home

Russia's Alleged Not So Secret Dossier on Trump

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 10:01:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's the dossier compiled by a British operative on Donald Trump, for the benefit of Russia. courtesy of Buzzfeed, which says the material is unconfirmed and there are some errors (although the ones they cite are very minor, like misspelling Alpha as Alfa.)

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. BuzzFeed News reporters in the US and Europe have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Obama and Trump.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Michael Flynn and more come off really bad. Trump has named Cohen as his White House counsel. (The dossier says Cohen's wife is Russian and her father owns property in Moscow.) It claims Cohen met with Russian reps at a meeting in Prague in August. He denies ever going to Prague.

The Daily Mail has more. Where was the infamous bed? At the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow.

Question: If James Comey had this, why'd he sit on it but not on Anthony Wiener? He really needs to resign from leading the FBI.

True or not, it's outrageous, but oh so typical, that this wasn't exposed before the election. It sounds like the worst kept secret in Washington -- the media knew, Congress knew and no one told the public.

Donald Trump. The UnPresident-elect who always makes you want to take a shower. Hard to believe we face four years of trying to scrape his sh*t off our shoes.

The Guardian has some new information. McCain personally met with Comey on Dec. 9 to give him the information.

According to the report passed to Comey, Russian intelligence allegedly gathered compromising material during Trump’s stay in Moscow in November 2013, when he was in the city to host the Miss Universe pageant.
The Guardian says the FBI sought a FISA warrant for four members of Trump's team regarding alleged improper contacts with Russia, but was told it was too broad:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
Mother Jones reported on this in October. Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News reported on Page being the subject of an FBI inquiry in September. And it was widely reported that Paul Manafort's Russian ties were the subject of an FBI inquiry right before Manafort resigned.
And it comes a day after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid criticized Comey's revelation and asserted that Comey possesses "explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government."
Trump Counsel Cohen on Twitter denies he's ever been to Prague. Carter Page's trip is documented. Trump was in Moscow for Ms. Universe in 2013 and is shown in photos.
< Tuesday Open Thread | Trump to Let Sons Control His Assets >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Russia's Alleged Not So Secret Dossier on Trump | 198 comments (198 topical)
    If this is true and can be verified (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by smott on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    Does it not meet the standard for Treason?

    (From The Guardian) Another of the reports compiled by the former western counter-intelligence official in July said that members of Trump's team, which was led by campaign manager Paul Manafort (a former consultant for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine), had knowledge of the DNC hacking operation, and in return "had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine".

    A few days later, Trump raised the possibility that his administration might recognise Russia's annexation of Crimea and openly called on Moscow to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.

    No, it doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    meet the definition. The Framers of our Constitution chose to limit the abuses that come with too-ready assessment of the "treason" label by limiting the definition very narrowly, including that it only applies in times of war.

    Parent
    I believe that Article III, Section 3 of ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 02:43:35 PM EST
    ... the Constitution defines treason as the acts of levying war against the United States OR adhering to its enemies by offering aid and comfort. The authors of that particular provision did not specify whether an active state of war has to actually exist for the charge of treason to be invoked.

    Rather, that definition was enhanced by Chief Justice John Marshall's ruling in United States v. Aaron Burr (1807), whereby an "overt act of treason" must be construed by prosecutors as an actual act of war by the defendant against the United States, and not merely an inferred intent to do so as recounted by a witness. Further, the defendant must be physically present at the scene during the time in the alleged act of treason takes place. Marshall's ruling struck down the charge of treason before Burr's trial even began; Burr was subsequently tried on a high misdemeanor charge of conspiracy, and not for treason as is commonly and mistakenly surmised.

    Because members of the U.S. Supreme Court also pulled double duty back in the day and simultaneously served as federal judges riding their circuits, Marshall was also the presiding judge in Burr's trial. The federal government had one primary witness against Burr, Gen. James Wilkerson, a military officer who also served as governor of Orleans Territory, which encompassed the area that's the present-day State of Louisiana.

    There is also considerable evidence, in the form of Spanish colonial ledger books in Mexico's National Archives, that Gen. Wilkerson so happened to have been a paid agent of Spanish colonial authorities in Mexico City, who for obvious reasons were desirous of any knowledge regarding U.S. designs on their territory. It was Wilkinson who had initially ordered Burr's arrest for treason, which occurred as Burr was allegedly trying to flee to Spanish territory in west Florida, according to Wilkerson himself.

    While the fact of Wilkerson's role as double agent was unknown to either Chief Justice Marshall or President Thomas Jefferson at the time of Burr's trial in Richmond, VA, I would argue that by being in the employ of the Spanish, Gen. Wilkerson was sufficiently motivated to testify against the former vice president for entirely self-serving reasons, lest his own less than patriotic activities on Mexico City's behalf have otherwise potentially come to light.

    The evidence further shows Wilkerson's allegiance to the Spanish dates as far back as 1787, when he desired to lead the territory of Kentucky (then part of the Commonwealth of Virginia) as a self-declared independent state, while the rest of the country was still pre-occupied with the ongoing Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

    For that reason, I've always suspected that the charges against Aaron Burr were likely trumped up considerably, if not contrived and fabricated entirely. James Wilkerson was one of the more unsavory and ethically tainted characters in early American history -- a true scoundrel, really.

    For his part, Burr had always contended that his actions out west were at the behest of President Jefferson, who desired to wrest the territories of Tejas (present-day Texas) and west Florida from Spanish colonial control in order to secure the then-tentative U.S. hold on Orleans Territory and the unorganized Territory of Louisiana, which was then the rest of the vast territory purchased by the Jefferson administration from Napoleonic France in 1803.

    It should also be noted that Jefferson and Burr had been rather fierce political rivals in the 1800 presidential election, which ended up as a tie between them in the Electoral College and moved the contest to the U.S. House of Representatives, which subsequently chose Jefferson as president while the Senate chose Burr as vice president.

    Needless to say, that particular arrangement proved an awkward situation for both men, given the inherent distrust the two had not only for each other, but also for former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the man who had orchestrated and secured Federalist Party support for Jefferson in the House. Burr never forgave Hamilton for what he saw as an act of betrayal against a fellow New Yorker, which had serious consequences for both men a little over three years later.

    Getting back to Burr's trial, he had called President Jefferson to produce letters sent to him personally by Gen. Wilkerson, as they might contain pertinent information essential for the defense. Jefferson then refused to comply with the request from Burr's counsel, even when ordered by Marshall to do so.

    Now, it should be noted that Jefferson himself had a lot to gain politically were his intra-party Democratic rival to be convicted and eliminated, which may have further motivated him at least in part to decline his former vice president's request. Indeed, Jefferson had already pronounced Burr's guilt publicly and repeatedly on the charge of treason, as though it were already an accomplished fact, which was what prompted the defense motion for the president to produce the Wilkerson letters.

    In any event, Jefferson thus effectively invoked for the very first time in U.S. history the right of the president to executive privilege. And while Chief Justice Marshall upheld in the motion for subpoena brought by the defense, he quietly let the matter drop when Jefferson defied his directive. It was afterward, when a grand jury indicted Burr for treason, that Marshall issued his famous ruling on treason, which struck down the charge and set his narrow contruct as legal precedent, perhaps as his own response to Jefferson's defiance.

    So, out of Aaron Burr's 1807 trial for treason came two important actions, both of which would have considerable ramifications for our country's future with regards to our respective legal concepts of treason and executive privilege. (The matter of limits upon executive privilege was only finally resolved by the Supreme Court during the Watergate scandal in 1974, when it ruled unanimously that President Nixon must turn over the White House tapes to prosecutors.)

    As it was, Burr's personal reputation was considerably besmirched and tarnished by the charges of treason levied against him, if it hadn't been already by the occasion of his now-notorious "Interview at Weehawken" with former Treasury Secretary Hamilton in July 1804, which resulted in the latter's death.

    Burr never recovered politically, and was consigned to become a rather inglorious and prominent footnote in the soap opera that was our country's early political history, a subject which never fails to fascinate and surprise me.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Point of clarification: (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    I contradicted myself somewhat in the third to last paragraph with the statement "Aaron Burr's 1807 trial for treason."

    In fact, I had stated earlier - and correctly - that Burr was never tried for treason per se because Chief Justice John Marshall had essentially dismissed that charge four months prior to the actual trial, when he sided with the contention of Burr's defense counsels Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin during a pretrial hearing in April 1807 that prosecutors needed to prove both that an act of war had been actually committed, and that Burr was further there on location in person to direct events.

    Rather, Marshall allowed Burr to be tried that August on a high misdemeanor charge of conspiracy, and further granted prosecutors the attempt to meet that almost impossibly high bar he had placed before them regarding treason.

    Once Marshall was sufficiently satisfied that prosecutors failed to address the charge of treason on his narrow grounds, he then formally dismissed it publicly at the trial itself. In a lengthy opinion written back in April, which he then read aloud from the bench over the course of three hours, Marshall ruled that treason could not have been committed by Burr because: (a) no overt act of war had been committed against the United States, and (b) Burr was over one hundred miles away in Nashville, TN during the time that federal authorities, at the behest of the dubious Gen. James Wilkerson, raided the Blennerhassett's Island, VA, (now West Virginia) locale where Wilkerson had alleged that Burr's treasonous activity took place, and subsequently arrested about 30 men.

    At the time Burr was brought to trial in Richmond, Marshall noted that not one of the men who had been arrested at the Blennerhassett's Island gathering of "conspirators" had been tried or convicted. If Burr had been advising this gathering as Wilkerson had alleged, Marshall said, then his role was essentially that of accessory, rather than principal:

    "The legal guilt of the person who planned the assemblage on Blennerhassett's Island depends not simply on the criminality of the previous conspiracy, but on the criminality of that assemblage.  If those who perpetrated the fact be not traitors, he who advised the fact cannot be a traitor.  His guilt, then, in contemplation of law, depends on theirs; and their guilt can only be established in a prosecution against themselves.  Whether the adviser of this assemblage be punishable with death as a principal or as an accessory, his liability to punishment depends on the degree of guilt attached to an act which has been perpetrated by others; and which, if it be a criminal act, renders them guilty also.  His guilt, therefore, depends on theirs; and their guilt cannot be legally established in a prosecution against him." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Once Marshall dismissed the charge of treason, the case against Burr collapsed, and the jury quickly returned a verdict of not guilty once the it was turned over to them for deliberation. Nevertheless, Burr had been completely disgraced by the affair and he withdrew from public life, never to return. Nearly three decades later, having received word of the American settlers' revolution in Texas against Mexico, Burr remarked to a friend:

    "There! You see? I was right! I was only thirty years too soon. What was treason in me thirty years ago, is patriotism now."

    Aloha.  

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#45)
    by smott on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    Here's the US code definition:
    "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

    Parent
    Does that mean... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 03:35:06 PM EST
    all us natural born citizens "owe" allegiance at birth?  You'd think one should have a choice in the matter.

    Legalese is harder to learn/speak than Sanskrit...I swear.

    Parent

    You do have a choice, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:12:32 PM EST
    You can emigrate from the country and effectively renounce your citizenship by seeking the citizenship of another nation.

    Some notable former Americans who've done so include author Henry James (United Kingdom), poet-playwright T.S. Eliot (United Kingdom), scholar W.E.B. DuBois (Ghana), film director John Huston (Ireland), actor Yul Brynner (Switzerland), opera star Maria Callas (Greece), singer Tina Turner (Switzerland), comedian-director Terry Gilliam (United Kingdom), diplomat Ron Dermer (Israel), and anti-Vietnam War activist Gary Wright (Canada).

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Indeed I do... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    but such an action would be an acknowledgement of the concept of owed allegiances to social constructs.

    Parent
    And your refusal to acknowledge ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:16:27 PM EST
    ... that concept proves -- what, exactly?

    I respect principled dissent from the norm as an inherent and important aspect of American socio-political life. But speaking for myself only, dissent undertaken merely for its own sake appears to be based upon a personal desire to be more contrary, than upon taking a principled stand. And in some instances, it can backfire on you in a big way. (See "Trump's Chumps, 2016.")

    Take Zach Fernandez, aka "Jesushands," the guy who decided to alter the iconic "HOLLYWOOD" sign in L.A. with some bedsheets over New Year's weekend so that it read "HOLLYWeeD," and now faces charges of trespassing as it relates to the defacing of public property. The harm he caused was rather minimal at best, and many of us got a good laugh out of it. But ultimately, I'd have to ask him, "What was your point here?"

    Personally, I don't think one needs to recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" to prove that he / she is a good American. On the other hand, when you instead alienate the very people whose understanding and empathy you seek, such contrariness becomes both counter-productive and self-defeating.

    Okay, that's enough babbling from me for today, lest someone ask me what my point is. ;-D I promised the wife that there would be a pitcher of margaritas with her name on it, awaiting her arrival home from work this afternoon. Better wraps things up here at the office, and get home to take care of business.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Don't forget the floater... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    for understanding and empathy my man.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:37:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, under international law (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    that is what it means. You "owe allegiance" to the nation whose citizenship you hold, and I think there is one other category who "owe allegiance" -- perhaps, permanent residents, but I forget and don't have time to look it up just now.

    Parent
    You've done enough... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    Thanks Pal.

    I better mind who I aid and comfort...or treasonously pledge allegiance to aid and comfort instead of the confines of imaginary lines.


    Parent

    I think we need to avoid allowing ourselves ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 05:44:15 PM EST
    ... to get enveloped by our own dust clouds. While I'm not at all dismissing the allegations made in this dossier, I'm also very mindful of the fact that as of this writing, none of them have apparently been sourced.

    That degree of skepticism noted, the fact that that our nation's senior intelligence officials chose to present a summary version of the dossier to both President Obama and President-elect Trump in an indication that they consider this to indeed be a serious matter which bears further investigation.

    And as Jeralyn reiterated, FBI Director James Comey really needs to go.

    Parent

    Trump showed up for the press conference (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    He brought his attorney

    What was with (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    the unruly stack of manila folders besides the podium? I think Trump referred to it as documents showing he was turning over his business. It reminded me of the Trump steaks display at a previous PC, bizarre really.

    Parent
    All that paper is on display to impress the rubes (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    that he is such a bigly important business man. Of course, you are not allowed to see what is actually printed on all that paper, you just need to be wowed by the sheer volume. It proves something!!
    Like the pic he tweeted of him signing his tax returns.

    Parent
    The entire (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    press conference was bizarre.

    Parent
    You were not impressed by the fact that he (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by vml68 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    turned down a two billion dollar deal with an amazing, amazing man? :-)!

    Parent
    Hard to get past (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 03:03:33 PM EST
    Trump's trickle down frolics with Muscovites-- allegedly.  Although we do know that even with photos, Trump would deny, deny, deny.  Just as he denied ever having mocked the disabled NYTimes reporter despite the videos.

    Parent
    Has anybody (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    ever brought their attorney to a press conference before? Not that I can remember.


    Parent
    He's not your average President (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    I guess we'll see that over and over again. He does realize if his lawyer was full of chit 150 lawyers will have a column up on that tomorrow right?

    Why did she have to keep mentioning that the President isn't bound by conflicts of interest?

    You know how irritated you get over Obama's lack of boldness and effectiveness?  That's really come home to roost at the presser.

    Parent

    Armando weighing in on Twitter (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    Clauses are being broken no matter what Trump's attorney tries to sell us.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    just wondering that myself.

    Parent
    when Melania responded to allegations (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:45:35 PM EST
    about whether she ever worked here without the proper visa, she brought a letter from her lawyer saying her immigration papers were in order, and she had H-1B visas, the kind Sessions and Trump now want to limit.

    The Associated Press wasn't so sure.

    But she didn't get to the US till 1996 and the photos weren't published until 1997.

    Then there's Trump Model Management company, where at least four models have alleged slave-like conditions and being told to violate immigration laws.  A  federal lawsuit was filed. Case No:14-cv-08307. Here is an exhibit from the suit which is Trump Model Mgt's letter requesting an H-1B visa request for model Alexa Palmer.

    Mother Jones:

    Trump has taken an active role at Trump Model Management from its founding. He has personally signed models who have participated in his Miss Universe and Miss USA competitions, where his agency staff appeared as judges. Melania Trump was a Trump model for a brief period after meeting her future husband in the late 1990s.


    Parent
    They are all crapping themselves (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    At the presser

    They seem terrified by the allegations. I never remember the Bush administration or the Obama administration being this terrified by false allegations.

    Pence is up now and he can't speak of anything else.

    apparently (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    Priebus did pretty much the same thing in an interview.

    I don't feel one iota of sorrow for them. They knew what they were dealing with and went full steam ahead.

    Parent

    Yup, we have video of Trump inviting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    Russian hacking...among other things

    A lack of fundamental ethics = crapping yourself when what comes around goes around.

    I need a lawyer though for the rest of this presser.

    Parent

    Hey... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    at least the NY Times is back in the good graces of the fuhrer...Buzzfeed, you're the new NY Times.

    Parent
    Trump just refused a question at the presser (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    Pointed at the reporter and said, "Nope, you get no question, you're fake news. Sit down!" Don't know who that was yet. The reporter attempted to tell Trump this is not how this works, Trump moved along. Pretty bold, if it was a fakey news, they should have been handled this way a long time ago.

    He promises drug price negotiation and drug companies must produce drugs in this country again. Wow, why couldn't Obama ever been this bold? That makes me sad.

    But Trump thinks he's going to rein Pootie in. He says Russia is going to respect us more...but maybe he's wrong. Ha! You're wrong Donny

    But Trump said a few things that should have been addressed a long time ago in some form. If he's a pathological liar, people are going to virulently hate him for emotionally playing them. If he accomplishes some of what he mentioned, where in the puck have the Democrats been in fighting for the people? Sigh

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    think it was CNN he refused.

    Couple of shorters:

    "the Russians did hack, but no big deal because everyone does, and it's all the Democrats fault for dressing that way" also "Putin likes me, so everything is cool"

    "It's not possible for the president to have conflicts of interest, but just to keep everyone happy I will have my sons and current Trumpexec utives, run my company so we can pretend it's independent"

    "we are helping the Democrats by eliminating Obamacare with some undefined wonderfulness"

    "everyone who opposes me is a Nazi" and did I mention "Putin loves me".

    Parent

    I was searching on Twitter for who (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    He told to sit down and shut up. Really? CNN? Can't be! Shut up! ;)

    Parent
    Jim Acosta from CNN (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    according to the Twitter machine

    Parent
    Not a good response (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    by the media, in my view.  No other reporters should have asked questions, deferring to Acosta.  Or, all should have walked out.  

    Parent
    What a showman (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    First rate show

    He could murder someone and convince 55% of us that we did it. Phucking amazing!

    Parent

    The Kremlin (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    has to be having a good laugh at that respect statement for sure.  

    Parent
    I really thought that Trump was ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    ... about to go all Captain Queeg on us there.

    Parent
    It is clear the MSM (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by smott on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    Has no idea how to deal with Trump.
    First question was a complicated 3-parter which Trump likely did not even understand, and responded with Word Salad, which could not be followed up on meaningfully.

    The press has known it was  going to get this chance and yet NOBODY could come up with simple questions to Pen him in , ex) "why won't you release your tax records to disprove rumors of Russian influence" or whatnot. Or coordinate with follow ups.

    It's especially amazing to watch, because Trump himself is making the press irrelevant. He's destroying their reason to exist. These are their last chances to have effect, and they can't even save themselves.

    We are witnessing the loss of the 4th Estate, the end of press coverage as we know it, and we are simply post-truth now.

    As Bannon intended.

    Greenwald (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:52:17 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/zqo6wbz

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." .....

    This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."

    Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing -- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be

    .

    Glenn's opinion ... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:24:39 PM EST
    ... will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's ...

    ... if you also have a dollar.

    Parent

    Poor Glenn (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 01:24:49 AM EST
    he himself got caught up in the Putin propaganda machine and just can't let it go.

    Parent
    He's on PRI's "Takeaway" ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 01:25:12 PM EST
    ... this morning, and is doing just that:

    "Donald Trump is doing a lot of bad things on a policy level that people care about, and Democrats are talking about almost none of that -- they're obsessed with Vladimir Putin and Russia."

    Move along, everyone - nothing to see here.

    Parent

    Donald Trump (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    hasn't done anything policy wise yet. He's not in office. Yes, Donald has been making laughable and detestable picks for his cabinet and he's been acting like a toddler but that's it so far.

    Parent
    Greenwald is no longer acceptable (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 08:54:56 AM EST
    ......he has dared to disagree with the Left.

    Parent
    As MKS pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 09:08:45 AM EST
    people with authoritarian tendencies can only imagine an authority being right or wrong All The Time and can only imagine a faction like "the Left" all believing the same thing all the time.

    Parent
    That is why (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 09:11:14 AM EST
    conservatives get so angry when you point out other conservatives who disagree.

    Parent
    GA, you're half correct (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    Both groups do it. And the farther out they are on the fringe the more they do it.

    I gave you the FBI as an example. Another prime example was when US  Leftist Fellow Travelers flipped from bad to good to bad when Germany, who was demonstrably bad, signed a peace treaty with Stalin and then invaded.

    In the meantime Greenwald nails it.

    Yet craving Deep State rule is exactly what prominent Democratic operatives and media figures are doing. Any doubt about that is now dispelled. Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being "really dumb" by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them:

    That's frightening. The guard dog has slipped its collar.

    Parent

    And Greenwald (none / 0) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 09:58:24 PM EST
    was only restating what Eisenhower said after he left the presidency.
    Eisenhower said it then, and it rings true more now than ever  

    Parent
    Spare me MKS's psycho babble (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    When Comey was on your side...you loved him...When  he did something you didn't like you hated him....you even got the DOJ's IG on him...

    But don't feel special. The Repubs did the same thing.


    Parent

    Comey (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    was never on my side, but the law was. It is the right wing that seems to be back and forth on him. Decrying him for not filing charges which was the only thing he could do and applauding him when he broke with long standing protocol.

    Parent
    you keep getting this wrong (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by mm on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    most D's I heard from were just relieved Comey finally ended that farce of an investigation after spending a year and an obscene amount of time, money and resources of the FBI that could have been put to better purpose.  

    Nobody I know "loved" Comey for his disgraceful uncalled for and unprecedented "bitchy press conference" in July.

    You seem to be projecting the wild pendulum swings from the mentally unstable PEOTUS going from accusing the FBI of being corrupt to applauding them for the last minute Wiener laptop letter.

    Clear battle lines have already been drawn over FBI Director James Comey`s announcement that no charges will be brought against Hillary Clinton in the "Emailgate" investigation, with one side convinced that Comey is a bought-and-paid-for Hillary puppet (a side that includes both Republicans and Bernie Sanders fans), and the other correctly wondering just where "Bitchy Press Conference" falls in the chain of due process.


    Parent
    Well, we're drifting a little bit (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    but since the discussion is the memo and how it should be received.....

    I watched the 'net and both sides flipped as I described. And yes, it was the fringes. Which it seems to be where we're at here. I'm sure there are Right Wing blogs just as bad as what's happening here.

    I trust time will cool things off.

    Parent

    Right wing blogs as bad (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    like theone nobody visits run by a dolt who portrays Obama as a secret jihadist with a bone in his nose.

    Parent
    Spare me your (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    insults, Jim.  Time for a timeout?

    Parent
    Jimbo, it all depends (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    on what he says, and the quality of his reasoning.

    The Left rarely just falls in line behind someone deemed authoritative.

    Parent

    If I hurt your feeling (1.00 / 2) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    by calling your claim that all Repubs always fall in line and follow the party line....

    I apologize. It doesn't rise to the level of psycho babble.

    Parent

    Another insult (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    It doesn't hurt my feelings--it does verify that you need a time out.

    Parent
    Anderson Cooper really shut KAC down (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    On claiming CNN reported the allegations. They did not, they reported that an addendum was added to Trump's intel briefing about the allegalations, but Trump claimed he knew nothing about the allegations until the Buzzfeed story. CNN has several sources stating that the addendum was part of Trump's intel briefings.

    Anderson is my new go to. Journalist's who remain journalists during the Trump Administration will earn and be rewarded with my attention. I haven't watched cable news since the election. Anderson just earned me DVRING his show and following him on Twitter until he proves himself unworthy.

    Well now (4.00 / 4) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:44:32 AM EST
    I have a friend who worked for a government who told me that his brother in law overheard a guy in the bathroom talking to the attendant's assistant.....

    Along with the investigation re the "Russian Hack" we need an investigation on this.

    or (4.63 / 8) (#6)
    by mm on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:01:14 AM EST
    Trump can just release his tax returns.  That would be a start.

    Parent
    if we wait long enough (4.70 / 10) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    maybe Putin will release Trump's tax returns

    Parent
    We will never see them (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    Trump won an election without revealing them,
    Now he never will

    Parent
    Probably right (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    OTOH - It's very telling that 90% of Republicans support him even when so many know know he's making promises he never intends to keep.

    Parent
    Oh yes mm (4.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:18:21 AM EST
    Out of the park

    Parent
    So you're saying ... (4.57 / 7) (#9)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    ... that claims that can't be documented are not credible?!?

    Suddenly,  Trump, the Obama/Clinton conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters have am appreciation for facts and evidence.

    Heh, heh, heh     ...

    Parent

    Trump can take some (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    solace in that this reporting occurred 11 days before his inauguration, and, not, 11 days before the election. (see Comey, James).

    Parent
    Think Trump is a horrible human being (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Green26 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    and will be a terrible president, but after looking at the document, I can see why the media refused to publicize it. Not credible. Not written in even a remotely credible way. Guess we will see.

    Dreams of Kenyan birth certificates (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:19:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Should have also said that I'm all for (none / 0) (#12)
    by Green26 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    including this subject in any bipartisan/independent investigation of the Russian hacking and interference.

    Parent
    I'll agree with you there. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 02:09:03 AM EST
    I believe that Congress is wholly incapable of investigating this matter objectively.

    Parent
    I am (none / 0) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:34:48 AM EST
    also skeptical of this report, a bit too lurid and unverifiable. It almost seems to have that "National Guard Memo" feel to it. While I do not disbelieve any of it, there is a good chance there is enough in here that can be disproved or impossible to prove that it will serve as cover for the actual ties between Trump and the Russians. I have already have heard the cries of fake news being bandied about for anything that is negative towards hair Trumphf.

    Parent
    Interestingly enough (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    Russia says it is "fake" and Trump is taking Russia's side on this issue once again.

    Parent
    Well, if the Russians (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:11:44 AM EST
    says it isn't so, then that's it. It is obviously not true. Not reason to investigate further. Russia says it isn't so, that's it. Finished. Kaput. The Russians wouldn't lie to the US after all.

    Parent
    According to NBC News, ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    ... the author of the dossier is Christopher David Steele, who's a former MI6 officer. Further, it was originally intended as opposition research for use by Trump's GOP primary opponents.

    But personally, and speaking as a party official, unless something like this can be credibly sourced and verified, I'd never use it. And none of the allegations offered here are verified, as far as I can tell. In any event, we'll see what happens here, and whether this dossier actually has legs.

    (Note to Trumpsters: "Not verified" does not mean "debunked." So don't go there.)

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I wouldn't use it either ... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:21:45 PM EST
    ... at this point.

    OTOH, Trump and his supporters have made accusations based on far less - and even nothing at all - so it's nice for them to get just a tiny dose of the medicine they've been doling out for years.

    Parent

    Schadenfreude is really an ugly human trait. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 03:43:18 AM EST
    But then, we've always prided ourselves as Democrats on our refusal to go there, and look where we are right now because of it.

    So I think some Schadenfreude is certainly warranted, given that its intended target spent the better part of 8 years trafficking in all sorts of Stierscheiss about everyone he perceived as standing in his way. And only now is he bemoaning the use of unverified rumors, because he's the guy in the crosshairs rather than some political opponent.

    Therefore, why shouldn't we also act under the assumption that the information that's before us is true? The lesson here is don't fck with Karma, 'cause she can be a real bee-yitch if you mess wit' her.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes, and not verified, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    does not mean debunked, nor does it mean unverifiable.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:39:36 PM EST
    I think the author is why it was taken somewhat seriously. I understand the FBI is apparently attempting to verify it. Someone contacted John McCain and he sent someone overseas to pick it up apparently. He then handed it over to the FBI. However we may never know the truth if Comey is handling the investigation.

    Parent
    UPDATE: Intel sources stand with Steele. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    Those in the intelligence community who know former British MI6 operative Christopher Steele best are speaking out publicly on his behalf in the face of right-wing blowback:

    The Guardian | January 12, 2017
    Donald Trump dossier: Intelligence sources vouch for author's credibility - "His denials - at least some of them - were emphatic, even by the standards that Donald Trump has come to be judged by. The dossier, he said, was a confection of lies; he compared it to Nazi propaganda; it was fake news spread by sick people. At his press briefing on Wednesday, the president-elect dared the world's media to scrutinise the 35 pages of claims, before throwing down a challenge - where's the proof? Nobody had any. Case closed. But in the rush to trample all over the dossier and its contents, one key question remained. Why had America's intelligence agencies felt it necessary to provide a compendium of the claims to Barack Obama and Trump himself? And the answer to that lies in the credibility of its apparent author, the ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele, the quality of the sources he has, and the quality of the people who were prepared to vouch for him. In all these respects, the 53-year-old is in credit."

    I have to admit, the open willingness of the Intelligence Community to push back very hard on Trump has really surprised me, given Trump's own willingness to discredit them at every opportunity.

    At this point, every time Trump and his minions open their mouths to disparage the IC over Trump's own growing Russia controversy, I'm reminded of Queen Gertrude's oft-quoted line from William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

    Stay tuned.

    Parent

    UPDATE No. 2: Now Russia accuses Steele ... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 05:36:52 AM EST
    ... of still working for MI6:

    News.com (Sydney, NSW, AU) | January 13, 2017
    Donald Trump dossier spy Christopher Steele accused of working for British intelligence - "Fellow spies, former colleagues and friends of the former MI6 agent identified as being responsible for an explosive dossier about US president-elect Donald Trump have rallied behind the respected veteran intelligence officer. But Russian authorities haven't been so complimentary of the memo's author, suggesting he may still be working for the top British intelligence authority saying you can never leave the spy agency. Christopher Steele has apparently gone into hiding after being outed as the author of the report claiming Moscow held incriminating material on Mr Trump which is could use to blackmail him. The former spy, who now runs a London-based private intelligence agency, is believed to have compiled the report after being commissioned by political opponents of Mr Trump in Washington. The Cambridge graduate is known as one of the most eminent Russia specialists in the British Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6."

    Apparently, it was the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal which first outed Mr. Steele the other day on Twitter. According to the New York Times, he's now "gone to ground," that is, into hiding, apparently in fear of his life and his family's safety.

    By most all accounts, Christopher Steele has a longstanding and excellent reputation as an operative and intelligence officer, which leaves me wondering about how this document got released in its present state, given that it's entirely unsourced and appears to be more of an initial first draft than a final report.

    Is there more to this story than we presently know? Because if there isn't another and more thorough draft, then this dossier represents a remarkably shoddy piece of work, which from a political perspective wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. And were I the Republican sugar daddy who apparently first commissioned it, I'd have demanded my money back.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Parent

    UPDATE No. 3: Sir Andrew Wood, who was ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 05:59:35 AM EST
    ... the British ambassador to Russia from 1995 to 2000, was apparently instrumental in first bringing this Trump dossier to the attention of the U.S. Intelligence Community. He claims to have spoken at some length to Sen. John McCain about it. Further, Christopher Steele have have also been considered an FBI "asset," according to some sources.

    Parent
    Then (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 06:23:38 AM EST
    there is always this
    According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.

    While everyone is running around chasing Boris and Natasha, Trump has his own Rasputin who appears to have a direct line to the Kremlin. It seemed obvious to me from the beginning, with Flynn, Manafort and the mysterious Paige Carter all with clear ties to the Russians that Trump is in bed with them(cue the rubber sheets jokes).

    Parent

    That's just great. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 06:54:32 AM EST
    This is our incoming National Security Advisor, everyone.

    Parent
    Not (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    surprised  at all on the push back, the intel agencies are terrified of Trump . IMO a Russian mole has been installed as President and I am pretty sure a lot of the spooks feel the same way.

    Parent
    UPDATE No. 4: USIC officials have warned .... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 06:52:22 AM EST
    ... their Israeli counterparts to consider the distinct possibility that any intelligence they share with the incoming Trump administration might well end up in Russian and possibly Iranian hands.

    I'm getting a distinct feeling that the IC is quite possibly playing for keeps here, and only one side or the other will be left standing when the smoke clears. To sound utterly Machiavellian, those who would plot against the king, best be sure that they actually succeed in removing the king.

    Stay tuned.

    Parent

    What Matt Taibbi said. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 07:12:13 AM EST
    Rolling Stone | January 12, 2017
    The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis Point - "Have we ever been less sure about the truth of an urgent news story? Three days into the "Russian dossier" scandal, which history will remember by a far more colorful name, we still have no clue what we're dealing with. We're either learning the outlines of the most extraordinary compromise to date of an incoming American president by a foreign power, or we're watching an unparalleled libel and media overreach. [...] The secret services either know far more than they're letting on, or they're using all this fluff and nonsense to try to sell the public on a conspiracy story they themselves can't quite prove. Either possibility is crazy to contemplate."

    Where do we go from here?


    Parent

    There will be (none / 0) (#156)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:00:38 PM EST
    New management running the intelligence services.

    Hopefully they can rein in the loose cannons, if that is the problem here.

    Parent

    The loose cannons here are not in the ... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 01:56:30 AM EST
    ... intelligence services, but in the Trump camp. Christopher Steele is an eminently respected intelligence analyst who worked MI6's Russia bureau for the better part of two decades. According to those who know him best, including his American counterparts, his personal ethics are beyond reproach, he is a consummate professional, and he's not a guy who roams off the reservation.

    Steele was brought in to work with the FBI and the Dept. of Justice on the investigation that targeted institutional corruption in FIFA, the international governing body for soccer, because he was considered a Russia expert. Investigators were then trying to determine whether the Russian government had bribed FIFA officials to secure the host role for the 2018 World Cup. Eventually, dozens were indicted by DOJ in the scandal, and FIFA President Sepp Blatter was compelled to resign.

    David Corn of Mother Jones magazine first broke the story of the Steele memos on October 31, 2016, one week prior to the election. He is the only reporter to have talked to Steele, although he had refused to identify him by name back then, and still keeps the spy's confidence even today in recounting his interview with him:

    "The former spy told me that he had been retained in early June by a private research firm in the United States to look into Trump's activity in Europe and Russia. "It started off as a fairly general inquiry," he recalled. One question for him, he said, was, 'Are there business ties in Russia?' The American firm was conducting a Trump opposition research project that was first financed by a Republican source until the funding switched to a Democratic one. The former spy said he was never told the identity of the client.

    "The former intelligence official went to work and contacted his network of sources in Russia and elsewhere. He soon received what he called 'hair-raising' information. His sources told him, he said, that Trump had been 'sexually compromised' by Russian intelligence in 2013 (when Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe contest) or earlier and that there was an 'established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.' He noted he was 'shocked' by these allegations. By the end of June, he was sending reports of what he was finding to the American firm.

    "The former spy said he soon decided the information he was receiving was 'sufficiently serious' for him to forward it to contacts he had at the FBI. He did this, he said, without permission from the American firm that had hired him. 'This was an extraordinary situation,' he remarked."

    Corn then explained the reason why the memos appear in raw form:

    "The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was 'shock and horror.' After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. But he said, 'My track record as a professional is second to no one.'"

    Given that the FBI had been receiving these reports for months, they've had ample opportunity to investigate their veracity and determine whether their contents are worthy of the concern being shown. Not only have FBI analysts not dismissed them, an agency official who spoke on condition that he not be identified told David Corn that:

    "[Christopher Steele] is a credible source who has provided information to the U.S. government for a long time,, which senior officials have found to be highly credible."

    FBI officials had an opportunity today in that closed-door House briefing to tell members outright if they considered Steele's allegations as false or not credible. They specifically declined to do so. While House Democrats are angry at FBI Director James Comey (and not without reason), his silence on the matter is perhaps an indication that the investigation into the Trump campaign's ties with Moscow is still very much active.

    This is a very serious matter which now transcends party politics, Trevor. Because it involves national security, it's one which demands our rapt attention and some answers. The American people have the right to expect and demand that an incoming presidential administration is not so compromised that it is acting as a de facto agent of a foreign power. And right now, given the considerable evidence laid before us regarding the connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign, we really can't say that with anywhere near a great deal of confidence.

    I'd much rather have these concerns promptly addressed now, than to see them ignored only to hear people lament four years from now, "Boy, they sure got that one wrong!"

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Nah, loose cannons (none / 0) (#161)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:23:16 AM EST
    Would appear to be in the intelligence area

    http://tinyurl.com/hl7kgmg  Forbes

    Paul Roderick Gregory ,   CONTRIBUTOR
    I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.  

    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 12: Journalists gather outside the headquarters of Orbis Business Intelligence, the company run by former intelligence officer Christopher Steele, on January 12, 2017 in London, England. Mr Steele has been named as the man who compiled the intelligence dossier on US President-elect Donald Trump, alleging that Russian security forces have compromising recordings that could be used to blackmail him. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

    A former British intelligence officer, who is now a director of a London private security-and-investigations firm, has been identified as the author of the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump's activities and connections in Russia, according to the Wall Street Journal. A Christopher Steele, a director of London-based private intelligence company, Orbis, purportedly prepared the dossier under contract to both Republican and Democratic adversaries of then-candidate Trump. The poor grammar and shaky spelling plus the author's use of KGB-style intelligence reporting, however, do not fit the image of a high-end London security company run by highly connected former British intelligence figures.

    The pdf file of the 30-page typewritten report alleges that high Kremlin officials colluded with Trump, offered him multi-billion dollar bribes, and accumulated compromising evidence of Trump's sexual escapades in Russia. That the dossier comes from former British intelligence officers appears, at first glance, to give it weight especially with Orbis' claim of a "global network." The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till hell freezes over. The material is not verifiable.

    President-elect Trump has dismissed the dossier's contents as false as has the Kremlin. Trump is right: The Orbis dossier is fake news.

    I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union professionally since the mid-1960s. I have visited Russia as a scholar, as the head of a multi-year petroleum legislation project, and as a business consultant close to one hundred times. My first visit was in 1965 shortly after Nikita Khrushchev's removal. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in Russia, and I follow the Russian press regularly. I personally witnessed the creation in the early 90s of Russia's giant energy concerns in the offices of the oil minister. I met with St. Petersburg officials in the early 90s but do not remember meeting then deputy mayor, Vladimir Putin. I have written and co-authored reports for the State Department, Congress, and the intelligence community; so I sort of know how these things work.

    ADVERTISING

    With the brief exception of the early to late 1990s, Russia has had a non-transparent system of rule that deliberately reveals little about itself. Both insiders and outsiders must look for subtle signs and signals. Russians and Russian experts are gossip junkies. They recite their tales of who is up and who is down to those foolish enough to listen. Outside researchers must grasp for flimsy straws to write their scholarly articles and books. Despite the greater openness of contemporary Russia, we are back to Kremlinology to learn how Putin's kleptocracy works.

    The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous "trusted compatriots," "knowledgeable sources," "former intelligence officers," and "ministry of foreign affairs officials."  The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump's Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin's inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information).

    There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin outsider with enough "reliable" contacts to explain what is really going within Putin's office.

    This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.

    Paul Roderick Gregory ,   CONTRIBUTOR
    I cover domestic and world economics from a free-market perspective.  

    Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

    LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 12: Journalists gather outside the headquarters of Orbis Business Intelligence, the company run by former intelligence officer Christopher Steele, on January 12, 2017 in London, England. Mr Steele has been named as the man who compiled the intelligence dossier on US President-elect Donald Trump, alleging that Russian security forces have compromising recordings that could be used to blackmail him. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

    A former British intelligence officer, who is now a director of a London private security-and-investigations firm, has been identified as the author of the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump's activities and connections in Russia, according to the Wall Street Journal. A Christopher Steele, a director of London-based private intelligence company, Orbis, purportedly prepared the dossier under contract to both Republican and Democratic adversaries of then-candidate Trump. The poor grammar and shaky spelling plus the author's use of KGB-style intelligence reporting, however, do not fit the image of a high-end London security company run by highly connected former British intelligence figures.

    The pdf file of the 30-page typewritten report alleges that high Kremlin officials colluded with Trump, offered him multi-billion dollar bribes, and accumulated compromising evidence of Trump's sexual escapades in Russia. That the dossier comes from former British intelligence officers appears, at first glance, to give it weight especially with Orbis' claim of a "global network." The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till hell freezes over. The material is not verifiable.

    President-elect Trump has dismissed the dossier's contents as false as has the Kremlin. Trump is right: The Orbis dossier is fake news.

    I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union professionally since the mid-1960s. I have visited Russia as a scholar, as the head of a multi-year petroleum legislation project, and as a business consultant close to one hundred times. My first visit was in 1965 shortly after Nikita Khrushchev's removal. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in Russia, and I follow the Russian press regularly. I personally witnessed the creation in the early 90s of Russia's giant energy concerns in the offices of the oil minister. I met with St. Petersburg officials in the early 90s but do not remember meeting then deputy mayor, Vladimir Putin. I have written and co-authored reports for the State Department, Congress, and the intelligence community; so I sort of know how these things work.

    ADVERTISING

    With the brief exception of the early to late 1990s, Russia has had a non-transparent system of rule that deliberately reveals little about itself. Both insiders and outsiders must look for subtle signs and signals. Russians and Russian experts are gossip junkies. They recite their tales of who is up and who is down to those foolish enough to listen. Outside researchers must grasp for flimsy straws to write their scholarly articles and books. Despite the greater openness of contemporary Russia, we are back to Kremlinology to learn how Putin's kleptocracy works.

    The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous "trusted compatriots," "knowledgeable sources," "former intelligence officers," and "ministry of foreign affairs officials."  The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump's Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, "golden showers," bribes, squabbles in Putin's inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat (compromising information).

    There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin outsider with enough "reliable" contacts to explain what is really going within Putin's office.

    As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. The report includes Putin's inner circle - Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have "trusted compatriots" who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to tell him.

    The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of sexual escapades with prostitutes in St. Petersburg and Moscow (the famous "golden shower" incident). Despite his reluctance to enter into lucrative business deals, Trump "and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals," according to the Orbis report.

    This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.

    Recommended by Forbes
    Why Russia Cannot Become Our Friend: Memo to President Trump
    The 'Putin Directed The Leaks' Story Is Less Than It Appears
    SAPVoice: Separating The Digital Revolutionaries From The Reactionaries

    Trump's Election Spoils Putin's Narrative To The Russian People
    Putin Already Playing Nuclear Poker With Trump
    MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
    +29,656 VIEWS Soda Tax Teaches Philly Mayor An Economics Lesson That Trump Needs To Learn
    MOST POPULAR Photos: The Most Stressful Jobs In 2017
    MOST POPULAR Super Mario Run Is Coming To Ios On December 15

    The Orbis report claims, that as the election neared (July 2016), Igor Sechin, Putin's right-hand man and CEO of Rosneft (Russia's national oil company) offered Trump a deal that defies belief. I quote:

    "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid-October 2015, a close associate of Rosneft President and PUTIN ally Igor SECHIN elaborated on the reported secret meeting between the latter and Carter PAGE, of US Republican presidential candidate's foreign policy team, in Moscow in July 2016.

    To offer Trump $12 billion (the market value of 19.5% of Rosneft shares), in an act of near madness, would wipe out the cash that Putin desperately needed for military spending and budget deficits, all in return for a promise to lift sanctions if (and what a big "if") Trump were elected.

    The $12 billion for (perhaps) lifting the sanctions makes Nikita Khrushchev's hare-brained schemes (for which he was fired) look eminently reasonable.

    I have picked out just a few excerpts from the Orbis report. It was written, in my opinion, not by an ex British intelligence officer but by a Russian trained in the KGB tradition. It is full of names, dates, meetings, quarrels, and events that are hearsay (one an overheard conversation).  It is a collection of "this important person" said this to "another important person." There is no record; no informant is identified by name or by more than a generic title. The report appears to fail the veracity test in the one instance of a purported meeting in which names, dates, and location are provided. Some of the stories are so bizarre (the Rosneft $12 billion bribe) that they fail the laugh test. Yet, there appears to be a desire on the part of some media and Trump opponents on both sides of the aisle to picture the Orbis report as genuine but unverifiable.


    After reading the Orbis report I got the queasy feeling that it may have influenced intelligence community's unclassified report.  Leaks of classified bits by NBCNews and the Washington Post suggest the findings were, in part, based on British intelligence and spies. I wonder if the reference is to Putin's role, which the intelligence report characterized as direct. This is a matter the new administration must look into.

    We have reached a sad state of affairs where an anonymous report, full of bizarre statements, captures the attention of the world media because it casts a shadow over the legitimacy of a President-elect, who has not even taken the oath of office. For example, the Trump dossier is tonight's lead item on German state television and on BBC. False news has become America's international export to the world media.

    A fairly reasoned takedown of the whole report, which I tend to agree with. The TDS is not only running strong , but is out of control.
    right now, anything slandering The Donald is getting fresh air, hoping that some of it sticks, or if not, even damages the president elect. If false however, these attempts may very well inoculate The Donald against actual verifiable ethical wrongdoings that he may engage in.
    A thorough review of all the rumors should be made, and Mr Steeles sources run down as well. If proven false, what then were their motivations, and who directed them?
    And if it is all true, we move on to President Pence

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#163)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:25:48 AM EST
    Didn't intend to post the whole thing, just excerpts

    Parent
    That is pretty (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    weak tea there. It fails to mention that most of the things in the dossier happened in 2013 or later. In 2012 Trump was considering running for the GOP nomination which was before he went to Moscow.

    You should change your name to Putin's defense attorney.

    And it fails to address the new allegations that Trump's campaign was being funded by the Russians through others. The FEC sent Trump a 250 page document of illegal campaign contributions.

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#166)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:57:58 AM EST
    point being? We are supposed to take the opinion of a business consultant(petroleum industry no less) as the truth?

    Parent
    The point being (none / 0) (#168)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 08:41:52 AM EST
    It makes no sense, it is unverifiable.

    Shouldn't have seen the light of day

    As valid as saying Bill Clinton had sex with minors on Epsteins island

    Parent

    It (none / 0) (#169)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:38:23 AM EST
    was never meant "to see the light of day", it is rather clear that this dossier is raw intelligence rather than analysis. Like all raw intelligence much of it is garbage(even trusted sources can be flat out wrong).  

    Apparently the intel agencies and government officials  have looked at that raw data, and have taken at least some of it very seriously.

    By most accounts Steele is not a loose cannon, respected on both sides of the pond as a trusted investigator, even working directly with the FBI on the FISA corruption case and other issues in eastern Europe.

    BTW: not everything is unverifiable, check out this little gem,

    Mr Steele produced a memo, which went to the  FBI, stating that Mr Trump's campaign team had agreed to a Russian request to dilute attention on Moscow's intervention in Ukraine Four days later Mr Trump stated that he would recognise Moscow's annexation of Crimea. A month later officials involved in his campaign asked the Republican party's election platform to remove a pledge for military assistance to the Ukrainian government against separatist rebels in the east of the country.
     Lucky guess? I think not.

    Parent
    It's not "unverifiable." (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    If it was, it would've been dismissed by now. Christopher Steele's formidable reputation as an MI6 intelligence analyst / operative carries a lot more weight in the U.S. Intelligence Community than do the partisan opinions of people like you and me.

    Parent
    UPDATE NO. 5: Was FBI sitting on dossier? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 04:52:43 AM EST
    One certainly can't blame Christopher Steele for thinking so:

    The Independent (London, UK) | January 14, 2016
    Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele's frustration as FBI sat on Donald Trump Russia file for months - "Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent who investigated Donald Trump's alleged Kremlin links, was so worried by what he was discovering that at the end he was working without pay, The Independent has learned. Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries. However, say security sources, Mr Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up, that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. [...] "

    But the real bombshells come when The Independent juxtaposes a campaign timeline with some of the dossier's allegations, and further notes that by July 2016, Steele was sharing with his former colleagues at MI6 his intel on Trump's ties with Russia, before deciding to also share it with the FBI:

    "Fusion GPS had been hired by Republican opponents of Mr Trump in September 2015. In June 2016 Mr Steele came on the team. He was, and continues to be, highly regarded in the intelligence world. In July, Mr Trump won the Republican nomination and the Democrats became new employers of Mr Steele and Fusion GPS.

    "n the same month  Mr Steele produced a memo, which went to the  FBI, stating that Mr Trump's campaign team had agreed to a Russian request to dilute attention on Moscow's intervention in Ukraine. Four days later Mr Trump stated that he would recognise Moscow's annexation of Crimea. A month later officials involved in his campaign asked the Republican party's election platform to remove a pledge for military assistance to the Ukrainian government against separatist rebels in the east of the country.

    "Mr Steele claimed that the Trump campaign was taking this path because it was aware that the Russians were hacking Democratic Party emails. No evidence of this has been made public, but the same day that Mr Trump spoke about Crimea he called on the Kremlin to hack Hillary Clinton's emails.

    "By late July and early August MI6 was also receiving information about Mr Trump. By September, information to the FBI began to grow in volume: Mr Steele compiled a set of his memos into one document and passed it to his contacts at the FBI. But there seemed to be little progress in a proper inquiry into Mr Trump. The Bureau, instead, seemed to be devoting their resources in the pursuit of Hillary Clinton's email transgressions." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Finally, The Independent identified Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the man who challenged the FBI to take this matter much more seriously. At a security conference last summer in Halifax, Nova Scotia, he had earlier shared with former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood his own growing concerns about Trump's ties with the Kremlin.

    When Wood brought up the matter of Steele's dossier on Trump and further vouched for the former agent's impeccable credentials and reputation, McCain sent an emissary to London to pick up a copy of the dossier, and then walked it over to the FBI Building and handed it personally to Director James Comey.

    So, yeah, I now believe that this stuff is for real.

    Parent

    There is no (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:23:18 AM EST
    question that FBI was sitting on the dossier. The question is did the the FBI ignore it? So far all the signs say yes, I think this is the "15 minutes" that so angered the Democrats. When they finally found out what he knew and when he knew it they were aghast.

     

    Parent

    What exactly (none / 0) (#171)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    Were they supposed to do with this pile of unsubstantiated garbage?

    Arrest The Donald because they received a memo stating he agreed to change Russian policy?

    They need facts, evidence. Not unsubstantiated rumors told by unidentified sources.

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    you of all people who spent months pushing Putin propaganda of unsubstantiated email BS that there never was anything about now thinks it's okay that the FBI sat on this. They could have at least investigated it. Or handed it over to the CIA to check it out but no, they willfully suppressed it to protect Trump it seems. And you know Comey knew what he was doing when he released that letter before the election. He knew that he was enabling a Putin stooge. Even without the dossier becoming public it should have been way obvious that Trump was a Putin stooge with what he has said and changing of the GOP platform to be more Putin friendly. You in fact act like you are on Putin's payroll.

    Parent
    They looked at it (none / 0) (#173)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 11:20:37 AM EST
    Couldn't substantiate anything

    And filed it.

    Again, do what?

    pushing Putin propaganda of unsubstantiated email BS

    The e mails existed, with names of sender and recipient. Nothing fake about them.

    Parent

    No, they (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    did not even attempt to substantiate any of it and that is the problem. It seems Comey just flat sat on it and when asked about it he said he didn't comment on ongoing investigations but yet, again Hillary gets treated as she is beneath the law.

    You pushed the fake Putin narratives around here and never used facts only right wing propaganda.

    Again, are you on Putin's payroll? You sure act like it.

    Parent

    Worse than Putin (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    Trevor's a member of Ayn's Army..

    People have no loyalty to any nation other than the nation of dollars and rubles and shekels.

    And some of them didn't even go to law school.

    Parent

    You know this? How? (none / 0) (#178)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    did not even attempt to substantiate any of it and that is the problem.


    Parent
    "The Donald's" moronic lowball (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    statements about Obama's birth certificate should never have been publicized either..

    But they were sensational, so they were.

    Just as dossier stories about Trump cavorting under the golden waterfall, in the media's eyes, are deliciously salacious and sensational and profitable.

    That's your beloved, self-regulating market forces at work, Trevor.

    Sometimes they come back to bite you in the ace.

    I guess you've gotta take the good with the bad, no?


    Parent

    The outrage here (none / 0) (#186)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    Is, why didn't the FBI do anything.
    Well, no one knows what they did,
    But I wonder, what crime is being alleged that the FBI need investigate?

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#187)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    Why didn't the FBI open a investigation into that?
    a non citizen running for President.
    They threw that into the round file as well

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    is the article link about the FBI sitting on the information for months. Steele was in contact with the FBI about this information since July and the FBI sat on it.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#174)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    expect "they" should to a through investigation of this, as they should do with all raw intelligence.

    You apologists continuously treat intelligence work as a judicial process, demanding facts and evidence. It doesn't work that way. Rarely if ever in the clandestine world is there any thing sworn testimony or chains of custody of evidence, in fact the usual MO goes in the totally other direction. Matter of fact  garbage picking (sometimes literally) is a basic job description.

    The agencies, apparently have had months to sift through this pile yet they are unwilling to dismiss it out of hand which should tell you something.

    Note: Typically you come back with a silly strawman argument(Lock him up said no one) when confronted with strong evidence that Trump made and delivered on promises to the Russians regarding the Ukraine.

    Parent

    What exactly (none / 0) (#176)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    Are you trying to confirm?
    What is the national security issue at stake?
    That The Donald was offered real estate deals, and turned the, down.
    That golden showers took place in  Russian hotel?
    That The Donald wants to loosen sanctions, approve the taking of Crimea,
    All for what, hacking a Dem campaign e mail address.
    You would need a actual person to say this occurred, that a meeting took place and a agreement signed off on between The Donald and Vlad. (And preferably some additional evidence other than 1 person's say so)
    Right now you have a steaming pile of rumor, that no one is willing to put their name on. It looks like a well placed smear job put into action to alter a election.
    Without anything to confirm, they should throw into the round file. In any event, they wouldn't comment on this ever, without any evidence, unless it was leaked through the media, as it was.
    Something like this should never have been publicized, as bereft of any facts as it is.
    So who says they haven't looked at it, and declined any further action without any tangible to run down.

    Parent
    What we know (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 12:25:30 PM EST
    already is that national security is at risk with Donald in the white house. What we know already is bad enough.

    Read this

    Parent

    Not (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    trying to confirm anything, I already know that Trump is in bed with the Russians. I suspect such when I first read about Michael Flynn's and Paul Manfort's and Paige Carter's well documented Russian ties and sympathies, my suspicions were confirmed by Trump and his teams pro-Putin actions
    and rhetoric all through the campaign and the transition.

    This dossier does not exist in a vacuum, all it does for me is just add a little more validation of what I have already determined by my own observations of actual facts and very credible reporting.

    Parent

    You are no more an expert on intelligence ... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "What exactly Were they supposed to do with this pile of unsubstantiated garbage? Arrest The Donald because they received a memo stating he agreed to change Russian policy?"

    ... than you are on anything else you opine on. Your goals in trolling us here have always been to (a) bash Democrats, and (b) shut down the conversation on anything that's detrimental to Republicans. You don't engage; rather, you browbeat.

    Suffice to say that the IC doesn't think the Trump dossier is a "pile of unsubstantiated garbage," and neither does Sen. John McCain, which is why he walked it over to the FBI Building and handed it to Director Comey personally. You are not an intelligence operative, so you really don't know what you're talking about. You're just another wingbat with an uninformed opinion.

    I'm no intelligence expert, either, and I've further been willing to admit that nothing may come of this dossier, and have said so earlier and repeatedly. But the Wall Street Journal's decision to disclose Christopher Steele's identity as the author of this series of memos has since changed the dynamic, because he's long been recognized by his peers as one of the West's foremost experts on Russian intel.

    Steele is not some wild-eyed liberal fanatic or Democratic partisan. He's a sober realist who's god at his job. He's not passing judgment, but rather has instead repeatedly insisted that this matter needs to be further investigated.

    And if a man like Christopher Steele is expressing serious concern and even alarm about what he's been hearing from sources about the Trump campaign's connections to the Russian government, then he ought to be taken very seriously by everyone who cares about this country, regardless of party affiliation, rather than summarily dismissed out of political expediency or inconvenience.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    All Steele did (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    Was pass along unverifiable gossipy information  that he received from "un named sources" in Russia.

    The crime that was committed was the hack of private  e mails, Podesta and the DNC. And the DNC refused access to the FBI, so, making it  tough to investigate that.

    So what crime did The Donald commit that the FBI need investigate?

    The news media wouldn't even publish this stinking pile of rumor, and they publish anything. And then BuzzFeed went ahead anyway.

    This has been sitting there for over 5 months, and no verification has been found

    Your constant braying is that of a uninformed partisan that lost an election.

    Parent

    If it is all false b.s. (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:56:43 PM EST
    then why so worried?

    Parent
    Worried about what? (none / 0) (#191)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 04:11:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Steele and what you write about (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    You call Donald names and put a lot of energy into disputing the veracity of the Steele dossier.

    But of course you know that.

    Must really get your attention.  If all false, then it will evaporate; if not, then I would be worried as a Trump supporter.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    I didn't write this  
    You're just another wingbat with an uninformed opinion.

    One good turn deserves another.

    The Steele paid expose, has sat for 5 months, and no one would print it as it is totally unverifiable. (Its called influence peddlers, they peddle information, rumors and gossip)
    If any of it was true, it would have been in the press back when the reporters first got it.

    It shouldn't have been published, but all that did was further tarnish the press, and make The Donald look more sympathetic.

    Mostly, this thread has been about how outraged the left is that the FBI and US intelligence agencies did nothing. What were they supposed to do?


    Parent

    No, one turn does not deserve (2.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    another.  And, I would support a double standard here--to get rid of trollish comments from the Right.

    The outrage is due in no small part to the assertion the FBI buried the dossier while not doing that with regard to Hillary.

    But, there is nothing that "The Donald," as you affectionately call him, can do that will cause those on the Right to abandon him.

    His comments that John Lewis does nothing but talk (during the MLK holiday weekend), and represents a crime-infested District, otherwise known as Atlanta, is unbelievable.   I hope that makes more Democrats decide to boycott the Inauguration.

    Parent

    MKS (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    You have been continually posting for commenters not agreeing with you to be banned and that this is a left/dem blog.

    As intelligent as most of your historic posts have been (regardless if we didn't agree) - this latest "ban them" is coming across as a childish "this is my sandbox, go home!" rant.

    Come on, you're better than that.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    Yes, I wish the GOP contingent would go home.  I learn nothing from them; they repeat talking points that I can read in a fraction of the time elsewhere; and they just hijack otherwise interesting threads.

    But not my blog.  The right wingers who post here lucky--Mama Bear lets you live and thrive here.  Big Orange would send you to better places.

    You guys got your guy Trump.  I will not watch or listen to him.  I would prefer a place that did not give a venue for parroting support for him.

    Parent

    And, I have disagreed (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:29:13 PM EST
    with jondee (and others on the Left) from time to time; I always find that discussion interesting.

    So, I do not want to ban all those with whom I disagree.....

    Trump supporters just turn my stomach. Totally different situation, just as Trump is a totally different politician.

    Parent

    And Donald (3.00 / 2) (#196)
    by BTAL on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    you are no more an expert on foreign relations much less intelligence operations than Trevor.  Yet, you pontificate and accuse as if you are.  Your personal attacks based only on long poetic posts are boorish and make you look bad.

    And to pile on, am surprised that you are buying into the Corn article since no other reliable media source is willing to follow the story down the rabbit hole.

    Finally, a question for all here.  According to many new sources, this dossier has been in possession of numerous media, government and IC hands for several months.  With all those eyes, minds and resources available, what's the odd that absolutely none have run this to ground and validated the accusations?  Either the IC (to include foreign govts) have nothing or are impotent.  Two plus two isn't adding up to four.

    Parent

    I've never made that claim. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    That said, as someone who's worked in politics and public policy development for the better part of three decades, I'm most certainly not an ignoramus in those fields, either.

    And if all you have to offer is a personal swipe about my "long poetic posts" being "boorish," then I'd offer that you've already lost the argument before you've even commenced to offer one.

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Ugh (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:33:03 PM EST
    It is posts like these that make me wish Mama Bear would not be so nice.

    "long poetic posts are boorish"  Nope.  I actually like them.   But interesting that you feel emboldened enough to dish out a personal insult like that.

    Parent

    are you calling for (none / 0) (#188)
    by linea on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 03:34:38 PM EST
    the "intelligence community" to substantiate whether trump had sex with russian prostitutes? because gossip and morality police is apparently the type of stupid things they do now and exactly the reason why the u.s. needs to disband them.  

    in my opinion.

    Parent

    It is getting (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 07:48:17 AM EST
    worse and worse for Comey and the FBI every day. They knew they were going to help Putin by what they were doing and they still continued to do it.

    Parent
    Donald. you like to toss things around (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    like you are the expert:

    And tomorrow, Mr. Figures will testify before the Senate Committee and likely tell them that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, in his capacity as U.S. Attorney

    Yet you didn't know that Figures died in  2015.

    Parent

    Okay, I was in rerror. So what? (4.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    What's that got to do with the Trump dossier? Anyway, Figures' testimony on Sessions from 30 years ago still stands. Sessions misled the committee regarding his role in the Michael Donald case 30 years ago, and he attempted to do it again this month. Figures was the guy who took on the KKK in Alabama, not Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

    At this point, Sessions can't be trusted to confront Vladimir Putin, either. He'll try to bury the investigation into Trump's campaign, just as he attempted to do with the Donald case.

    Ciao.

    Parent

    It shows how you jump to conclusions (3.50 / 2) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:34:53 PM EST
    and how you write things that are not true.

    Yet you want to be taken seriously and tell us how you know more about everything that anyone else.

    And you want to reference what is obviously a troubled individual.

    Thomas Figures, an assistant U.S. attorney whose accusations of racial bias torpedoed Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to the federal bench in 1986, had a history of erratic and disturbed behavior, colleagues and estranged family say.

    New sworn statements obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation given by former colleagues allege Figures, who died in 2015, was a paranoid figure who, among other things, believed "CBS Evening News" anchor Dan Rather was communicating with him through his television. An office loner with a flair for confrontation, Figures was later indicted by federal authorities for attempting to bribe a witness.

    Link


    Parent

    Did media place Steele & his ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    ... Russian contacts at personal risk with their decision to reveal his identity as the primary source of this dossier? Martin Longman at Washington Monthly seems to think so:

    "By revealing the identity of Christopher Steele, the Wall Street Journal has sent him scurrying for a bolt hole. He's left his cat with a neighbor, sent his family somewhere, and gone to ground. The Telegraph reports that he's terrified that the Russians will come after him.

    "But that's not the only problem. Armed with his identity, it should be a fairly simple matter for the Russians to deconstruct his investigation, figure out who was talking to him, and bring the hammer down on the individuals who were providing him with information.

    "Marcy Wheeler recently went through his dossier and identified (in rough terms) who these sources were. They included a 'senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure with knowledge of intelligence the Kremlin was feeding Trump,' a 'former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,' an 'official close to (former) Presidential Admin Head Sergei Ivanov,' and a 'Kremlin source close to Dmitri Medvedev.'"

    This story bears further scrutiny and watching.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, Putin says this is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 04:23:08 AM EST
    "Pulp Fiction" but peculiarly rushed from his dictorial pedestal to defend the Donald.

    And in Newsweek

    Former Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin also raised a yellow flag about the report, which he said he had not yet read.

    Yellow emphasis mine :)

    Per Mr Cohen - The Atlantic (none / 0) (#3)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 05:27:09 AM EST
    The story is "totally fake, totally inaccurate," Cohen said.

    "I'm telling you emphatically that I've not been to Prague, I've never been to Czech [Republic], I've not been to Russia," Cohen said.  "The story is completely inaccurate, it is fake news meant to malign Mr. Trump."

    Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York. He said that his only trip to an EU country over the summer had been a vacation to Italy in July.
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:55:24 AM EST
    that part might not be true. However the episode in the hotel room was verified by hotel workers.

    It seems it should be easy to check out Cohen's story.

    Parent

    Cohen's baloney about his passport (4.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:14:48 AM EST
    I just returned from 2 weeks in Europe. I traveled from Germany to France and back, no passport check by anyone. I then traveled from Germany to Prague, stayed in Prague for 3 days. My hotel took down all my passport information but there was no "stamp" and no government official checked my passport. I then traveled to Poland, stayed a night in a hotel there where nobody asked for my passport. Driving back to Germany, my brother-in-law was speeding on the Poland/Germany border. German police called the plate in, knew our van was a rental before even pulling us over, immediately asked for all of our passports and let us return to the road in about 45 seconds...they looked at 6 passports.

    So the only government that stamped my passport was Germany. If I had been staying in a private resident in Prague nobody at all would have even looked at my passport when I was there.

    Other than customs when I entered Germany, my passport was checked during the speeding incident and it was checked each time I left and returned to an Army post at the gate.

    My passport only reflects that I was in Germany even though I was also in France, the Czech Republic, and Poland.


    Parent

    Same with Mexico. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 08:28:24 AM EST
    When we went a government official or the border guard or whoever they are checked our passports and asked us questions going in. He then gave us a piece of paper that we were to show should need be while we were in Mexico. There was no stamp. Leaving they took the piece of paper and checked our passport. Looking at my passport would never tell anybody I had been to Mexico.

    Parent
    It is hard (none / 0) (#103)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 05:43:51 AM EST
    To be in Southern California and Prague at the same time.

    Cohen said that during the time the report places him in Prague, he was actually with his son visiting USC and meeting with the baseball coach. A USC baseball source confirmed Tuesday night that Cohen and his son had visited USC on August 29th. Cohen said that he was in Los Angeles from the 23rd through the 29th of August, and that the rest of the month he was in New York.


    Parent
    We have no reason to question ... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 06:03:42 AM EST
    ... Cohen's presence in Los Angeles on August 29. as for the rest of the time, that ought to be easily verifiable.

    Parent
    One day, means nothing! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:23:35 PM EST
    Also, on Twitter a seemingly distraught Cohen said he'd never been to Prague in his life. But now he's told the Wall Street Journal that the last time he was in Prague was 2001. Whaaaat? You can't have it both ways conman.

    Cohen is admittedly Donald Trump's fixer, his bagman.

    Parent

    That was my point. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 02:02:48 AM EST
    We know that Mr. Cohen was in Los Angeles on August 29, as confirmed by officials at USC, where his son is currently enrolled. But where was he during the rest of the time in question?

    L.A. is only 10-plus hours away from Europe by air, and has lots of nonstop flights to and from major European cities such as Vienna and Frankfurt, both of which are less than an hour's flight from Prague.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That part might not be true (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 12:12:51 PM EST

    Kind of like Dan Rather and the fake Texas Air National Guard memos. There is no point in letting CBS have a monopoly on fake news.

    That said you make a good point. The reason to include this particular falsehood is to make the rest seem more valid by comparison. Gak!

    Parent

    A " monopoly" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    A real news organization runs one story with a document that might have been faked by a third party, and you want to compare that to a party and a President-elect who regularly deal in false conspiracy theories and actual fake news.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Conservatives (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    have the monopoly on fake news. I mean you're talking about people who believe Obama is not a US citizen and that any day now the black helicopters are going to show up and take their guns away.

    Anyhow it seems the entire GOP has opened their mouth for yellow rain. Be sure to practice swallowing.

    Oh, by the way Putin says it's "fake" and you guys always take Putin's word for everything don't you?

    Parent

    Fake news (1.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 04:40:16 PM EST

    Fake news is the province of news organizations. That's quite different from rumors and conspiracy theories.  Rathergate was a CBS fiasco, Peegate is Buzzfeed (NBC) and to a lesser extend CNN.

    Parent
    There (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 05:17:17 PM EST
    is nothing fake about this story, the report does exist (it's been circulating among the media and government for months), a synopsis was included with intel briefs to Obama and Trump as verified by Biden and Clapper.

    You could argue that irresponsible for Buzzfeed to release the entire unsubstantiated report, and it's probable that it is riddled with falsehoods, but it's existence and the level of seriousness that the intel agencies assign to it, is news and in fact 100% true.

    Parent

    Do tell? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    Leaving aside the claim about Buzzfeed (and your attempt to smear NBC), care to explain how CNN's reporting is a "fiasco"?

    Parent
    NBC (none / 0) (#99)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    owns a portion of BuzzFeed.  So, NBC is in the muck.

    Parent
    Guilt by association (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    Interesting you skipped right past your baseless smear of CNN ... just like your candidate.

    Parent
    Penthouse now reporting (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:36:05 AM EST
    That they have been contacted by 3 individuals claiming to have Trump golden shower scandal footage. Penthouse has ex FBI authenticating footage before they release it. They hope to have something for us within a week's time.

    Parent
    You know what's sad? (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    It would be just really sad that Penthouse was able to get these tapes and Comey just couldn't seem to find the time to do his job regarding the whole Russian connections with Trump.

    Parent
    WSJ calling for Comey to resign (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    He has destroyed trust and credibility with EVERYONE.

    Parent
    The deafening noise (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    generated from the clutching of pearls over Buzzfeed, has drowned out the underlying need for Trump to release his tax returns and to develop a blind trust so as to assure the nation that he is not using the presidency to line his  pockets.

     These personal business matters coupled with the Intel report on Russian interference to help Trump and denigrate Clinton, as well as concerns about Russian ties to the campaign, apparently being investigated by the FBI, will increasingly become a drag on the Trump and his Administration.

    It is not surprising that the news media and internet environment subscribed to and benefiting Trump,(e.g., Breitbart, National Enquirer)may now bedevil his Administration.

     The dossier spurred by CNN and published by Buzzfeed indicated that it was unverified and may have errors, but it was something going around D.C. for months, and was serious enough of a danger to be brought to the attention of the president, Trump, and, in accord with procedure, certain Congressional leaders.  

    Buzzfeed, with its publication qualifiers, brought transparency to citizens, giving an equal footing to the elites. The news media that beat their chests in their pride of good journalism that would not bring unverified information discussed at the highest levels of government seemed to have had no such qualms in reporting the raw information hacked by Russians that made its way to Wikileaks.

     Why, it may be asked, did these good journalists sit on such an epic story in this case?  Unverified, does not mean unverifiable.  The dossier describes happenings and events that could be checked.  Raw intelligence requires a sifting and culling--some, of course, will be wrong or mistaken, such as, it seems, Cohen's trip/dates to Prague.  However, debunking one does not debunk all. It is called data analysis.  

    If investigations halted with "I am not a crook," Nixon would have completed his second term.  The era of "something is going on between ISIS and Obama--people are saying," is lamentable. And, the "germaphobe" defense may be as good as any, but Buzzfeed may propel what is true and what is not true, with tips and other sources coming forward.

      If a glimmer of truth shines out from golden showers it is unfortunate, since the real concern is in another  department. But, the golden shower may trickle down to the more important.

    Parent

    I don't know what to think about that. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    I really wish that the media would focus their efforts on the verification or non-verification of the rest of the issues raised by the Trump dossier, rather titter endlessly about the antics of a couple of Russian hookers in a Moscow hotel room.

    Seriously, they are all sounding like an 11-year-old boy who accidentally stumbled across his father's p*rn collection in the hall closet, and is now proudly showing it off to his friends.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I understand of what you speak (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    Penthouse has it's certain type of interests. It is the least tasteful of what is there to be verified in this intelligence collected report, but it is a verification of part of the report. I would think that highlights that a full investigation of everything in this report must be undertaken.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    that would require them doing actual work. Since they couldn't seem to actually research the facts and acted like middle school mean girls regarding Hillary and her email account I'm not surprised that they focus on that part of the dossier.

    Parent
    And I demand that Cohen be checked out (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:44:12 PM EST
    Thoroughly on meeting with Russians over what they had to compromise Trump with. I don't give a fig about another Michael Cohen, it's a common name. On Twitter Trump's Cohen said he'd never been to Prague in his life. Now he claims to the WSJ the last time he was there was in 2001.  Something really disturbing there between never in my life and uhhhhh 2001.

    It would be simple to travel from Italy through Austria on your way to Prague, and have your passport only reflect being in Italy. No passport checks traveling that region. My niece just returned from school in Austria. She was our Prague tour guide, she knew the city well, traveled the region freely on a shoestring.

    Parent

    He's also (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    claiming it was a "different Michael Cohen" that was in Prague. So apparently there must be some evidence of him being there or he wouldn't be saying such a thing.

    I don't know but their reaction to this whole dossier thing is strange. They are calling it "fake" yet they are reacting as if the whole thing is true.

    Parent

    Czech intelligence had another (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:05:15 PM EST
    Michael Cohen visiting Prague late summer. So? That doesn't mean this Michael Cohen WASNT there too and Czech intelligence knew nothing bout that ;)

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    and it's likely if he was there that he would not have gone the way of leaving tracks. I mean if you're going to meet with one of Putin's agents you're not going to announce to everybody that you're meeting them. LOL.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:29:19 PM EST
    And then when you find out someone was trailing you, you freak out with, "I've never been to Prague in my life ;)" Even though you have.

    Parent
    Need independent (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:56:33 PM EST
    investigation. I guess McCain since he had already seen this and met with Comey saw the same too. Comey is certainly incapable of handling any investigation with regards to Trump. Heck, he's incapable of handling any investigation professionally I would say. He's getting killed in the press. His own self righteous sanctimony about things has been his undoing.

    Parent
    I don't even know what to say (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    Or think about Comey right now.

    Parent
    I get what you're saying (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    OTOH - $ex sells, and there would be done poetic justice in Trump being destroyed by the weapon he tried to use against Clinton.  But to be honest,  I doubt most of his supporters would care.

    Next time a Republican tries to claim they are the party of family values,  morality,  God, truth, etc., in going to laugh in their face.

    Loudly.

    Parent

    If the Billy Bush / Access Hollywood tape ... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 04:02:22 PM EST
    ... wasn't enough to discourage and dissuade Trump's base of support, what makes us think that their reaction to a story about Russian hookers peeing on a bed would be different?

    Parent
    Nothing is (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    going to dissuade his hardcore base of support IMO. However it would at least make them be quiet about their support. Some might peel away but if the Q poll is right he's already down to core support. So I don't know if that core support can split off or not. I do know that he's where George W. Bush was with a collapsing economy. So maybe 37 is the lowest he'll ever go to.

    Parent
    Can't wait for President Pence to assume office (none / 0) (#13)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 09:26:52 AM EST


    This house of cards (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 12:18:55 PM EST
    can't possibly stand up for long.

    Obviously I've been wrong before or we would not even be having this conversation.

    Parent

    Whenever you mention this (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:46:45 PM EST
    I like to remember that you called the Liz Cheney defeat by the shoe guy.

    Please be right ruff, please be right :)

    Parent

    Trumps mouth...super puckered (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    His eye highlighter, doubled down ;)

    I couldn't even form words with my (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:21:28 AM EST
    Mouth that puckered

    Parent
    BBC reporting (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    that the Trump dossier has more than one source link

    Oh snap (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    CNN after receiving the full frontal Trump treatment has been running that the IC is not investigating any of this. They dismissed it out of hand. And Trump told the BBC reporter at the presser that the BBC was some sort of acceptable press. The question he answered right after telling CNN to bite him was from the BBC.

    Parent
    He's insane. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    Tomorrow he will go after the BBC. He already went off on NBC. He's just a crazy narcissistic toddler.

    Parent
    So who's real news ? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    I just read that the news conference was full of paid staffers who cheered for him too.

    I heard all the cheering and thought it was really odd to have such outbursts at a press conference.

    Parent

    The money line (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 04:55:38 PM EST
    According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

    http://tinyurl.com/jmgwble  NBC reporting

    The 2 page summary was to show The Donald what unvetted disinformation is, lol.
    Or fake news.

    This was (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    a 25 page dossier that was released not a two page summary.

    But hey, Putin also says it is fake and that is all that matters right?

    Parent

    Are you believing (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    and defending the 25 pg dossier as ardently as the IC hacking report?

    Parent
    The is so insanely pissed off (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    I've never seen anyone that pissed about nonsense false allegations. Ever see Obama this pissed about allegations of being a Muslim Kenyan? And CNN reported on Trump's birtherism all the freakin time. Ever see Obama just lose his mind at CNN?

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:18:47 PM EST
    I'm not. I'm just laughing at Trump saying hey, Putin says it's a fake therefore it has to be. Apparently the urine shower thing was verified but I'm not sure of what else was.

    However it does appear that Putin must have something on Trump the way he acts. He attacks the IC and a lot of other people in this country while he defends and praises Putin. Possibly there are tapes. Possibly there are not tapes. However I would say there's a good likelihood that Putin's pull with Trump is financial. I mean even his son has said they were getting a lot of money from Russia.

    Parent

    Cite proof of (none / 0) (#66)
    by BTAL on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:25:00 PM EST
    Apparently the urine shower thing was verified


    Parent
    I read (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:35:27 PM EST
    where it was verified by the hotel employees who had to clean the room after Trump left. However I can't find the link. Maybe it will come out soon.

    Parent
    Yellow journalism. So unfair! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 11:14:01 PM EST


    Parent
    There is none (none / 0) (#76)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    The intelligence community was going to show The Donald the 2 page summary as what fake news could be out there.
    It was unvetted disinformation.

    If the media and the left keep jumping on all these attempts to take down The Donald  with a Pavlovian response to any unvetted report, and they continue to be fake news, they will make The Donald into a sympathetic figure.
    Yes, tough to do, but it will happen.
    And it also sets up the defense for The Donald , if any claim eventually turns out to be true, it can be swatted away as another fake news attempt.
    Responsible news media and publications had this information for months, and not one reported on it, because they couldn't prove 1 single item in it.
    When McCain got his copy of the 35 page document in October, he immediately gave it over to Comey, thought he ought to see it.

    Parent

    Your "concern" is noted (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 10:28:17 PM EST
    Then again, since Trump's entire campaign was based on fake news and baseless smears/lies about his opponents, he'll have to learn to deal with the monster he created.

    Parent
    If Trump has more days like yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    He'll win 2020 in a landslide.  The media keeps sinking lower and lower.

    Parent
    The media (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    isn't the problem when it comes to Trump. He's his own walking talking disaster with his tweets praising Putin among other things.

    I'm sure it plays well with the minority that support him yes, but he's an embarrassment to the rest of the country.

    Parent

    "Sinking low" is a problem (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 10:21:48 PM EST
    They could never sink lower than Donnie or his supporters - and it worked for Donnie.

    Parent
    i read (none / 0) (#97)
    by linea on Thu Jan 12, 2017 at 08:33:37 PM EST
    the dossier:

    • there are missing pages. where are they?

    • there are a few lines blacked out. who edited those lines and what did they say?

    • are pages missing and lines blacked out because they are ridiculous stupid or some other reason?

    to me, it seems the entire dossier amounts to:

    • trump (allegedly) was offered lucrative realestate deals in russia, including in relation to the 2018 World Cup, but turned then down.

    • trump (allegedly) had sex with russian prostitutes.

    • trump (allegedly) for amusement has several russian prostitutes urinate on the bed in the suite where obama and wife had previously stayed because he hates the obamas.
    Some thoughts I might have if I was parnoid (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    If I wanted to split the Democrats away from their far Left base I would float this "memo" around.

    And when the sane members of the party, and a respected journalist, e.g. Greenwald, all said it was a sham...

    Trump and Putin must be laughing....at the result.

    You are leaving (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:28:07 AM EST
    the reports that this dossier was commissioned by GOP operatives and McCain was the first to "float it" to the FBI. I have no clue why you or Greenwald are trying to turn this into a partisan matter.

    Parent
    I agree (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 10:47:30 AM EST
    You have no clue.

    And I doubt McCain would be sly enough.

    He'd just want to bomb bomb bomb'em.

    lol

    Parent

    Well, even (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    the NY Post is reporting that McCain gave the dossier to the FBI.

    Parent
    That was first reported by The Telegraph ... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    ... in London yesterday, in its recounting of former UK Ambassador Sir Anthony Wood's role in first bringing the Trump dossier to the attention of the USIC.

    At this juncture, either the key points of this dossier are essentially true, or they're not.

    If the former, then the obvious breach in national security would be so serious that Trump and anyone implicated in the scandal ought to be removed summarily from office, and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    If the latter, then the US / UK intelligence Communities and each country's media are guilty of a massive (and potentially libelous) overreach and with the accompanying professional discredit, they will have rendered themselves vulnerable to a likely purge of the senior ranks.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Let us return to those days of yesteryear (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    and hear the thundering hoofs and the wold cry of Snowden good and you can't trust the CIA!

    of course that was before it started attacking your enemy,

    Hey "Social liberal" (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    Not all of us supported Snowden and Greenwald. The thread you link to proves it.

    Parent
    That was a great TL thread (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 08:41:31 AM EST
    Sadly Edger has passed away. Such a great human being. Christenep was so accurate on Putin in that thread it's eerie.

    Parent
    Oh yeah....in this house Snowden was good (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    And the CIA was completely untrustworthy. Yeah, that happened.

    Parent
    People like Jim (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 13, 2017 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    are still wrestling with the concept that people in positions of authority, like any other human being, can be right sometimes and wrong sometimes.

    Of course, folks here haven't spent years going Sieg Heil! every time Rush comes on the air.

    That changes a man after awhile.

    Parent

    Once again I ask (none / 0) (#202)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 09:47:52 PM EST
    No, one turn does not deserve (2.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 14, 2017 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    another.  And, I would support a double standard here--to get rid of trollish comments from the Right.
    The outrage is due in no small part to the assertion the FBI buried the dossier while not doing that with regard to Hillary.

    What crime would the FBI investigate?

    Hillary was actually in violation of at least statutes, and there was a need to investigate. Comey decided that there was a need for intent, when the statute specifically stated no intent was needed. But that is old news.
    What law did The Donald break?

    Russia's Alleged Not So Secret Dossier on Trump | 198 comments (198 topical)