So, When Will the DOJ Indict Christopher Steele?

[PeanutGallery]

Be specific. What lie did he tell?

This is from the NYT talking about the Steele Dossier:

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

NYT

So Marener, let's flip the script here. I've provided something specific from the Steele Dossier that was proven to be a lie. How about you provide something from the Steele Dossier that was proven to be true. Keep this in mind though, the FBI was willing to pay Steele up to $1M to prove his claims.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday.

The cash offer was made during an overseas October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election.

FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.”

CNN

 

[Marener]

Oh please. He compiled th dossier.

He was even offered a cool million BY the FBI to corroborate it. He couldn’t.

And nothing you ask is important.

You’re just a special pleader. You’re a nothing and don’t forget that we are all in to you.

He’s. He compiled a dossier of things he was told by other people.

So in order to prosecute Steele for lying, then you need to come up with specific factual evidence that he was fabricating what others had told.

But you can’t do that.

Durham tried to prosecute Danchenko, but that failed because he lacked enough credible evidence to price beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[PeanutGallery]

He’s. He compiled a dossier of things he was told by other people.

So in order to prosecute Steele for lying, then you need to come up with specific factual evidence that he was fabricating what others had told.

But you can’t do that.

Durham tried to prosecute Danchenko, but that failed because he lacked enough credible evidence to price beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read above. I provided a specific claim in post #41 that was proven false. Can you provide any claim that was proven to be true?

 

[BackAgain]

He’s. He compiled a dossier of things he was told by other people.

So in order to prosecute Steele for lying, then you need to come up with specific factual evidence that he was fabricating what others had told.

But you can’t do that.

Durham tried to prosecute Danchenko, but that failed because he lacked enough credible evidence to price beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zzz

Repeating yourself isn’t effective persuasion, you dolt.

 

[Marener]

This is from the NYT talking about the Steele Dossier:

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false.

NYT

So Marener, let's flip the script here. I've provided something specific from the Steele Dossier that was proven to be a lie. How about you provide something from the Steele Dossier that was proven to be true. Keep this in mind though, the FBI was willing to pay Steele up to $1M to prove his claims.

Shortly before the 2016 election, the FBI offered retired British spy Christopher Steele “up to $1 million” to prove the explosive allegations in his dossier about Donald Trump, a senior FBI analyst testified Tuesday.

The cash offer was made during an overseas October 2016 meeting between Steele and several top FBI officials who were trying to corroborate Steele’s claims that the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to win the election.

FBI supervisory analyst Brian Auten testified that Steele never got the money because he could not “prove the allegations.”

CNN

Youre getting closer but are lacking important details.

You need to identify exactly what Steele told the FBI that was a lie. Did Steele say he saw Cohen in Prague? No, obviously not. Steele told the FBI that someone told him this story. As long as that’s true, Steele cannot be accused of lying to the FBI.

 

[Marener]

Zzz

Repeating yourself isn’t effective persuasion, you dolt.

I speak the truth, and you can’t argue against the truth.

 

[BackAgain]

I speak the truth, and you can’t argue against the truth.

You lie like a rug.

Smarten up. Nobody with a brain buys your efforts.

 

[Marener]

You lie like a rug.

Smarten up. Nobody with a brain buys your efforts.

Talk is cheap. You have nothing to back up your accusations.

You barely have an accusation.

 

[PeanutGallery]

Youre getting closer but are lacking important details.

You need to identify exactly what Steele told the FBI that was a lie. Did Steele say he saw Cohen in Prague? No, obviously not. Steele told the FBI that someone told him this story. As long as that’s true, Steele cannot be accused of lying to the FBI.

If the claim was in his dossier, then it's him telling the FBI the claim. What you're trying to play is a semantics game. Steele chose to put that information in his dossier. Spreading a false claim that was told to him is still lying. I worked in the intel field. You don't get off by saying that you didn't verify your sources. You would think a former MI6 agent would ask for some verification before giving the information to the FBI.

 

[Marener]

If the claim was in his dossier, then it's him telling the FBI the claim. What you're trying to play is a semantics game. Steele chose to put that information in his dossier. Spreading a false claim that was told to him is still lying. I worked in the intel field. You don't get off by saying that you didn't verify your sources. You would think a former MI6 agent would ask for some verification before giving the information to the FBI.

You don’t get prosecuted for not verifying your source. That’s the FBI’s job.

Semantics matter if you want to imprison someone for lying. He would only be lying if you could prove that he knew it was a lie before he told the FBI.

 

[PeanutGallery]

You don’t get prosecuted for not verifying your source. That’s the FBI’s job.

Semantics matter if you want to imprison someone for lying. He would only be lying if you could prove that he knew it was a lie before he told the FBI.

Maybe if your report is used as the basis for a criminal investigation. Then the FBI looks like they were part of the lie because they couldn't prove any of Steele's claim as true, but still used it to go after Trump thru the FISA court.

 

[Marener]

Maybe if your report is used as the basis for a criminal investigation. Then the FBI looks like they were part of the lie because they couldn't prove any of Steele's claim as true, but still used it to go after Trump thru the FISA court.

What the FBI does with the information has nothing to do with Steele. The FBI makes their own decisions.

 

[Rawley]

Name the lie he should be indicted on. Be specific.

What questions did they ask him when he brought his dossier to the FBI?

 

[Marener]

What questions did they ask him when he brought his dossier to the FBI?

I don’t know. Seems like you guys should figure that out before demanding he be prosecuted for lying.

 

[Rawley]

I don’t know. Seems like you guys should figure that out before demanding he be prosecuted for lying.

Nope. When the FBI and the DOJ holds the evidence and refuses to release it, it's standard to make adverse inferences. But you know that.

 

[OldFlame]

If the claim was in his dossier, then it's him telling the FBI the claim. What you're trying to play is a semantics game. Steele chose to put that information in his dossier. Spreading a false claim that was told to him is still lying. I worked in the intel field. You don't get off by saying that you didn't verify your sources. You would think a former MI6 agent would ask for some verification before giving the information to the FBI.

That's all it ever does, never anything of substance, a troll that is best ignored. It's like a dog fighting over a bone, it can be given its own bone, but it will never give up on the original one until you give up, and then it claims 'victory'.

 

[OldFlame]

Maybe if your report is used as the basis for a criminal investigation. Then the FBI looks like they were part of the lie because they couldn't prove any of Steele's claim as true, but still used it to go after Trump thru the FISA court.

Bingo!

 

[Marener]

Nope. When the FBI and the DOJ holds the evidence and refuses to release it, it's standard to make adverse inferences. But you know that.

It was investigated thoroughly and completely by Durham, read the report.

He could find no lies by Steele.

 

[Marener]

Bingo!

This is not a legal argument. It’s a narrative.

 

[bendog]

Steele's lies were FAR MORE damaging to the nation than the Russian informant, Alexander Smirnov, that the FBI was paying.

The DOJ through a special council indicted the latter but the former?

Again, we see the two tiered justice system.

Maybe a day late and a dollar short. LOL

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/uk-judge-dismissed-trumps-suit-against-ex-spy-who-wrote-russia-dossier/index.html

But you probably know this already.