The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 16, 2019, 02:57:36 pm
-
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.â€
more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/steele_admits_he_used_posts_from_random_individuals_on_cnn_website_for_trump_dossier.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/steele_admits_he_used_posts_from_random_individuals_on_cnn_website_for_trump_dossier.html)
-
When is that mountain of lies going to start toppling over? Or, is it already?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,294188.msg1537795.html#msg1537795) and well worthy of re-reading.
-
@Hoodat
You mean this Judge? Old thread about this is Right Here (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,294188.msg1537795.html#msg1537795) 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/ (https://lawandcrime.com/politics/judges-who-approved-carter-page-fisa-warrants-were-all-nominated-by-gop-presidents/)
-
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/ (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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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/
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
My bad. I mistook ED for SD.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
tri22
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.
-
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.
-
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... 888high58888
-
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.â€
“In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary,†he said. “Speed is very important to me – and everyone!â€
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.
-
My grammar is a bit tortured in that post, but I appreciate your understanding of it anyway... 888high58888
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.
-
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.
Sure looking like it.
-
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.
LOL! I see your point, old friend.
-
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.
The judge ruled on information provided. That, ultimately, is all they can do. If the information provided was false, and if Brady Material was withheld, then there are a few felonies involved. Someone had to swear an affidavit to get the warrant, or sign under penalty of perjury. Considering the DOJ is charged with upholding the law, doing so under color of law just adds to the pile.
Steele's picking up comments from CNN to fill out the dossier is akin to Dan Rather or 'just making sh*t up' because they wanted it to be true.
That isn't compatible with justice. There should be a long parade of orange jumpsuits over this, but it is likely that unless collusion can be shown, the judges are safe.
-
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.
Agreed. I can see why Trump wants to sue for libel, he should. if this can happen to Trump it can happen to any of us.
-
My bad. I mistook ED for SD.
That is easy to understand, since the Manafort trial took place in the Eastern District of Virginia court. Hearing southern district and eastern district in the news the same week (though different states) can do that.
-
The judge ruled on information provided. That, ultimately, is all they can do. If the information provided was false, and if Brady Material was withheld, then there are a few felonies involved. Someone had to swear an affidavit to get the warrant, or sign under penalty of perjury. Considering the DOJ is charged with upholding the law, doing so under color of law just adds to the pile.
Steele's picking up comments from CNN to fill out the dossier is akin to Dan Rather or 'just making sh*t up' because they wanted it to be true.
That isn't compatible with justice. There should be a long parade of orange jumpsuits over this, but it is likely that unless collusion can be shown, the judges are safe.
Then the judges are useless. If the FBI can come in and lie to them and the judges just accept that and don't say anything like: "that's a very serious charge against a newly elected president - are you sure of this and how?" then they are totally useless to protect Americans from their own government.
-
Then the judges are useless. If the FBI can come in and lie to them and the judges just accept that and don't say anything like: "that's a very serious charge against a newly elected president - are you sure of this and how?" then they are totally useless to protect Americans from their own government.
Exactly.
Doesn't a FISA judge report to CJ Roberts?
Are these people merely paper shufflers, or do people Stop-Ask Questions, make phone calls, when the targett is a candidate or recently elected President?
-
Then the judges are useless. If the FBI can come in and lie to them and the judges just accept that and don't say anything like: "that's a very serious charge against a newly elected president - are you sure of this and how?" then they are totally useless to protect Americans from their own government.
@Sanguine @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer nailed this a few posts up. These FISA judges are there for appearances only. To make the process LOOK better.
-
@Sanguine @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer nailed this a few posts up. These FISA judges are there for appearances only. To make the process LOOK better.
Yes, that's what I'm getting out of the story.
-
Yes, that's what I'm getting out of the story.
If the FBI failed to follow the rules and excluded exculpatory information from the applications they committed a felony each and every time they did that. If the did include it and the judge approved the application anyway it's a whole new ballgame. Can't know for sure without seeing the full, unredacted, applications.
-
If the FBI failed to follow the rules and excluded exculpatory information from the applications they committed a felony each and every time they did that. If the did include it and the judge approved the application anyway it's a whole new ballgame. Can't know for sure without seeing the full, unredacted, applications.
It’s highly unlikely you will ever see those unredacted applications. The most likely reason, is because it contains confirmed, multi-sourced Five Eyes intelligence. There are restrictions as to what US intel services can do domestically. That’s not the case with foreign services. What’s probable is we have an agreement with the other members of FE to share intel. That way, each nation can avoid problems with direct surveillance of their citizens, until other sources give them the necessary cause. It’s like rendition, where we send people to places where they can use interrogation techniques we can’t.
-
It’s highly unlikely you will ever see those unredacted applications. The most likely reason, is because it contains confirmed, multi-sourced Five Eyes intelligence. There are restrictions as to what US intel services can do domestically. That’s not the case with foreign services. What’s probable is we have an agreement with the other members of FE to share intel. That way, each nation can avoid problems with direct surveillance of their citizens, until other sources give them the necessary cause. It’s like rendition, where we send people to places where they can use interrogation techniques we can’t.
Right! And the FBI remains free to do as it damned well pleases here at home!
-
Then the judges are useless. If the FBI can come in and lie to them and the judges just accept that and don't say anything like: "that's a very serious charge against a newly elected president - are you sure of this and how?" then they are totally useless to protect Americans from their own government.
The FBI are not supposed to LIE. If a sworn LEO comes before you as a judge, and swears to the veracity of their probable cause material to get a warrant, you rule on what you have. If there are glaring inconsistencies, you say "No".
But at what point should we have to deal with sworn LEOs like 'hood rats insofar as the veracity of their sworn testimony?
That those same LEOs withheld exculpatory material makes them all the more at fault, because they went in with the intent to deceive in order to get the warrant, in violation of their oaths.
I would have to see what they presented the judge before I could fault the judge. If there were obvious and glaring problems with the evidence presented to establish probable cause, then the judge should be in trouble, too, but I would think that what was presented was slick enough to pass muster to get a warrant, especially in light of the low threshhold for probable cause for conducting searches on ordinary folks.
-
It’s highly unlikely you will ever see those unredacted applications. The most likely reason, is because it contains confirmed, multi-sourced Five Eyes intelligence. There are restrictions as to what US intel services can do domestically. That’s not the case with foreign services. What’s probable is we have an agreement with the other members of FE to share intel. That way, each nation can avoid problems with direct surveillance of their citizens, until other sources give them the necessary cause. It’s like rendition, where we send people to places where they can use interrogation techniques we can’t.
That part I very strongly doubt.
-
The FBI are not supposed to LIE. If a sworn LEO comes before you as a judge, and swears to the veracity of their probable cause material to get a warrant, you rule on what you have. If there are glaring inconsistencies, you say "No".
But at what point should we have to deal with sworn LEOs like 'hood rats insofar as the veracity of their sworn testimony?
That those same LEOs withheld exculpatory material makes them all the more at fault, because they went in with the intent to deceive in order to get the warrant, in violation of their oaths.
I would have to see what they presented the judge before I could fault the judge. If there were obvious and glaring problems with the evidence presented to establish probable cause, then the judge should be in trouble, too, but I would think that what was presented was slick enough to pass muster to get a warrant, especially in light of the low threshhold for probable cause for conducting searches on ordinary folks.
Isn't that the point? The FISA courts were set up so that the intelligence/law enforcement agencies could not lie or misrepresent in order to spy on American citizens? And, this shows how cavalierly and easily they have been subverted?
-
Isn't that the point? The FISA courts were set up so that the intelligence/law enforcement agencies could not lie or misrepresent in order to spy on American citizens? And, this shows how cavalierly and easily they have been subverted?
There IS a record and SURELY there is someone with oversight authority who can look at it.
-
That part I very strongly doubt.
It makes a lot more sense than the entire FISA app being false. If it was, there’s absolutely no reason to not declassify it. It’s more advantageous for Trump to keep it under seal, say it was all based on lies, and not have to prove it. That keeps the issue open and base energized.
-
It makes a lot more sense than the entire FISA app being false. If it was, there’s absolutely no reason to not declassify it. It’s more advantageous for Trump to keep it under seal, say it was all based on lies, and not have to prove it. That keeps the issue open and base energized.
It's not an all or nothing situation. Some of the information was false and perhaps some not.
-
It's not an all or nothing situation. Some of the information was false and perhaps some not.
And exculpatory material was left out, intentionally. That puts the rest in a different light as well, skewing the picture for the judge. That's on the people presenting their evidence in a biased fashion in order to obtain the warrant.
-
It makes a lot more sense than the entire FISA app being false. If it was, there’s absolutely no reason to not declassify it. It’s more advantageous for Trump to keep it under seal, say it was all based on lies, and not have to prove it. That keeps the issue open and base energized.
IF the FISA application(s) were, as has been reported, based solely on the Steele document then they are 100% false and were known to be false when they were submitted!
-
It's not an all or nothing situation. Some of the information was false and perhaps some not.
Then your previous assertion of doubt doesn’t make a lot of sense. Intel is ‘true’ because it’s confirmed by other sources.
-
Then your previous assertion of doubt doesn’t make a lot of sense. Intel is ‘true’ because it’s confirmed by other sources.
Sorry, Ed, that doesn't follow.
-
Then your previous assertion of doubt doesn’t make a lot of sense. Intel is ‘true’ because it’s confirmed by other sources.
Does information leaked by Steele to the press count as "confirmed" when the FBI cites the resulting press accounts in the application? Comey's FBI said it does.
-
IF the FISA application(s) were, as has been reported, based solely on the Steele document then they are 100% false and were known to be false when they were submitted!
There’s the problem. If it is 100% false, there is no source or method to protect. The reason for the application remaining classified would be nonexistent.
-
There’s the problem. If it is 100% false, there is no source or method to protect. The reason for the application remaining classified would be nonexistent.
It may be to wait for the arrest and trial of the offenders. Putting the document in the press would bias potential juries.
-
Does information leaked by Steele to the press count as "confirmed" when the FBI cites the resulting press accounts in the application? Comey's FBI said it does.
I would not think so, but the dossier contained information about activities of Page, Agalarov, Manafort, and Gubarev. They were all known subjects of previous investigations.
-
It may be to wait for the arrest and trial of the offenders. Putting the document in the press would bias potential juries.
So in the meantime, Trump is just letting all the others involved get arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and jailed for what reason?
-
There’s the problem. If it is 100% false, there is no source or method to protect. The reason for the application remaining classified would be nonexistent.
I don't think the reasons for keeping this confidential has as much to do with protecting sources as much as protecting FBI agents and Lynch's DoJ from embarrassing revelations.
-
I don't think the reasons for keeping this confidential has as much to do with protecting sources as much as protecting FBI agents and Lynch's DoJ from embarrassing revelations.
Trump has the final say on classification. Unless they have a firm hold on a dead man’s switch, there’s no reason to protect them.