Still hoping for the Trump piss dossier to hit the front pages some more?
Even now after everyone's been told that it wasn't what the Carter FISA warrant was based on?
Yahoo, more talk about the Trump piss tapes!
A Bombshell House Intelligence report exposing extensive FISA abuse.....
- Thread starter b4u
- Start date
Even now after everyone's been told that it wasn't what the Carter FISA warrant was based on?
Yahoo, more talk about the Trump piss tapes!
Who's "everyone"? The Dossier was always a joke, dirty Clintonian play, the last chapter in that sad saga. Good riddance. You want to pin your hopes to it? Go right ahead.
Lets assume the piss story is true, is it illegal to take a piss on a hooker in Russia?? (assuming she consented)
No, but seeing a married President naked pissing on a hooker (according to rumour- on the same bed the Obama's used when in russia) is not the imagery one likes to share. Russia has the capability of flooding the internet with this video so - it is certainly an item that could compromise Trump's relationship with Russia. Add money laundering through Deutche Bank on bogus real estate deals and one can see why Steele tipped of his FBI allies to a serious Russian threat.
Of course if that was true, there is no way Trump would hesitate imposing the Russian sanctions overwhelmingly supported by congress. Oh, wait ... he hasn't .......
Actually the biggest worry is that Putin would be able to blackmail Trump into say, ending Russian sanctions.No, but seeing a married President naked pissing on a hooker (according to rumour- on the same bed the Obama's used when in russia) is not the imagery one likes to share. Russia has the capability of flooding the internet with this video so - it is certainly an item that could compromise Trump's relationship with Russia. Add money laundering through Deutche Bank on bogus real estate deals and one can see why Steele tipped of his FBI allies to a serious Russian threat.
Of course if that was true, there is no way Trump would hesitate imposing the Russian sanctions overwhelmingly supported by congress. Oh, wait ... he hasn't .......
Of course he'd never do that so......wait a minute, forget about that argument.
Steele has repeatedly stated he took the piss dossier to the FBI because he thought if the piss tape is true, then Russia would have Trump over a barrel for blackmail and would do something outlandish like have him say, end Russian sanctions.
Fortunately Trump wouldn't do something that obvious......wait, never mind.
Very interesting video of Schiff talking on Putins Netork(RT) about the FISA courts and system in 2013
and on curbing NSA surveillance
https://youtu.be/49FcGGUx-Z8
and here's a tweet from 2014 https://twitter.com/ali/status/960673743268802560
and on curbing NSA surveillance
https://youtu.be/49FcGGUx-Z8
and here's a tweet from 2014 https://twitter.com/ali/status/960673743268802560
Good article from the Washington Post
The Nunes memo revealed a damning omission
Having reviewed hundreds and hundreds of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications as the final stop between the FBI and the desks of Attorneys General William French Smith and Edwin Meese III, I read the Nunes memo as revealing one major fact that stands out above all other revelations: The FISA warrant for surveillance on Carter Page (and the three subsequent renewals of the warrant) omitted a material fact. While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. That is a damning omission.
My job reviewing those warrants existed because prior to the establishment of a National Security Division at the Justice Department, a special assistant to the attorney general with the appropriate clearances had the job of making sure the attorney general did not sign off on a warrant application that got bounced back from the FISA court. Such a rejection had never happened before I got there, didn’t happen while it was my job and has happened only a handful of times since. That record is in large part because of trust developed between the FISA courts and the FBI and Justice Department over decades, especially the respect accorded the counterintelligence professionals at the bureau. That trust has now been injured.
Upon publication of the Nunes memo, a retired federal judge emailed me: “There is not an officer of the court in the land who in the context of this particular application to the FISA court should not have identified the source of the information as having been the [Democratic National Committee] and the Clinton Campaign. If I had granted the application and then subsequently learned that the information was sourced to the DNC and the Campaign, I would have rescinded the authorization and issued a show-cause order to the Government to explain who and why this sourcing was not made known to the court. The fact (if it be that) that the Government told the court that it was a political source, but did not identify who, in this particular instance, is highly probative that the Government purposely misled the court.”
The FISA court to which the application was made might well have issued the warrant even if it knew the provenance of the intelligence. We will never know. But the non-disclosure was a breach of trust, and it will have long-term consequences for the warrant application process.
That an omission of a material fact occurred in the warrant application does not indict former FBI director James B. Comey or any of the other reviewing or approving officials up to and including Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Staffs exist to prepare and review these applications, to search for just such a crucial omission or false assertion. As noted above, there are hundreds of these warrants flowing through the bureau up to the attorney general in any given year. The numbers have doubled or tripled these days in the age of metastasizing terrorism and cybercrime, in addition to our traditional enemies in the world of intelligence-gathering. To expect the nation’s top cop or its top law enforcement officer to read and carefully review even the least important applications is to expect too much of overwhelmingly burdened key players.
But if the omission was specifically discussed and approved by a senior official, then there should be accountability. What was the preparing case officer thinking? What was anyone thinking who reviewed it and noticed the missing specificity? They should be thinking like a corporate lawyer reviewing a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on behalf of a publicly traded company. Material omissions or misstatements in those filings also go by the name of “fraud.” Imagine a public company declaring an income stream is flowing, but not noting that it is coming from sketchy factories that may not be compliant with labor standards, reports of which have come to the attention of the company and which are being investigated. It’s highly unlikely that investors or the SEC would be very forgiving of an initial public offering that left out facts as important as what was omitted from this warrant application.
“Trump torque” is pulling on everyone in the news business, in all directions. His critics are often overheated and refuse to admit accomplishments or unprofessional hits. His defenders almost scream best-case scenarios that are ludicrous and ignore his errors, missteps and misstatements. It’s harder and harder to keep this torque from twisting every single story in one direction or another.
It shouldn’t operate anywhere but especially not in the area of national security. The non-disclosure of a material fact in an application for a FISA warrant — its minimization, indeed one could argue its camouflaging — is a very big deal and its provenance should be thoroughly investigated. It threatens to undermine every warrant submitted to a FISA court.
It’s not about President Trump, or shouldn’t be. It’s about when American courts approve surveillance of Americans. And that’s every American’s concern.
The Nunes memo revealed a damning omission
Having reviewed hundreds and hundreds of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications as the final stop between the FBI and the desks of Attorneys General William French Smith and Edwin Meese III, I read the Nunes memo as revealing one major fact that stands out above all other revelations: The FISA warrant for surveillance on Carter Page (and the three subsequent renewals of the warrant) omitted a material fact. While the FBI admitted that the information came from a politically motivated source, the bureau did not disclose that the source had been financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. That is a damning omission.
My job reviewing those warrants existed because prior to the establishment of a National Security Division at the Justice Department, a special assistant to the attorney general with the appropriate clearances had the job of making sure the attorney general did not sign off on a warrant application that got bounced back from the FISA court. Such a rejection had never happened before I got there, didn’t happen while it was my job and has happened only a handful of times since. That record is in large part because of trust developed between the FISA courts and the FBI and Justice Department over decades, especially the respect accorded the counterintelligence professionals at the bureau. That trust has now been injured.
Upon publication of the Nunes memo, a retired federal judge emailed me: “There is not an officer of the court in the land who in the context of this particular application to the FISA court should not have identified the source of the information as having been the [Democratic National Committee] and the Clinton Campaign. If I had granted the application and then subsequently learned that the information was sourced to the DNC and the Campaign, I would have rescinded the authorization and issued a show-cause order to the Government to explain who and why this sourcing was not made known to the court. The fact (if it be that) that the Government told the court that it was a political source, but did not identify who, in this particular instance, is highly probative that the Government purposely misled the court.”
The FISA court to which the application was made might well have issued the warrant even if it knew the provenance of the intelligence. We will never know. But the non-disclosure was a breach of trust, and it will have long-term consequences for the warrant application process.
That an omission of a material fact occurred in the warrant application does not indict former FBI director James B. Comey or any of the other reviewing or approving officials up to and including Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. Staffs exist to prepare and review these applications, to search for just such a crucial omission or false assertion. As noted above, there are hundreds of these warrants flowing through the bureau up to the attorney general in any given year. The numbers have doubled or tripled these days in the age of metastasizing terrorism and cybercrime, in addition to our traditional enemies in the world of intelligence-gathering. To expect the nation’s top cop or its top law enforcement officer to read and carefully review even the least important applications is to expect too much of overwhelmingly burdened key players.
But if the omission was specifically discussed and approved by a senior official, then there should be accountability. What was the preparing case officer thinking? What was anyone thinking who reviewed it and noticed the missing specificity? They should be thinking like a corporate lawyer reviewing a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on behalf of a publicly traded company. Material omissions or misstatements in those filings also go by the name of “fraud.” Imagine a public company declaring an income stream is flowing, but not noting that it is coming from sketchy factories that may not be compliant with labor standards, reports of which have come to the attention of the company and which are being investigated. It’s highly unlikely that investors or the SEC would be very forgiving of an initial public offering that left out facts as important as what was omitted from this warrant application.
“Trump torque” is pulling on everyone in the news business, in all directions. His critics are often overheated and refuse to admit accomplishments or unprofessional hits. His defenders almost scream best-case scenarios that are ludicrous and ignore his errors, missteps and misstatements. It’s harder and harder to keep this torque from twisting every single story in one direction or another.
It shouldn’t operate anywhere but especially not in the area of national security. The non-disclosure of a material fact in an application for a FISA warrant — its minimization, indeed one could argue its camouflaging — is a very big deal and its provenance should be thoroughly investigated. It threatens to undermine every warrant submitted to a FISA court.
It’s not about President Trump, or shouldn’t be. It’s about when American courts approve surveillance of Americans. And that’s every American’s concern.
Did Steele Really Snooker the FBI?
The bureau should have known he was talking to the press—but it told the FISA court he wasn’t.
The House Intelligence Committee memo about 2016 surveillance abuses, released Friday, lays out grave evidence that the FBI wasn’t fully forthcoming with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as it sought an order to wiretap former Trump adviser Carter Page. It’s possible the FBI’s lack of candor was even worse than the memo describes.
Democrats are disputing the memo on lots of grounds, but they’ve said little about the FBI’s failure to inform the court that the bureau had itself decided one of its main sources, dossier author Christopher Steele, was unreliable. Mr. Steele in October 2016 gave Mother Jones an unauthorized interview about the dossier. As a former British intelligence officer, Mr. Steele would have known that sources are not supposed to blab to the press. The interview appeared but a few days before the election, was at the direction of his paymaster, the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, and was clearly designed to help the ultimate client: the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Stuck with a source now brazenly using the FBI for political purposes, the bureau suspended and then terminated Mr. Steele. Only nine days before the Mother Jones interview, the bureau had filed its application for the Page wiretap order, which rested on the Steele dossier. Yet the FBI did not immediately go back to tell the court it no longer trusted Mr. Steele, the author of a crucial piece of evidence.
And the Mother Jones interview wasn’t the first time Mr. Steele went to the press. A month earlier he had sat down with an array of media outlets to brief them on the dossier that he’d given the FBI in July. Out of this came a Sept. 23, 2016, article by Michael Isikoff in Yahoo News, published under the headline “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” The story was a bombshell, blowing the FBI investigation into the public sphere.
The FBI and Justice Department intimately knew this article, as they relied on it as part of their wiretap application. And while Mr. Isikoff did not name Mr. Steele as his source, the FBI should have been able to figure out his identity. The Isikoff article relates specific dossier details, though the dossier wasn’t public at the time. It explains that the “intelligence reports” the FBI was reviewing—the dossier—came from a “well-placed Western intelligence source.” Sen. Chuck Grassley last month referred Mr. Steele to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of whether he lied to the feds about his contacts with the press. From this we can assume that the FBI’s FISA court application claimed Mr. Steele had not worked with the press.
The House memo gives the FBI the benefit of the doubt, stating that Mr. Steele “improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.” Then again, what was the date of this claim? If Mr. Steele told the FBI when he first met with them in July that he’d not briefed media, that would have been accurate as far as we know. Did the FBI ask him again after the Isikoff article?
Even if it did and if he denied talking to reporters, the FBI would have had every reason to believe he was lying. The provenance of the Isikoff article is exceptionally clear. And the FBI could easily have checked Mr. Steele’s recent whereabouts (Britain or the U.S.) or even asked Mr. Isikoff, though he might not have answered. While Mr. Steele might have proved unreliable, there’s reason to wonder if he’d lie outright to the FBI.
The Grassley referral needs be fully declassified, just as the House memo was. The FBI needs to answer straightforward questions about Mr. Steele’s claims, and he needs to provide his version.
The FBI got fooled by a source, or it knew its source was lying, or it didn’t bother to check, or it was too incompetent to see the obvious. Take your pick. None of the possibilities look good, especially if you’re a FISA judge.
This should be required reading by Frankfooter and a few others. but we all know they have fallen into the MSM spin zone and can't get out.
The bureau should have known he was talking to the press—but it told the FISA court he wasn’t.
The House Intelligence Committee memo about 2016 surveillance abuses, released Friday, lays out grave evidence that the FBI wasn’t fully forthcoming with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as it sought an order to wiretap former Trump adviser Carter Page. It’s possible the FBI’s lack of candor was even worse than the memo describes.
Democrats are disputing the memo on lots of grounds, but they’ve said little about the FBI’s failure to inform the court that the bureau had itself decided one of its main sources, dossier author Christopher Steele, was unreliable. Mr. Steele in October 2016 gave Mother Jones an unauthorized interview about the dossier. As a former British intelligence officer, Mr. Steele would have known that sources are not supposed to blab to the press. The interview appeared but a few days before the election, was at the direction of his paymaster, the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, and was clearly designed to help the ultimate client: the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Stuck with a source now brazenly using the FBI for political purposes, the bureau suspended and then terminated Mr. Steele. Only nine days before the Mother Jones interview, the bureau had filed its application for the Page wiretap order, which rested on the Steele dossier. Yet the FBI did not immediately go back to tell the court it no longer trusted Mr. Steele, the author of a crucial piece of evidence.
And the Mother Jones interview wasn’t the first time Mr. Steele went to the press. A month earlier he had sat down with an array of media outlets to brief them on the dossier that he’d given the FBI in July. Out of this came a Sept. 23, 2016, article by Michael Isikoff in Yahoo News, published under the headline “U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin.” The story was a bombshell, blowing the FBI investigation into the public sphere.
The FBI and Justice Department intimately knew this article, as they relied on it as part of their wiretap application. And while Mr. Isikoff did not name Mr. Steele as his source, the FBI should have been able to figure out his identity. The Isikoff article relates specific dossier details, though the dossier wasn’t public at the time. It explains that the “intelligence reports” the FBI was reviewing—the dossier—came from a “well-placed Western intelligence source.” Sen. Chuck Grassley last month referred Mr. Steele to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation of whether he lied to the feds about his contacts with the press. From this we can assume that the FBI’s FISA court application claimed Mr. Steele had not worked with the press.
The House memo gives the FBI the benefit of the doubt, stating that Mr. Steele “improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.” Then again, what was the date of this claim? If Mr. Steele told the FBI when he first met with them in July that he’d not briefed media, that would have been accurate as far as we know. Did the FBI ask him again after the Isikoff article?
Even if it did and if he denied talking to reporters, the FBI would have had every reason to believe he was lying. The provenance of the Isikoff article is exceptionally clear. And the FBI could easily have checked Mr. Steele’s recent whereabouts (Britain or the U.S.) or even asked Mr. Isikoff, though he might not have answered. While Mr. Steele might have proved unreliable, there’s reason to wonder if he’d lie outright to the FBI.
The Grassley referral needs be fully declassified, just as the House memo was. The FBI needs to answer straightforward questions about Mr. Steele’s claims, and he needs to provide his version.
The FBI got fooled by a source, or it knew its source was lying, or it didn’t bother to check, or it was too incompetent to see the obvious. Take your pick. None of the possibilities look good, especially if you’re a FISA judge.
This should be required reading by Frankfooter and a few others. but we all know they have fallen into the MSM spin zone and can't get out.
Steele had previously been used by the FBI for information.
He volunteered the dossier to the FBI, but as far as anyone knows was not under any exclusive contract or NDA with the FBI about giving public access to his own work.
This was after the end of the republican and then democrat contracts, when he was continuing research on treasonous behaviour from Trump on his own dime and publicizing it as his moral duty.
You've been caught in the Trump spin zone and don't realize that if you find evidence your leader is colluding with an enemy state you're supposed to let people know.
This is the funniest yet....
So why don't this champion of justice testify before Congress or Mueller under oath?
He was interviewed by Mueller, man, how do you manage to be wrong so often?
http://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-russia-timeline-2017-10
Why won't Trump speak to Mueller if he's innocent?
I said under oath. And refused to set foot in the USA where lying to the FBI would be a crime. It was done overseas.
So it's nothing. When he is willing to be cross examined under oath is when I will consider it legit.
He was interviewed by Mueller, no oath is needed as lying to the FBI is a federal offence.
Talk to Papadopolous about that.
You are wrong again, buddy.
Sorry it isn't outside of the USA where they have no power.
Talk to me when he lands in the USA.
And remember that he authored this as a paid private citizen and so will be treated as such in a court of law.
There will be no protections for his sources. And will only be admissible if he can be cross examined. And refusing to explain and detail the source will kill it's integrity down to opinion piece.
And remember not a single significant piece of information has so far been proven or verified.
However if it's found to be a wrong then the Fisa warrants and all things arising from them will be inadmissible as well.
Consider that.
Actually it wasn't. They had to track him down after he disappeared once his identity was released.
Here's a good rundown on what's been confirmed and what hasn't.
http://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-russia-timeline-2017-10
Its got some good confirmations.
Its good to also recall that Roger Stone was talking to the Russian hackers.
He hasn't been interviewed by Mueller yet, has he?
This is must reading for anyone interested in this case or justice in general.
most of the Grassley, Graham Criminal Referral has now been mostly un redacted and it's very damaging.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/im...to DOJ FBI (Unclassified Steele Referral).pdf
btw Frankfooter, this is full of FACTS you might want to take note of.
oh and one more thing....Grassley and Graham are NOT fans of Trump
also one name to keep in mind over the next little while is Blumenthal
most of the Grassley, Graham Criminal Referral has now been mostly un redacted and it's very damaging.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/im...to DOJ FBI (Unclassified Steele Referral).pdf
btw Frankfooter, this is full of FACTS you might want to take note of.
oh and one more thing....Grassley and Graham are NOT fans of Trump
also one name to keep in mind over the next little while is Blumenthal
