Sen. Dianne Feinstein Releases Fusion GPS Transcript

a reply to: theantediluvian

interesting fact:

In a lawsuit filed in July 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, it was alleged by International Mineral Resources (IMR) that Akhmetshin had arranged the hacking of a mining company’s private records. In court papers filed with the New York Supreme Court in November 2015, lawyers for IMR, a Kazakh mining company that alleged it had been hacked, accused Akhmetshin of hacking into two computer systems and stealing sensitive and confidential materials as part of an alleged black-ops smear campaign against IMR. Akhmetshin, who was hired as an expert by a US law firm, denied hacking or asking anyone else to hack into IMR. He said he gathered research for the firm by bartering information with journalists before he was fired because of his ties to another client, the former prime minister of Kazakhstan, who was then an opposition figure in exile. The hacking accusations were later dropped and the case, which was litigated in New York and Washington, was dismissed

en.wikipedia.org...

he was also one of the attendees of the trump tower meeting..

a reply to: Grambler

Why should we trust any of them in an investigation then?

I'd be more concerned with the judges.

Fusion GPS: Trump-appointed judge has conflicts, should recuse

Fusion's lawyers say the impartiality of U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden is open to question because he represented a firm owned by a Russian businessman who claims he was libeled by publication of the dossier and he was a top lawyer at the Justice Departments Criminal Division last year when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley requested an investigation into Fusion.

Fusion's attorneys also say that "perhaps" the most significant conflict is McFadden's work as a "vetter" on Trump's transition team. That service is problematic because of repeated comments Trump has made on Twitter challenging the accuracy of the dossier, calling for release of details on how it was funded and suggesting that Fusion was involved in wrong doing.

Side note: have you watched the Mark Felt movie yet? (Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House) There was a really interesting op-ed from Jame Risen published in The Intercept about a week ago that delves into the relationship between the media and the IC that is well worth a read. I'll excerpt this relevant bit:

The Biggest Secret - My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror

I discovered that there was, in effect, a marketplace of secrets in Washington, in which White House officials and other current and former bureaucrats, contractors, members of Congress, their staffers, and journalists all traded information. This informal black market helped keep the national security apparatus running smoothly, limiting nasty surprises for all involved. The revelation that this secretive subculture existed, and that it allowed a reporter to glimpse the government’s dark side, was jarring. It felt a bit like being in the Matrix.

Once it became known that you were covering this shadowy world, sources would sometimes appear in mysterious ways. In one case, I received an anonymous phone call from someone with highly sensitive information who had read other stories I had written. The information from this new source was very detailed and valuable, but the person refused to reveal her identity and simply said she would call back. The source called back several days later with even more information, and after several calls, I was able to convince her to call at a regular time so I would be prepared to talk. For the next few months, she called once every week at the exact same time and always with new information. Because I didn’t know who the source was, I had to be cautious with the information and never used any of it in stories unless I could corroborate it with other sources. But everything the source told me checked out. Then after a few months, she abruptly stopped calling. I never heard from her again, and I never learned her identity.

Disclosures of confidential information to the press were generally tolerated as facts of life in this secret subculture. The media acted as a safety valve, letting insiders vent by leaking. The smartest officials realized that leaks to the press often helped them, bringing fresh eyes to stale internal debates. And the fact that the press was there, waiting for leaks, lent some discipline to the system. A top CIA official once told me that his rule of thumb for whether a covert operation should be approved was, “How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?” If it would look bad, don’t do it. Of course, his rule of thumb was often ignored.

For decades, official Washington did next to nothing to stop leaks. The CIA or some other agency would feign outrage over the publication of a story it didn’t like. Officials launched leak investigations but only went through the motions before abandoning each case. It was a charade that both government officials and reporters understood.

James Risen you'll remember was the journalist targeted initially by the Bush Administration and then later the Obama Administration until they caved to popular uproar and Holder pulled the plug on the DOJ case. Lots of interesting insight into how editors and journalists interface with these agencies and their leadership and the trading of information and favors.

I'm rambling and this isn't particularly relevant to what the FBI said to Steele at this Rome debriefing. My greater point was that the FBI has never been impervious to leaks. And yes, some of the leaks have had if not political motivations, at least political implications. Was it wrong for Mark Felt to go to the media about Watergate? What would happen if Watergate was unfolding now, in this political climate? Would Nixon have resigned? I doubt it. I think they would have successfully painted the FBI as corrupt and partisan.

I don't know what was actually shared with Steele in this (apparently September) debriefing in Rome or any of the context. I tend to believe it wasn't terribly detailed as Simpson seems to have fumbled the details miserably. Also, if you read the whole testimony, if Simpson's account is to be believed and is accurate, it doesn't sound like there had been much information going out of the FBI back to Steele and through him, Simpson.

Do you think the FBI should be investigating Clinton or any Democratic politicians/staffers? Particularly at the behest of the opposing party and the administration?

If not the FBI, then who? Does it make a difference if the investigation isn't being led by the current FBI leadership but rather by a special prosecutor/independent counsel?

I read through all of the pages of this hearing.

Several things came to the point and should be noted:

Fusion is a company that works for various clients, and does investigations. It keeps the various people who are working on what ever is being investigated separate and does not allow them to collaborate or communicate, then the reports are collated and the collaborated material is put into the final document. It does not go into looking for one specific thing, but keeps the end open.

Fusion was working on 2 different investigations of Trump, and those clients are US citizens.

But more to the point, it kind of makes some in congress and the white house to be liars and not telling the truth, as this contradicts what they are saying.

What is not let out, is who the clients are. A majority of the information that is initially gathered by Fusion is all public record, and can be accessed by anybody.

a reply to: avgguy

This is the full transcript.

a reply to: TheGOAT

Haha ha Ha ha ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha Ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

a reply to: Perfectenemy

The inside source is probably Papadopoulos.
You basically want to believe exactly the opposite of the truth. Come hell or high water.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

The source reported to the FBI before Steele did and Steele reported this late summer 2016 so I seriously doubt it was Bannon. That doesn't even make sense.

a reply to: Sillyolme

SIC EM' MIKE


twitter.com...

Russia dossier: Trump lawyer sues BuzzFeed for publishing document

Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is suing news website BuzzFeed almost exactly a year after it published an explosive dossier containing serious and salacious allegations about collusion with Russia.

Michael Cohen posted on Twitter on Tuesday night: “Enough is enough of the #fake #RussianDossier. Just filed a defamation action against @BuzzFeedNews for publishing the lie filled document on @POTUS @realDonaldTrump and me!”

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Arnie123

It's laughable. Namely because he referred to the report as the "Discredited Steele Dossier."
When in actuality they have not discredited any of it.
This is called muddying the water. There's no point in the right perusing this avenue any longer. We know they selected material from this testimony to leak because it casts doubt that way but wanted the entirety suppressed because of what it really reveals.

This is a big bonus.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So far I've only seen names redacted but I haven't read much yet.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I should just link that page of laughter.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I should just link that page of laughter.

A reminder on how buzzfakes other lawsuit is going

“We have redacted Mr. Gubarev's name from the published dossier, and apologize for including it,” BuzzFeed PR rep Matt Mittenthal said in a statement.

Update: Val Gurvits, an attorney with Boston Law Group who filed the defamation complaint on behalf of Gubarev and his companies, said BuzzFeed’s apology and redaction wouldn’t affect his clients’ suit. “The financial damages my clients have suffered are extensive,” he wrote in an email.

www.recode.net...

a reply to: Perfectenemy

What rumor lol ? up until last night he was going back to Breitbart to cover trumps back from afar. Of course with friends like these... on many sides, many sides.
HAhahahahahahahahahaha

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Wanna bet?

Why was Simpson not asked about meeting with Nellie Ohrs husband?
Bruce Ohr has been demoted for this "out of the box" meeting is that not worthy of transparency?
After all Ohr was only the associate deputy attourney general at the time...

a reply to: Sillyolme
You might wanna read the Terms and Conditions here.

15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Just as I stated. I just went through all 375 pages. The only thing redacted are names. On page nineteen and one name of an associate on page 29.

a reply to: Gothmog

Everybody lies is that it? Except trump and his team.

a reply to: neo96

Yeah so called.
That only works if your president.
We won't even discuss what passes for intelligence these days okay.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: Sillyolme

SIC EM' MIKE

twitter.com...

Russia dossier: Trump lawyer sues BuzzFeed for publishing document

Donald Trump’s personal lawyer is suing news website BuzzFeed almost exactly a year after it published an explosive dossier containing serious and salacious allegations about collusion with Russia.

Michael Cohen posted on Twitter on Tuesday night: “Enough is enough of the #fake #RussianDossier. Just filed a defamation action against @BuzzFeedNews for publishing the lie filled document on @POTUS @realDonaldTrump and me!”

www.theguardian.com...

As a reminder, Cohen is the guy who the Dossier claims met with Russians in the Czech Republic (except he didn't. oops.)

Reporters can be found liable for slandering someone if they either knew they were publishing false information, or if they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. It seems to me that if Steel/Fusion failed to perform even this basic level of fact-checking (to confirm that Cohen made such a trip), then that forms a powerful argument that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Inclusion of wild salicous claims like the "peeing hookers" story, which nobody with half a brain takes seriously, also argues in favor of Steel/Fusion recklessly disregarding the truth.