As predicted, It's happening: Biden extorting Ukraine President issue blowing up

[Coyote]

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Steele clearly stated the dossier was raw intelligence and not verified. So no. Not like tbe Steele dossier.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

fyi - you can cite "fox news" to me all day long but it doesn't apply as i never watch them nor go to their page. these "fox news" assumptions really can screw up a conversation. as can any assumption i believe. it's why i prefer to find out YOUR viewpoints and how you collected them, not throw articles at each other. but i do like to "show my math" so to speak not to prove me right to as a point of reference.

I think you miss the point here, which is that the dossier was only a part of the material used to obtain the FISA warrants so why is it’s importance being inflated? It was not misrepresented, it was clearly noted that it was hearsay and from opposition research.

Why Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and the FISA warrant

 

[iceberg]

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

fyi - you can cite "fox news" to me all day long but it doesn't apply as i never watch them nor go to their page. these "fox news" assumptions really can screw up a conversation. as can any assumption i believe. it's why i prefer to find out YOUR viewpoints and how you collected them, not throw articles at each other. but i do like to "show my math" so to speak not to prove me right to as a point of reference.

I think you miss the point here, which is that the dossier was only a part of the material used to obtain the FISA warrants so why is it’s importance being inflated? It was not misrepresented, it was clearly noted that it was hearsay and from opposition research.

Why Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and the FISA warrant

because we're finding they used "parts" that were *not* verified for the sole purpose of going after trump. now that nothing was found i *do* want to know the source of why all this started and *IF* it was political to keep trump out of office, yes, i want heads to roll. i would want the same if this were done to obama, you, hell even anyone i have on ignore cause they annoy the shit out of me. this isn't about hate, this is about protecting shared rights and due process.

we let this happen to a sitting president what hope do the rest of us have? we've lost our country and while you may think your side "won" something do you really think this activity "noble" and who we want to be? we're so far from who i wish we were it hurts. this has nothing to do with trump but holding our government accountable for their actions to us all. US ALL.

now, maybe you're missing that point. barr is finding "oddities" left and right with what was done. there were also numerous posts about FISA saying they were not "legal" in how they were obtained and of course the left scoffed.

years later, we're seeing that could well have been the case. i've asked to be shown your references to validate your point and still waiting. for example, i'll continue to link to the information i am basing my opinion on so we have a reference point.

Comey Admits Damning Fact About Anti-Trump FISA Warrant Abuse In Closed-Door Testimony
On Friday, Comey acknowledged under oath that the FBI used an uncorroborated document funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC as "evidence" in officials' request for a FISA warrant to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page, a key step in the Russia collusion "witch hunt," as Trump calls it. Not only was the dossier, produced by ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, not verified when it was used in the Carter request, Comey admitted, it was still unverified when he was fired six months later.
-----
now - are you saying comey is lying/incorrect? if so then simply show me where this has been refuted or explained. all i'm asking for. we can bounce around here all day and go I'M RIGHT - NO I'M RIGHT and get nowhere. i'd much prefer to see your reference points and information you are basing your opinion on.

i'd rather not get into another screaming match where we see who can reduce their age the furthest.

what i find ironic and no one has also been able to explain is apparently getting help from a foreign gov during an election is a foul. yet, where did the dossier come from again? who paid for it and what were their nationalities?

if you can also explain to me how this is not engaging in help from a foreign gov while we're on this topic i'd appreciate that viewpoint as well.

in my mind i see group A screaming at group B for an activity they are heavily engaged in themselves. this is the same group that demanded trump accept the results then turned around and did RUSSIA. then when that bombed and they had results again they didn't want to accept, they don't.

when will the left simply "practice what they preach?

now again - this leaves us with a couple of questions i'd appreciate seeing your references on again -

1) what parts of the dossier or other verified information was used to obtain the warrants? i've shown comey himself saying they were not verified and i suppose you could say they don't need to be and i can go look that up but if they don't need to be, then comey wouldn't make it a point to say they were not.

2) how is what the clinton campaign did to get this info not "working with a foreign gov"? ex british agents and ukrainian help for manafort and the like.

the investigation into these questions is ongoing as we speak/type. barr is hot and heavy to enforce the law as it sits on the books. we'll see what he finds but given the history of the left in accepting outcomes they don't like, i'm not confident at all it even matters anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

maybe. but being unverified, it was still used for FISA warrants.

kinda a nono.

Some of it was verified right? And it was not the evidence to request tbe warrent was it? I think that got a bit overrblown.

Here is what Gowdy had to say about the Dossier.

"People use the word 'dossier' and it has such an official sound to it. Let's just call it for what it is, it's a series of rank hearsay [unintelligible] put together by an FBI source who was later defrocked, paid for by the Democrat National Committee, and oh by the way, Christopher Steele hated Donald Trump too. We can call it a dossier, sounds official, it's really something the National Inquirer would blush if they printed," Gowdy said, adding that it was used at least four times to justify surveillance."

Would you allow trumps admin this same leeway? in any event i think we've drifted off topic. my bad.

Let's look at that, if we are going to call it what it is, then let's at least be accurate (something that Mr. Gowdy isn't).

Who called it a "dossier"? Certainly not Christopher Steele who was very clear from the beginning that it was raw intelligence - not analyzed or unverified. This I might add, is the sort of stuff opposition research does. Who blew it up into something more?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.


In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate. ​

Second, for accuracy - the "dossier" was not what started the investigation nor the only evidence used to justify it - those claims seem to be an example of "he who yells loudest must be speaking the truth because he drowns out all other voices" with Fox News normalizing the lie. By magnifying the role of the dossier, they are attempting to discredit the entire investigation. Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

When you take into account those facts - one, that Steele never claimed the "dossier" was anything but exactly what it was, and that two - it was not what initiated investigations or the sole evidence supporting surveillence - then why so much emphasis on it? My only criticism is it should never have been leaked in the first place.

your facts.
his facts.
my facts.

everyone has facts these days. that's a fact.

facts simply are no longer facts because we continue to twist situations to fit our preference, not learn to deal with the realities around us. fact is - whatever you want to call it - was bought by the clinton campaign from an ex british spy who used foreign help to find out if trump was in fact getting - foreign help.

how they are not guilty of what they're saying trump did - well i cannot follow that logic train.

whatever you want to call it - it was not verified. i asked before and i'll ask again - simply provide me links from credible sources who say the parts used to obtain FISA warrants were in fact honest and verified and by who. the rest is just two of us in a forum guessing as best we can while being fed our info from a broken media system designed to push agendas all around, not the truth.

fyi - you can cite "fox news" to me all day long but it doesn't apply as i never watch them nor go to their page. these "fox news" assumptions really can screw up a conversation. as can any assumption i believe. it's why i prefer to find out YOUR viewpoints and how you collected them, not throw articles at each other. but i do like to "show my math" so to speak not to prove me right to as a point of reference.

I think you miss the point here, which is that the dossier was only a part of the material used to obtain the FISA warrants so why is it’s importance being inflated? It was not misrepresented, it was clearly noted that it was hearsay and from opposition research.

Why Trump is wrong about Carter Page, the dossier and the FISA warrant

Hogwash. What were the other parts? No one has managed to list anything other than the dossier. What appears to be other material is actually just the dossier material regurgitated from another source.