a reply to: Grambler

Worse, it looks like it was all set up by British Intelligence. Trump needs to declassify.

I agree
Our "allies" should act like allies

The one central fact that you got wrong in your argument is that the dossier was the central piece of evidence. This does not seem to be the case.

Here is some information on why the probe started, and it doesn't involve the dossier:

While Comey dodged questions pertaining to the ongoing Russia investigation that special counsel Robert Mueller now oversees, he did provide new insight into the origins of the probe, according to a transcript of his Friday appearance that was released Saturday. Comey said the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia originated with four Americans who were thought to be potentially helping the Kremlin in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Comey didn't identify the Americans, explaining to lawmakers the individuals had not been named by the FBI publicly. But he said they were "four Americans who had some connection to Mr. Trump during the summer of 2016" and were tied to "the Russian interference effort."

USA Today

Here is information regarding how the dossier was only a small part of the evidence used to establish probable cause the Page was an agent of Russia.

The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia. The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele.

Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI counterintelligence chief who is now an NBC News contributor, says that likely includes reporting from human sources and intercepted communications. Page, it should be said, denies that he was an agent of Russia and has not been charged with a crime.

National security experts who have reviewed the document say that even the parts that aren't blacked out contain more than enough information to provide a judge reason to rule that the FBI had probable cause to believe that Page was an agent of Russia. Probable cause is much lower than the reasonable doubt the standard required to convict someone of a crime.

"It's the probability of a possibility," said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law. Page had already appeared on the FBI's radar as a target of Russian intelligence recruitment in a separate spy case. He has acknowledged that he traveled to Moscow and met with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. It would have been malpractice for the FBI, confronted with allegations that Page was helping the Russians, not to investigate, Figliuzzi says.

NBC News

This talks about the partisan Nunes memo:

The Nunes memo does not say Steele’s dossier was the only piece of information used to establish probable cause that Page was acting as a foreign agent. Indeed, when FBI agents submit a FISA application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they use information from multiple sources, according to current and former FBI officials. What’s more, the same information is not used over and over to extend surveillance under FISA. Instead, every 90 days, the FBI, as a matter of practice, shows evidence to the court that agents are obtaining foreign intelligence information through the surveillance that is in line with the initial FISA application.

The Intercept

Hopefully, this explains why I am not outraged. The dossier was NOT "central" to getting the FISA warrant. That is propaganda that was probably spread to make the FBI seem illegitimate and therefore get Trump off the hook for his crimes if he committed any.

a reply to: darkbake

presenting KNOWN unverified information to a fisa court to obtain a fisa warrant is fraud

a reply to: six67seven

Well, you know, it's different for them. This is their moral crusade and when you fight evil, any means justify the ends. Who cares about those pesky laws, right?

a reply to: Grambler

No he didn't thats the big difference.
You guys keep crying about this dossier which is really just a collection of memos and try to make it into this big terrible super secret thing. when it had little if anything to do with the investigations being started.
But you know... its all you got so keep holding on to it. Maybe even bring seth Rich into the mix.
When you're told over and over again that it had nothing to do with starting the investigation but just choose to ignore it you're being willfully ignorant. You're choosing to just ignore the facts because they don't fit what you want to believe..

a reply to: network dude

There isn't. Not anymore than there was when Clinton did Lewinsky in the oval office. Remember, he wasn't impeached for the affair with her. It was for lying under oath when asked about her.

And in that case, the affair never would have come to light had Starr not been chasing what seemed like suspicious payments to Lewinsky. She was being paid overly large sums of money for doing seemingly no work. He only ran across those while digging through material for Whitewater. Such a thing could have indicated money laundering or something like it. He uncovered the affair instead.

Had Clinton told the truth, it would have been a scandal, true, but there would have been no crime.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It looks like this angle is incorrect. The FBI explained the dossier to the best of its knowledge at the time, even discussing its origin ("provenance"). "The FBI also brought additional evidence forth to support its conclusion that the key claims in the dossier were at least credible."

Among other things, and contrary to the claims by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, the government did indeed apprise the FISA Court of the provenance of the “Steele dossier” (and former spy Christopher Steele’s possible bias); it offered additional evidence to support its conclusion that the key claims in the dossier were at least “credible;” and there appears to have been at least some other evidence besides the dossier offered in support of the government’s claim that there was “probable cause” to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.

NBC

a reply to: darkbake

The additional evidence were news stories based on allegations begun by the dossier.

a reply to: network dude

Here is what I have on the issue:

One of the court filings last week one said that Trump directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate campaign finance laws for the payoffs to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. But Trump says it was a simple private transaction. Can that be a private transaction?

Well, something can be a private transaction and still be a violation of campaign finance laws. So, for example, if I was a candidate for office and someone agreed to spend $2 million promoting me in advance of a campaign or providing me a private jet or something like that, if it was done for purposes of carrying forward my campaign, I would need to report it. The main issue here is the reporting of that transaction and whether or not it was properly disclosed to the public through the FEC.

WTTW News

This explains how the cover-up is just as bad, maybe worse, than the crime:

But while there is such thing as a trivial campaign finance violation — and there are scores of them every year — that doesn’t mean every campaign finance violation is a small matter. Both because of the coverup that Trump waged over the payment and its potential effect, this is no trifling matter.

Let’s start with the coverup. Trump and his White House have spent nearly half of his presidency hiding this “simple private transaction” — and his role in it — from public view. When it was first reported, they denied Trump’s sexual relationship with Daniels and seemed to deny the payment, too, calling it “old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election.” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in March that Trump had “made very well clear that none of these allegations are true.” Trump himself flatly denied that he knew about the payment, saying “no” when asked that question. When asked where the money came from, he said, “I don’t know.”

Federal prosecutors now say Trump knew about the whole thing from the jump, saying in its filing Friday that Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of [Trump].”

Here is how it may have affected the election:

Trump argues that this was just a personal matter, and that it wasn’t even related to the election. If so, it wouldn’t be a campaign finance violation. But Cohen now says it was, and prosecutors agree. This was a crime that was covered up, implicates the president, and could theoretically have changed the result of the election.

Trump may never pay a legal or political price for it, but it’s entirely possible that this “small private transaction” had a huge effect on the course of the U.S. presidency — much bigger, in fact, than the Watergate break-in did (at least before it forced Richard Nixon’s resignation). And Trump seemed quite concerned about making sure voters would never know about this potentially influential transaction.

Washington Post

a reply to: darkbake

The so-called dossier formed only a smart part of the evidence used to meet the legal burden of establishing "probable cause" that Page was an agent of Russia. The released documents contain dozens of pages that are entirely blacked out. People who have read them, including Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, say they contain secret evidence establishing ties between Page and Russians — evidence that goes beyond what was included in the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele.

So Schiff is not only sharing classified information, he's not going to tell you the details, but you just gotta believe him? I'd re-read your source, but this time, pay attention to the weasel words.

But if it turns out to be true, we can count on you to break party lines and call a crime "wrong"? Baby steps.

a reply to: network dude

What crime are you suggesting is wrong? I just need some clarification. If you are talking about what Schiff said about there being more evidence than that in the dossier, then I would be inclined to believe him, I have read similar reports from people in the intelligence community.

Are you suggesting that even if Trump and his administration committed crimes that you would push for him to get off the hook? Even if there is plenty of evidence of it? It seems like you guys may have given up on the idea that Trump is innocent and are moving towards discrediting the investigation using any means necessary.