Narrative-shattering revelation: Clinton campaign fed information to Chris Steele!

www.foxnews.com...

A criminal referral by Lindsay Graham and Chuck Grassley against Steele alleges, among many other things, that Clinton associates fed information to Steele while he was compiling his heavily (and now entirely) discredited dossier.

Steele was referred back in January for prosecution as to the matter of making false statements to federal investigators, at a minimum. This is the first time this allegation within the referral has been brought to light, however.

Grassley and Graham are working to get the rest of the criminal referral "emergency declassified" in spirit of transparency.

The narrative is now dead, officially

"It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility," the senators wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia probe, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

"...there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility,” the senators wrote.

Entire sections of the memorandum were redacted by the FBI on the basis that it contained classified information, though a review of the document shows the FBI redacted references to media reporting, including a Washington Post story available on the Internet.

Lock them up

a reply to: JBurns

What part of the dossier was discredited??

Now I am not saying it has all been confirmed, but I have not seen any instance where the dossier claimed trump was in place “X”, but there is proof he was really in a different country, or something else that shows it was false..


The fact that it makes abnormal claims about trump liking to be urinated on , is not proof it isn’t true.. people have way crazier fetishes than that..

That is the only thing I have heard saying that “discredits” the dossier.. which it doesn’t.. we have no idea what ANYONES private fetishs are..


The fact that it was paid for by an anti-trump conservative group, then the contract was picked up by the DNC doesn’t discredit anything..


Just because the evidence came from someone who doesn’t like you doesn’t discredit it..

It means you should check harder.. but it doesn’t mean it is inherently a lie..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The better question is, what part has been verified?

By your logic, someone could just make up a pack of lies, and until they are proven false, you assume they are true?


Wait..... That is exactly what happened.

Why do you assume the dossier is factual? Because you don't like Trump?

So you think a document created by someone who:

1) admitted anti-Trump bias,
2) is paid by the opposition,
3) spreads rumors provided to them by the opposition,
4) presents no evidence to back their allegations up,
5) gets caught lying at least once,

(what am I missing)

should be trusted?

Because you do realize the Nune's memo you've all attacked so hard has far more "evidence" than the dossier could ever dream of, right?

The fact that it makes abnormal claims about trump liking to be urinated on , is not proof it isn’t true.. people have way crazier fetishes than that..

And is also irrelevant. What he does in private is his business. That isn't what I'm talking about, and surely isn't reason for criminal investigation. I'm talking about allegations of criminal acts as described by the United States Code (none of this "collusion" allegations stuff - it IS NOT a crime)

That is the only thing I have heard saying that “discredits” the dossier.. which it doesn’t.. we have no idea what ANYONES private fetishs are..

Why fixate on this? Nobody is interested in his private life, including strange things like listed above

The fact that it was paid for by an anti-trump conservative group, then the contract was picked up by the DNC doesn’t discredit anything..

It absolutely does. It impeaches the motives of those who compiled it. Just as Steele's admitted anti-Trump bias creates a conflict of interest, Hillary LYING about paying for the dossier creates a conflict of interest, Hillary FEEDING Steele information creates a conflict of interest, Steele lying to investigators creates a conflict of interest/disqualification of credibility and Steele making a whole bunch of salacious claims without providing a shred of evidence to back them up also harms his credibility. The very fact it was a CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT also calls into question its credibility/reliability

When you're presenting evidence of a crime, YOUR CREDIBILITY is all you've got. In these situations, when it is word against word, CREDIBILITY and MOTIVES are all the more important. Can you really say you'd be comfortable with us investigating your side with this # quality of information? I highly doubt it

a reply to: Mach2


Precisely

He is saying that you or I, as private citizens, can compile whatever information we'd like on individuals we personally hate (like Hillary) and that everybody should take us seriously. Even though we provide no evidence, admit our hatred of her, were paid by their opposition, were caught lying, were given the information by their opposition....they should just "trust us" to suddenly put our bias/opinion/vitriol aside and "do the right thing" GIVE ME A BREAK

TRUST US Right?

You people would be up in arms if we investigated Clinton/Obama/etc with the same level of cockamamie b#%#%s#it information that has been the hallmark of this entire Trump/Russia/Dossier/HILLARY CLINTON LEAD nonsense.

Totally. And. Utterly. Discredited/Disqualified (but not debunked - since most of the information within cannot be checked out one way or the other - that was Hillary's POINT)

EDIT: If real, substantied evidence would've been provided, then you'd be correct JoshuaCox Their motives/credibility would matter a bit less, since the evidence could speak for itself. But there is no hard evidence presented. In fact, a great majority of it cannot possibly be verified

No personal offense to you or anything my friend, and I apologize for getting "trigged" over this. However, I must point out that I am CERTAIN the Democratic party would NOT accept us investigating Hillary/Obama or anybody else on mere allegations alone. Say for instance it would've came out that her email investigation was because of Trump (it was long before he was elected, but for the sake of arguments lets pretend it wasn't). Now lets assume the evidence Trump was using was discovered to have come from his own campaign that paid a foreign citizen hundreds of thousands of dollars to compile it (more than "The Russians" allegedly spent on their social media ads, by the way), fed at least some of the information that was in it, and then got caught lying to the FBI about matters relating to it. You would be satisified that investigation was not a witch-hunt/abuse of the justice/intelligence system? I remind you that Intelligence is a military component....that was used against a US citizen...

Posted already.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: JBurns

It is funny the conservative sites saying this stuff never site anything that has been discredited..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

It is funny the conservative sites saying this stuff never site anything that has been discredited..

Did you mean "cite"? Either way it makes little sense. What, in the dossier, has been verified? The burden of proof is on the accuser. It is not up to Trump to refute unproven allegations.

Think logically about what you are suggesting.

a reply to: Mach2

I did not start an op off by saying “ we know everything in the dossier has been verified “ ..


I specifically said it has not been verified..

THE OP STARTD OFF BY CLAIMING IT HAD BEEN DISCREDITED..


SO obviously it would be on him to back up that claim.,


I even kinda agree that a few cases of proven falsehoods in the dossier, would discredit the rest of the info involved.... atleast until other evidence surfaced..


But I haven’t seen ANYONE be able to point to one thing in the dossier and say “see “X” right there is fake. So it is all fake”..

They just obscurely say it has been discredited and expect you to trust them..

a reply to: Mach2

One of the allegations was that Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen, was in Prague to meet Kremlin officials in July or August 2016 (I can't remember the specific dates in the dossier). This was proven false when officials at Florida State University confirmed he was there with his son looking at a potential baseball scholarship for his son. His passport shows no visits to Prague ever.

The dossier stated that Carter Page, Trump campaign associate, had secretly met Kremlin officials after he had given a speech in Moscow during July 2016. It was no secret that Page was in Moscow giving a speech, but he vehemently denies secretly meeting any Kremlin officials.

There were some things that cannot be proven, such as the Trump "golden showers" excerpt from the dossier. There is no evidence and no witnesses coming forward from the hotel that this incident supposedly happened. Another part of the dossier stated that the Kremlin offered several expensive real estate properties to Trump for his later cooperation which he declined. Once again, this is hard to prove.

Keep in mind, when Comey met with Trump, it was to brief him on the "salacious & unverified content". This context was meant to infer that there was SOME info in the dossier they believed was credible, but some of it was not.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You haven't looked very hard.

Look into the lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was accused of meeting Russians in the Czech republic.

In reality, he has never been there for any reason, and has a lawsuit against buzzfeed over it.

The lefts response? Oh, it must have been a different Michael Cohen.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

See the Politico .
It is titled.... 'Democrats embraced a flawed dossier '

Politico is not a right wing rag.

The dossier may be worse than just uncorroborated. In an op-ed this week, former CIA officer Daniel Hoffman wrote that the near misses in the dossier bore the mark of Russian disinformation, “accurate basic facts provided as bait to convince Americans that the fake info is real.” That’s the same intriguing theory floated by the British journalist Ben McIntyre, an expert on intelligence who has described the idea like so: “They set up an ex-MI6 guy, Chris Steele, who is a patsy, effectively, and they feed him some stuff that’s true, and some stuff that isn’t true, and some stuff that is demonstrably wrong.”

a reply to: bmullini

I believe that was longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen they accused of this.

Apparently the preeminent law enforcement agency in the world couldn't be bothered to verify this, even though it would have taken a few minutes, and a couple phone calls.

a reply to: Mach2

Yes, thank you. I corrected the earlier post to reflect Cohen and not Page. Too many bits of info and I get the hamster running on the wheel too hard in my head.

a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think Steele was a patsy at all. He knew exactly what he was doing, and making bank from several sources at the same time.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think Steele was a patsy at all. He knew exactly what he was doing, and making bank from several sources at the same time.

Left wingers at Politico know that he isn't a patsy too.

a reply to: butcherguy

I had seen this argument elsewhere. Folks within the IC thought some of the language with the dossier was somewhat "juvenile" thinking that it was either misinformation or someone with English as a second language. But this is what raises questions with me:

Mueller is now focusing on the Trump Tower meeting where DT jr, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya under the pre-tense that she had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Why are we focused on this? Even if she gave them "dirt" on Clinton, is this illegal? Christopher Steele went to his contacts IN THE KREMLIN to gather info on Donald Trump. Is this anymore illegal that the Trump Tower meeting?

a reply to: bmullini

It is a tangled web isn't it?

I really fail to see how any rational person can give any credence at all to Steele, or the dossier, given what we now know.

Ppl need to see past the Trump hate. Don't they realize that the FBI used false, or at the very least unverified, information to secure a FISA warrant to spy on a US citizen? Don't they realize what a dangerous precedent this would set?

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It erodes the foundation of our republic, as well as our Constitution.

a reply to: Mach2

Yes, this is a pretty nasty web LEOs have weaved here. Just found another interesting article...

dailycaller.com...

Steele was leaking info to Yahoo news, then the FBI used the same Yahoo news article (that Steele was the source of) in their FISA application to corroborate the dossier information.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: butcherguy

I don't think Steele was a patsy at all. He knew exactly what he was doing, and making bank from several sources at the same time.

Now that we know that parts of the Dossier were fed to Steele by Clinton associates, it should be questioned whether those Russian sources really exist at all, or if the entire dossier came from the Clintons/DNC, and Steele was simply reporting what he was told to "discover."