Planet Rugby Forum

EverReady wrote:The Washington Times
The Federalist

Flyin Ryan wrote:The Steele dossier had already been mostly discredited. It was part of the investigation that came out when they looked into the FBI as part of the Carter Page mess that looked at FBI actions unfavorably. When investigators sat and talked to Steele, most of his information didn't stand up to much more credible than internet rumor when they pressed him on it.

robmatic wrote:I for one am shocked that an intelligence source uses a restricted substance such as alcohol.

EverReady wrote:The Washington Times
The Federalist

zzzz wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:The Steele dossier had already been mostly discredited. It was part of the investigation that came out when they looked into the FBI as part of the Carter Page mess that looked at FBI actions unfavorably. When investigators sat and talked to Steele, most of his information didn't stand up to much more credible than internet rumor when they pressed him on it.

Sure.. But I don't think people new quite how flaky it was or or about the linkage to the Brookings Institute and to Talbott and Hill.

6.Jones wrote:

Santa wrote:Steele still on it I see. Good commitment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ele-claims

It's a shame they didn't realise he was a fabulist when he ran the Russia desk at MI6.

Kiwias wrote:Just as well the FISA warrant was not based on the Steele report

Turbogoat wrote:It's pretty damn tragic for anyone to still be clutching their pearls about the Steele Dossier really.
The reason the FBI took any notice of it was because it reiterated what they already knew about much of what was going on. If there was any doubt about the ability of the FBI and intel services to break down what was going on then a quick look at the recent indictments of specific Russian intel officers for their very detailed actions in interfering with the US elections should have been a good indicator that they know faaar more than just what Buzzfeed publishes.
And why is the Steele dossier getting so much grief in the first place? Because the handwringers are attempting to use it to insinuate that the investigation was just partisan hackery instigated by the evil Democrats. If there is an actual prosecution of anyone, and the only "evidence" that is brought forward is the Steele Dossier, then yes, I'll agree with them, it's not nearly enough to convict anyone on its own. It's just a series of memos regarding interviews with Russian officials by a third party. It's not enough to convict. Hell, it's interesting, it's salacious, and been shown to be surprisingly accurate in many parts, but it's secondhand info that is often 'single source' which is not a lot to go on, on its own. But it's not being used as the sole piece of evidence in a prosecution though is it. It was yet another source for other multi-sourced pieces of intel that the FBI already had and was yet another piece of confirmation. The Republican Judges who repeatedly approved the FISA warrants saw all the other intel and confirmed there was enough for more rigorous investigation. Not conviction (yet) - investigation.

But the info the dossier contained was cause for concern. In fact, it was so concerning that when Steele put it together, what did he do? He took it the FBI, like anyone not antagonistic toward the USA should have done. (Note to Don Jr etc... when foreign agents contact you with possible illegal activity reports or offers of illegally gained intel, this is what you're supposed to do)

The FBI had been very interested in Carter Page (and others)for a long time prior to the Steele Dossier ever becoming a thing. They already had a lot of intel well before the boogeyman Steele crawled out from under the bed. Steele was a latecomer to this.

And all this is just what has become public knowledge. The amount of redacted info in the FISA warrants shows that there is a LOT more intel out there. Even without knowing the content, the sheer amount is staggering. To ignore that and focus on the one publicly released section and assume that this is the heart and soul of it all, just because that's the only part you are aware of is pure arrogance.

One day we may know the full story. It'll certainly be 'interesting'.

Flyin Ryan wrote:

zzzz wrote:

Flyin Ryan wrote:The Steele dossier had already been mostly discredited. It was part of the investigation that came out when they looked into the FBI as part of the Carter Page mess that looked at FBI actions unfavorably. When investigators sat and talked to Steele, most of his information didn't stand up to much more credible than internet rumor when they pressed him on it.

Sure.. But I don't think people new quite how flaky it was or or about the linkage to the Brookings Institute and to Talbott and Hill.

Well as a person thst listens to the Lawfare podcast that Brookings publishes, their next episode should be fun.

Rinkals wrote:I think the Steele dossier has been acknowledged as reasonably accurate.

What has probably undermined it is the salacious detail of hookers urinating on beds because it starts to read like tawdry fiction, but I suspect that sort of action is very much in keeping with how this President operates.

Kiwias wrote:

Yer Man wrote:

Kiwias wrote:A former U.S. attorney and a Harvard Law student teamed up to revisit the Steele dossier by cross-referencing it with special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings — and unveiled which parts of it hold water.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss ... rospective

If you're looking for a one line summary:

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

Damn you. I wanted to make Santa and WT read every line to find some way of dismissing it.

zzzz wrote:

EverReady wrote:The Washington Times
The Federalist

Like I said, why is this not front page news? The underlying facts are very concerning and ....crickets.

P.s if you don't belive me, take it from him.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1288426212667383809

a Russian national whose past includes criminal convictions and other personal baggage ignored by the FBI in vetting him and the information he fed to Steele, /quote]
I'd wager they're used to that. I'd go further the below probably describes +50% of their CIs

was arrested, jailed and convicted years earlier on multiple public drunkenness and disorderly conduct charges in the Washington area and ordered to undergo substance-abuse and mental-health counseling, according to criminal records.

The Steele dossier was always dodgy but as far as how the FBI operate it's not off the reservation. And that is why it's not front page news.

Also

according to congressional sources and records obtained by RealClearInvestigations.[

So you know it's good.

I mean fucking hell.

In an odd twist, a 2013 federal case against Danchenko was prosecuted by then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who ended up signing one of the FBI’s dossier-based wiretap warrants as deputy attorney general in 2017.

Turbogoat wrote:

Santa wrote: The surveillance on Carter Page that relied on the Steele dossier.

That's a brave stance to take considering how much of the FISA application was redacted.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper ... imized.pdf

I'm sure there's nothing important at all under all that blackness though.

Turbogoat wrote:NO. The Steele dossier was what brought public attention to a lot of it, and you've overstated the actual impact of the Steele dossier repeatedly, especially when you call it 'fundamental' to securing the FISA warrant. You've been informed of the grave error of this before, yet you continue to repeat this in the hope that it will make it true.

Papadopolous getting drunk and bragging to an Australian diplomat about the shenanigans going on was what 'launched' all of this, and the screeds of evidence that bagged the FISA warrants, and then more that ensured the repeated renewal of those warrants every 90 days were what convinced those Republican nominated Judges to repeatedly renew the warrants. The only reason the Steele dossier got any attention at all was because Buzzfeed published it and drew all this into the public eye.
But you have been told all this before, and you know it.

Santa wrote:

Turbogoat wrote:It's pretty damn tragic for anyone to still be clutching their pearls about the Steele Dossier really.
The reason the FBI took any notice of it was because it reiterated what they already knew about much of what was going on. If there was any doubt about the ability of the FBI and intel services to break down what was going on then a quick look at the recent indictments of specific Russian intel officers for their very detailed actions in interfering with the US elections should have been a good indicator that they know faaar more than just what Buzzfeed publishes.
And why is the Steele dossier getting so much grief in the first place? Because the handwringers are attempting to use it to insinuate that the investigation was just partisan hackery instigated by the evil Democrats. If there is an actual prosecution of anyone, and the only "evidence" that is brought forward is the Steele Dossier, then yes, I'll agree with them, it's not nearly enough to convict anyone on its own. It's just a series of memos regarding interviews with Russian officials by a third party. It's not enough to convict. Hell, it's interesting, it's salacious, and been shown to be surprisingly accurate in many parts, but it's secondhand info that is often 'single source' which is not a lot to go on, on its own. But it's not being used as the sole piece of evidence in a prosecution though is it. It was yet another source for other multi-sourced pieces of intel that the FBI already had and was yet another piece of confirmation. The Republican Judges who repeatedly approved the FISA warrants saw all the other intel and confirmed there was enough for more rigorous investigation. Not conviction (yet) - investigation.

But the info the dossier contained was cause for concern. In fact, it was so concerning that when Steele put it together, what did he do? He took it the FBI, like anyone not antagonistic toward the USA should have done. (Note to Don Jr etc... when foreign agents contact you with possible illegal activity reports or offers of illegally gained intel, this is what you're supposed to do)

The FBI had been very interested in Carter Page (and others)for a long time prior to the Steele Dossier ever becoming a thing. They already had a lot of intel well before the boogeyman Steele crawled out from under the bed. Steele was a latecomer to this.

And all this is just what has become public knowledge. The amount of redacted info in the FISA warrants shows that there is a LOT more intel out there. Even without knowing the content, the sheer amount is staggering. To ignore that and focus on the one publicly released section and assume that this is the heart and soul of it all, just because that's the only part you are aware of is pure arrogance.

One day we may know the full story. It'll certainly be 'interesting'.

The Steele dossier was always dodgy but as far as how the FBI operate it's not off the reservation. And that is why it's not front page news.

So you know it's good.

I mean f**king hell.

PornDog wrote:As a general rule, if you want to know why any story is not being more widely pursued, it's because it is, at least the way that the fringe "news" source is presenting it, a giant pile of bullshit!

Doesn't matter if you are seeking left leaning news sources, right leaning news sources, or if you are in fact actually a sensible human being, this holds true in almost every instance.

You're welcome!

zzzz wrote:

The Steele dossier was always dodgy but as far as how the FBI operate it's not off the reservation. And that is why it's not front page news.

The Steele dossier was outwith even the usual FBI practices (which I agree are lousy) and equally there was nothing normal about the investigation it was used in. I think this whole thing has gone on so long people forget how literally inconceivable it once was that the FBI would run surveliance on a presidential campaign. The combination of appaling practice and politically charged investigation should make any updates big news. And there is new stuff in this - linking in more Clinton actors and making it clear this was just boozy bullshit concocted in bars inside the Beltway and f-all to do with Russian sources.

So you know it's good.

I mean f**king hell.

So ongressional records become inaccurate when RealClear obtain them?

zzzz wrote:

The Steele dossier was always dodgy but as far as how the FBI operate it's not off the reservation. And that is why it's not front page news.

The Steele dossier was outwith even the usual FBI practices (which I agree are lousy) and equally there was nothing normal about the investigation it was used in. I think this whole thing has gone on so long people forget how literally inconceivable it once was that the FBI would run surveliance on a presidential campaign. The combination of appaling practice and politically charged investigation should make any updates big news. And there is new stuff in this - linking in more Clinton actors and making it clear this was just boozy bullshit concocted in bars inside the Beltway and f-all to do with Russian sources.

So you know it's good.

I mean f**king hell.

So ongressional records become inaccurate when RealClear obtain them?

paddyor wrote:

zzzz wrote:

The Steele dossier was always dodgy but as far as how the FBI operate it's not off the reservation. And that is why it's not front page news.

The Steele dossier was outwith even the usual FBI practices (which I agree are lousy) and equally there was nothing normal about the investigation it was used in. I think this whole thing has gone on so long people forget how literally inconceivable it once was that the FBI would run surveliance on a presidential campaign. The combination of appaling practice and politically charged investigation should make any updates big news. And there is new stuff in this - linking in more Clinton actors and making it clear this was just boozy bullshit concocted in bars inside the Beltway and f-all to do with Russian sources.

So you know it's good.

I mean f**king hell.

So ongressional records become inaccurate when RealClear obtain them?

No it's entirely usual for the FBI(even what they did to Flynn was text book) the investigation itself wasn't. But you think someone with addiction and drink issues being used as an informant is scandalous so idk.And no it's not the first time there's been an investigation into a presidential campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Unit ... ontroversy

Clinton? JFC.Playin the hits!

Santa wrote:Yeah. I suspect the problem is not simply that they had a dodgy informant, which is surely pretty common. It's more that dodgy information from a dodgy informant was used in the way it was, to the extent that it was, and in the investigation that it was, without any kind of robust verification, which includes assessing the dodgy informant's dodginess.

As I have said before, you would think that if there is one investigation where you would try to do all the right things it would be investigating a political opponent. Not only did they not even try to do all the right things, they actually tried to do some of the wrong things.

And that's ignoring all of the intersection relationships between anti-Trump types.

paddyor wrote:

Santa wrote:Yeah. I suspect the problem is not simply that they had a dodgy informant, which is surely pretty common. It's more that dodgy information from a dodgy informant was used in the way it was, to the extent that it was, and in the investigation that it was, without any kind of robust verification, which includes assessing the dodgy informant's dodginess.

As I have said before, you would think that if there is one investigation where you would try to do all the right things it would be investigating a political opponent. Not only did they not even try to do all the right things, they actually tried to do some of the wrong things.

And that's ignoring all of the intersection relationships between anti-Trump types.

When one dodgy won't do use 3! Santa rates the FBIs conduct 3 Del boys!

The FBI is never wrong though. They have huge discretion in what they do and that's why no one's been charged with wrong doing.

“Igor Danchenko has been identified as one of the sources who provided data and analysis,” he said.

6.Jones wrote:

“Igor Danchenko has been identified as one of the sources who provided data and analysis,” he said.

And?

Forgive me if I'm unimpressed. Is this meant to be some kind of disproof?

6.Jones wrote:

“Igor Danchenko has been identified as one of the sources who provided data and analysis,” he said.

And?

Forgive me if I'm unimpressed. Is this meant to be some kind of disproof?

6.Jones wrote:Meh.

shanky wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Meh.

Is that a Socratian disproof of idiocy?

6.Jones wrote:

shanky wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Meh.

Is that a Socratian disproof of idiocy?

I've never even been to Socratia.

shanky wrote:

6.Jones wrote:

shanky wrote:

6.Jones wrote:Meh.

Is that a Socratian disproof of idiocy?

I've never even been to Socratia.

I’ve heard it’s nice. In the Covfefe Archipelego