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

a reply to: ketsuko

I don’t think any Democrats I know are wanting to impeach Trump over sex. I certainly don’t care if he had an affair. Honest. I care about the fact that he tried to skirt the law and cover up the affair to affect the election by keeping it under wraps. Even now, he is still weaving spin to try and stay out of trouble. I have a problem with Trump’s lies and corruption, not his sex life.

When it came to Clinton, I was young, but I also didn’t think his sex life had to do with politics. My mom, the conservative, thinks it was disgusting but doesn’t think that about Trump’s affairs. There is a psychological reason for this. When purchasing a car, for example, after making the purchase the owner becomes more biased towards the car they purchased after the purchase.

I think the affair part is much less important to liberals than you think. As far as conservatives go, it might have affected their votes in the primaries because they DO care about sex and affairs.

a reply to: Grambler

No single piece of evidence says “Page was a spy.” Instead, you would have had different pieces of evidence in different places. There could be some evidence outside of the dossier that was not mentioned in the dossier. That is the whole point.

Even if the dossier as a whole was unverified, certain facts in it might have been. From what I understand, the FBI told the truth about its status and its origins.

I see that last statement we differ on in belief. So I will have to do some research and get back to you on that. I read your news article, but I may have seen others saying the contrary.

a reply to: darkbake

cant speak for others, but for me I didn't care about Clintons sex life, if he would have told the truth form the word go the impeachment proceedings would have been dead before they started, I don't care about it with trump either.


As for the dossier, they had to know that if it went to trial they were risking fruit of the poisonous tree which makes me wonder why they have pushed it so far if they were serious to get trump.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Right, this backs up what I was saying to Ketsuko, which is that it isn’t just about sex in either case.

As far as the FISA warrant goes, my opinion is that it had other evidence besides the dossier to go on, and that the FISA court was told accurately about the dossier’s veracity and its origins as far as they knew.

Carter Page had been under US intelligence scrutiny since 2013 due to his foreign business dealing and public statements that he made. He went from working at the Pentagon to a Kremlin-connected company so him being under surveillance should be expected IMO.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Irishhaf

Right, this backs up what I was saying to Ketsuko, which is that it isn’t just about sex in either case.

As far as the FISA warrant goes, my opinion is that it had other evidence besides the dossier to go on, and that the FISA court was told accurately about the dossier’s veracity and its origins as far as they knew.

So you are claiming the fisa court was told Hillary’s team paid for the dossier and it was unverified?

I have not seen that alleged anywhere, and await your source claiming that

I am almost certain that the Dems who have seen the document would have claimed that although the fbi used the dossier for the fisa application they admitted it was unverified

But sure, I will read your source on that

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Carter Page had been under US intelligence scrutiny since 2013 due to his foreign business dealing and public statements that he made. He went from working at the Pentagon to a Kremlin-connected company so him being under surveillance should be expected IMO.

The Clintons have been working with foreign people for decades

So I assume they also were being wiretapped and under surveillance

Same with Podesta, Abedin, mills etc

Funny I didn’t see any investigations opened up about wiretapping them

a reply to: Grambler

Are you throwing a whataboutism out there?

I hoped you were better than that. So sad.

I am all for the 10th or is it 12th Clinton investigation, but that has little to do with your op. You presented your op like the only reason they even looked at Carter Page was due to the dossier which is false as I stated he has been a person of interest to national security since 2013 and if I remember it wasn't until 2016 that dossier even came to be.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I am so sorry you and many others do not know what a whataboutism is

That would be me saying

“Wel who cares if trump broke a law, hillary did as well”

My complaint is with a corrupt intel agency

You comment that you assumed page was being spied on because he worked with Russians is laughable at best

I am pointing out that if that’s the standard, why didn’t the fbi hold all others to that standard

This isn’t excusing pages behavior (which you provided nothing shady he did) it is pointing out the corrupt and double standards of the fbi

And the fbis interest in page was that he was a witness for them against Russian criminals

So is the fbi wiretapping all people who help them out foreign criminals away?

And can you provide any legal basis for your theory that people who dealt with the fbibin the past should be expected to being continual wiretapped?

originally posted by: Grambler
...
How this doesn’t outrage everyone is beyond me

Comey admits that the most crucial piece of evidence used to spy on a person connected to trumps campaign, the Steele Dossier, was never verified before or after it was presented to the fisa court

Think what this means
...

It's even worse than that because if you read the FISA warrant it was stamped as being verified, when it wasn't as Comey admitted. This shows that Comey, McCabe and those who were part of this plot willingly and knowingly used false information which they couldn't verify, but claimed it was verified to spy on the opposition Presidential campaign, which the democrats/DNC/HIllary, paid for and Obama administration officials together with Obama were also involved in this, because this could not happen without Obama knowing since he was President when all of this started happening.

This is the thing, there is more than enough real evidence to convict Hillary, Bill Clinton, alongside many other democrats/RINOs who willingly partook in using fake claims to obtain FISA warrants, meanwhile the real criminals were exonerated. Thankfully the Demonrats/Liberals/RINOs didn't win. i think this is the reason why Mueller and the pro-Clinton democrats in the "witch hunt" know that there is no evidence whatsoever about the "Russia/Trump collusion hoax." However, they are trying to get anything to stick on Trump and use that as leverage against the Trump administration to try to blackmail them into not revealing the evidence that will convict the real criminals, who are Hillary, Bill Clinton, the DNC, and some RINOs.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Grambler

Are you throwing a whataboutism out there?

I hoped you were better than that. So sad.
...

We know you aren't better than that, and know you would do anything to derail threads like this one with fake claims. So don't worry about it... Despite the claims from left-wingers in the forum who keep falsely claiming there is/was a Trump/Russia collusion to interfere in our elections, the fact is that the democrats/liberals, the DNC, Hillary, Obama administration officials, and Obama himself all partook on interfering with our elections by using FAKE claims which "came from the Russians, and a pro-Clinton Australian who heard someone, who heard someone, who heard someone else in a bar..."

These people willingly and knowingly partook in an attempted coup to depose the duly elected POTUS. That is a crime. Lying and presenting unverified evidence meanwhile it was stamped as being verified is a crime, because they lied to FISA court judge/s to obtain a warrant to spy on the political opposition for political purposes.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: ketsuko

I don’t think any Democrats I know are wanting to impeach Trump over sex. I certainly don’t care if he had an affair. Honest. I care about the fact that he tried to skirt the law and cover up the affair to affect the election by keeping it under wraps. Even now, he is still weaving spin to try and stay out of trouble. I have a problem with Trump’s lies and corruption, not his sex life.
...

Bill and Hillary Clinton did WORSE to keep women quiet who accused Bill of sexual harassment...

Hillary's hired thugs
The former first lady has used muscle to quiet Bubba's babes

What Trump did isn't worse than what the Clintons did. Politicians do this as well trying to hide things in their past they don't want their constituents to know about. If this is "trying to interfere with the elections" then almost every politician has skeletons in their closets they paid to hide, so they all have interfered to "affect the elections..."

a reply to: Grambler


To answer a question. I do absolutely believe that the people that have been tagged as possible foreign agents especially those who are attached to the highest position in the country should be investigated by the FBI. You are right about one thing that I didn't provide you with links to his Russian ties. I didn't because you present and act as if you have looked into all those things. So why do you never bring up any of it in your ops? Is it partisanship or is it you never came across any of it? In which case you would be a poor researcher or you are just being a hypocrite by leaving it out.

It is sad to think you might believe your own bull#, but that is what it looks like. When you offer direct evidence of a corrupt FBI then maybe I will start sending you links to what you left out. Your half truths now aren't cutting it.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Because he went to a Russian university for a speech doesn't make him a foreign agent...

Why didn't BILL CLINTON report that he "acted as a foreign agent when he has gone to Russia and all over the world making pro-Russian speeches which were paid by a bank linked to the Kremlin?

...
June 29, 2010

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
...

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you feel better now feel a little more self important? I am happy for you. Carry on with your craziness and have a good night.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes I believe my own bs unlike you

You who believes that because someone had connections to Russia in the past they are under constant wiretap

Funny, even the fbi seems to disagree with you and went through the trouble of getting a fisa warrant

Why would they do that?

According to you, the mere fact page once had connections to Russia is enough to have him under constant wiretap by the fbi

Please provide evidence for your suggestions that once someone has connections to Russia they are always spies on. It doesn’t exist, but seeing as how you know it is just me believing my bs, you will no doubt provide it and prove me wrong.

And yes I know pages history

You seem to leave out that he worked as a witness for the fbi against Russian criminals, and say he should be wiretapped anyways

Meanwhile, back in reality

We have the head of the fbi admitting they used unverified evidence to spy on a presidential campaign and you are perfectly fine with it despite that being against the law

Well when trump uses your standard and spies on any democrat that has a history with foreigners, I am sure you will defend him

Oh that’s right you won’t, because you know it’s corrupt but cheer for it when your side benefits

a reply to: Grimpachi

Oh yeah...facts are crazyness... Or is it that you can't deny facts?...

Bye bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

a reply to: Grambler

Forget about him, the Clinton fans won't relent. despite the fact that the Clintons were paid, through their Foundation, millions of dollars by the Russians meanwhile Hillary used her power in our government to help pass deals that benefited Russia. Despite the fact that Bill himself had made several pro-Russian speeches, including at least one in Russia in 2010, the left won't accept that "then Bill and Hillary should have reported that "they acted as foreign agents."

What's more.

...
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.

Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.
...

thehill.com...

The Clintons, and other democrats did work as foreign agents allowing and helping pass deals that benefited Russia, and were detrimental to the U.S.
The Clintons are part of the real criminals here.

a reply to: Grambler

I know this doesn't answer your immediate questions, but once again, here is someone saying that Carter Page's contact with prominent Russians was one concern that could either be verified outside of the memo or mentioned in the memo and verified.

Democrats, however, say that the FISA warrant on Page was justified because of his contacts with Russia, and they argue that the FBI and Justice Department followed proper procedure in seeking and getting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve the warrant.

Here is more from the same article, talking about how, once again, the FISA warrant was not central to the case.

Nunes' memo, which was cited by President Donald Trump in his attacks on the Mueller investigation, alleges that the author of the dossier, ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, harbored anti-Trump motivations that were not disclosed in the FISA application. Worse, the memo alleges, the FISA court was not told that Steele's dossier was funded through a law firm by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Democrats responded with their own memo, which argued that the FBI's interest in Page predated the FBI's knowledge of the Steele dossier. It also argues that it was not the dossier and the Page FISA warrant that prompted the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russia, but rather an earlier conversation that former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had with an Australian diplomat about alleged Russian dirt on Clinton.

CNN

Here is the FBI's attempt to tell the FISA court who funded the dossier:

Even though the payment for Steele's work had come from Democrats, the Justice Department and FBI considered Steele trustworthy enough to include his reporting in their application to surveil Page. That's one lesson in the new documents:

"The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign," it says.

The document avoids making many direct references to people or institutions as part of national security Washington's practices called "minimization."

The application continues: "Notwithstanding Source #1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia, based on Source #1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source #1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source #1's reporting herein to be credible."

Here is more on that angle:

Democrats argued in their countermemo that law enforcement had made the appropriate disclosures given the expectations involved with FISA applications: DOJ appropriately upheld its longstanding practice of protecting U.S. citizen information by purposefully not 'unmasking' U.S. person and entity names, unless they were themselves the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

DOJ instead used generic identifiers that provided the court with more than sufficient information to understand the political context of Steele's research. That's why "Steele" is "Source #1" and "Trump" is "Candidate #1" and so forth.

Republicans argue this document should have contained much more detail. Democrats, the Justice Department and the FBI argue that what's included, and how, was appropriate.

What I gather from that is that procedure was being followed when the FBI did not disclose the exact name of the person who contributed to Steele's work. They were not being biased. If the procedure needs to be changed, that 1) would still mean that the FBI followed the law, 2) could be talked about separately, and 3) would not get Trump or anyone else off the hook, as far as I know.

Here is more:

The facts also do not support McCarthy’s second point (one that Congressman Devin Nunes misleadingly emphasized in his infamous memo about the warrant): that the FISA court was not informed about the Clinton campaign’s financial support for Christopher Steele’s work.

In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias.

Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments – which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS – is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.

Daily Beast

====================

From the same source, this talks about how some of the dossier was later verified (just an aside):

The material suggested that Russia had launched a war of influence against the United States — which investigators have subsequently confirmed

NPR

The following article also describes how some of the dossier has been verified, although the public does not know which parts.

The potential case that Donald Trump's campaign may have conspired with the Russian attack on the 2016 election has always been about more than the infamous dossier. Trump and his supporters deny colluding and make the dossier a favorite target because of its salacious contents and because it remained unverified.

NPR and other news organizations have not detailed the contents of the dossier because it remains unproven, but Schiff's memo suggests that the Justice Department actually has corroborated parts of it.

Which parts? That is blacked out. So there is no way to know whether it's some of the anodyne background aspects of the file — or the more infamous passages. All the same, it is significant that the Justice Department has established for its own purposes that at least some of the contents of the dossier aren't either simply false or Russian disinformation.

NPR

This article talks about how there we know enough to be sure that there was enough information for the FISA warrant, disregarding what was in the memo.

Even putting aside the large portions of redacted material (which likely further support the application but are redacted because of the highly sensitive nature of the information), the unredacted portions easily meet this probable cause standard and support the FISA court’s multiple orders.

The Daily Beast

====================

All right, so we move on to discussing whether or not the FBI told the FISA court about the veracity of the dossier. Here is another argument about why the FBI followed procedure when talking about the veracity of the dossier.

The third point, and the crux of McCarthy’s argument, is that the FBI did not properly “verify” the information in the application, which is a technical requirement in a FISA application. McCarthy claims that the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, its source of information, but rather was required to test the credibility of, and reliance on, each sub-source who gave information to Steele. But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications. Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required.

a reply to: darkbake

So it looks like the procedure was followed in both cases.