Dossier debunked

Prove it.

 

My point stands.

The fact that many of the major stories of the Trump Russia scandal started out as reports for "unnamed sources" is not in dispute. Most of them were subsequenty corraborated.

The pattern is now so well established, that no one assigns any credibility to White House denials. (this is not helped by the fact that the President lies as a matter of habit).

When the Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal run a story from "unnamed sources" their editors know who the sources are,and have corraborating reports from other credible sources to back them up. This is standard practice in professional journalism, and was the pattern the Post followed in Watergate.

Then, as now, the Post almost never got the story wrong.

 

OK, so you've got exactly two! As many on this thread have pointed out.

You really ought to read you own links before you offer these as evidence again!!!!

Your loud boast about the Comey testimony is especially ironic, since it turned out to be true.

And the CNN story was that Congress was investigating Russian ties to the Trump Organization, which was false. Aw we saw with Devin Nunes' antics, Congress isn't investigating much of anything.

 

I'll take the trouble to educate you a bit on FISA warrants. FISA can be issued for foreign agents of some kind in the United States with significant but moderate supporting information. FISA can be issued for American citizens but this requires mountains of information and attests and oaths and stuff. Once a FISA warrant is issued they can surveil, spy on, eavesdrop, intercept any conversation the target has; it does not matter if the target talks to foreigners or citizens, thought there are special handling requirements if the other party talking to Page is a citizen. (But sometimes, like in Flynn's case, those special handling requirements are not followed closely.)
As loose as it was, Carter Page was the only Trump contact that, if stretched enough, could support a FISA warrant. But the FBI and NSA were not interested in Page but in people in the campaign that Page might communicate with. If those people were citizens they would have to shuffle around the special handling requirements, but they know how to do that.
I don't know if any information was gleaned from the Page FISA warrant.

 

When you've lost Maher, the left has lost the denial war....

 

Most?

Which ones?

 

The fact that The Hillary Campaign paid for it is debunking enough.

 

Apparently you need to watch the video again.

 

But.........you know Steele didn't know who the client was and Clinton had no idea who was doing the research.....right?

 

Sure, sure....Hillary and obama always set things up that way so they can look innocent. That is what career criminals do.

 

Probably true. Just another mythical dry hole, so onward to the next rock to look under. Problem is this look under every rock witch hunt is costing us tens of millions.

 

The golden showers episode was the most explosive of the dossier and got the most attention. A FISA warrant permits surveilance of the target and anybody the target talks to, with some special handling requirements if the second party is an American.

 

As I wrote, not my first rodeo. As to Comey's testimony, if it were true, why was the NYT forced to retract their stories?

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/...anding-lie-about-russian-hacking-aa3fedb191ac
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/20...ting-that-bots-forced-al-frankens-resignation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevl...ssian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#7f7e56037ad5
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/yet-another-anonymously-sourced-trump-russia-story-falls-apart/

BTW, how do a make a loud boast, when it's in writing?

Might want to dial back the dramatic verbiage a tad....

 

Apparently you need to watch it a least once....

Look for the click bait reference and beyond.....

"The news media lost trust because they became eyeball-chasing clickbait whores.”.​

 

Golden showers? To you that was the most explosive charge in the dossier?

Not the fact that operatives in the name of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to commit an illegal act and attack our political system? Or our President's involvement in money laundering deals with the Russian mafia?

I don't think that a Golden Shower is even illegal in Russia... it's just... yucky

 

Here is a statement from an Isikoff/Corn book reviewer: First, Isikoff and Corn suggest, without saying so explicitly, that the available circumstantial evidence makes the "golden showers" story very unlikely. Reconstructing Trump's time in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant, Isikoff and Corn report that Trump stayed just one night in Moscow. (Trump did in fact stay in the Ritz Carlton presidential suite where Obama had been a few years earlier.) After arriving in Moscow, Trump attended a brief meeting at the hotel and then left for a day of meetings elsewhere.
Here are two quotes from their book: "The memo had described Millian [Steele's source for the golden showers story] as a Trump intimate, but there was no public evidence he was close to the mogul at that time or was in Moscow during the Miss Universe event. Had Millian made something up or repeated rumors he had heard from others to impress Steele's collector? Simpson had his doubts. He considered Millian a big talker." And, "As for the likelihood of the claim that prostitutes had urinated in Trump's presence, Steele would say to colleagues, 'It's fifty-fifty.'"
You probably do not want to, but you can get more detail here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-trump-dossier-authors-doubt-golden-shower-allegation

 

Wrong...the tinkle tapes...was the most salacious part of the Steel dossier but no where near the most important or damning part.

And that part of the Dossier had ZERO to do with the FISA warrant issued on Carter Page. (how could Trump peeing on a hooker impact Carter Page...are you saying he was in the room?)

A FISA warrant is ONLY good in regards to the subject speaking with FOREIGN subjects

 

The NYT article is about Trump campaign officials meeting with Russian intelligence officers. I don't know what Comey meant by "Wrong in the main" but it wasn't a blanket statement on the article as we know now.

 

Lee Atwater said: What disinformation against Don? The only kind that's out there is favorable disinformation spread by folks like you.

The good Russian disinformation posts were for Donald, the bad ones were for Hillary. You have no factual information at all to demonstrate any Russian propagit was against Donald.

 

[QUOTE="TomFitz, post: 1068827416, member: 61356".........Are you going to sit there and tell us our government had no cause for concern when they see a man whom they know was recruited by Russian intelligence identifed as a "senior foreign policy advisor" to a US Presidential candidate? Let's see what kind of funhouse mirror rationalization Trumpsters can come up with for that![/QUOTE] Carter Page was completely exonerated by the FBI, did not know until the FBI told him that his contacts were Russian operatives, and was thanked by the FBI for helping to convict one of his three contacts. You tell me: where is a bona fide cause for concern in your funhouse mirror rationalization.

 

Please prove your assertion.

Carry on.

 

Carter Page was completely exonerated by the FBI, did not know until the FBI told him that his contacts were Russian operatives, and was thanked by the FBI for helping to convict one of his three contacts. You tell me: where is a bona fide cause for concern in your funhouse mirror rationalization.[/QUOTE]
Link please

 

Except as I have explained a number of times, the FBI at the time completely exonerated Page from being involved with Russian operatives. (I have no idea what you imply with "machinations," whatever they are.) and thanked him for helping convict one of his contacts. My infirmity just got much better, thank you.

 

RodB is confused with a story a year ago.

 

Go read the NY Times article. If you can't or won't find it, too bad.

ps I'll back off on my rhetoric. The Times did write a story detailing the Page incidents that put Page in a non-negative light. But such articles are not the norm and not easy to find. 98% of such articles leave off certain details or slant it in certain ways to leave the impression that Page was a bad lying hombre.