5 ms·

They published the Steele dossier with ZERO evidence. It's now been completely discredited as a Russian plant the Obama administration knew was from a Russian a

by hajile 6y ago

They published the Steele dossier with ZERO evidence. It's now been completely discredited as a Russian plant the Obama administration knew was from a Russian asset. The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak and it's been vouched for by Tony Bobulinski who definitely has close ties to the Biden family, yet it's not publishable? That's as partisan as it gets and deserves to be called out. EDIT: Do the downvoters have a reason other than ideology, tribalism, and conspiracy theories?

archagon 6y ago
Horseshit. Last I checked, most things in that dossier turned out to be true.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  Can you share the sources which convinced you of the report's veracity? Those sources which I have seen mostly or totally debunked it so it would be interesting to see what made your sources come to a different conclusion. [edit] I must say it is both amazing as well as abhorring to see a post asking for sources to a statement which goes counter the current narrative to be downvoted (currently at -4) as if the question is somehow offensive. Wake up, folks, the truth shall set you free. Seeking for it is not a crime, at least not yet. [/edit]
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Wikpedia has a whole section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_corroboration_status_of_specific_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_co...
    - nailer 6y ago
      Wikipedia also had a section on the russiagate conspiracy which states: > The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
      - zbyte64 6y ago
        The dossier is a mixed bag in terms of accuracy and rigor, but I find it interesting most people focus on "no collusion" but ignore all the rest of the claims. Like: > The Mueller Report backed "Steele's central claim that the Russians ran a 'sweeping and systematic' operation ... to help Trump win".[7] James Comey said: The bureau began an effort after we got the Steele dossier to try and see how much of it we could replicate. That work was ongoing when I was fired. Some of it was consistent with our other intelligence, the most important part. The Steele dossier said the Russians are coming for the American election. It's a huge effort. It has multiple goals ... And that was true.
      - ModernMech 6y ago
        Mueller understood his mandate was to investigate before the fact conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. When people allege "collusion" between Trump and Russia, they are not talking about a before the fact conspiracy, but rather tacit and sometimes explicit coordination between the two groups to benefit one another. Mueller kept his investigation very narrow in that sense, and failed to pursue various avenues of investigation, including not even looking at any financial ties between Trump and Russia (of which there are many, as confessed by Eric Trump). In fact the Mueller Report notes that the Trump, his campaign, and his associates obstructed the investigation by lying and destroying evidence. So a finding of insufficient evidence doesn't really put the issue to bed. Mueller didn't even interview Trump in person, and Trump lied to Mueller in his written responses to questions. In fact, the Republican-chaired Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a later report which expands on the Mueller probe, and it more or less confirms what those who alleged "collusion" were saying all along. Remember, the original position Trump took was that there were zero contacts between his campaign and Russia. No contacts, no deals. The Mueller Report and later the SSCI report lay out over 100 contacts between Trump and Russian intelligence and government officials. In particular: - Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a convicted Russian Spy in Trump's house on behalf of the Russian government. The Trump Campaign was very eager to meet with her. The spy laid out specific terms: in exchange for dirt on Hillary Clinton, they expected the relaxation of sanctions levied by the Magnitsky act. - Paul Manafort in fact turned over internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer. From the Senate Committee: "The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign," ... "The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight in to the Campaign". - In the trial of Roger Stone, we learned that Stone actually gave Trump advance notice to Trump of hacked DNC e-mails, as Stone was in direct communication with Julian Assange. Trump had previously been briefed by the FBI about foreign interference in the campaign, and he failed to alert the FBI of the incoming hacked information. In fact he kept quiet about this, and instead not only did he trumpet the hacked e-mails at every opportunity, he actively encouraged the hackers to try to obtain more information. - From Michael Cohen we learned that Trump's claims of having no active deals in Russia was a lie, when in fact Trump was attempting to get a tower built in Moscow, complete with a penthouse gift for Vladimir Putin. It was reported by Buzzfeed that Trump instructed Cohen to lie about this, and while Mueller disputed this, we later learned that in fact when Cohen lied to Congress about the existence of this deal, he was doing so with the understanding that it was Trump's wish for him to do so. Whatever Cohen's motivation though, we do know Trump wanted to keep it a secret from the American people and he himself lied to all of us about the existence of a deal. - Fast forward to Trump's actual presidency, and he has done everything he can to show deference to Russia, from pushing for Russia to rejoin the G8 (from which they were expelled for the invasion of Crimea), to making blundering strategic decisions in Turkey to Russia's benefit, to siding with Putin over the assessment that Russia was not responsible for hacking the DNC, to pushing the idea that in fact it was Ukraine that was responsible for hacking the DNC. And after all of this, there still has not been a rigorous accounting of Trump's financial ties to Russia, of which there are many, and there has not been a counterintelligence investigation into the relationship. Not by Mueller, not by the House, the Senate, the FBI, or any other body. Given all of the above and everything we know about how Trump operates. So was there a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? No, probably not, and this was not alleged by most of us who had an issue with the relationship between Trump and Russia. Was there collusion? I think the Manafort incident alone proves yes. Trump's campaign manager hands over internal campaign data to what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence characterizes as a "Russian Intelligence Officer", while the GRU is hacking the DNC and targeting voters with a psyops campaign. Yeah, that's collusion.
    - hajile 6y ago
      It's not like those articles are locked down and written by partisans... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-document-indicates-fbi-misled-congress-on-reliability-of-steele-dossier https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-de... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsheet-puts-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsh... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/fbi-declassified-documents-trump-russia-probe-reve/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/fbi-declass... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/carter-page-fbi-surveillance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/carter-page-f... Each new release like the FBI spreadsheet on the dossier gets more and more to the point that it was a knowing hit piece. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-declassifies-steele-dossier-spreadsheet https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-declassifies-steele-dos... Even the investigating agents themselves were buying liability insurance and saying it was a BS hit job: > “[D]oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” > “[T]he new AG might have some questions….then yada yada yada…we all get screwed,” > “I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]” > “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]? https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosi... As to the inevitable "partisan sources", I'd love to offer something from a "neutral" or left-leaning source, but they censor all the things instead.
- PenisBanana 6y ago
  Well, you've made one true statement: The last time you "checked" ... ahem ... that was when "most things in that dossier turned out to be true." Dishonesty, and turtles, all the way down.
iron0013 6y ago
I believe downvoters are likely responding to the factual inaccuracies in your post; not to mention the tone.
- vanattab 6y ago
  What are the factual inaccuracies in the parent comment? I am new to this topic and it would help me if you pointed to what specifically he said that was inaccurate and why you believe so.
ModernMech 6y ago
>The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak DNI John Ratcliffe, who is a Republican partisan, said that on Fox News. He was also just caught lying to the FBI director in making a partisan assessment (with zero to back it up) in a statement about election interference by Iran last week. He's not exactly a credible and dispassionate actor in all of this.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  The FBI also concurred with the DNI’s claim that the IC has no intelligence to suggest the laptop is Russian disinformation, by saying “we have nothing to add.” Additionally, a senate committee has determined and announced that they believe the evidence Bobulinski presented is authentic.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    "We have nothing to add" is not "concurring". You're making a leap of logic there. It's the same thing as saying "we can neither confirm nor deny". The "Senate Committee" you speak of is chaired by Ron Johnson, who is a staunch Trump ally and again, a rank partisan. In order for the general public to have any degree of trust about this, there is going to have to be some authority who is at least not a partisan who can speak with authority to actual facts. Not vague "assurances" with no evidence. This issue is way too political to trust Republicans, especially after Benghazi (went nowhere after dozens of investigations by partisans) and Hillary's e-mails (went nowhere after a whole year of hyping it up as the worst crime ever by a politician). This entire thing just smells like the next big Republican freakout over nothing.
    - TechBro8615 6y ago
      Could you give an example of an authority you would trust to verify the authenticity of the evidence? Edit: Update! Robert Graham (of Errata Security) has verified the DKIM headers of the “smoking gun” email — https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768 https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768

by hajile 6y ago

archagon 6y ago

Horseshit. Last I checked, most things in that dossier turned out to be true.

Yetanfou 6y ago
Can you share the sources which convinced you of the report's veracity? Those sources which I have seen mostly or totally debunked it so it would be interesting to see what made your sources come to a different conclusion. [edit] I must say it is both amazing as well as abhorring to see a post asking for sources to a statement which goes counter the current narrative to be downvoted (currently at -4) as if the question is somehow offensive. Wake up, folks, the truth shall set you free. Seeking for it is not a crime, at least not yet. [/edit]
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Wikpedia has a whole section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_corroboration_status_of_specific_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Veracity_and_co...
  - nailer 6y ago
    Wikipedia also had a section on the russiagate conspiracy which states: > The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
    - zbyte64 6y ago
      The dossier is a mixed bag in terms of accuracy and rigor, but I find it interesting most people focus on "no collusion" but ignore all the rest of the claims. Like: > The Mueller Report backed "Steele's central claim that the Russians ran a 'sweeping and systematic' operation ... to help Trump win".[7] James Comey said: The bureau began an effort after we got the Steele dossier to try and see how much of it we could replicate. That work was ongoing when I was fired. Some of it was consistent with our other intelligence, the most important part. The Steele dossier said the Russians are coming for the American election. It's a huge effort. It has multiple goals ... And that was true.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      Mueller understood his mandate was to investigate before the fact conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. When people allege "collusion" between Trump and Russia, they are not talking about a before the fact conspiracy, but rather tacit and sometimes explicit coordination between the two groups to benefit one another. Mueller kept his investigation very narrow in that sense, and failed to pursue various avenues of investigation, including not even looking at any financial ties between Trump and Russia (of which there are many, as confessed by Eric Trump). In fact the Mueller Report notes that the Trump, his campaign, and his associates obstructed the investigation by lying and destroying evidence. So a finding of insufficient evidence doesn't really put the issue to bed. Mueller didn't even interview Trump in person, and Trump lied to Mueller in his written responses to questions. In fact, the Republican-chaired Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a later report which expands on the Mueller probe, and it more or less confirms what those who alleged "collusion" were saying all along. Remember, the original position Trump took was that there were zero contacts between his campaign and Russia. No contacts, no deals. The Mueller Report and later the SSCI report lay out over 100 contacts between Trump and Russian intelligence and government officials. In particular: - Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a convicted Russian Spy in Trump's house on behalf of the Russian government. The Trump Campaign was very eager to meet with her. The spy laid out specific terms: in exchange for dirt on Hillary Clinton, they expected the relaxation of sanctions levied by the Magnitsky act. - Paul Manafort in fact turned over internal campaign data to a Russian intelligence officer. From the Senate Committee: "The Committee found that Manafort's presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign," ... "The Committee assesses that Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort's access to gain insight in to the Campaign". - In the trial of Roger Stone, we learned that Stone actually gave Trump advance notice to Trump of hacked DNC e-mails, as Stone was in direct communication with Julian Assange. Trump had previously been briefed by the FBI about foreign interference in the campaign, and he failed to alert the FBI of the incoming hacked information. In fact he kept quiet about this, and instead not only did he trumpet the hacked e-mails at every opportunity, he actively encouraged the hackers to try to obtain more information. - From Michael Cohen we learned that Trump's claims of having no active deals in Russia was a lie, when in fact Trump was attempting to get a tower built in Moscow, complete with a penthouse gift for Vladimir Putin. It was reported by Buzzfeed that Trump instructed Cohen to lie about this, and while Mueller disputed this, we later learned that in fact when Cohen lied to Congress about the existence of this deal, he was doing so with the understanding that it was Trump's wish for him to do so. Whatever Cohen's motivation though, we do know Trump wanted to keep it a secret from the American people and he himself lied to all of us about the existence of a deal. - Fast forward to Trump's actual presidency, and he has done everything he can to show deference to Russia, from pushing for Russia to rejoin the G8 (from which they were expelled for the invasion of Crimea), to making blundering strategic decisions in Turkey to Russia's benefit, to siding with Putin over the assessment that Russia was not responsible for hacking the DNC, to pushing the idea that in fact it was Ukraine that was responsible for hacking the DNC. And after all of this, there still has not been a rigorous accounting of Trump's financial ties to Russia, of which there are many, and there has not been a counterintelligence investigation into the relationship. Not by Mueller, not by the House, the Senate, the FBI, or any other body. Given all of the above and everything we know about how Trump operates. So was there a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? No, probably not, and this was not alleged by most of us who had an issue with the relationship between Trump and Russia. Was there collusion? I think the Manafort incident alone proves yes. Trump's campaign manager hands over internal campaign data to what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence characterizes as a "Russian Intelligence Officer", while the GRU is hacking the DNC and targeting voters with a psyops campaign. Yeah, that's collusion.
  - hajile 6y ago
    It's not like those articles are locked down and written by partisans... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-document-indicates-fbi-misled-congress-on-reliability-of-steele-dossier https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-de... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsheet-puts-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-steeles-dossier https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453384-fbis-spreadsh... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/fbi-declassified-documents-trump-russia-probe-reve/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/fbi-declass... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/carter-page-fbi-surveillance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/us/politics/carter-page-f... Each new release like the FBI spreadsheet on the dossier gets more and more to the point that it was a knowing hit piece. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-declassifies-steele-dossier-spreadsheet https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-declassifies-steele-dos... Even the investigating agents themselves were buying liability insurance and saying it was a BS hit job: > “[D]oing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a [C]linton presidency,” > “[T]he new AG might have some questions….then yada yada yada…we all get screwed,” > “I’m tellying [sic] man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked,” one agent wrote. “[A]nd a great deal of those will be related to Brian having a scope way outside the boundaries of logic[.]” > “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]? https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosive-new-fbi-texts-detail-internal-furor-over-handling-of-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/trump-was-right-explosi... As to the inevitable "partisan sources", I'd love to offer something from a "neutral" or left-leaning source, but they censor all the things instead.
PenisBanana 6y ago
Well, you've made one true statement: The last time you "checked" ... ahem ... that was when "most things in that dossier turned out to be true." Dishonesty, and turtles, all the way down.

iron0013 6y ago

I believe downvoters are likely responding to the factual inaccuracies in your post; not to mention the tone.

vanattab 6y ago
What are the factual inaccuracies in the parent comment? I am new to this topic and it would help me if you pointed to what specifically he said that was inaccurate and why you believe so.

ModernMech 6y ago

>The US government has officially said there's no Russian involvement in the recent Biden leak DNI John Ratcliffe, who is a Republican partisan, said that on Fox News. He was also just caught lying to the FBI director in making a partisan assessment (with zero to back it up) in a statement about election interference by Iran last week. He's not exactly a credible and dispassionate actor in all of this.

TechBro8615 6y ago
The FBI also concurred with the DNI’s claim that the IC has no intelligence to suggest the laptop is Russian disinformation, by saying “we have nothing to add.” Additionally, a senate committee has determined and announced that they believe the evidence Bobulinski presented is authentic.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  "We have nothing to add" is not "concurring". You're making a leap of logic there. It's the same thing as saying "we can neither confirm nor deny". The "Senate Committee" you speak of is chaired by Ron Johnson, who is a staunch Trump ally and again, a rank partisan. In order for the general public to have any degree of trust about this, there is going to have to be some authority who is at least not a partisan who can speak with authority to actual facts. Not vague "assurances" with no evidence. This issue is way too political to trust Republicans, especially after Benghazi (went nowhere after dozens of investigations by partisans) and Hillary's e-mails (went nowhere after a whole year of hyping it up as the worst crime ever by a politician). This entire thing just smells like the next big Republican freakout over nothing.
  - TechBro8615 6y ago
    Could you give an example of an authority you would trust to verify the authenticity of the evidence? Edit: Update! Robert Graham (of Errata Security) has verified the DKIM headers of the “smoking gun” email — https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768 https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768