HuMcK said:
Doc Holliday said:
BrooksBearLives said:
ScottS said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
I have just two words: Steele dossier.
End of thread.
Bingo
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Steele Dossier was paid for oppo research. The monies were disclosed.
Accepting gifts of money or things of value from overseas is against the last.
You're just... wrong. The Steele Dossier wasn't a campaign finance violation.
What an uninformed take.
You are in for a world of butthurt.
Durham already has grand juries for this corruption.
You got a source for that other than that slimy rat Joe DiGenova? Last I read, Durham was conducting a "review" instead of a criminal investigation. I read he doesn't even subpoena power to compel witness testimony in this matter, hence Steele's unchallenged refusal to talk to him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/politics/russia-investigation-cia.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytpoliticsThe New York Times has a report surrounding U.S. Attorney John Durham questioning CIA officials about the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation.
It doesn't actually look like Durham is questioning the CIA about the investigation itself; rather it appears he is questioning the CIA about how they came to the conclusions within the January 7th, 2017,
Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA.
The December 29th, 2016,
Joint Analysis Report on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about Russian hacking. The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017,
Intelligence Community Assessment. The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The claims within the ICA were/are completely silly, and manufactured specifically to present a political narrative intended to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the "high confidence" claims, likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in
the ICA.
If the ICA is a false political document. then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the
JAR and
ICA is part of a big fraud. [Which it is]