FISA Abuse by FBI

hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Oh, you only want opinions that agree with yours? I try to make my threads inclusive with all on topic opinions valued. Thank you for understanding.
Click to expand...
Objective opinion welcome. Hack job bullshit is not. You don’t know the difference. Her opinion? Trump got unfairly boned. She gives two ways how he was unfairly targeted. Kiss my dirty shorts. Pinhead.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Oh, you only want opinions that agree with yours? I try to make my threads inclusive with all on topic opinions valued. Thank you for understanding.
Click to expand...
No we just don’t want to hear bullshit and lies from right wingers

So that means nothing from right wingers
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Wow, this topic is really heating up. Were having a discussion folks, not an argument. Here's something to read on our topic:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444884-christopher-steeles-nugget-of-fools-gold-was-easily-disproven-but-fbi


Of all the wild tales that Christopher Steele spun about Russia-Trump collusion during a visit to the State Department shortly before the 2016 election, only one was deemed worth forwarding to his FBI handlers.

Long hidden, the now-disclosed email speaks volumes about both the quality of Steele’s so-called intelligence gathering and the FBI’s willingness to vet an informant who was openly biased against Donald Trump, paid by Trump’s Democratic opponent, and motivated by an Election Day deadline.

Multiple sources confirm to me that the attachment that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec sent to then-FBI section chief Stephen Laycock on Oct. 13, 2016, was a summary from Steele’s company alleging Trump and Russia might be communicating through a computer server at Russia’s Alfa Bank.

This long-debunked allegation has floated around Washington since the summer of 2016, compliments of Hillary Clinton backers ranging from a university computer science professor who spread it across the internet to a lawyer for Clinton’s campaign who delivered it to the FBI in summer 2016.

The theory — worthy of a spy novel — was that a series of data pings between a computer in Trump Tower and Alfa Bank in Moscow actually was a secret beacon alerting the Putin and Trump teams that it was time to talk about colluding on hijacking the American presidential election.

The story eventually made its way to mainstream media such as The New York Times, Slate, CNN and, just last fall, The New Yorker. It has been debunked by the FBI, and it was not mentioned as a reliable allegation in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Steele’s version of the allegation was uploaded to a private internet storage service, then downloaded by Kavalec and sent on Oct. 13, 2016, to Laycock, who immediately forwarded it to the FBI team investigating Trump-Russia collusion, according to people who have seen it.

The email arrived eight days before the FBI choose to use allegations in Steele’s so-called dossier to secure an extraordinary Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.

In other words, it was a clear signal for the FBI to check Steele’s credibility before offering him to the judges as a reliable informant. The reason? It was clear, convincing evidence that the FBI informant had broken protocol and was leaking to entities outside his chain of command, experts say.

Had the FBI done due diligence — and there’s no evidence it did — then its agents would have followed up with Kavalec to see what else Steele had blabbed to State. And they would have learned that he admitted he had an Election Day deadline to get his information public, was leaking to the news media and had provided demonstrably false information to State officials, according to Kavalec’s own notes.

All of that, FBI intelligence experts tell me, would be enough to question Steele’s credibility and reliability as an informant and to push a “pause” button on the FISA request.

But even absent checking with State, the very piece of Steele intelligence that Kavalec transmitted to FBI — the alleged back-door computer channel at Alfa Bank — already was deemed unreliable by the bureau.

The FBI received similar information in summer of 2016 from the Democratic Party’s and Clinton campaign’s lawyer, who forwarded it to then-FBI chief counsel James Baker.

I first heard about the allegation in late September 2016 and, by the first week of October, I reached multiple U.S. officials — including one inside the FBI — who told me the allegation had been investigated and the pings were determined to be “innocuous” contacts, most likely related to errant spam emails. Alfa Bank hired two experts who reached similar conclusions.

Every time the story surfaced over the next two years, I got the same answer from U.S. officials. And I wasn’t alone. The New York Times published a similar answer before the 2016 election: “The F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts,” it reported on Oct. 31, 2016.

In the end, Kavalec’s email to the bureau about Steele was a perfect test of Steele’s credibility and of the FBI’s willingness to question the credibility of its star informant in one of the most controversial FISA applications in American history.

Both failed. Steele passed along easily debunked intelligence, and the FBI failed to ask hard questions about his credibility or to alert FISA judges to the concerns that Steele’s behavior raised before the warrant was secured.

In other words, before the FBI and its then-director, James Comey, swore to the FISA court on Oct. 21, 2016, that they had verified the FISA warrant application and deemed Steele a credible informant with no known derogatory information, the government knew:

  • Steele had told senior Justice official Bruce Ohr he was “desperate” to defeat Trump and was working in some capacity for the Clinton campaign;

  • he leaked his dossier to the news media;

  • he offered demonstrably false intelligence, such as the Alfa pings and an allegation given to Kavalec that Russian hackers were being paid by a nonexistent Russian Consulate in Miami.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a leader of the FISA abuse investigation, said the discovery two weeks ago of the State documents further heightens his concerns about the "problematic genesis" of the FBI's probe of Trump. "Each day we receive additional confirmation that those at the highest levels of the FBI were fully aware of the bias and lack of credibility that the whole investigation was initiated upon," he told me.
Far worse revelations for the FBI likely lie ahead.

Most Americans now support an investigation into whether the FBI abused FISA to smear Trump.

President Trump is preparing to declassify the first tranche of documents in the Russia case, and they are expected to show the FBI possessed — but did not alert the court to — damning evidence of the Trump campaign’s innocence, including recorded conversations of targeted campaign aides denying wrongdoing.

But even before that happens, the State Department email that was kept from the American public and Congress for 2 1/2 years should be appreciated for what it signifies: It was a missed opportunity to assess Steele’s research for what it was — political fool’s gold.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Wow, this topic is really heating up. Were having a discussion folks, not an argument. Here's something to read on our topic:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444884-christopher-steeles-nugget-of-fools-gold-was-easily-disproven-but-fbi


Of all the wild tales that Christopher Steele spun about Russia-Trump collusion during a visit to the State Department shortly before the 2016 election, only one was deemed worth forwarding to his FBI handlers.

Long hidden, the now-disclosed email speaks volumes about both the quality of Steele’s so-called intelligence gathering and the FBI’s willingness to vet an informant who was openly biased against Donald Trump, paid by Trump’s Democratic opponent, and motivated by an Election Day deadline.

Multiple sources confirm to me that the attachment that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec sent to then-FBI section chief Stephen Laycock on Oct. 13, 2016, was a summary from Steele’s company alleging Trump and Russia might be communicating through a computer server at Russia’s Alfa Bank.

This long-debunked allegation has floated around Washington since the summer of 2016, compliments of Hillary Clinton backers ranging from a university computer science professor who spread it across the internet to a lawyer for Clinton’s campaign who delivered it to the FBI in summer 2016.

The theory — worthy of a spy novel — was that a series of data pings between a computer in Trump Tower and Alfa Bank in Moscow actually was a secret beacon alerting the Putin and Trump teams that it was time to talk about colluding on hijacking the American presidential election.

The story eventually made its way to mainstream media such as The New York Times, Slate, CNN and, just last fall, The New Yorker. It has been debunked by the FBI, and it was not mentioned as a reliable allegation in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Steele’s version of the allegation was uploaded to a private internet storage service, then downloaded by Kavalec and sent on Oct. 13, 2016, to Laycock, who immediately forwarded it to the FBI team investigating Trump-Russia collusion, according to people who have seen it.

The email arrived eight days before the FBI choose to use allegations in Steele’s so-called dossier to secure an extraordinary Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.

In other words, it was a clear signal for the FBI to check Steele’s credibility before offering him to the judges as a reliable informant. The reason? It was clear, convincing evidence that the FBI informant had broken protocol and was leaking to entities outside his chain of command, experts say.

Had the FBI done due diligence — and there’s no evidence it did — then its agents would have followed up with Kavalec to see what else Steele had blabbed to State. And they would have learned that he admitted he had an Election Day deadline to get his information public, was leaking to the news media and had provided demonstrably false information to State officials, according to Kavalec’s own notes.

All of that, FBI intelligence experts tell me, would be enough to question Steele’s credibility and reliability as an informant and to push a “pause” button on the FISA request.

But even absent checking with State, the very piece of Steele intelligence that Kavalec transmitted to FBI — the alleged back-door computer channel at Alfa Bank — already was deemed unreliable by the bureau.

The FBI received similar information in summer of 2016 from the Democratic Party’s and Clinton campaign’s lawyer, who forwarded it to then-FBI chief counsel James Baker.

I first heard about the allegation in late September 2016 and, by the first week of October, I reached multiple U.S. officials — including one inside the FBI — who told me the allegation had been investigated and the pings were determined to be “innocuous” contacts, most likely related to errant spam emails. Alfa Bank hired two experts who reached similar conclusions.

Every time the story surfaced over the next two years, I got the same answer from U.S. officials. And I wasn’t alone. The New York Times published a similar answer before the 2016 election: “The F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts,” it reported on Oct. 31, 2016.

In the end, Kavalec’s email to the bureau about Steele was a perfect test of Steele’s credibility and of the FBI’s willingness to question the credibility of its star informant in one of the most controversial FISA applications in American history.

Both failed. Steele passed along easily debunked intelligence, and the FBI failed to ask hard questions about his credibility or to alert FISA judges to the concerns that Steele’s behavior raised before the warrant was secured.

In other words, before the FBI and its then-director, James Comey, swore to the FISA court on Oct. 21, 2016, that they had verified the FISA warrant application and deemed Steele a credible informant with no known derogatory information, the government knew:

  • Steele had told senior Justice official Bruce Ohr he was “desperate” to defeat Trump and was working in some capacity for the Clinton campaign;

  • he leaked his dossier to the news media;

  • he offered demonstrably false intelligence, such as the Alfa pings and an allegation given to Kavalec that Russian hackers were being paid by a nonexistent Russian Consulate in Miami.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a leader of the FISA abuse investigation, said the discovery two weeks ago of the State documents further heightens his concerns about the "problematic genesis" of the FBI's probe of Trump. "Each day we receive additional confirmation that those at the highest levels of the FBI were fully aware of the bias and lack of credibility that the whole investigation was initiated upon," he told me.
Far worse revelations for the FBI likely lie ahead.

Most Americans now support an investigation into whether the FBI abused FISA to smear Trump.

President Trump is preparing to declassify the first tranche of documents in the Russia case, and they are expected to show the FBI possessed — but did not alert the court to — damning evidence of the Trump campaign’s innocence, including recorded conversations of targeted campaign aides denying wrongdoing.

But even before that happens, the State Department email that was kept from the American public and Congress for 2 1/2 years should be appreciated for what it signifies: It was a missed opportunity to assess Steele’s research for what it was — political fool’s gold.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
Click to expand...
tldr

totally not spam though
 
hotrodharley

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
Wow, this topic is really heating up. Were having a discussion folks, not an argument. Here's something to read on our topic:

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/444884-christopher-steeles-nugget-of-fools-gold-was-easily-disproven-but-fbi


Of all the wild tales that Christopher Steele spun about Russia-Trump collusion during a visit to the State Department shortly before the 2016 election, only one was deemed worth forwarding to his FBI handlers.

Long hidden, the now-disclosed email speaks volumes about both the quality of Steele’s so-called intelligence gathering and the FBI’s willingness to vet an informant who was openly biased against Donald Trump, paid by Trump’s Democratic opponent, and motivated by an Election Day deadline.

Multiple sources confirm to me that the attachment that Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec sent to then-FBI section chief Stephen Laycock on Oct. 13, 2016, was a summary from Steele’s company alleging Trump and Russia might be communicating through a computer server at Russia’s Alfa Bank.

This long-debunked allegation has floated around Washington since the summer of 2016, compliments of Hillary Clinton backers ranging from a university computer science professor who spread it across the internet to a lawyer for Clinton’s campaign who delivered it to the FBI in summer 2016.

The theory — worthy of a spy novel — was that a series of data pings between a computer in Trump Tower and Alfa Bank in Moscow actually was a secret beacon alerting the Putin and Trump teams that it was time to talk about colluding on hijacking the American presidential election.

The story eventually made its way to mainstream media such as The New York Times, Slate, CNN and, just last fall, The New Yorker. It has been debunked by the FBI, and it was not mentioned as a reliable allegation in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Steele’s version of the allegation was uploaded to a private internet storage service, then downloaded by Kavalec and sent on Oct. 13, 2016, to Laycock, who immediately forwarded it to the FBI team investigating Trump-Russia collusion, according to people who have seen it.

The email arrived eight days before the FBI choose to use allegations in Steele’s so-called dossier to secure an extraordinary Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.

In other words, it was a clear signal for the FBI to check Steele’s credibility before offering him to the judges as a reliable informant. The reason? It was clear, convincing evidence that the FBI informant had broken protocol and was leaking to entities outside his chain of command, experts say.

Had the FBI done due diligence — and there’s no evidence it did — then its agents would have followed up with Kavalec to see what else Steele had blabbed to State. And they would have learned that he admitted he had an Election Day deadline to get his information public, was leaking to the news media and had provided demonstrably false information to State officials, according to Kavalec’s own notes.

All of that, FBI intelligence experts tell me, would be enough to question Steele’s credibility and reliability as an informant and to push a “pause” button on the FISA request.

But even absent checking with State, the very piece of Steele intelligence that Kavalec transmitted to FBI — the alleged back-door computer channel at Alfa Bank — already was deemed unreliable by the bureau.

The FBI received similar information in summer of 2016 from the Democratic Party’s and Clinton campaign’s lawyer, who forwarded it to then-FBI chief counsel James Baker.

I first heard about the allegation in late September 2016 and, by the first week of October, I reached multiple U.S. officials — including one inside the FBI — who told me the allegation had been investigated and the pings were determined to be “innocuous” contacts, most likely related to errant spam emails. Alfa Bank hired two experts who reached similar conclusions.

Every time the story surfaced over the next two years, I got the same answer from U.S. officials. And I wasn’t alone. The New York Times published a similar answer before the 2016 election: “The F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts,” it reported on Oct. 31, 2016.

In the end, Kavalec’s email to the bureau about Steele was a perfect test of Steele’s credibility and of the FBI’s willingness to question the credibility of its star informant in one of the most controversial FISA applications in American history.

Both failed. Steele passed along easily debunked intelligence, and the FBI failed to ask hard questions about his credibility or to alert FISA judges to the concerns that Steele’s behavior raised before the warrant was secured.

In other words, before the FBI and its then-director, James Comey, swore to the FISA court on Oct. 21, 2016, that they had verified the FISA warrant application and deemed Steele a credible informant with no known derogatory information, the government knew:

  • Steele had told senior Justice official Bruce Ohr he was “desperate” to defeat Trump and was working in some capacity for the Clinton campaign;

  • he leaked his dossier to the news media;

  • he offered demonstrably false intelligence, such as the Alfa pings and an allegation given to Kavalec that Russian hackers were being paid by a nonexistent Russian Consulate in Miami.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a leader of the FISA abuse investigation, said the discovery two weeks ago of the State documents further heightens his concerns about the "problematic genesis" of the FBI's probe of Trump. "Each day we receive additional confirmation that those at the highest levels of the FBI were fully aware of the bias and lack of credibility that the whole investigation was initiated upon," he told me.
Far worse revelations for the FBI likely lie ahead.

Most Americans now support an investigation into whether the FBI abused FISA to smear Trump.

President Trump is preparing to declassify the first tranche of documents in the Russia case, and they are expected to show the FBI possessed — but did not alert the court to — damning evidence of the Trump campaign’s innocence, including recorded conversations of targeted campaign aides denying wrongdoing.

But even before that happens, the State Department email that was kept from the American public and Congress for 2 1/2 years should be appreciated for what it signifies: It was a missed opportunity to assess Steele’s research for what it was — political fool’s gold.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
Click to expand...
You need a hot enema followed by a long walk off a short pier. You are one propaganda filled jive ass turkey.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
hotrodharley said:
You need a hot enema followed by a long walk off a short pier. You are one propaganda filled jive ass turkey.
Click to expand...
Ha ha, you may not like where this thread seems to be going. But I am fascinated by your reactions and hope you keep contributing.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Please post opposing editorials and opinion pieces if you don’t like what I find. Thank you.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
No apologies needed, this is scary stuff.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a Putin quote?
Have you heard the one about The Alaska Purchase was conducted under duress?

"I have no doubt that there is overwhelming support in Crimea, for it being Russian, given that most people that would oppose it have either left of been silenced. But if the referendum that was held by the Russians (after stoking-up ungrounded fears of fascists coming to get them) had been free and fair it probably would not have been quite so overwhelming."
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59514

Given a choice, would you support Putin or the DNC?

Don't be like the 50% in Crimea that was busy picking fly shit out of the pepper.
They thought it was scary too!
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Grandpapy said:
Isn't that a Putin quote?
Have you heard the one about The Alaska Purchase was conducted under duress?

"I have no doubt that there is overwhelming support in Crimea, for it being Russian, given that most people that would oppose it have either left of been silenced. But if the referendum that was held by the Russians (after stoking-up ungrounded fears of fascists coming to get them) had been free and fair it probably would not have been quite so overwhelming."
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59514

Given a choice, would you support Putin or the DNC?

Don't be like the 50% in Crimea that was busy picking fly shit out of the pepper.
They thought it was scary too!
Click to expand...
I tend not to make false choices.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
I dare say that if the parties were reversed in the FISA abuse scandal, the media in this country would be at Watergate freakout level. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top