The Robert Mueller Investigation

[wildcat09 29,597]

Russia has bounties out on American soldiers in Afghanistan and in response Trump has said Russia should be readmitted to the G8. But yeah, it’s just a total conspiracy theory to think he’s working with them.

[Anastasis 23,724]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Russia has bounties out on American soldiers in Afghanistan and in response Trump has said Russia should be readmitted to the G8. But yeah, it’s just a total conspiracy theory to think he’s working with them.

That's a concerning and interesting set of articles from the NYT and WaPo, for sure.  Definitely warrants a deep dive into the IC's findings. But one thing that the history of this thread should challenge us on is the uncritical acceptance of stories based on anonymous sources from within the intelligence community. Remember some of the previous exchanges where we would see articles pop up across various media sources in sequence, and you could pretty tell the affiliation of the source, and the angle they were running? Remember how many times those reports were clearly an attempt to simply craft a narrative favoring the FBI/CIA/Steele/etc?

But put that specific history aside for a minute...

The bread and butter of the intelligence community is manipulation of public opinion via compliant media outlets. At the very least, we should consider the potential motivations behind such planted stories by considering the timing and context, and what outcome may be intended by the publication.

In this case, that potential motivation is scuttling talks that aim to get our military forces out of Afghanistan.

News of the murky initiative comes as American diplomats attempt to kindle political talks that could put end to America’s longest war, now in its 19th year.

But hey, I mean, this would be unheard of right?  The IC would never seek to justify warmongering based on manipulation and framing of intelligence products, would it?

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Anastasis

[SmokeyTheBear 5,569]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

McCain was not "the one who handed the dossier to the FBI".  Once again, you fail at the details.

Steele delivered the first iterations of his material directly to his FBI handler in London in early July. Through Ohr (a connection forged largely around Steele's connection to Russian Oligarchs, e.g. Deripaska), Steele pressed his FBI contacts to ensure that the material had is intended purchase. Steele also briefed Winer (State), who delivered a transcribed copy based on his read in to contacts at State. Steele than seeded the material with David Corn (reporter), who wrote an article in the days before the election, and who then delivered a separate version to James Baker in November(FBI lawyer). After the election, Steele coordinated though British diplomatic contacts to outreach McCain, who ultimately delivered a separate version to the FBI in December. 

If you look at the pattern, the Perkins Coie/Fusion operation used these triangulated methods of seeding their conspiracy material. They did the same thing with the server conspiracy, using multiple media, State, and FBI contacts to push their conspiracy narrative. Multiple angles played, some of which serve to provide circular corroboration to bolster the credibility of the reporting.  Steele clearly used this strategy to boost the appearance of his own credibility.  This wasn't people channeling things to the proper forums for investigation, it was a well coordinated and multifaceted attempt to channel very specific fantasies cut from whole cloth in attempt to influence the election.

Roger Stone is a reckless buffoon and represents the absolute worst of American politics, but he is not sophisticated enough to pull off this kind of operation. If he did, your heads would be exploding over it. 

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy talk to me. 

Oh, and potato/potato. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-dossier-fbi/index.html

And again, let's all focus on Clinton and the bang up job they did stealing the election with Steele and Russia helping them (if that's even the case) when we know what Trump and team has and are doing (or maybe Mueller and fbi and other investigative bodies are all in on it??!! ). But "deep state" and "both sides" and all that. 

[Anastasis 23,724]

13 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy talk to me. 

Sorry you don't pay attention to details.

Yes, McCain was one of the means of introduction to the FBI, but he passed it off much later and was not "the one who handed it to the FBI".  The material existed inside the FBI long before December, and was introduced by Steele directly. Later by a reporter.  Later by state department contacts.  And yet later still through british diplomatic channels via John McCain.

You can dismiss that as conspiracy talk, but it is all part of the congressional testimony and various public reports related to the matter. And it fits a basic pattern of operation. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Anastasis

[SmokeyTheBear 5,569]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sorry you don't pay attention to details.

Yes, McCain was one of the means of introduction to the FBI, but he passed it off much later and was not "the one who handed it to the FBI".  The material existed inside the FBI long before December, and was introduced by Steele directly. Later by a reporter.  Later by state department contacts.  And yet later still through british diplomatic channels via John McCain.

You can dismiss that as conspiracy talk, but it is all part of the congressional testimony and various public reports related to the matter. And it fits a basic pattern of operation. 

Cool. So it was all handed off to the FBI and was done so on the premise that they blindly accept it as truth and they prosecuted a bunch of people off of it and Trump wrongly lost the election. I totally get your point and why you feel you need to address this over and over and over. It's truly a tragedy of our system, maybe Trump will do something about it. 

[Mdhorn 6,166]

Why the Mueller Investigation Failed

an interesting surmise of the investigation.  Mueller basically gave Trump a lot of leeway just by maintaining silence and by not subpoenaing DOTARD.  For brevity, this article glosses over a bunch of characters and their crimes, such as Flynn and Manafort is barely mentioned.  But these characters are really necessary and noteworthy.  The article instead focuses on Mueller's report, why he presented it the way he did and the fallout, including briefings between he and Barr where Mueller shits the bed.  It's a pretty intense read and I'd love to see the board lawyer takes.      

[bolverk 30,362]

Doesn't look like we'll learn anything new before the election.

Justices keep hold on secret Russia investigation material

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is denying Congress access to secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation through the November election.

The justices agreed on Thursday to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court order for the material to be turned over to the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. The high court’s action will keep the documents out of congressional hands at least until the case is resolved, which is not likely to happen before 2021.

Cont'd

[Biff Tannen 46,192]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Doesn't look like we'll learn anything new before the election.

Justices keep hold on secret Russia investigation material

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is denying Congress access to secret grand jury testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation through the November election.

The justices agreed on Thursday to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower court order for the material to be turned over to the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. The high court’s action will keep the documents out of congressional hands at least until the case is resolved, which is not likely to happen before 2021.

Cont'd

I think there's a good chance we never learn the full truth of any of this.  File it away with the Kennedy assassination and Roswell.  Fucking bullshit.

[TwiceHorn 32,094]

Fairly interesting recap of the investigation.  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/06/why-the-mueller-investigation-failed

Has some info not widely known.  Rosenstein warned Mueller not to go on a fishing expedition ala Starr.  I think that was his tendency, anyway.

The other thing that occurs to me is that, because Mueller (probably rightfully) followed the DOJ policy of not indicting the president, he was probably bound to conclude as to whether a crime was committed.

It is definitely unfair to take a civilian subject to indictment, accuse them of a crime, but not indict them, because the civilian is deprived of the arena in which to defend himself.

I'm not sure that courtesy extends to the unindictable President. Because the President is immune from prosecution under that policy, I think he gets to be accused and gets to defend himself in the political arena and/or impeachment (same thing really).

Edited July 2, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 17,420]

'supreme' court : sorry we don't want voter knowing how corrupt our friends are before they vote. 

[Nivek 17,420]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fairly interesting recap of the investigation.  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/06/why-the-mueller-investigation-failed

Has some info not widely known.  Rosenstein warned Mueller not to go on a fishing expedition ala Starr.  I think that was his tendency, anyway.

The other thing that occurs to me is that, because Mueller (probably rightfully) followed the DOJ policy of not indicting the president, he was probably bound to conclude as to whether a crime was committed.

It is definitely unfair to take a civilian subject to indictment, accuse them of a crime, but not indict them, because the civilian is deprived of the arena in which to defend himself.

I'm not sure that courtesy extends to the unindictable President. Because the President is immune from prosecution under that policy, I think he gets to be accused and gets to defend himself in the political arena and/or impeachment (same thing really).

That was widely known among those paying attention.   

[TwiceHorn 32,094]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

That was widely known among those paying attention.   

I don't recall it being reported that Rosenstein instructed Mueller not to go on a Starr-style fishing expedition.  That apparently was only revealed in the Rosenstein "scope memos" to Mueller, which were only recently made public.

I do recall Rosenstein saying it wouldn't be a fishing expedition and the term being bandied about quite a bit. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 17,420]

 

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't recall it being reported that Rosenstein instructed Mueller not to go on a Starr-style fishing expedition.  That apparently was only revealed in the Rosenstein "scope memos" to Mueller, which were only recently made public.

I do recall Rosenstein saying it wouldn't be a fishing expedition and the term being bandied about quite a bit. 

It was announced early on that it would be limited in terms of scope.  It wasn't the biggest news at the time, so it was easy to miss.  It was quickly dropped because of other discussions, news, etc.  

[Anastasis 23,724]

“Not in my purview.”

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Me attempting to read between the lines of the incomplete and redacted Mueller Report:

There were two Russian government criminal conspiracies they were working on connecting to the Trump campaign but came up short due to relentless obstruction of justice by everyone involved.  
 

IRA/Trump->Manafort->Kilimnick->GRU

Wikileaks/GRU->Wikileaks->Stone->Trump

 

The most noteworthy thing missing was there was no following the money or anything to do with the NRA infiltration which had a full blown Russian agent maneuvering with the Trump campaign.  
 

There’s also the Trump Tower Moscow deal, the Magnitsky Sanctions meeting, and Flynn’s role that got snowed in under all this shit.

It is amazing how well they made all of this “no big deal!” treachery acceptable to the American public and that was just as frightening as the malfeasance itself.

But now that Putin is paying the Taliban to assassinate American soldiers and Trump is looking away, we’re supposed to be shocked?  

[Anastasis 23,724]

 

[TwiceHorn 32,094]

24 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 

It was announced early on that it would be limited in terms of scope.  It wasn't the biggest news at the time, so it was easy to miss.  It was quickly dropped because of other discussions, news, etc.  

My particular interest in that "revelation" was the invocation of the Starr investigation as an example of what not to do.  I surmised that it was guiding Mueller, but didn't realize Rosenstein had invoked it specifically in telling Mueller what to do.

Most people on this thread kept going back to the "arising under" language of the special counsel order and screaming "he can do whatever he wants!"  And I kept saying "he can, but he won't."

[Degenerate Gardner 4,160]

22 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think there's a good chance we never learn the full truth of any of this.  File it away with the Kennedy assassination and Roswell.  Fucking bullshit.

Are you suggesting that JFK wasn't killed by a weather balloon?

[Captainant 28,589]

6 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Are you suggesting that JFK wasn't killed by a weather balloon?

Are you suggesting Ted Cruz's father was a weather balloon?

[Anastasis 23,724]

 

[Nivek 17,420]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Are you suggesting Ted Cruz's father was a weather balloon?

Well his son, is bloated, gaseous, and full of hot air.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Are you suggesting that JFK wasn't killed by a weather balloon?

I read the first draft of the Warren Report, it said Kennedy was killed by a drunk driver.  /deniro

[Nivek 17,420]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

My particular interest in that "revelation" was the invocation of the Starr investigation as an example of what not to do.  I surmised that it was guiding Mueller, but didn't realize Rosenstein had invoked it specifically in telling Mueller what to do.

Most people on this thread kept going back to the "arising under" language of the special counsel order and screaming "he can do whatever he wants!"  And I kept saying "he can, but he won't."

gotcha.  I didn't mean to come across as a dick.  I have been walking around with a ships wheel attached to my pants. 

I was fumbling around with attempting to make a point that it was established that the investigation was limited, though there were not documents describing those limits and the comparisons.   That it specifically cites the Starr fishing doesn't really even register.    If I recall correctly the questions asked by Kavanaugh to Clinton were rather graphic in nature and and I suspect politically motivated to humiliate a Democratic Party President rather than part of a fact finding mission, in this layperson's view.  

[SmokeyTheBear 5,569]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

[TwiceHorn 32,094]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

gotcha.  I didn't mean to come across as a dick.  I have been walking around with a ships wheel attached to my pants. 

I was fumbling around with attempting to make a point that it was established that the investigation was limited, though there were not documents describing those limits and the comparisons.   That it specifically cites the Starr fishing doesn't really even register.    If I recall correctly the questions asked by Kavanaugh to Clinton were rather graphic in nature and and I suspect politically motivated to humiliate a Democratic Party President rather than part of a fact finding mission, in this layperson's view.  

One kind of oddball thing about the Starr Investigation was that there were very specific controls on the scope of the investigation under the special counsel law in force at the time.  Starr "reported" to a panel of the DC Circuit and every change in scope of the investigation was approved by that panel.  So, while it was a fishing expedition, the fishing trips were officially sanctioned.

There is, of course, no such explicit oversight built into the current special counsel rules.  Apparently, and this was known, Rosenstein approved the initial direction of the investigation, as well as any changes, but it was still an informal thing.

I guessed that avoiding an epic fishing expedition like the Starr Investigation was always at the back of Mueller's mind probably because there was no oversight mechanism. I just wasn't aware that it was specifically brought up by Rosenstein and thought that interesting, but that's just my kind of deal.

I'm kind of at an age where people's motivations and explanations for doing what they did are of interest, from Mueller, to football coaches, to executives, to criminals, etc.

[Biff Tannen 46,192]

So what's the play here?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/politics/lindsey-graham-robert-mueller/index.html

[wildcat09 29,597]

Lindsey Graham is too stupid to stay out of his own way.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,597]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what's the play here?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/12/politics/lindsey-graham-robert-mueller/index.html

He just wants him in there so Lindsey can spin the narrative that Trump was the victim and that it was really Biden and Obama that started the whole thing by spying on their campaign.  Mueller will say that the Obama administration approved the surveillance on Trump’s campaign based on real intel but Lindsey will not mention that to Fox News and just tell the world Obama spied on Trump and should be in jail.  Get the base riled up for voting.

[Anastasis 23,724]

Can’t wait to listen to mueller say “not in my purview” and fumble around in a binder over and over again. 

[Gap03 3,394]

Yeah, fuck Mueller and his decorum at this point.  I'm not sure that anything good might come from putting anyone before the SJC again, but if they really want to drag someone up there, let's hear from Weissmann or one of the other lieutenants.  At least they would be conversant with the investigation - though maybe best not to have Weissmann, given Lindsey would scream about him trying to cash in on his position with his book deal.

 

[TwiceHorn 32,094]

I suspect that with all that has transpired with his report, the interference with the convictions of Flynn and Stone, etc., Mueller will be considerably less sanguine this time around.

[Biff Tannen 46,192]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect that with all that has transpired with his report, the interference with the convictions of Flynn and Stone, etc., Mueller will be considerably less sanguine this time around.

Would you say he's learned his lesson, Senator Collins?

[Anastasis 23,724]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suspect that with all that has transpired with his report, the interference with the convictions of Flynn and Stone, etc., Mueller will be considerably less sanguine this time around.

 

What have you seen from Mueller since his report was issued, in either press conference or testimony, that makes you think that he is up for another round of testimony?  I think it will leave the exact same impression as last time. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 47,263]

Mueller is older, and probably even more tired by now.  I wouldn't expect that particular leopard to change his spots at this point in time.

Someone jostle my memory:  wasn't the "campaign spying" effort just a byproduct of approved wiretapping on a particular individual?  Was this the Carter Page investigation?  Please, let's not start the FISA court discussion and all that, I'm just trying to remember if what Trump is accusing Obama of wasn't just information accrued from a law enforcement act.

[JBJ 3,828]

Only Flynn, but he was never really wiretapped.

Manafort and Page were wiretapped for their roles in the campaign.

[Anastasis 23,724]

On 7/13/2020 at 11:29 AM, jimmyjazz said:

Mueller is older, and probably even more tired by now.  I wouldn't expect that particular leopard to change his spots at this point in time.

Someone jostle my memory:  wasn't the "campaign spying" effort just a byproduct of approved wiretapping on a particular individual?  Was this the Carter Page investigation?  Please, let's not start the FISA court discussion and all that, I'm just trying to remember if what Trump is accusing Obama of wasn't just information accrued from a law enforcement act.

In addition to the various undercover informants they were running at them, I believe that they were using queries and selectors against the NSA databases. Recall the FISA abuse issues (separate from the page issues entirely) that mike Rogers went to the court with after he discovered them in 2016. I think that this is also part of the reason why he went directly to trump tower alone and had a meeting with him. That meeting royally pissed off Brennan and Clapper and the tension between those individuals has been pretty obviously in their post admin panel discussions. I think at some point we found out why. 

[Anastasis 23,724]

No tweets about the docs released by senate committee? Steele’s primary sub source interview or the NYT annotations? 
 

lol

 

 

[Anastasis 23,724]

@Hugo Stiglitz nothing from you?  Thoughts on the annotated NYT article?  Or the continued resolution of Steele's work as total rubbish?  Nothing at all from the "Dossier Dude"? I mean, @suddenly shaggy totally ghosted out, but I expect that maybe you would muster some honesty. It really takes only a small amount of effort to post with some integrity. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Anastasis

[babysdaddy 2,731]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:46 PM, Anastasis said:

@Hugo Stiglitz nothing from you?  Thoughts on the annotated NYT article?  Or the continued resolution of Steele's work as total rubbish?  Nothing at all from the "Dossier Dude"? I mean, @suddenly shaggy totally ghosted out, but I expect that maybe you would muster some honesty. It really takes only a small amount of effort to post with some integrity. 

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/20/the_primary_subsources_guide_to_russiagate_as_told_to_the_fbi_124516.html

I cannot believe how thin, and that is being as complimentary as possible, the background was for all of this horseshit.

[Anastasis 23,724]

6 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/07/20/the_primary_subsources_guide_to_russiagate_as_told_to_the_fbi_124516.html

I cannot believe how thin, and that is being as complimentary as possible, the background was for all of this horseshit.

This part was pretty exemplary of Steele's sourcing and methods. 

While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist “at a Thai restaurant.” The Primary Subsource didn’t want to ask “revealing questions” but managed to go so far as to ask, “Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?” According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource “that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up.” But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a “colleague” who in turn gave him an email of “this guy” journalist 2 had interviewed and “that he should talk to.”

With the email address of “this guy” in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message “in either June or July 2016.” Some weeks later the Primary Subsource “received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy.” He “thought” but had no evidence that the mystery “Russian guy” was “that guy.” The mystery caller “never identified himself.” The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller “Source 6.” The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of “about 10 minutes.” During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice “Source 6” and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had “a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin” and “that it was an ongoing relationship.” For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here’s how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.” Steele writes “Inter alia,” – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for “among other things”  – “Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform.”

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a “close associate” of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

[Anastasis 23,724]

The subsource undermined the reporting in February. Comey of course would have been aware of this. But these books ain't gonna sell themselves.

 

[notre dame joe 205]

On 7/20/2020 at 7:21 AM, Anastasis said:

This part was pretty exemplary of Steele's sourcing and methods. 

While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist “at a Thai restaurant.” The Primary Subsource didn’t want to ask “revealing questions” but managed to go so far as to ask, “Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?” According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource “that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up.” But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a “colleague” who in turn gave him an email of “this guy” journalist 2 had interviewed and “that he should talk to.”

With the email address of “this guy” in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message “in either June or July 2016.” Some weeks later the Primary Subsource “received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy.” He “thought” but had no evidence that the mystery “Russian guy” was “that guy.” The mystery caller “never identified himself.” The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller “Source 6.” The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of “about 10 minutes.” During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice “Source 6” and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had “a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin” and “that it was an ongoing relationship.” For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here’s how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.” Steele writes “Inter alia,” – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for “among other things”  – “Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform.”

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a “close associate” of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

"Primary subsource" 

 

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

It seems to me that at this point the only reason to bump this thread is to spread disinformation in anticipation of the no doubt coming attack by Russia on our upcoming election.

Or can someone point out the other reasons to bump the thread? Is American Patriot Carter Page being persecuted again? Are secret FISA warrants flying out of the courthouse at warp speed?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

On 7/20/2020 at 9:21 AM, Anastasis said:

This part was pretty exemplary of Steele's sourcing and methods. 

While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist “at a Thai restaurant.” The Primary Subsource didn’t want to ask “revealing questions” but managed to go so far as to ask, “Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?” According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource “that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up.” But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a “colleague” who in turn gave him an email of “this guy” journalist 2 had interviewed and “that he should talk to.”

With the email address of “this guy” in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message “in either June or July 2016.” Some weeks later the Primary Subsource “received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy.” He “thought” but had no evidence that the mystery “Russian guy” was “that guy.” The mystery caller “never identified himself.” The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller “Source 6.” The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of “about 10 minutes.” During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice “Source 6” and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had “a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin” and “that it was an ongoing relationship.” For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here’s how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.” Steele writes “Inter alia,” – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for “among other things”  – “Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform.”

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a “close associate” of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

Good talk Russ.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

On 7/18/2020 at 11:46 PM, Anastasis said:

@Hugo Stiglitz nothing from you?  Thoughts on the annotated NYT article?  Or the continued resolution of Steele's work as total rubbish?  Nothing at all from the "Dossier Dude"? I mean, @suddenly shaggy totally ghosted out, but I expect that maybe you would muster some honesty. It really takes only a small amount of effort to post with some integrity. 

Why at this point would Hugo or anyone else really give a shit?

Its done man. Move on.

[Anastasis 23,724]

Figured there might be interest in the FBI interview of the primary subsource used by the man who "witnessed the crime of the century" and wrote a dossier equivalent to "bible".  Maybe not.  Interest in election interference involving Russians and foreign spooks is selective apparently.  

[Anastasis 23,724]

Here you go go @Dbeasy

I'll move this here so people don't get their panties in a bunch when I respond to shit people say.

I sincerely wish that I wasn't the only one who would acknowledge that the laws intended to protect Americans from unwarranted government surveillance were broken in the course of the Russiagate thing. But I recognize that I am speaking to an audience of posters who largely think that a UK spook operating in a political context to seed disinformation from Russians to influence our election was operating in our best interests. Breaking that delusion down has caused some real brain damage. 

10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

This is an incredible distortion of the facts of that case.

Not at all.  You may not like the way that I frame it, but every component of that statement is supported by the facts and circumstances.

 

It's amazing to me that anybody who has read the IG report as well as the related information coming out of the UK would still be caping for Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.  Some of the weeds they set appear to have deep roots and are hard to free.  

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Here you go go @Dbeasy

I'll move this here so people don't get their panties in a bunch when I respond to shit people say.

I sincerely wish that I wasn't the only one who would acknowledge that the laws intended to protect Americans from unwarranted government surveillance were broken in the course of the Russiagate thing. But I recognize that I am speaking to an audience of posters who largely think that a UK spook operating in a political context to seed disinformation from Russians to influence our election was operating in our best interests. Breaking that delusion down has caused some real brain damage. 

Not at all.  You may not like the way that I frame it, but every component of that statement is supported by the facts and circumstances.

 

It's amazing to me that anybody who has read the IG report as well as the related information coming out of the UK would still be caping for Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS.  Some of the weeds they set appear to have deep roots and are hard to free.  

 

Who exactly is “caping for Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS?”

Alls I have ever argued with you is you simply do not understands how easy it is to get a search warrant, including a FISA warrant. You refuse to acknowledge that and harp and harp on this supposed extreme injustice committed against the most innocent man on the planet, Carter Page.

[Anastasis 23,724]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Alls I have ever argued with you is you simply do not understands how easy it is to get a search warrant, including a FISA warrant.

Interesting revisionist history Jimmy.  To be honest, I don't really need an education on probable cause as it relates to FISA from a lawyer who I already had to explain key legal issues and distinctions related to case opening predication and probable cause on this very thread.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Interesting revisionist history Jimmy.  To be honest, I don't really need an education on probable cause as it relates to FISA from a lawyer who I already had to explain key legal issues and distinctions related to case opening predication and probable cause on this very thread.

That’s because you don’t understand it. And are simply talking straight out of your ass about something you clearly don’t understand.

Maybe if all those republican federal judges you support interpreted the law differently you would have a point. Instead it’s just a bunch of nonsense.