Steele Dossier Was Not The Basis For Trump-Related Surveillance

Law Newz

Bloomberg (Original Source)

Next week looks like it's shaping up to be a big cluster !@#$. So far we have Free Beacon stating they paid for the opo research, then they clarified that none of the research they paid for ended up in the dossier. The dossier ended up being bought by the DNC/Clinton campaign... which I thought had been long known. I'm pretty sure it was known.

We now have right wing pundits trying to spin this all around on Hillary which I will support if it turns out to be true, but right now I think it's just muddying water because of the upcoming arrest (s). Deflection.

From Law Newz:

According to the anonymous intelligence source used by Bloomberg, not so much. For one, the former intelligence official claims, the Steele dossier did not exist–at least not as a formal document–when the FBI began a formal investigation into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and others in July 2016.

From Bloomberg:

In a blog post late Thursday on the Lawfare blog, Robert Litt, who served as general counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2009 until January, wrote that the Steele dossier played “absolutely no role” in the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia meddled in the election.

“That assessment, which was released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis,” Litt wrote. He added that Trump was briefed on the dossier to warn him of its existence

Schiff and other Democrats also are quick to point to a broader slate of what they claim are Republican attempts to divert the focus of the probes. Those include demands for details of Obama administration “unmasking” of Americans named in surveillance reports, and newly launched committee investigations into several Obama-era controversies.

For example, House Republicans announced they’re looking into the Justice Department’s 2016 handling of Clinton’s use of personal emails while secretary of state, as well as the Obama administration’s approval of a 2010 deal that gave Russians partial control over American uranium reserves.

“They are designed to be partisan, they are designed to be a distraction, and they are designed to be carrying the water of the White House,” Schiff said.

Sounds about right. How many investigations are we up to now on Hillary and Obama on the same things over and over? What does anyone expect to find different?

Can we investigate the legality of drone use? The number of civilians killed in Yemen and Syria? The violations of the 4th Amendment?

a reply to: Kali74

Can we investigate the legality of drone use? The number of civilians killed in Yemen and Syria? The violations of the 4th Amendment?

As long as people realize it will be damning for both sides of the isle. Let us not forget Obama bombed seven countries and made the drone program what it is.

We could argue who is worse, but at the end of the day the patriot act and our foreign policy started under Bush. Obama merely took it and ran with it. And now we have Trump.

For all of us "loonies" who kicked and screamed when the patriot act came out under the cloak of "security", we said it could create an environment where a bad leader could do bad things.

Screw the partisan BS, we need to keep on the ball. Everything else is just a distraction, and so long as we have tribalism in this country the people will never prevail.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I was referring to both GW Bush and Obama. I don't think we even had anything going on in Yemen under GW.

There's always a path that branches off of the main (manufactured) issue that keeps the back and forth going between the two sides. It's been that way with every single one of the issues that have been provided to us by the media and establishment. Every. Single. One.

Every time one side thinks they put the nail in the coffin the other side fires back with another batch of unreleased info. Then a new issue pops up and nothing is resolved, time after time.

a reply to: Kali74

The bloomberg article also says this.

A former U.S. intelligence official has denied Republican suggestions that the dossier could have been been sufficient to justify surveillance as part of a U.S. investigation into Trump and his associates.

The former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the dossier didn’t exist as a formal document when the FBI began its investigation in July 2016, and wouldn’t have been used as the sole basis to obtain eavesdropping warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It’s possible, however, that the FBI was made aware of some of the allegations that eventually went into the dossier, and those allegations played a role in the FBI opening its investigation, the former official said.

www.bloomberg.com...

Notice the anonymous official says the allegations in the dossier played a role in the investigation.

This anonymous official disagrees about it being used for Fisa warrants.

The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

www.cnn.com...

Notice that Robert Litt is not discussing the fisa warrants, but says that the dossier played no role in the assessment that russia meddled in the election.

Well of course nit, everyone has admitted that Russia always meddles in the election, so the dossier would have been irrelevant to that discussion.

The question is did the dossier play a role in Fisa warrants and the investigation into collusion between trumps team and russia.

Your own sources suggests yes to the second question.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't see that playing a later role would be something that needed to be denied. Nor have I seen any denial of such. The point is that the dossier had nothing to do with triggering any FISA warrant or investigation. Carter Page is probably one of the ones that will eventually have formal charges brought against him. There were a few FISA warrants issued and there may end up being more issued. It doesn't mean the dossier triggered the initial one.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

I don't see that playing a later role would be something that needed to be denied. Nor have I seen any denial of such. The point is that the dossier had nothing to do with triggering any FISA warrant or investigation. Carter Page is probably one of the ones that will eventually have formal charges brought against him. There were a few FISA warrants issued and there may end up being more issued. It doesn't mean the dossier triggered the initial one.

Well thankfully the FBI said it will now comply with subpoenas and say what they used the dossier for.

This ought to clear up the conflicting anonymous sources.

a reply to: Grambler


No, it was European intel that first alerted the CIA to Trump's possible compromised position.

'There's something not right here': British spies warned the US about 'extensive' contact between Trump team and Russia

Apr. 13, 2017
Britain's Government Communications Headquarters became aware of suspicious "interactions" between associates of Donald Trump and suspected or known Russian operatives in late 2015, The Guardian reported on Thursday.

The Guardian's report — which said other intelligence agencies in Germany, Estonia, and Poland also picked up communications between Trump's associates and Russian agents — is consistent with earlier revelations about what spurred the US intelligence community to launch its investigation last summer into Trump's ties to Russia.

The European agencies shared the intelligence with their American counterparts between late 2015 and mid-2016, The Guardian reported. But the FBI and the CIA "were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump's team and Moscow ahead of the US election," the report said.

Show me the fisa applications. Then I'll believe it.

a reply to: Kali74

If the dossier had a effect on the election it didn't have enough to make the Donald loose . On the other hand the Pokemon thing was a real threat but I can't seem to figure out to who .

a reply to: windword

No, it was European intel that first alerted the CIA to Trump's possible compromised position.

So far Manaford seems to be the only one but he has stronger ties to the DNC which links were Podesta . Manaford was working for him . But I would imagine that same intelligence knew of the Podesta links to Russia and must have warned the FBI that Hillary may of also been in a compromised position or one would think so .

a reply to: the2ofusr1


Could be Mamafort, but it could also be Carter Page, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and/or Michael Flynn Jr, Jared Kushner or Don Trump Jr.

I can't see Clinton or Pedesta being indicted any time soon.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I was referring to both GW Bush and Obama. I don't think we even had anything going on in Yemen under GW.

We barely have anything going on in Yemen right now. The Saudis are spear tipping that (though they're our allies).

So after Bush we had one of the most eloquent speakers of our times take office, he was able to distract us from his aggressive foreign policy just by having an incredible image. Now we have a president who is off the cuff and unhinged distracting us in a different way.

If people don't find a way to come together the ultimate agenda will continue. We'll be stuck squabbling over which side is less evil. Spoiler alert, they both are evil.

a reply to: loam
Why?
You'd just claim they were fake anyway.