FBI told FISA court Steele wasn't source of report used to justify surveilling Trump team, docs show
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On four occasions, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court that it "did not believe" former British spy Christopher Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating former Trump aide Carter Page in Russian collusion, newly released documents reveal.
Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the September 2016 article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele Dossier. Federal authorities used both the Steele Dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page.
But London court records show that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier.
The materials released by the DOJ include an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Page as well as several renewal applications.
The FBI's assessment that Steele was not the direct source of the Yahoo News article is contained in all of the released FISA applications, including a renewal in June 2017.
"The FBI does not believe that Source #1 [Steele] directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article," the FBI states in one of the released FISA documents. "Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI."
The documents describe Source #1 as someone "hired by a business associate to conduct research" into Trump's Russia ties -- but do not mention that Fusion GPS was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.
Instead, the documents say only: "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump's] campaign."
Fox News believes that the U.S. person is Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS.
The FBI describes Steele in the documents as "credible" and "reliable," but noted that it suspended its relationship with him in October 2016 because of his "unauthorized disclosures to the press."
The unredacted FISA materials also contain only limited references to ex-Trump adviser George Papadopoulos. Media reports had speculated that Papadopoulos' 2016 meeting in London with a professor who had ties to Russia was a key justification for the FISA-authorized surveillance of Page.
Papadopoulos has since pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
Reacting to the document release, Page told Fox News, "I'm having trouble finding any small bit of this document that rises above complete ignorance and/or insanity."
Critics have charged that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the FISA application renewals, should not have approved them without more reliable intelligence.
In a series of tweets early Sunday, President Trump called the FISA documents proof of a "witch-hunt" and a "scam," and praised Judicial Watch for obtaining the documents.
But Democrats countered that the release had, in fact, vindicated the FBI.
"These documents affirm that our nation faced a profound counterintelligence threat prior to the 2016 election, and the Department of Justice and FBI took appropriate steps to investigate whether any U.S. persons were acting as an agent of a foreign power,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, who serves as ranking member of the House intelligence committee, said in a statement.
“FBI and DOJ would have been negligent had they not used all the tools at their disposal, including Court-authorized [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA surveillance, to protect the country," he added.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne contributed to this report.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
119 visitors
So here it is.... What the Justice Department finally dumped on a Friday afternoon before the House adjourned thanks to Judicial Watch. We can expect the DOJ document stonewalling to continue right up until the November elections with the hopes that the democrats will win the House and all this will go away. Meanwhile the oversight committees are impotent because the President has no intention of having the DOJ declassify and turn over everything. He knows that would look like obstruction and he knows he didn't conspire with Russia, so he is content to let Mueller drag on in search of something to hang this President with. Whitnesses don't have to answer questions because the House probably dosen't have the votes to hold them in contempt, so the hearings are useless!
But here is what we know:
FACT:
The FBI used a Yahoo story, provided by Christopher Steele to back up the Steele Dossier.
FACT:
The FBI did not tell the FISA Court that the Steele Dossier was opposition research funded by the Clinton Campaign
These FACTS are now beyond dispute
Democratic funded research smear campaign; being released to a democratically controlled Obama administration (at the time) DOJ and FBI to be used as a reason to target the Trump campaign.
Nothing wrong with this, nothing wrong at all. If a Republican administration had done this the media and Democrats would not stop until all involved were indicted and imprisoned. Since it involves Clinton, Obama, and a host of other Democratic Establishment officials we are expected to move along- nothing to see here. Hurry up and impeach Trump.
They thought that he wouldn't win anyway, but they would just make sure he didn't. If Hillary won as expected nobody would know.
Don't you just love the way Susan Rice went back and tried to protect Obama on Inauguration Day by revising a memo of the Jan 5th meeting Obama had with Comey, where Rice claims Obama reminded Comey to go by the book?
He supposedly went by the book for eight years but somehow you got to remind him and we're all stupid. Of course, I'm sure keeping things under wraps was part of that meeting. Like Lisa Page said in a text "potus wants to know everything we’re doing."
Removed
This is what I hate about the MSM. They manipulate the people by leading them into thinking what they want them to think and then use it later to re-enforce that thought even though it's made up. For example, the link you put above.
which goes to this link in the article.
And the Washington Post always has those anonymous sources and leads the people to believe what they want to have them believe. In the Yahoo link: Both the Washington Post and the Yahoo articles are dated February 2, 2018
According to the Washington Post , Trump had reportedly told friends in recent days that he believes the memo will vindicate his repeated claims that special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was a “witch hunt” and could justify his firing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller, or even Mueller himself.
I did this search:
"did trump say he might fire rod rosenstein" and this is what I got on the first screen. You would think, if he did, there would be someone coming forward or at least some hard core evidence before these scumbag news sources got all wrapped up in the assumption he was going to do it. What they did was take the press conference video below and twist it around to appear Trump was thinking of firing one or both to manipulate the public.
What happens if Trump fires Rosenstein ? - POLITICO
Trump meeting stokes fears he may oust Rosenstein - POLITICO
What Would Happen If Trump Fired Rosenstein ? | FiveThirtyEight
Trump considering firing Rosenstein to check Mueller - CNNPolitics
What Could Happen if Trump Fired Rosenstein - The New York Times
Trump won't say whether he would fire Mueller, but ... - USA Today
Jess Sessions may leave if Trump fires Rosenstein , reports say
Jeff Sessions to top White House lawyer: If Trump fires Rosenstein , I ...
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein tells confidants he is prepared to be fired
This is ridiculous!!! Look at all the sources I came up with in this search just on the first page, but you can bet the second page is the same crap by the same people. Misleading the public everyday of the week with their twisted stories. But if you can provide any evidence that Trump has said anything about firing Rosenstein or Mueller, I'd like to see it. These scumbag news sources seem to. Those sources above are all dated from April 13, 2018 through May 30, 2018 and it's July 22, 2018 and both Rosenstein and Mueller are still there.
Keep in mind this video of Trump is dated April 8, 2018 and they were ready to pounce on it and manipulate the public into thinking Trump couldn't wait to fire Rosenstein. Even if he didn't the mental image that he was thinking about it would be implanted into the public's minds.
Furthermore: SEARCHED
"donald trump said he has considered firing rod rosenstein"
The same crap by the same people, but nowhere is their any indication he had even considered it, but that didn't matter to these scumbags.
Sorry Vic. You can delete this comment if you want. I know it's long. I'm getting use to getting my comments deleted when I hit them in the face with facts.
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the topic at hand or the fact that Nunes and the House GOP lied about the FISA warrant.
Not according to a London Court:
But London court records show that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier.
That is why it's in bold, so that progressives can't dace away from the FACTS, the FACTS that we waited so long to establisn
The FISA warrant based on the Steele Dossier is FACT
Only one of Kelly Ann's alternate facts.
The Steele dossier was only one of the items listed in the 700 pages.
Yet as you can see, there is NO link to a source for that proclamation.
BTFW, even if Steele DID brief news sources, that doesn't prove that he was the source of the information in the cited in the Yahoo story, DOES IT?
It doesn't matter whether it was Steele or Simpson who relayed the info to Yahoo. The point to footnote 18 is that the FBI was saying that Yahoo's report wasn't independent and came from Steel's report. It sounds like you missed that or don't understand it.
Regardless it has very little to do with the merit of the FISA warrant on Page.
700? I thought 400? And about 50 after redactions.
Can you describe the other items?
The source is the seeded article. Are you even going to deny that simple fact?
It dosen't? A news story provided by Steele to corroborate a document produced by Steele?
The FBI is not supposed to use unverified information to get a warrant. To this day the Dossier is still unverified!
LOL. As I noted you obviously don't even understand what footnote 18 meant. Maybe you should actually try to read it?
.
It's also interesting that so far none of the claims made in the Steele report have been debunked. Even the multiple prostitute thingy seems to have substance behind it, even down to the hotel room in question on the night in question.
Oh, you poor thing. If you'd only take your face out of the rightwing feeding trough once in a while you wouldn't make such silly, false statements. Let's try a bit of antidote for all the garbage you've been stuffed with, shall we? Here are at least 5 parts of the dossier that have been corroborated by later evidence (and some actual charges):
Dossier Claim: Putin Was in Charge
Revelation: On the very first page of the dossier, Steele explains that the election meddling was “endorsed by Putin” and that the effort was “both supported and directed” by him. The U.S. intelligence report reached the same conclusion, writing that Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the presidential election.” According to Steele’s sources, Putin and Russia had been cultivating Trump for “at least 5 years.”
Dossier Claim: Mr. Cohen Goes to Prague
Revelation: The president’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, was accused in the dossier of meeting with “Kremlin representatives” in Prague in August 2016. Cohen has repeatedly denied traveling to the Czech capital, but McClatchy last month reported that Mueller had evidence the trip happened.
The report stated that Mueller’s team discovered proof Cohen got to Prague through Germany. The two countries are part of a number of European nations with an open borders agreement that allows undocumented travel. However, no other media outlet has been able to confirm McClatchy’s reporting.
Dossier Claim: Russian Diplomat Was a Spy
Revelation: Steele also claimed that Russia was worried a diplomat named Mikhail Kalugin was heavily involved in the meddling operation. Afraid he would be exposed, Russia pulled Kalugin out of Washington on “short notice.” Steele actually misspelled Kalugin’s name, but the U.S. government had identified Kalugin as a Russian spy, the BBC reported in March.
Dossier Claim: Page Met With Russians
Revelation: Carter Page previously denied having met with Russian government officials during his trip to Russia in July 2016, but he admitted to the meeting while speaking to the House Intelligence Committee last November . Page was a foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign and in June 2016 delivered a speech in Washington praising Putin. And as early as September 2016, U.S. officials were looking into Page’s contacts in Russia, Yahoo News reported .
Dossier Claim: Manafort Received Payment for Work in Ukraine
Revelation: Paul Manafort, who is facing serious charges from Mueller’s team, worked extensively in Ukraine for years before Trump hired him as campaign chairman in 2016. The longtime Washington lobbyist received $12.7 million from the political party of former pro-Russia Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych between 2007 and 2012, The New York Times reported on August 14, 2016. Manafort resigned from the campaign after that report.
Steele’s dossier states that Yanukovych and Putin met the day after the story broke, and the former made assurances to the latter that no trail could be found.
“This had been held in secret on 15 August near Volgograd, Russia, and the Western media revelations about Manafort and Ukraine had featured prominently on the agenda,” the dossier says about the meeting. “Yanukovych had confided in Putin that he did authorize and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no document trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this.”
In April 2017, financial records unearthed by the Associated Press confirmed that at least $1.2 million went to Manafort’s company from Ukraine.
*******************************************************************************************
And this whole saga isn't over yet. I have no doubt that when Mueller releases his full report there will be a lot more congruences between the Steele document and that report.
I'm not so sure about that. Anyway, it dosen't work that way. The FBI is supposed to vouch for what is in there. Evidently the FISA judges simply trusted the FBI
Do you mind providing the link from the article you got that from?
You seem to be ahead of the FBI
Dee-lighted:
It sounds like you really have no clue how this works. The warrant just requires probable cause, it doesn't mean that any of the allegations in the warrant are proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover the FBI had ample cause anyway to monitor Page's communications with known Russian agents. You right-wingers are rather foolishly focused on something that's pretty much irrelevant, perhaps in a desperate attempt to distract from what these Russian agents were trying to do.
I will grant you 3 of those, since the McClatchy Report can't verify it's claims and another point was provided by Yahoo News and we know who was feeding them.
So even if I grant you 3 of those stories, the FBI still had a lot of due diligence to carry out. Why haven't they been able to come out and say well we can verify some of it?
Do you recall James Comey's last interview?
It means that the assumption of probable cause was correct just based on any one of those items. The FBI has no need to verify all the claims.
And as I noted above they had probable cause even without the Steele document given previous efforts by Russia to recruit Page as a spy.
.
It is very interesting that 2 years after the FBI learned about the Steele document not even one of its claims have been debunked. If any had you can be guaranteed that Devin Nunes and Trump would both be crowing about it.
We now know that the FBI relied HEAVILY on an unverified document paid for by the Clinton campaign and supported by a news story which was spoon fed by Christopher Steele. We also know that the dossier was used to renew FISA warrants on Carter Page. They didn't even scrub out what could be verified and use that, no' they submitted the whole damn thing. They never EVER questioned any of Steele's sources. One has to question the wisdom of the Judges here. Why should a FISA Judge believe what Steele's sources say?
The biggest lie of all is the 3 lines on page 53
Nope. The FBI put a lot of trust in Steele as you and A are putting in news stories.
They needed to question his sources
Because Steele is considered a credible and trustworthy operative based on the FBI's previous experience with him (ie, exposing corruption at FIFA, etc). That trust seems to be well justified since the central claims of the dossier have been proven.
But the FISA warrant would have been granted even without the Steele dossier because there was ample probable cause to monitor Page's communications with known Russian agents. It's funny how you choose to ignore that fact, but if you still dispute the court's unanimous judgement then feel free to submit your application to be a FISC judge. Or maybe whine to the Republican Presidents who nominated those conservative judges.
It's also funny since what you really seem to be claiming is that our intel agencies shouldn't monitor communications with known foreign spies. Why do you want that?
No they have not. The FBI would have avoided a lot of pain and agony if they could have only verified that dirty "Dossier"
You may recall this little examination:
"In a seven-hour interview with the House Intelligence Committee Wednesday, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly declined to answer whether the bureau has been able to verify the substantive allegations in the dossier, or even to identify a substantive allegation that has been corroborated, according to sources familiar with the questioning.
The dossier portion of the interview began with McCabe being asked if he thought the dossier met the standard of credibility the FBI required to open an investigation. McCabe said he believed it did. He said on more than one occasion that the FBI had worked hard to verify the dossier, telling lawmakers that the FBI had at one point sent investigators to London as part of the effort.
McCabe was asked to point to anything in the dossier that he knew to be true. McCabe noted that the dossier said, accurately, that the unpaid, low-level Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page visited Moscow in July 2016.
McCabe's questioners were not impressed. Page's Moscow trip was reported in the press at the time it happened; the simple fact that he was in Russia was not a revelation. Lawmakers reminded McCabe that Page's presence in Moscow was long established and then asked again: Was there anything more in the dossier that McCabe now knows to be true? McCabe, according to sources, said he did not know how to answer the question.
The dossier, of course, reported much more than the fact of Page's travel to Moscow. It said Russians linked to Vladimir Putin offered Page money in exchange for persuading Trump to end U.S. sanctions on Russia. Specifically, it said Page met with Igor Sechin, the Putin-connected head of Rosneft, Russia's giant, state-owned oil company, and also with Igor Divyekin, a top official in the Putin government. The dossier reported that Sechin offered to pay Page or other Trump associates tens of millions of dollars to end the sanctions.
None of that has been verified.
OR you may also recall this:
So for the left it was first to deny that the Dossier was used by the FBI and now to do what both the media & FBI never could - make it gredible
Yup, it was 400. Didn't know what you were talking about until I went back and looked at my comment. Looks like I mis-typed and did not catch it.
Really Vic? What evidence do you have of that? I've read the FISA application and I didn't see anything about the allegations about Trump's actions in the dossier.
In FACT, the application only seems to be referring to the portion of the dossier that specifically cites the actions of Page and it looks to me that the FBI had ANOTHER source {ID redacted} to corroborate that information.
Oh so you're claiming that 'London court records' qualifies as a source?
Ridiculous.
YES because I asked for a LINK to the 'London court records' cited in the seed and you failed to post one.
Sure they have as the MSM has documented, particularly the central claim that Russia was meddling in the US election and trying to sway it for Trump:
How about reading the paragraph by paragraph analysis of the Nunes Memo compared to Judicial Watch's release of the FISA documents by Byron York:
Here's the first kicker in that bullshit:
Note the equivocation @ the end of that bullshit. The Democrats AND McCabe did challenge that inaccurate quote and despite the fact that Nunes claimed that he was willing to release McCabe's transcript, he has YET to do so. Wonder why?
Oh and BTW, how about you comment on the facts in the comment you replied to?
My reply was to Skrekk's #1.2.2:
Or, did you not read where it says "tomwcraig replied to Skrekk @1.2.2". My point was that the GOP did not lie with the Nunes memo about the FISA warrant. I think you need to go back and take REMEDIAL READING 101.
You don't trust the source and you are unaware that those proceedings took place?
Fortunately, it wasn't too much work. That's two links you got, NOW READ IT!
No, It's you that's trying to muddy the waters. It was Nunes who told us that the Dossier had been used to get a Warrant - what were democrats and liberals right here saying then?
Now that facts are proving Nunes was right, liberals are now trying to make the Dossier credible.
I think time is on Nunes side, he seems to have been right about everything
A well-placed Western intelligence source?
A strange way to describe the author of the "Dossier" Mr Steele
There was no 'source' cited in your seed, it merely states an unsubstantiated proclamation.
Now you link another RW source, that contains fabricated bullshit and DOENS'T provide a link to the London Court documents.
Yet it took you 2 days to come up with the crap you posted which contains but ONE truncated item from the London court document. I give you that you FINALLY found SOMETHING that actually cites a quote. Of course, considering the source, I will presume that quote is the only thing in the London Court document that bolsters their [and yours it seems] agenda. Weak shit there.
Yet I don't see your refuting the FACT that McCabe and the Democrats in the committee DID deny the veracity of the quote in the Nunes memo.
It was Nunes that falsely claimed that the dossier was the majority of the FBI's evidence. It wasn't.
I couldn't care less since it isn't fucking relevant to this discussion.
Nope, Nunes wasn't 'right' and the FACTS are what the dossier credible.
That's hilarious since Nunes NEVER read the application or any of the underlying evidence and didn't even write the fucking memo. Nunes tasked his minions to do his bidding and then signed off on it without doing any due diligence of his own. For that Nunes gets all the credit and a pat on the head from Trump.
Nope, that's not the part I'm talking about. Top of page 17 of the application.
Those dashes represent a redacted source, NOT Source #1. Whoever that is, is also cited in footnote #11 which is also redacted.
That reads like a collection of straw men and irrelevant misdirection. For example regarding paragraph 13:
No "cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos" was ever claimed. What was claimed was that Russia was trying to interfere in the election to get Trump elected, and that they were possibly conspiring with Trump officials to do that. Byron's claim is a straw man.
.
Whether Strzok or his lover had opinions about Agent Orange has no bearing on the merit of the FISA application much less on the crimes and espionage which Russia was committing against the US. Byron's claim is misdirection and the other claims in that paragraph are lies which are irrelevant to the merit of the application.
And you fell for it hook, line & sinker.
Denials are proof of nothing. Republicans in the committee saw it exactly the opposite
It was Nunes that falsely claimed that the dossier was the majority of the FBI's evidence. It wasn't.
It clearly was. The application led with the dossier and then used the Yahoo news story (which was Steele again) to back it up.
I couldn't care less since it isn't fucking relevant to this discussion.
Oh yes it is. The same people who denied the dossier was used are now desperately seeking to give it credibility
Nope, Nunes wasn't 'right' and the FACTS are what the dossier credible.
As right as rain
That's hilarious since Nunes NEVER read the application or any of the underlying evidence and didn't even write the fucking memo. Nunes tasked his minions to do his bidding and then signed off on it without doing any due diligence of his own. For that Nunes gets all the credit and a pat on the head from Trump.
That's a liberal way of degrading that the Committee Counsel Trey Gowdy was given that task.
Probably a spy right?
Total bullshit. The Yahoo story is cited under the heading:
Page's Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government.
It was NOT used as 'independent corroboration'. PERIOD, full stop.
You have NO facts to support that Yahoo's source was Steele nor did they FBI use the story as 'independent corroboration' as claimed.
Y'all seem to forget that a FISA Judge asks questions during hears. IF any of the 4 Republican FISA appointees wanted to know WHO paid Source #1, they could have asked and for all we know, they did. If they didn't, that would infer that NONE of the 4 Judges felt it was pertinent or they put two and two together and figured it out for themselves.
Obviously not...
It's in the above article
IT IS FACT
I've already proven that it is NOT a fact and you have done NOTHING to support the claims in the seed.
NOPE FAR FROM IT
Here's another FACT: the FBI was keeping tabs on Page long before the Steele memo even came into existence. The FBI first noticed him after he had meetings with a Russian intelligence agent in 2013, Victor Podobnyy. The FBI actually "briefed" (read: warned) Page about that but Page seemed indifferent to any possible risks of being compromised. Of course, when his name popped up with rad flags all over it in the Steele memo they were very interested. This article gives plenty of the details, especially how Page became an official part of the Trump campaign and immediately went to Moscow:
The Curious Journey of Carter Page
It may well turn out that Page was just a dope and was only out to try to enrich himself -- or it may turn out that it's a much more nefarious story when we do get the finally Mueller report. In any case, it would have been a huge investigative failure if the FBI had ignored Carter Page.
In all that time no charges filed against Page! Or maybe Page was used as the agencies ticket to spy on the Trump campaign.
That will be the next FBI lie to be exposed, I assume - that the investigation actually began BEFORE July 31, 2016.
Ooooh, uncharacteristic caution as well as unintended revelation in that short sentence. It tells us that not only do you have doubts about all the crap you put up here but admit that it's not based on an fact whatsoever--just your assumptions.
LOL. A FISA warrant doesn't mean that the US person is suspected of a crime, just that he's been communicating with suspicious foreign nationals. It sounds like you're entirely clueless about FISA.
By the way the FBI already knew that the Russians had previously tried to recruit Page so it's not a surprise at all that they'd want to monitor his communications with known Russian spies once again.
All of our intelligence agencies have been following Russian attempts to infiltrate and tamper with our elections for years, of course. This is nothing new. They didn't have to go looking for the Scumbag connection to it. It fell right into their laps. After all we have Jared and ScumbagJr meeting with Russians to get dirt on Hillary on June, 26 and the NYT ran that story on July 10. So, I'm sure the FBI was interested before July 31. Why do you think that's a date with significance?
Because the FBI claims that the investigation began on that day. Why did they do that? Because there was no criminal pretext to launch an investigation of the Trump campaign - that date ties in with Papodopolous being drunk in London. And I really doubt that the rumblings of a drunk kid were a reason to launch a counterintelligence investigation.
I think I used the word properly. I'm giving the FBI the benefit of the doubt on what they claim was the start date. I don't lie
I'm flagging that one
LOL.
The Steele dossier is the real Russian collusion- bought and paid for by the Clintons.
everyone with any sense already knew this.
no thinking person bought the lefts bs before trumps election and they will not suddenly start buying it now.
my bet is the left loses a seat or two in the midterms
cheers
It was first a commission given by the rightwing Washington Free Beacon to Fusion GPS but actually paid for by Paul Singer, a republican donor to Jeb Bush. That funding dried up once Scumbag had the R nomination but, naturally and why shouldn't it be, the Clinton campaign started picking up the tab. It was, and still is, a bombshell. Why the campaign did not use it is still a mystery.
I know why it's imperative for Trumphumpers to have to keep lying about the provenance of this memo but it's just as imperative that we call the lie out every time they do.
Because I am sure the Clintons, and all those involved, would have hated to prove the dossier was true in a court of law. Slander/liable are the top of the list.
Trump has enough high priced lawyers to make even the Clintons lives miserable.
They wouldn't have had to. First off, if it were possible to sue for slander or libel or defamation of character in a political campaign there would never be an end to the number of cases filed every day. So that purely bogus. But almost everything in Steele's memo (you won't know this because you filter it out like most facts) has been corroborated by other sources so it would be the Scumbag who wouldn't have dared to sue over this. After all, he'd have had to testify if he did and that is the very last thing he'd do.
False.
The deal by Singer was first BUT it did not involve Steele and the Dossier. That fraudulent document was paid for by the Clinton Campaign
CORRECT!
Nope but I can't blame you for keeping that lie going.
But he'd have to get on the stand and prove that there were any lies in the dossier and he'd never do that (or I should say his lawyers would never let him do that).
Wow, it's not that you people are just clueless. It's when you're actually given all the clues, i.e., facts you simply refuse to see them. The Clinton campaign didn't get involved until after funding dried up from Paul Singer, funneled to Fusion GPS by the WB. That's when FusionGPS "shopped" it to the Clinton campaign. The origin of the dossier was republican all the way.
Please read and try to get it:
The original arrangement between the Free Beacon and Fusion GPS involved opposition research into multiple Republican candidates, not just front-runner Donald Trump.
Sources close to the Free Beacon stress that the project, when the Free Beacon funded it, had nothing to do with Russia and did not involve Christopher Steele, the former British spy who gathered anti-Trump dirt in Russia . Steele was retained by Fusion GPS when the project was funded by Democrats, and not in its initial phase, when the Free Beacon was involved.
To summarize:
The media had the dossier months before the election. Nobody published it (until buzzfeed got a green light) because it could not be verified. Even Christopher Steele, who helped share it with the FBI, Yahoo and others, could not verify it. The FBI has been under assault for this fact for many months. We know how conscious they are of their reputation. If they could verify it they would have done so before they used it for the FISA warrant. It is also their policy to verify everything these submit for warrants.
So, dosen't common sense tell us that the FBI would have verified that document by now if only they could?
The more important question then becomes Why were they forced to use this document?
In other words, the FBI never had a valid reason to open a counterintelligence investigation on a political campaign or a private citizen (who always offered to cooperate with them) if it had not been driven to do so. The question then becomes who drove them?
Was it a few rogue agents at the top, who thought they were acting in American interests?
Or was it an ideologue President, who was used to getting away with just about anything?
Either way they never thought they would be in this position. They always thought Hillary would win.
1) Papadopoulos. Even the loony Nunes memo admits that was why the investigation was started.
.
2) Page had a prior history of Russian spy recruiting efforts so the fact that he was again communicating with agents of a hostile foreign power would have drawn the FBI's attention even without the Steele dossier. In fact it would have been grossly negligent if the FBI had not requested a FISA warrant to monitor those communications. Good thing those 4 conservative Republican judges agreed, eh?
That's been the FBI line. They've lied before. As I say it is a real stretch to believe that was how it began.
It dosen't much matter who the Judges are - they all have a history of granting the Warrants 98% of the time. In other words they trusted the FDBI
So you're saying that your RWNJ buddy Nunes was lying and the Australian officials are all lying too? LOL. You folks seem determined to believe whatever crap Alex Jones feeds you.
The FBI speaks for itself. It is there investigation. Nunes dosen't know what the DOJ & FBI is still hiding
How did Alex Jones get in this?
Heck, Nunes even admits that he never even read the FISA application before he wrote his loony memo. He doesn't seem to be good at doing his actual oversight job, all he's good at is running interference for Trump.
Thank you all for contributing.
This article will be updated when more FBI/DOJ corruption is exposed