- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Steele relied on claims posted by a random person on CNN website to "verify" dossier
Posted on 3/17/19 at 2:38 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 3/17/19 at 2:38 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yet it was used to support the dossier.
How do you suggest this 2009 article was used for anything other than providing background info on Webzilla? It doesn't appear from the transcript excerpts published so far that they went that far into it during the depositions.
1
Posted on 3/17/19 at 2:47 pm to Decatur
quote:
How do you suggest this 2009 article was used for anything other than providing background info on Webzilla? It doesn't appear from the transcript excerpts published so far that they went that far into it during the depositions.
So your assertion is that Steele did not use unverified information in the dossier?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 2:56 pm to BBONDS25
He often used human sources for information. Of course there is much within the several reports that cannot be verified, some of it apparently not true. Steele said himself much of it needed further verification.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 2:59 pm to Decatur
quote:
there is much within the several reports that cannot be verified, some of it apparently not true. Steele said himself much of it needed further verification.
Does the woods procedure require verification?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:01 pm to Decatur
quote:
Of course there is much within the several reports that cannot be verified, some of it apparently not true. Steele said himself much of it needed further verification.
So it wasn't verified. Why did Comey, Yates, Rod etc. sign their names swearing that everything was verified and accurate?
This is the last time I will ask this question. It's clear you don't understand what's going on here
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:42 pm to Decatur
quote:
I think
quote:
would suggest
quote:Only as good as the bullshite your heroes put in or magically omitted, but you knew that already.
The Woods file would have been attached to the applications and available for the judges to review. If they had a problem with it I sure they could have brought it up at the time
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:44 pm to Decatur
quote:
some of it apparently not true.
Yeah you are an intel troop.Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Recatur dgaf about that, you know it, I know it and so does Rexcatur.
Does the woods procedure require verification?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:46 pm to Bunyan
Did Steele not tell the FBI what they say he told them? It was Steele's statements that were presented in the applications. The SSA verified that Steele provided this information. All four judges considered this and other unknown information in support of granting the applications. It really seems to be a closed case on the issue IMO.
That the applications were renewed should tell you they were getting the type of information that they were seeking, at least enough to renew the surveillance three times.
That the applications were renewed should tell you they were getting the type of information that they were seeking, at least enough to renew the surveillance three times.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:48 pm to Decatur
quote:
other unknown information in support of granting the applications. It really seems to be a closed case on the issue IMO.
quote:bullshite.
That the applications were renewed should tell you they were getting the type of information that they were seeking, at least enough to renew the surveillance three times.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 3:59 pm to Decatur
You're the type of Intel troop we loved. You are the guy that briefed us prior to missions. You were kick arse at telling me the conversion rate of the currency, the type of government and the weather for the next ten days, but oddly would omit we were landing on the 25th anniversary of the attempted violent overthrow of the government, sweet seeing smoke and flames all over the city you are landing at, only to find out you will spend the night in a hangar for protection.
Intel troops are the bestest at being obtuse.
Intel troops are the bestest at being obtuse.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 4:14 pm to Decatur
quote:
That the applications were renewed should tell you they were getting the type of information that they were seeking, at least enough to renew the surveillance three times.
If the woods procedure were followed then the information was presented as verified. If the judge signed based upon misinformation the warrants will likely be illegal. So...were the woods procedures followed?
You know the answer. Your obfuscation is quite telling. You are fully aware of the issues with the warrant application. You just don’t care.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 4:20 pm to Decatur
quote:
It was Steele's statements that were presented in the applications.
Actually they omitted Steele's statement where he told Ohr he was "desperate that Trump not get elected"
That statement was unfortunately withheld from the applications
Posted on 3/17/19 at 4:23 pm to Jbird
quote:
You're the type of Intel troop we loved. You are the guy that briefed us prior to missions.
JBird people might start taking your posts seriously. Stahp.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 4:43 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
If the woods procedure were followed then the information was presented as verified.
I don't think there's an allegation here that the Steele told the FBI something different than they say he told them. Any judge in this position would know the nature of the information provided and could make their decision based upon what was presented to them.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 4:59 pm to Decatur
quote:
don't think there's an allegation here that the Steele told the FBI something different than they say he told them.
Is that the requirement of the woods procedure? Or is the requirement verification?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 5:05 pm to Decatur
quote:
Did Steele not tell the FBI what they say he told them? It was Steele's statements that were presented in the applications. The SSA verified that Steele provided this information. All four judges considered this and other unknown information in support of granting the applications. It really seems to be a closed case on the issue IMO. That the applications were renewed should tell you they were getting the type of information that they were seeking, at least enough to renew the surveillance three times.
My number one regret in life this moment is that I don’t have the authority to identify your arse and put you in a work camp. You’re a piece of shite and an enemy of a free nation.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 5:18 pm to BBONDS25
Seems to me they make sure that what they are telling the court about their source's statements is what their source told them.
Posted on 3/17/19 at 5:53 pm to Decatur
quote:
Seems to me they make sure that what they are telling the court about their source's statements is what their source told them.
Wasn’t my question. It is a simple one. Do the Woods procedures require verification?
Posted on 3/17/19 at 6:10 pm to BBONDS25
The procedures require that a draft application be reviewed for accuracy. The SSA ultimately verifies the application.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News