Steele admits he used posts from 'random individuals' on CNN website for Trump dossier

[mystery-ak]

March 16, 2019
Steele admits he used posts from 'random individuals' on CNN website for Trump dossier
By Rick Moran

The dossier that launched several investigations into Donald Trump and his presidential campaign was based, in part, on posts from "random individuals" from a CNN website that allows the public to publish unverified information.

Christopher Steele made the admission in a deposition given in connection with a lawsuit against the dossier. The judge released portions of the deposition this week.

Washington Examiner:

    According to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele said last year he used a 2009 report he found on CNN's iReport website and said he wasn't aware that submissions to that site are posted by members of the public and are not checked for accuracy.

    A web archive from July 29, 2009 shows that CNN described the site in this manner: “iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post.”

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/steele_admits_he_used_posts_from_random_individuals_on_cnn_website_for_trump_dossier.html

[Sanguine]

When is that mountain of lies going to start toppling over?  Or, is it already?

[Hoodat]

This is incredible.  The judge that issued a FISA warrant based upon seven-year-old open bulletin board postings on a CNN website should be impeached.  And any Democrat still clinging to this notion that the Steele dossier holds any credibility should be laughed out of Congress.  Just within the last couple of days, we heard CNN's Erin Burnett saying that the Steele dossier was financed by the GOP and that most of it was proven true.  These people need to be held accountable for their lies.

[Bigun]

This is incredible.  The judge that issued a FISA warrant based upon seven-year-old open bulletin board postings on a CNN website should be impeached.  And any Democrat still clinging to this notion that the Steele dossier holds any credibility should be laughed out of Congress.  Just within the last couple of days, we heard CNN's Erin Burnett saying that the Steele dossier was financed by the GOP and that most of it was proven true.  These people need to be held accountable for their lies.

@Hoodat

You mean this Judge? 

FISA Court Judge Contreras –who was the judge in Flynn’s case, and is now recused

  Old thread about this is Right Here and well worthy of re-reading.

[edpc]

@Hoodat

You mean this Judge?    Old thread about this is Right Here and well worthy of re-reading.

No, not that judge. Four signed the FISA warrant in its various stages. All were GOP appointments.


https://lawandcrime.com/politics/judges-who-approved-carter-page-fisa-warrants-were-all-nominated-by-gop-presidents/

[Bigun]

No, not that judge. Four signed the FISA warrant in its various stages. All were GOP appointments.


https://lawandcrime.com/politics/judges-who-approved-carter-page-fisa-warrants-were-all-nominated-by-gop-presidents/

And it is obvious now that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from the court on every occasion. How many felonies is that?

[edpc]

And it is obvious now that the FBI withheld exculpatory information from the court on every occasion. How many felonies is that?

I don’t know, but we’ve been hearing Trump will declassify the documents for how long? It’s either complete BS or he’s allowing the investigation to continue and people being prosecuted for some cynical, selfish reasons. My point is, you cannot argue the FISA warrant was issued on a false premise, by beginning with your own false premise. That judge wasn’t part of the FISA process.

[Bigun]

I don’t know, but we’ve been hearing Trump will declassify the documents for how long? It’s either complete BS or he’s allowing the investigation to continue and people being prosecuted for some cynical, selfish reasons. My point is, you cannot argue the FISA warrant was issued on a false premise, by beginning with your own false premise. That judge wasn’t part of the FISA process.

He's not declassifying those documents at the request of the UK. They don't want certain people still active in their intelligence agencies to be publically embarrassed.  I disagree with him but I don't know what he knows either.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, not that judge. Four signed the FISA warrant in its various stages. All were GOP appointments.


https://lawandcrime.com/politics/judges-who-approved-carter-page-fisa-warrants-were-all-nominated-by-gop-presidents/

That is contrary to the report @Bigun linked from The Conservative Treehouse.

If the counterintelligence FISA warrant was obtained through deception, misleading/manipulated information, or fraud; and that warrant is what led to the wiretapping and surveillance of candidate Donald Trump and General Flynn; and that warrant was authorized by FISA Court Judge Contreras –who was the judge in Flynn’s case, and is now recused– the entire tenuous FBI and DOJ operation begins to collapse.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/08/jim-jordan-knows-exactly-how-to-expose-the-entire-counterintelligence-operation-against-candidate-donald-trump/

[edpc]

That is contrary to the report @Bigun linked from The Conservative Treehouse.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/12/08/jim-jordan-knows-exactly-how-to-expose-the-entire-counterintelligence-operation-against-candidate-donald-trump/

That report looks to be from December 2017 and it is wrong. You can see the full 400+ pages here. Some of it is redacted, but the signatures on the last pages of each submission are not. Law & Crime has it right.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

[Cyber Liberty]

That report looks to be from December 2017 and it is wrong. You can see the full 400+ pages here. Some of it is redacted, but the signatures on the last pages of each submission are not. Law & Crime has it right.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

Ok, so there's confusion over which Judge eff'ed up.  How exactly does that refute the story that the FBI has been dirty in this?

[Bigun]

Ok, so there's confusion over which Judge eff'ed up.  How exactly does that refute the story that the FBI has been dirty in this?

I'm not sure that any of the judges eff'ed up.  Seems more like the FBI was lying and withholding information from them the entire time. and I do believe that each and every instance of their doing that is a felony.  Count them up.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not sure that any of the judges eff'ed up.  Seems more like the FBI was lying and withholding information from them the entire time. and I do believe that each and every instance of their doing that is a felony.  Count them up.

There was a failure on the Judges' parts in that they just took the DoJ's word for things.  The FISA judges have grown lazy and are just phoning it in.

[edpc]

Ok, so there's confusion over which Judge eff'ed up.  How exactly does that refute the story that the FBI has been dirty in this?

They may very well be. However, the narrative that this was some kind of deep state stunt, involving an Obama judge is pure crap. The same thing happened when places like Big League Politics and Conservative Treehouse were swearing Podesta was getting immunity from Mueller, to testify against Manafort. Those two sites, along with American Thinker have been shown to be fairly unreliable, on this issue. I’m sure you’re skeptical of everything you read, but you should be especially wary of those three places.

[Hoodat]

That report looks to be from December 2017 and it is wrong. You can see the full 400+ pages here. Some of it is redacted, but the signatures on the last pages of each submission are not. Law & Crime has it right.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf

How interesting.  Raymond J. Dearie currently serves as a judge in the Eastern District of New York.  Coincidence?

[edpc]

How interesting.  Raymond J. Dearie currently serves as a judge in the Eastern District of New York.  Coincidence?

Nothing to it. He was appointed to EDNY, under Reagan. Most of the current investigations involving Trump fall under SDNY jurisdiction. His appointment to the FISA court was in 2012, under Roberts. They serve a seven-year term on a rotating basis. His term will be up in July.

[Hoodat]

My bad.  I mistook ED for SD.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nothing to it. He was appointed to EDNY, under Reagan. Most of the current investigations involving Trump fall under SDNY jurisdiction. His appointment to the FISA court was in 2012, under Roberts. They serve a seven-year term on a rotating basis. His term will be up in July.

I'm not going to argue about who the FISC Judges are, or whether they show bias based on who put them on the Court.  It isn't relevant (to me).

My concern is they haven't been doing due diligence.  They are not supposed to rubber-stamp warrants, they are supposed to judge whether or not issuing warrants that result in spying on Americans.  That's why there's a court, so the DoJ has a check to keep it from being used as a tool for political purposes.

Whomever it was, and who appointed them is beside the point.  All but the one who rejected the first warrant application failed to check the DoJ.

[truth_seeker]

I'm not going to argue about who the FISC Judges are, or whether they show bias based on who put them on the Court.  It isn't relevant (to me).

My concern is they haven't been doing due diligence.  They are not supposed to rubber-stamp warrants, they are supposed to judge whether or not issuing warrants that result in spying on Americans.  That's why there's a court, so the DoJ has a check to keep it from being used as a tool for political purposes.

Whomever it was, and who appointed them is beside the point.  All but the one who rejected the first warrant application failed to check the DoJ.

Good post.

[edpc]

Whomever it was, and who appointed them is beside the point.  All but the one who rejected the first warrant application failed to check the DoJ.

Except this isn’t the first time the judge and who appointed him has been raised as relevant. Plus, I loathe conspiracy nonsense.

[Cyber Liberty]

Except this isn’t the first time the judge and who appointed him has been raised as relevant.

I understand that.  It isn't relevant to me.

[aligncare]

Good post.

I agree, @Cyber Liberty hit the nub of it. In a healthy, functioning, honest government that’s what’s expected from the FISA court.

I'm not going to argue about who the FISC Judges are, or whether they show bias based on who put them on the Court.  It isn't relevant (to me).

My concern is they haven't been doing due diligence.  They are not supposed to rubber-stamp warrants, they are supposed to judge whether or not issuing warrants that result in spying on Americans.  That's why there's a court, so the DoJ has a check to keep it from being used as a tool for political purposes.

Whomever it was, and who appointed them is beside the point.  All but the one who rejected the first warrant application failed to check the DoJ.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree, @Cyber Liberty hit the nub of it. In a healthy, functioning, honest government that’s what’s expected from the FISA court.

My grammar is a bit tortured in that post, but I appreciate your understanding of it anyway...

[edpc]

He's not declassifying those documents at the request of the UK. They don't want certain people still active in their intelligence agencies to be publically embarrassed.  I disagree with him but I don't know what he knows either.

Yes and as part of that, he also said this.....


Trump said that the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General has been instructed to investigate the matter “on an expedited basis.”

“In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary,” he said. “Speed is very important to me – and everyone!”

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/21/trump-foreign-allies-declassification/


That was last September. Here we are 6 months later and the supposed biggest political scandal in history is still being held back, because a couple people might look bad? Who’s really buying that, anymore? The release is going to be ‘proven necessary’ around the same time his tax audit is finished.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

My grammar is a bit tortured in that post, but I appreciate your understanding of it anyway...

I can give you a hand fixing that up:

That's why there's a court, so the DoJ has the appearance of a check to keep it from being used as a tool for political purposes.