HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 31 minutes ago, Troll said: PSSSSSSSsssssst....here's a cute link (with no silly ruskie comment excuse).... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-releases-declassified-documents-that-substantially-undercut-steele-dossier-page-fisa-warrants Everyone eagerly awaits your 🤡 comment now 🤣 GO FOR IT !! 👍 Even THEY have given up on the Ruskie fairy tales....but not 🤡 Krusty 🤣 Very true good point thanks for that link u posted as like I stated our MSM isn't reporting on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 39 minutes ago, Troll said: PSSSSSSSsssssst....here's a cute link (with no silly ruskie comment excuse).... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-releases-declassified-documents-that-substantially-undercut-steele-dossier-page-fisa-warrants Everyone eagerly awaits your 🤡 comment now 🤣 GO FOR IT !! 👍 Even THEY have given up on the Ruskie fairy tales....but not 🤡 Krusty 🤣 NYT finally reporting on it RT beat them by an hour https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/steele-dossier-peter-strzok.amp.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Troll said: PSSSSSSSsssssst....here's a cute link (with no silly ruskie comment excuse).... https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-releases-declassified-documents-that-substantially-undercut-steele-dossier-page-fisa-warrants Everyone eagerly awaits your 🤡 comment now 🤣 GO FOR IT !! 👍 Even THEY have given up on the Ruskie fairy tales....but not 🤡 Krusty 🤣 the Steele dossier B.S.??...we all know the Bush campaign started the research...🙄...this was good!... The documents were released on Friday by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. A close ally to President Trump, Mr. Graham has been using his position to try to discredit the Russia inquiry in an election year. In a statement announcing the release of the documents, Mr. Graham called the F.B.I.’s investigation into the Trump campaign “corrupt.” An accompanying news release from his office said that “the document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in F.B.I. leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the F.B.I.’s interview with Steele’s ‘primary subsource’ revealed.” “Senator Graham’s statement represents another attempt by President Trump’s congressional lackeys to use Pete’s work product to paint the Russia investigation as a political witch hunt,” Aitan Goelman, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok, said in a statement. He described Mr. Strzok’s notes as “nothing more than a dedicated counterintelligence professional diligently vetting public reports of intelligence information.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 46 minutes ago, DBP66 said: the Steele dossier B.S.??...we all know the Bush campaign started the research...🙄...this was good!... The documents were released on Friday by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. A close ally to President Trump, Mr. Graham has been using his position to try to discredit the Russia inquiry in an election year. In a statement announcing the release of the documents, Mr. Graham called the F.B.I.’s investigation into the Trump campaign “corrupt.” An accompanying news release from his office said that “the document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in F.B.I. leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the F.B.I.’s interview with Steele’s ‘primary subsource’ revealed.” “Senator Graham’s statement represents another attempt by President Trump’s congressional lackeys to use Pete’s work product to paint the Russia investigation as a political witch hunt,” Aitan Goelman, a lawyer for Mr. Strzok, said in a statement. He described Mr. Strzok’s notes as “nothing more than a dedicated counterintelligence professional diligently vetting public reports of intelligence information.” Oh boy...Karen is getting all fired up to speak to the manager...this fool knows no bounds...pathetic little ❄😂🙊🙉🙈 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 6 hours ago, HSFBfan said: NYT finally reporting on it RT beat them by an hour https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/steele-dossier-peter-strzok.amp.html Krusty can't respond until someone like an NYT lackey puts out an opinion farce cover piece.... whoop der it is... 6 hours ago, DBP66 said: the Steele dossier B.S.??...we all know the Bush campaign started the research...🙄...this was good!... So you want to blame Bush now LOLOLOL....what happened to the dossier being worth a damn ? ok excuse idiot....already linked the original, not some opinion piece.... But since you are too ignorant, here you go... ------------------------------------ “I’m very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents, “What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page. “Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017. “The dossier was a critical document to justify a FISA warrant against Mr. Page and this DOJ memo clearly indicates that the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed after the interview with the primary sub-source in January 2017. Those who knew or should have known of this development and continued to pursue a FISA warrant against Mr. Page anyway are in deep legal jeopardy in my view. “Secondly, the comments of Peter Strzok regarding the February 14 New York Times article are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form. “The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons. -------- The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day interview the FBI conducted with Christopher Steele’s so-called “Primary Sub-source” in January of 2017. [Document 1] This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness. The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect. In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. The second document contains Peter Strzok’s type-written comments disagreeing with assertions made in a New York Times article about alleged Russian intelligence ties to the Trump campaign. [Document 2] The document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in FBI leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the FBI’s interview with Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” revealed, because Strzok commented that “[r]ecent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.” The document further shows that the FBI’s assertion to the FISA court that “the FBI believes that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. policy were likely being coordinated between the RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] and Page, and possibly others” appears to be a misrepresentation. This is because, in his comments on the Times article, Strzok asserts that “[w]e have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs [Intelligence Officials]. . . . We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” The document also indicates that the FBI may have been using foreign intelligence gathering techniques to impermissibly unmask and analyze existing and future intelligence collection regarding U.S. persons associated with the Trump campaign: “Both the CIA and NSA are aware of our subjects and throughout the summer we provided them names and selectors for queries of their holdings as well as prospective collection.” The quote does not provide enough information to fully understand exactly what the FBI was doing but impermissible unmasking and analysis of existing and future incidental intelligence collection of U.S. persons would be troubling. The document also raises questions as to whether the FBI was properly using intelligence techniques and databases “throughout the summer” considering that the earliest formal investigation of a U.S. person associated with the Trump campaign was not officially opened until July 31, 2016. These declassified documents and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation. ----------------------------------------------- any 🤡 questions?.... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 hours ago, Troll said: Krusty can't respond until someone like an NYT lackey puts out an opinion farce cover piece.... whoop der it is... So you want to blame Bush now LOLOLOL....what happened to the dossier being worth a damn ? ok excuse idiot....already linked the original, not some opinion piece.... But since you are too ignorant, here you go... ------------------------------------ “I’m very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents, “What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page. “Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017. “The dossier was a critical document to justify a FISA warrant against Mr. Page and this DOJ memo clearly indicates that the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed after the interview with the primary sub-source in January 2017. Those who knew or should have known of this development and continued to pursue a FISA warrant against Mr. Page anyway are in deep legal jeopardy in my view. “Secondly, the comments of Peter Strzok regarding the February 14 New York Times article are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form. “The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons. -------- The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day interview the FBI conducted with Christopher Steele’s so-called “Primary Sub-source” in January of 2017. [Document 1] This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness. The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect. In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. The second document contains Peter Strzok’s type-written comments disagreeing with assertions made in a New York Times article about alleged Russian intelligence ties to the Trump campaign. [Document 2] The document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in FBI leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the FBI’s interview with Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” revealed, because Strzok commented that “[r]ecent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.” The document further shows that the FBI’s assertion to the FISA court that “the FBI believes that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. policy were likely being coordinated between the RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] and Page, and possibly others” appears to be a misrepresentation. This is because, in his comments on the Times article, Strzok asserts that “[w]e have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs [Intelligence Officials]. . . . We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” The document also indicates that the FBI may have been using foreign intelligence gathering techniques to impermissibly unmask and analyze existing and future intelligence collection regarding U.S. persons associated with the Trump campaign: “Both the CIA and NSA are aware of our subjects and throughout the summer we provided them names and selectors for queries of their holdings as well as prospective collection.” The quote does not provide enough information to fully understand exactly what the FBI was doing but impermissible unmasking and analysis of existing and future incidental intelligence collection of U.S. persons would be troubling. The document also raises questions as to whether the FBI was properly using intelligence techniques and databases “throughout the summer” considering that the earliest formal investigation of a U.S. person associated with the Trump campaign was not officially opened until July 31, 2016. These declassified documents and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation. ----------------------------------------------- any 🤡 questions?.... no questions needed....no "bomb shell" above...just silly Lindsay Graham trying to help trump out and feed you clowns some red meat to get ball excited about and it worked!!...nothing to see here Ronnie...the "dossier" is history...🙄...but who knows...maybe the Russian Times will come out with some fake news for you to get excited about today??....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 8 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Oh boy...Karen is getting all fired up to speak to the manager...this fool knows no bounds...pathetic little ❄😂🙊🙉🙈 how many dumb-ass responses can you you have in one day mam??...don't you ever get embarrassed??....🙄..ever feel like typing something that doesn't make you look like a child??....🤡 #selfexposed....😔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 hours ago, Troll said: Krusty can't respond until someone like an NYT lackey puts out an opinion farce cover piece.... whoop der it is... So you want to blame Bush now LOLOLOL....what happened to the dossier being worth a damn ? ok excuse idiot....already linked the original, not some opinion piece.... But since you are too ignorant, here you go... ------------------------------------ “I’m very pleased the investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee has been able to secure the declassification of these important documents, “What have we learned from the release of these two documents by the Department of Justice? Number one, it is clear to me that the memo regarding the FBI interview of the primary sub-source in January 2017 should have required the system to stop and reevaluate the case against Mr. Page. “Most importantly after this interview of the sub-source and the subsequent memo detailing the contents of the interview, it was a miscarriage of justice for the FBI and the Department of Justice to continue to seek a FISA warrant against Carter Page in April and June of 2017. “The dossier was a critical document to justify a FISA warrant against Mr. Page and this DOJ memo clearly indicates that the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed after the interview with the primary sub-source in January 2017. Those who knew or should have known of this development and continued to pursue a FISA warrant against Mr. Page anyway are in deep legal jeopardy in my view. “Secondly, the comments of Peter Strzok regarding the February 14 New York Times article are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form. “The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons. -------- The first document is a 57-page summary of a three-day interview the FBI conducted with Christopher Steele’s so-called “Primary Sub-source” in January of 2017. [Document 1] This document not only demonstrates how unsubstantiated and unreliable the Steele dossier was, it shows that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems and sought two more FISA application renewals after gaining this awareness. The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third-hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. For instance, the “Primary Sub-source”: did not recall or did not know where some of the information attributed to him or his sources came from; was never told about or never mentioned to Steele certain information attributed to him or his sources; he said that Steele re-characterized some of the information to make it more substantiated and less attenuated than it really was; that he would have described his sources differently; and, that Steele implied direct access to information where the access to information was indirect. In total, this document demonstrates that information from the Steele dossier, which “played a central and essential role” in the FISA warrants on Carter Page, should never have been presented to the FISA court. The second document contains Peter Strzok’s type-written comments disagreeing with assertions made in a New York Times article about alleged Russian intelligence ties to the Trump campaign. [Document 2] The document demonstrates that Peter Strzok and others in FBI leadership positions must have been aware of the issues with the Steele dossier that the FBI’s interview with Steele’s “Primary Sub-source” revealed, because Strzok commented that “[r]ecent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.” The document further shows that the FBI’s assertion to the FISA court that “the FBI believes that Russia’s efforts to influence U.S. policy were likely being coordinated between the RIS [Russian Intelligence Services] and Page, and possibly others” appears to be a misrepresentation. This is because, in his comments on the Times article, Strzok asserts that “[w]e have not seen evidence of any individuals affiliated with the Trump team in contact with IOs [Intelligence Officials]. . . . We are unaware of ANY Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” The document also indicates that the FBI may have been using foreign intelligence gathering techniques to impermissibly unmask and analyze existing and future intelligence collection regarding U.S. persons associated with the Trump campaign: “Both the CIA and NSA are aware of our subjects and throughout the summer we provided them names and selectors for queries of their holdings as well as prospective collection.” The quote does not provide enough information to fully understand exactly what the FBI was doing but impermissible unmasking and analysis of existing and future incidental intelligence collection of U.S. persons would be troubling. The document also raises questions as to whether the FBI was properly using intelligence techniques and databases “throughout the summer” considering that the earliest formal investigation of a U.S. person associated with the Trump campaign was not officially opened until July 31, 2016. These declassified documents and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation. ----------------------------------------------- any 🤡 questions?.... Great job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, DBP66 said: no questions needed.... ..the "dossier" is history...🙄 ....🤡 So THAT'S your 🤡 comment ? 🤣🤣 ....but for how many years did you think it was sliced bread ? Wasn't THAT your recipe for your world famous nothing burgers ? and WHY is it, as you say... 14 minutes ago, DBP66 said: and feed you clowns some red meat to get ball excited about and it worked!!...nothing to see here Ronnie.......🤡 ....that others seem to be eating well, getting all their protein, while you keep eating nothing burgers? 🤣 BTW: how do those 'nothing burgers' taste? 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 minute ago, Troll said: So THAT'S your 🤡 comment ? 🤣🤣 ....but for how many years did you think it was sliced bread ? Wasn't THAT your recipe for your world famous nothing burgers ? and WHY is it, as you say... ....that others seem to be eating well, getting all their protein, while you keep eating nothing burgers? 🤣 BTW: how do those 'nothing burgers' taste? 🤡 Nobody else is reporting on this story wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, Troll said: So THAT'S your 🤡 comment ? 🤣🤣 ....but for how many years did you think it was sliced bread ? Wasn't THAT your recipe for your world famous nothing burgers ? and WHY is it, as you say... ....that others seem to be eating well, getting all their protein, while you keep eating nothing burgers? 🤣 BTW: how do those 'nothing burgers' taste? 🤡 LOL..it's WAY too early to go down Incoherent Rd. with you Ronnie...🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 6 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Nobody else is reporting on this story wow because it's been "reported" on 1-2 million times??..LOL..Lindsay Graham put this out yesterday...nothing new here...just enough to string you Trumpers along...the dossier wasn't the only reason the FICA court gave the o.k....maybe one day that will sink in on the right...🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 10 minutes ago, DBP66 said: LOL..it's WAY too early to go down Incoherent Rd. with you Ronnie...🤡 🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Troll said: 🤡 yes I am....staying as far way from your problems and your conspiracies as I can....🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 Finally fox News Senate Republicans release files they say 'undercut' Steele dossier https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-judiciary-committee-documents-steele-dossier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, DBP66 said: yes I am....staying as far way from your problems and your conspiracies as I can....🤡 PSSSsssst....I know you still haven't 🤡 figured it out yet..... But that is your own 'dossier shadow' 🤔 .....spooky isn't it? 👻 KNOWING just how many of your dossier posts here... could come back to Haunt you...😜 🤡 PS: and that's not 'my' incoherent rd. you are tripping down 🤣...you laid those bricks yourself LOL... how many years worth? 😝 🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 @Troll https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/just-released-trump-russia-documents-show-anti-trump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/507901-graham-releases-newly-declassified-documents-on-russia-probe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 23 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: @Troll https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/just-released-trump-russia-documents-show-anti-trump Reminds me of a famous 66 claim 🤣.... "Who you gonna BAALIEVE...The NYT or....." 😝 Well dayum... Expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier The document reveals that the primary "source" of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele's primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele's "primary sub-source" disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo. Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence." Claim in NYT article: "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials." Note by Strzok: "This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" and "There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign." Claim in NYT article: "... one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump's campaign chairman for several months ..." Note by Strzok: "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has obtained banking and travel records ..." Note by Strzok: "We do not yet have detailed banking records." Claim in NYT article: "Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians." Note by Strzok: "Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials" and "Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls ..." Note by Strzok: "If they did we are not aware of those communications." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump ... Carter Page ... Roger Stone... and Mr. Flynn." Note by Strzok: "We have not investigated Roger Stone." Claim by NYT: "Senior FBI officials believe ... Christopher Steele ... has a credible track record." Note by Strzok: "Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network." Claim by NYT: "The FBI's investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016]." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ... our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016." Claim by NYT: "The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort's communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ..." There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four "American officials" who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was. However, it is clear that inaccurate reporting such as that in the Times had a significant influence on the trajectory of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, which ultimately concluded there had been no collusion on the part of Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign, or any U.S. person. -------------------------------------- PS: I would have just bumped 66's actual quote (you'll find dozens saying such) 😝 ..... BUT WHEN I TYPED "BAALIEVE" 🐑 IN THE SEARCH 🤣 There were too many to sift thru.. 🤷♂️ 👻👻👻 SPOOKY....isn't it? 😆 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, Troll said: Reminds me of a famous 66 claim 🤣.... "Who you gonna BAALIEVE...The NYT or....." 😝 Well dayum... Expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier The document reveals that the primary "source" of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele's primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele's "primary sub-source" disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo. Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence." Claim in NYT article: "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials." Note by Strzok: "This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" and "There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign." Claim in NYT article: "... one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump's campaign chairman for several months ..." Note by Strzok: "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has obtained banking and travel records ..." Note by Strzok: "We do not yet have detailed banking records." Claim in NYT article: "Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians." Note by Strzok: "Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials" and "Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls ..." Note by Strzok: "If they did we are not aware of those communications." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump ... Carter Page ... Roger Stone... and Mr. Flynn." Note by Strzok: "We have not investigated Roger Stone." Claim by NYT: "Senior FBI officials believe ... Christopher Steele ... has a credible track record." Note by Strzok: "Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network." Claim by NYT: "The FBI's investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016]." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ... our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016." Claim by NYT: "The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort's communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ..." There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four "American officials" who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was. However, it is clear that inaccurate reporting such as that in the Times had a significant influence on the trajectory of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, which ultimately concluded there had been no collusion on the part of Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign, or any U.S. person. -------------------------------------- PS: I would have just bumped 66's actual quote (you'll find dozens saying such) 😝 ..... BUT WHEN I TYPED "BAALIEVE" 🐑 IN THE SEARCH 🤣 There were too many to sift thru.. 🤷♂️ 👻👻👻 SPOOKY....isn't it? 😆 This will be the biggest scandel in united states history IF its reported on correctly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 Just now, HSFBfan said: This will be the biggest scandel in united states history IF its reported on correctly wouldn't be too sure about that... Lot's of scandals, and the vast majority always appear to remain unresolved or unpunished... 🤷♂️ What?...You think they are just gonna send a bunch of NYT writers to jail ??? 🙄🤣 Just sayin' 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: how many dumb-ass responses can you you have in one day mam??...don't you ever get embarrassed??....🙄..ever feel like typing something that doesn't make you look like a child??....🤡 #selfexposed....😔 Pot...meet kettle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 1 minute ago, Troll said: wouldn't be too sure about that... Lot's of scandals, and the vast majority always appear to remain unresolved or unpunished... 🤷♂️ What?...You think they are just gonna send a bunch of NYT writers to jail ??? 🙄🤣 Just sayin' 🤷♂️ Would be the appropriate thing to do Like to see some fbi officials go to jail as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 15 minutes ago, Troll said: Reminds me of a famous 66 claim 🤣.... "Who you gonna BAALIEVE...The NYT or....." 😝 Well dayum... Expose massive errors in NYT anti-Trump story, Steele dossier The document reveals that the primary "source" of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele's primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best. Critically, the document shows that Steele's "primary sub-source" disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier. Document number two, also withheld from public view until now, takes apart a New York Times article written by Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo. Comments made by then-FBI agent Peter Strzok undercut a litany of claims made in the Times article, which was entitled: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence." Claim in NYT article: "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials." Note by Strzok: "This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" and "There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign." Claim in NYT article: "... one of the advisers picked up on the [intercepted] calls was Paul Manafort, who was Mr. Trump's campaign chairman for several months ..." Note by Strzok: "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian government official in which Manafort was a party." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has obtained banking and travel records ..." Note by Strzok: "We do not yet have detailed banking records." Claim in NYT article: "Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians." Note by Strzok: "Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials" and "Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls ..." Note by Strzok: "If they did we are not aware of those communications." Claim in NYT article: "The FBI has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump ... Carter Page ... Roger Stone... and Mr. Flynn." Note by Strzok: "We have not investigated Roger Stone." Claim by NYT: "Senior FBI officials believe ... Christopher Steele ... has a credible track record." Note by Strzok: "Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network." Claim by NYT: "The FBI's investigation into Mr. Manafort began last spring [2016]." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ... our investigation of Manafort was opened in August 2016." Claim by NYT: "The bureau did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant for a wiretap of Mr. Manafort's communications, but it had the NSA closely scrutinize the communications of Ukrainian officials he had met." Note by Strzok: "This is inaccurate ..." There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four "American officials" who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was. However, it is clear that inaccurate reporting such as that in the Times had a significant influence on the trajectory of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, which ultimately concluded there had been no collusion on the part of Trump, anyone in the Trump campaign, or any U.S. person. -------------------------------------- PS: I would have just bumped 66's actual quote (you'll find dozens saying such) 😝 ..... BUT WHEN I TYPED "BAALIEVE" 🐑 IN THE SEARCH 🤣 There were too many to sift thru.. 🤷♂️ 👻👻👻 SPOOKY....isn't it? 😆 But...but....they got him THIS time! I feel sorry for store supervisors around Krustyville today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted July 18, 2020 Report Share Posted July 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Would be the appropriate thing to do Like to see some fbi officials go to jail as well ...but It IS a nice sunny day outside.. you should get out and enjoy it sometime. 🤷♂️ 2 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: But...but....they got him THIS time! I feel sorry for store supervisors around Krustyville today! Sunny by you today as well ? go figure 🤣 You guys enjoy, I'm out for a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.