Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's wild - the only real thing the Trump supporters have to go on, where it comes to "debunking" the Steele Dossier is the Horowitz Report - which basically did little other than to accuse Danchenko of being a liar.

Yet even that was pretty much a fail, given Danchenko was ultimately acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/14/danchenko-one-count-dimissed-durham/

Also, I would wonder - if what Steele compiled were all just slander and lies, why hasn't Trump gone after him with a lawsuit, like he did with so many other people, like E. Jean Carroll?

Maybe it's because Trump knows that discovery in that suit would be damning for him.

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations.


The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.

Many allegations in the dossier have been dismissed by authorities or remain unverified.


So where is the list of verified allegations? Nobody ever lists those.

There was a link above, lawfare blog. There are many others. Also, Mueller Investigation ended up corroborating many items in the dossier.

So where is the extensive list of conclusively disproven or debunked allegations. Nobody has ever listed that. Horowitz released a lazy spreadsheet with a few dozen items, but didn't actually disprove most of them, instead they were left blank, as neither proven nor disproven (even though some of the items he listed were in fact proven). But instead Horowitz just tried to make sweeping generalizations, like "well Steele's source was Danchenko, and he is a liar" without specifically going into any details... But sadly for Horowitz, Danchenko ended up acquitted on the accusations against him, making most of Horowitz's work completely useless and pointless.

There is nothing at the lawfare blog that lists the corroborated allegations. Nor is there a single site online website with a scorecard or list or any other metric that shows what was specifically corroborated.

Why is there not such a list?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's wild - the only real thing the Trump supporters have to go on, where it comes to "debunking" the Steele Dossier is the Horowitz Report - which basically did little other than to accuse Danchenko of being a liar.

Yet even that was pretty much a fail, given Danchenko was ultimately acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/14/danchenko-one-count-dimissed-durham/

Also, I would wonder - if what Steele compiled were all just slander and lies, why hasn't Trump gone after him with a lawsuit, like he did with so many other people, like E. Jean Carroll?

Maybe it's because Trump knows that discovery in that suit would be damning for him.

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations.


The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.

Many allegations in the dossier have been dismissed by authorities or remain unverified.


So where is the list of verified allegations? Nobody ever lists those.

There was a link above, lawfare blog. There are many others. Also, Mueller Investigation ended up corroborating many items in the dossier.

So where is the extensive list of conclusively disproven or debunked allegations. Nobody has ever listed that. Horowitz released a lazy spreadsheet with a few dozen items, but didn't actually disprove most of them, instead they were left blank, as neither proven nor disproven (even though some of the items he listed were in fact proven). But instead Horowitz just tried to make sweeping generalizations, like "well Steele's source was Danchenko, and he is a liar" without specifically going into any details... But sadly for Horowitz, Danchenko ended up acquitted on the accusations against him, making most of Horowitz's work completely useless and pointless.

Anonymous wrote:Now news of a missing binder from the investigation. Trump and his cronies took it. New York Times for those who want to google.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's wild - the only real thing the Trump supporters have to go on, where it comes to "debunking" the Steele Dossier is the Horowitz Report - which basically did little other than to accuse Danchenko of being a liar.

Yet even that was pretty much a fail, given Danchenko was ultimately acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/14/danchenko-one-count-dimissed-durham/

Also, I would wonder - if what Steele compiled were all just slander and lies, why hasn't Trump gone after him with a lawsuit, like he did with so many other people, like E. Jean Carroll?

Maybe it's because Trump knows that discovery in that suit would be damning for him.

The United States intelligence community and most experts have treated the dossier with caution due to its unverified allegations.


The Mueller Report contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.

Many allegations in the dossier have been dismissed by authorities or remain unverified.


So where is the list of verified allegations? Nobody ever lists those.

Anonymous wrote:FBI offered […]

Anonymous wrote:It's wild - the only real thing the Trump supporters have to go on, where it comes to "debunking" the Steele Dossier is the Horowitz Report - which basically did little other than to accuse Danchenko of being a liar.

Yet even that was pretty much a fail, given Danchenko was ultimately acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/14/danchenko-one-count-dimissed-durham/

Also, I would wonder - if what Steele compiled were all just slander and lies, why hasn't Trump gone after him with a lawsuit, like he did with so many other people, like E. Jean Carroll?

Maybe it's because Trump knows that discovery in that suit would be damning for him.

Anonymous wrote:Same thing with Giuliani. These guys were on the take from Russia.

It's actually incredible how deep they got into the highest levels of law enforcement and the IC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he's seen the PP tape.

Nobody has, because there isn’t one.

Trump-Russia collusion was fabricated issue by the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

Now a high level FBI agent who investigated Trump is being sentenced to prison for collusion with Russia, and you are still in denial.

Steele Dossier Analyst Who Claimed Trump Pee Tape Existed Arrested by Feds
Danchenko was arrested as part of a special counsel inquiry into whether there was any wrongdoing in the FBI's investigation of the Trump administration's ties with Russia

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/steele-dossier-analyst-arrested-igor-danchenko-1253151/amp/

Igor Danchenko — the analyst who was the lead researcher on the infamous Steele dossier that made outlandish claims about then-President Elect Donald Trump, including the allegation that a tape existed of him with urinating hookers in a Russian hotel room — was arrested Thursday by federal authorities, The New York Times reported.

Danchenko is a Russia analyst who reported in the Steele dossier the infamous pee tape claim that Trump asked “a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show in front of him,” although no evidence has been revealed to back that claim up. Trump denies the allegation. Danchenko was arrested as part of a special counsel inquiry being led by John H. Durham, who is looking into whether there was any wrongdoing in the FBI’s investigation of the Trump administration’s ties with Russia. The charges against Danchenko are not yet known but are expected to be unsealed sometime on Thursday, according to The Washington Post, which spoke with people familiar with the matter.

At present, the tape has neither been proven nor disproven.

Just because there was a Durham witch hunt over the dossier doesn't mean it was disproven or debunked, in any way, shape or form. Also, around 80% of what was in the Steele Dossier has in fact been proven to be true.

Christopher Steele was an opposition researcher paid by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump. Democrats and media smeared a presidential contender, and then president, and paralyzed U.S. politics for three years.


https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

^^Inspector General Michael Horowitz found the Dossier was compiled from hearsay and third-hand gossip from two low-level sources and that they denied the testimony attributed to them. The only “verified” information that Horowitz found was available from public sources.


https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

^^^A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources. They also raise serious questions about the political underpinnings of some key explosive claims about Trump by shedding new light on the involvement of some well-connected Democrats in the dossier, and separate efforts to prod the FBI to investigate ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Democrats paid for the research, funneled information to Steele's sources, and then urged the FBI to investigate Trump's connections to Russia.

Mother Jones first revealed the existence of the dossier a few days before the 2016 election, and said the memos were part of an "opposition research project" underwritten by Democrats. Nearly a year passed before the full truth came out about the financing: The money flowed from Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to law firm Perkins Coie, to the research company Fusion GPS, and then ultimately to Steele, who got $168,000.

(Anti-Trump Republicans initially funded Fusion GPS' research during the 2016 GOP primaries, but the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee picked up the tab before Steele got involved.)

Clinton's campaign funded the project, and we now know that much of the material in Steele's memos ended up being mere political gossip. Steele then sent his explosive but unverified findings to the FBI and State Department.

While Steele was passing his tips onto the FBI in fall 2016, a Clinton campaign lawyer separately met with a senior FBI official and gave him information about strange cyberactivity between servers at the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia.

The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, has since been charged with lying to the FBI during that meeting,

Sussmann repeated this lie during a meeting with CIA officials in February 2017. Sussman peddled the same material to a Slate reporter, who published a story right before the election. The story said reputable computer scientists uncovered unusual activity between servers belonging to the Trump Organization and the Moscow-based Alfa Bank, suggesting a secret backchannel.

The Trump Organization and Alfa Bank both denied there was a backchannel. The FBI investigated the underlying data and ruled out any improper cyber links by February 2017.

But after the Slate article came out, Clinton's campaign went on a PR blitz, tying Trump to Russia.

Sussmann was a partner at the law firm Perkins Coie, which indirectly hired Steele. Both men separately went to the FBI in 2016 with dirt about Trump, though there's no indication Sussmann knew about the dossier. (A 2019 Justice Department watchdog report pointed out that the FBI routinely accepts information from biased or dubious sources, and then investigators try to independently vet the material.)

After he was charged, Sussmann resigned from Perkins Coie. He declined to comment for this story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who is actually following the story is fooled by your long-winded slant, PP.

+1

Way to advertise you don’t read anything from legitimate sources, ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who is actually following the story is fooled by your long-winded slant, PP.

+1

Way to advertise you don’t read anything from legitimate sources, ever.