Also the Mueller report… not a Dossier. Not raw intelligence, but thoroughly investigated and mostly prosecuted evidence. The right loves to push this lie that the Dossier and all of that report are the same thing. It’s preying on ignorance and the people that try this are just straight up liars. Thankfully I don’t think people are as dumb as those people would like them to be so the lies are just spent convincing people who are already convinced and believe whatever they want to believe that reinforces their right wing fantasy land.
If they aren't claiming they are true, they aren't lies. The Dossier never claimed any of the information was definitely true. You need to go back and research what an intelligence Dossier actually is and what it isn't. Dossier are not all there is to Intel gathering. It's merely a collection of circulating rumors that warrant further investigation. That is the sole purpose of them and they don't claim to be anything more. The fact that the media initially didn't understand and that you and few others haven't bothered to learn doesn't change anything. This has been explained to you many times at this point.
Lies isn't something an intelligence Dossier can ever be. It is literally impossible. It doesn't matter what it says.
The Clinton Admin had received a Dossier of intelligence about Bin Laden that was then given to the Bush admin. Since it is raw intelligence should the Bush admin (or did they..) treat such as a “pack of lies” or should they have thoroughly investigated??
Investigated the most credible parts at least. That's the whole purpose. It gives them an idea if they should investigate anything in the Dossier to see if it is true, partly true, or not true at all.
Right so when you uncover documented evidence like a letter of intent to build Trump Tower Moscow directly with the Kremlin does that tell the FBI to continue to pursue leads or does it tell you to call it a hoax and prosecute those who tipped off the FBI like John McCain who was the first person I believe to bring the Dossier to the FBI?? It’s exhausting to keep up but allowing the Trump Russia narrative from the right to go unchecked is wrong. It’s truly one of the most baffling things a president has ever gotten away with and it’s as close as we’ve come to a sitting president truly on the payroll or influenced by a hostile foreign power.
Exactly. I'm in 100% agreement. It's strange that @basso and a tiny few others are so worked up over what is essentially their misunderstanding of the Steele Dossier and Intel Dossier in general. Their complaints are like saying if Hank Aaron was so good, how come he never won an NBA championship. He never even made it to the NBA playoffs. That proves Hank Aaron was no good.
A dossier is a collection of information that may or may not be true - it's just unverified intelligence. Some of that information in the dossier has turned out to be false, some of it has turned out to be true. The problem is that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water here. It's not a binary thing - either all true or all false. The press made mistakes for sure and jumped to conclusions, but that doesn't make it faulty intelligence or not. Some of that intelligence turned out to be true, and that alone is alarming. Instead you're focusing on siding with victimhood here. That because some of it was false it's the great injustice. But it's not.
For those crying about "no collusion" https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ia-collusion-and-trump-pardoned-the-colluder/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillar...a-bank-11653084709?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s Hillary Clinton Did It Her 2016 campaign manager says she approved a plan to plant a false Russia claim with a reporter. By The Editorial Board May 20, 2022 6:39 pm ET The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 and beyond was a dirty trick for the ages, and now we know it came from the top—candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court, and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingerprints on the political weapon. Mr. Mook testified as a witness in special counsel John Durham’s trial of Michael Sussmann, the lawyer accused of lying to the FBI. In September 2016, Mr. Sussmann took claims of a secret Trump connection to Russia’s Alfa Bank to the FBI and said he wasn’t acting on behalf of any client. Prosecutors say he was working for the Clinton campaign. Prosecutors presented evidence this week that Mr. Sussmann worked with cyber-researchers and opposition-research firm Fusion GPS to produce the claims on behalf of the Clinton campaign, and to feed them to the FBI. An FBI agent testified that a bureau analysis quickly rejected the claims as implausible. (Mr. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.) Prosecutors asked Mr. Mook about his role in funneling the Alfa Bank claims to the press. Mr. Mook admitted the campaign lacked expertise to vet the data, yet the decision was made by Mr. Mook, policy adviser Jake Sullivan (now President Biden’s national security adviser), communications director Jennifer Palmieri and campaign chairman John Podesta to give the Alfa Bank claims to a reporter. Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations then appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication. On Oct. 31, 2016, Mr. Sullivan issued a statement mentioning the Slate story, writing, “This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.” Mrs. Clinton tweeted Mr. Sullivan’s statement with the comment: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.” “Apparently” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true. Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage. Appeared in the May 21, 2022, print edition.
I will continue not voting for Hillary Clinton. What a stupid move since Trump's campaign was legitimately in bed with the Russians. Why bother to use a fake story? Idiots
3 year Durham investigation and all they learned was that the Clinton campaign hired some techies to look for ties to Russia, didn't vet it, told the FBi, then leaked to the press. That is supposed to be some big scandal?
Yeah, it's been known the Trump campaign received the DNC and Clinton playbook from foreign sources If this was eggball and playbooks were stolen, fans would start a riot and trash some property.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...rise-for-hillary-or-a-smart-defense-strategy/ Mook’s testimony at Sussmann trial: A surprise for Hillary, or a smart defense strategy? by Kevin R. Brock, Opinion Contributor 05/23/22 12:30 PM ET While cable news cherished the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard defamation trial this past week for its revenue-generating clickbait value, special prosecutor John Durham brought Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann before a jury to determine whether he lied to the FBI — a trial that has actual value for the nation. Durham believes Americans are owed the truth about what he contends was the Clinton campaign’s efforts to create or use false information about her opponent in order to deceive voters into choosing her in the 2016 presidential election. Is making up false dossiers and a story about a Donald Trump “hotline” to the Kremlin against the law? Maybe not a lot of it. But Durham accuses the Clinton team of simply making up false stories in their lust for power — a fraud-in-effect against the American people that requires exposure and condemnation. Otherwise, we will see more of it as a campaign strategy in future elections. Everyone knows that politics is a contact sport and “dirty tricks” and “October Surprises” are routine ploys. But most of these result from opposition research that uncovers information linked to some true fact, such as a DUI arrest, an extramarital affair, a youthful indiscretion, or a cringeworthy photo with some undesirable person. The Sussmann trial is helping to document a different approach by the Clinton campaign. According to Durham, they simply made up a stunning scale of false allegations and disinformation, unprecedented in presidential politics, in their attempt to sway the election and then, having failed, to undermine the new administration to which they lost. This has cost the country dearly. The trial is moving rapidly, which is to be expected on a single charge of lying to the FBI (18 USC 1001). Durham’s prosecution team expertly introduced evidence refuting Sussmann’s claim that he was simply acting as a concerned citizen, and not on behalf of any client, when he passed on information to the FBI about supposed links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The prosecution was able to 1) establish that Sussmann made that claim in a text message to then-FBI general counsel James Baker; 2) secure Baker’s testimony to that fact in trial; 3) show that Baker immediately reported Sussmann’s claim to others in the FBI as reflected in notes of other FBI executives; and 4) show that Sussmann billed the hours of his interactions with the FBI to the Clinton campaign, his client. The motivation for Sussmann’s alleged lie is not an element of the crime, only his intent to deceive. Sussmann is charged with delivering a lie in order to conceal facts that might have kept the FBI from acting in a way that Sussmann and his client desired. Lying to the FBI is, essentially, fraud against the government, since the FBI is being urged to commit taxpayer resources that it might not choose to if it knew the whole truth. It carries a potential five-year prison sentence, which is no joke for D.C. attorneys whose idea of discomfort is the Capital Grille running out of lobster tail. So why did Sussman, knowing the prosecution’s compelling evidence, take his chances with a jury trial? What follows is pure speculation but not without logic. First, he has access to some of the most expensive attorneys in the country who are highly skilled at persuading juries or, at least, sowing reasonable doubt. In addition, recent weeks have seen a flurry of pretrial motions indicating what the presiding judge may or may not allow in his court; not all of his decisions were favorable to the prosecution. Also, the jury of Sussmann’s peers has been drawn from the deep-blue District of Columbia. That said, our system largely works because judges, regardless of who appointed them, and juries generally attempt to adjudicate within the four corners of the law. But these intangibles may help explain why Sussmann decided to roll the dice. On Friday, Sussmann’s defense team began to telegraph their likely strategy. It does not appear to include a direct attack on the evidence of Sussmann’s lie as alleged by the prosecution; that evidence is formidable and compelling. Instead, they look ready to portray the Clinton campaign as hapless victims desperate to overcome damage they believe the FBI did to them. The defense called Clinton’s 2106 campaign manager, Robby Mook, who promptly, and surprisingly, testified that Hillary Clinton approved the strategy to take to the media the same false information about a Trump/Russia “hotline” that Sussmann wanted the FBI to investigate. Conservative media characterized the admission of Clinton’s direct involvement as a dagger to the defense’s case. But, hold on, not so fast: Mook also testified that the campaign believed the FBI significantly damaged its electoral chances when then-FBI director James Comey, on July 5, 2016, held his infamous ill-advised news conference and then prematurely alerted Congress that he was reopening a case against Clinton in late October 2016. Mook testified that the campaign believed Comey did more damage to their chances than Donald Trump. Mook, frankly, has a point. Comey’s widely covered press-conference-trashing of Clinton, whom he was unwilling to indict, and his poor October decision to unnecessarily reopen her case just before the election were both unfair. Comey wasn’t just ineptly out of his swim lane; he was out of the pool. However, is Mook’s testimony germane to the elements of Sussmann’s alleged criminal lie? No, it’s not, but if the defense can depict Hillary Clinton as a sympathetic victim of FBI unfairness, driven to desperate measures to rebalance her campaign’s chances, then they only need to convince one Clinton-voting juror that Sussmann was simply trying to right a wrong. The defense appears ready to put the FBI on trial as well, if it can. It was a strategy that worked to a degree in the recent unrelated trial of defendants accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. There is anger and suspicion directed towards the FBI from both the right and the left, thanks to the residual destructive legacy of the Bureau’s Comey era. But Durham has his eye on exposing much larger truths than Sussmann’s untruths. Within that context, Mook’s testimony helps Durham’s overall goals. Win or lose at trial against Sussmann, Durham still will paint a disturbing picture of which Sussmann is but a small pixel. His trial, one way or another, is an important conduit to explain to the country how the 2016 Clinton campaign embarked on a strategy to fabricate information about her opponent in order to deceive American voters into voting for her, not for him. A strategy based on lies can never be justified. Kevin R. Brock is a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.
Maybe the most hilariously ironic thing a Trump supporter has ever written. The Durham truthers are some really sad people. You are just pushing all your efforts into creating a false narrative for people who would vote for Trump even if you poisoned them, and the only antidote was to cast a vote for a Democrat. Meanwhile Volume 2 of the Mueller Report has never been debunked. The letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow has never been debunked. Trump/Putin/Helsinki has never been proven to be a deep fake. The Don Jr./Manafort meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower has never been debunked. etc. etc. etc. You can't erase history as much as you think you can by thinking everyone is as stupid and ignorant as a Trump supporter. Trump was and is a threat to this country because of his ties to Russia, and now the Saudi's especially with Jared Kushner now being in debt 2 billion freaking dollars to them which means Ivanka is in debt which means Trump is in debt. So give me a freaking break. If someone lied to the FBI then sure... charge him or her. But don't treat me as if I'm a freaking moron please. There has never been someone who needed to be investigated for ties to Russians more in the history of our nation as Donald Trump and it's all of his own making. Nobody on the Clinton Campaign forced him to sign a letter of intent WITH THE KREMLIN. That's on his dumb a$$.
