Special counsel indicts 13 Russian nationals in Russia investigation

90% accurate is hardly "full of lies". And even the things that may not be accurate are not lies unless he knew they were inaccurate.

 

70-90 and I imagine he's blowing those number up to make himself look less horrible. He's getting his info from 3rd and 4th hand sources so how can he even guess that? Why are you defending collusion with a Russian agent to effect our election?

 

Steele is British lol
How does a dossier nobody saw until after the election effect an election? Lol

 

Deleted.

 

Dossier compiled between June and December of 2016 and Steele was leaking elements to the press. Certainly you heard the bogus pissing lies spawning from the Russian agent. Why are you defending Russian collusion to effect our election?

 

The pissing story came well after the election.
Hiring a British contractor with Russian sources is not collusion and it's silly to suggest it is

 

It was a Russian agent feeding crap to a British agent who gave it to the FBI to justify spying while also feeding bits and pieces to the press. And you got duped by the Russian agent which is why you feel the need to make excuses for the Russian lies.

 

A Russian agent? Who???

 

Very lovely girl, who clearly takes her fitness seriously.

McCain Associate Subpoenaed About "Steele Dossier"

Byron York reporting.

McCain associate David Kramer went to London to pick up the "Steele Dossier" (if Steele really is the author) and get briefed on it. He took it to McCain, who took it to the FBI, which already had most of it, as Steele was giving it to them "in installments."

In his last round of questioning by the House Intelligence Committee, Kramer said he knew who the Soviet, I mean Russian, sources for the dossier's outrageous claims were, but "declined" to say who they were. (Instapundit notes he hears that Kramer took the Fifth on this question.)

Now Kramer's being subpoenaed specifically to answer those questions, and I imagine the Committee will be prepared for him to take the Fifth or otherwise refuse to answer.

Here's why this is important, per Byron York:

[T]here is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn not just the origin of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. There is a growing belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators' views, they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the American political system.

Investigators who favor this theory ask a sensible question: Is it likely that all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming, Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America -- except the Russians who talked to Christopher Steele?

It is a sensible question-- all Russians are scheming liars, except the ones peddling evidence-free claims about Trump?! -- which is why the Democrats and the media and the Never Trumpers (but I repeat myself thricely) never ask it.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/373999.php

 

Amazing how you "know" exactly what sources Steele was using.

Can you PROVE that allegation or can we just correctly presume that you pulled that out of the nether regions of some alt right blogger?

 

Who were his sources then?

 

But a 5 minute meeting with a Russian where no information or money changed hands IS collusion.

You really are funny.

 

Who said that?

 

It was YOUR claim and now you admit you have no idea lol

 

"The Steele dossier was a compilation of purported intelligence reports authored by former British spy Christopher Steele. Based on anonymous Russian sources peddling fourth-hand hearsay accounts"

https://nypost.com/2018/02/02/what-the-nunes-memo-tells-us-and-what-it-doesnt/

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your source is a TABLOID owned by the FauxNoise alt right disinformation cartel?

Furthermore it just makes a statement without any attempt to provide verification or validation.

And the gullible believe that claptrap without question.



Thanks for exposing where you are getting your absurd nonsense from.

 

If only Schiffs memo didn't confirm every word of it!

 

Except that it does NOTHING of the kind.

The Schiff memo exposes the CANARDS in the nunes pack of lies memo.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/24/politics/nunes-schiff-key-areas-disagree/index.html

 

Look at Schiffs memo. Persons NOT named, but referenced. Cody Shearer, Jon Winer, Mike Isikoff, Mrs. Ohr, Oleg Deripaska, Alex Downer. Schiff only confirms that rumors and hearsay were used to support rumors and hearsay. After reading Schiffs memo I realized Nunes / Grassleys memo only exposes parts of the gross misrepresentations, and GLARING omissions in the FISA app. The moment SCHIFFS memo is confirmed by FISA court transcripts, criminal referals are going to start flying. Justice Roberts might beat Nunes / Grassley to it.

 

Which alt right source produced that disinformation?

Nevermind, we already know that it won't have any credibility because all of them are running on the fumes of desperation in the vain hope that your BLOTUS's regime is not going to be utterly discredited when the Mueller investigation completes it's indictments.

 

Adam Schiffs memo is the alt-right source. He OMITS the identies, and what each specifically provided to the FBI, but Schiff confirms exactly what Nunes, Grassley, and myself allege. Facts withheld, gross misrepresentations. Schiff even confirms that the fact Steele was cut loose for leaking to Isikoff, intel Steele received from Winer was concealed. I'm about to put up a thread ... you'll hate it.

 

Because I mentally redacted the opinion, and unsupported conclusion of Mr Schiff my comprehension comes into question? Schiff went to great lengths not to mention the "underlying docs" he was sooo concerned about ... and the sources identities. Filling the blanks is a game one usually masters as a child. It's sad to see that so many haven't reached that basic level of cognitive achievement. Shearers dossier, and Downers drunken recital, a certain London professor, and Oleg Deripaska are the multiple choices from which to choose. Care to play?

 

That you are stooping to puerile ad homs says volumes.

 

Unhappy? Maybe if you didn't resort to ad homs so frequently yourself, others, including myself wouldn't interpret them as an invitation to respond in kind. Check your privilege ...

 

Ironic!