Americans mortified to learn there may be compromising Trump sex tapes: 'Please. No. Yuck'

[reflechissez]

I'm not claiming anything. I am putting forth what this author wrote, and, yes, it appear Steele's sub-source for all the Russian information, at least, was a drunken ex-KGB.

If I recall, previous to the Steele Dossier, the FBI had already deemed Steele as an 'unreliable source'. Had a citation for this that I can no longer locate, nor find on the Internet. Anyway, such an FBI deemed 'unreliable source' isn't a strong foundation on which to falsify multiple FISA warrant for spying on a presidential campaign.

That's convenient. Yet, you're going to run with it anyway. ok.

 

[MaryP]

With what we know about Trump, the inclination is to believe the dossiers. The allegations might be false, but would anyone really be surprised if they were true?

They say Rudy bought the Hunter dirt on the Russian black market. I wonder what a Golden Showers video would go for?

 

[bearpoker]

They say Rudy bought the Hunter dirt on the Russian black market. I wonder what a Golden Showers video would go for?

To reveal, or to keep hidden?

 

[MaryP]

To reveal, or to keep hidden?

Ahhhh... I hadn't thought of that. But I was just curious.

 

[Somerville]

Attacking the source rather than the points raised.

None the less, in the end the 'Steele dossier' was found to be fabricated by Steele's 'sub-source' who had previous connections to Russian intel. That source is far more suspect than anything I've cited.

Your position is that the 'Steele dossier' is the God's honest truth?

Steele's "sub-source" was Igor Danchenko who may still be hiding after Trump and Lindsey Graham named him, calling Danchenko a "Russian spy" BUT there seems to be a problem for Trump and his lackeys - The Senate Intelligence Committee Report that came out in August, not long before the 2020 elections.

Trump’s false ‘Russian spy’ claims put me in danger, says Steele dossier source​

A Russian analyst says he is in hiding and “afraid for his life” after being unmasked by top congressional Republicans as the source behind the Steele dossier on Donald Trump and Moscow.
(. . . )
In August the committee published its counter-intelligence findings into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. The bipartisan report was dismissive of Steele’s dossier, but corroborated key elements in it, saying that a Russian intelligence officer was “permanently based” at the Ritz-Carlton hotel, and spied on guests via a “network” of hidden cameras.

The nearly 1,000 page report also laid out multiple contacts between Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager who features in the dossier, and Konstantin Kilimnik, described as a Russian intelligence officer. Manafort gave Kilimnik internal Trump polling data, and the report described his willingness to pass sensitive material to a Moscow spy as a “grave counter-intelligence threat”.

Danchenko said the campaign against him was designed to deflect from the damaging Senate report. “I think they thought I would be an easy target to discredit the dossier. By doubling down on this they would be able to discredit the whole Russia investigation,” he said.

 

[eohrnberger]

Steele's "sub-source" was Igor Danchenko who may still be hiding after Trump and Lindsey Graham named him, calling Danchenko a "Russian spy" BUT there seems to be a problem for Trump and his lackeys - The Senate Intelligence Committee Report that came out in August, not long before the 2020 elections.

That certainly explains why Manafort faced charges as he should have, which is fine by me. Also would seem to explain why he was uncerimoniously fired from the campaign.
It's a bitch when karma catches up with you.

 

[Ginger Ale]

He's done way worse already. They won't care, this will only make the bond stronger.
He's become an idol and his base are fanboys, not Republicans.

 

[mrjurrs]

I'm not claiming anything. I am putting forth what this author wrote, and, yes, it appear Steele's sub-source for all the Russian information, at least, was a drunken ex-KGB.

If I recall, previous to the Steele Dossier, the FBI had already deemed Steele as an 'unreliable source'. Had a citation for this that I can no longer locate, nor find on the Internet. Anyway, such an FBI deemed 'unreliable source' isn't a strong foundation on which to falsify multiple FISA warrant for spying on a presidential campaign.

1-Are their any Russian sources that don't have drinking problems?
2-Not being able to find something on the internet can be a bit of an issue...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Which Steele dossier claims have been proven false?

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

"In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate."

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[eohrnberger]

1-Are their any Russian sources that don't have drinking problems?

LOL. Ain't that the truth.

2-Not being able to find something on the internet can be a bit of an issue...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

True, but not sure how applicable to the topic.

Which Steele dossier claims have been proven false?

Asked an answered in previous post.

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

"In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate."

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

Not all of the material in the dossier has been proven. But none has been disproven. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier holds up well.

www.lawfareblog.com

Conflicting opinions from different sources, who would have thought?
Proven or disproven?

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.

The Trump Dossier Is Fake -- And Here Are The Reasons Why

Some of the stories are so bizarre 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.

www.forbes.com

'The material is not verifiable.', so can't really be proven nor disproven?

 

[mrjurrs]

LOL. Ain't that the truth.

True, but not sure how applicable to the topic.

Asked an answered in previous post.

Conflicting opinions from different sources, who would have thought?
Proven or disproven?

'The material is not verifiable.', so can't really be proven nor disproven?

Your last point is my point also. Raw intelligence means that it is not verified. Some of it will never be verified. However, some parts have been verified as accurate. Therefore, the Steele dossier is a fake claim is in fact...the fake claim.

 

[eohrnberger]

Your last point is my point also. Raw intelligence means that it is not verified. Some of it will never be verified.

OK.

However, some parts have been verified as accurate. Therefore, the Steele dossier is a fake claim is in fact...the fake claim.

Well, rather than fake or not fake, 'partially verified and vetted' might be most appropriate?

 

[mrjurrs]

OK.

Well, rather than fake or not fake, 'partially verified and vetted' might be most appropriate?

I prefer, some parts have been proven true, no parts have been proven false. The more time passes, the less chance of proving more false and the greater chance of proving something true imo. The truth always comes out eventually.

 

[eohrnberger]

I prefer, some parts have been proven true, no parts have been proven false.

I dunno. That seems to be giving it far more credibility than it seems to deserve, at least to me.

The more time passes, the less chance of proving more false and the greater chance of proving something true imo. The truth always comes out eventually.

I rather doubt that this is the case on things that are unverifiable. More likely they will be de-prioritized to the point of irrelevance.

 

[d0gbreath]

Wouldn't a golden shower make his orange makeup run?

 

[Cardinal]

If there's a Trump sex tape and it's released to the public, I anticipate an entire genre of reaction videos akin to the ones for Two Girls One Cup.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If there's a Trump sex tape and it's released to the public, I anticipate an entire genre of reaction videos akin to the ones for Two Girls One Cup.

nobody wants to see that!

 

[Cardinal]

nobody wants to see that!

I never saw Two Girls One Cup and I will never see a trump sex tape. One thing I've learned is that what is seen cannot be unseen, and I don't want to do that to my psyche.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I never saw Two Girls One Cup and I will never see a trump sex tape. One thing I've learned is that what is seen cannot be unseen, and I don't want to do that to my psyche.

You will never be able to eat an orange again

 

[americanwoman]

Trump was a rich famous hoe for many years. Of course someone outsmarted the "stable genius" and taped him.