Where does it say the dossier is phony?
BREAKING NEWS: Memo finally released!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Teflon Don
- Start date
Where does it say the dossier is phony?
Liar: 3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not, being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files— but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.
AND:
1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
AND:
4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was—according to his June 2017 testimony—“salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
That's a wrap.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Especially when it wasn't.
But the answer is: because it's absolutely, 100% necessary to portray it that way, or else there is no foundation whatsoever to the reckless charges of abuse & corruption.
Just like the Nunes memo, an opinion that doesn't allow rebuttal.
Answer, it wasn't. A Yahoo news story corroborating the truthfulness of the same dossier was likewise used. Just more circular reasoning so often employed by liberals. The memo states very clearly, that the judge was not made aware of the political nature of the dossier nor that it was unverified.
OK....then what reason WAS given to the judge for needing a FISA warrant?
We don’t know exactly, they kept that classified. Maybe it’s in the Democratic memo!
And there is a new memo that clearly states the judge WAS made aware of the political nature of the dossier! NBC.com
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Who issued the memo??
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, one of the small number of lawmakers who has viewed the highly sensitive documents that are the basis of Nunes’ memo.
there is nothing in the memo to suggest the FBI spyed on the trump campaign. The FISA warrants were all extended by republicans, this is a case of wing nuts feeding on wing nuts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-the-trump-campaign/?utm_term=.500d475e27ce
It would be judicial malfeasance for a judge to give a warrant on politically motivated research.
Not necessarly true, the issue is the verracity of the result of the research, not the motivation of putting it together.