Kathleen Kavalec discredited Steele dossier before FBI asked for FISA warrant

[Dacien]

I mean, he was under a FISA warrant multiple times over the years for his discussions with the Kremlin and suspicion that he was trying to be recruited as a spy for Russia.

The allegations that the dossier was all, or even the bulk, of the evidence used to secure the judges sign off on the surveillance is silly.

https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/r...ant-2013-2014/

Carter Page actually cooperated with the FBI, and actually helped take down the Russian spy attempting to recruit him.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....nor_scout.html

In 2013, a Russian national working as an unregistered foreign agent at a Russian bank in Manhattan sought information from Page, a longtime energy consultant, related to U.S. efforts to develop alternative energy resources, according to court papers filed by the FBI. Although Page thought the man was a legitimate banker after meeting him at an energy symposium in New York City, he was a Russian agent under federal investigation. He was later caught on surveillance dismissing Page as an “idiot.”

The FBI informed Page in 2013 that the Russians might be trying to recruit him.

A U.S. Naval Academy alumnus, Page cooperated as a witness in that case, which was coordinated with the bureau’s Counterespionage Section Chief Peter Strzok in Washington, and he helped the government convict the Russian spy. Evgeny Buryakov pleaded guilty to espionage-related charges on March 11, 2016. FBI agents, as well as federal prosecutors, huddled with Page around that time to tie up loose ends, he said. “It had absolutely nothing to do with the election interference story, which surfaced months later,” Page said.

The idea that this incident, five years later in an unrelated incident, has any bearing at all is unbelievable to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, he has been under surveillance since 2013. When he gave Russian operatives sensitive documents.

Not even close.

[Felya]

It was an ongoing humint operation. Most notably, the portion regarding Carter Page's alleged visit to Moscow was included.

But, that means the dossier couldn’t have been used. Since there was no actual conclusion made for weeks. The best you can do is argue that there was the same evidence was in both, but it couldn’t have come from a dossier that didn’t exist yet.

[Orbitus]

Carter Page actually cooperated with the FBI, and actually helped take down the Russian spy attempting to recruit him.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....nor_scout.html

The idea that this incident means, five years later in an unrelated incident, has any bearing at all is unbelievable to me.

- - - Updated - - -



Not even close.

Yet, it is all true. Which, if you read @Edge-'s fucking link, you would know. But you ignored it like a good Trump supporter.

[Felya]

The idea that this incident means, five years later in an unrelated incident, has any bearing at all is unbelievable to me.

How are they unrelated and not showing repeated behavior?

Not even close.

But, according to the following, he was... in 2013 and 2014.

https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/r...ant-2013-2014/

[Thestrawman]

Did anyone else hear the faint but distinct sound of goal posts being moved?
And here I thought @Dacien was going to quietly leave the thread in shame.

[Dacien]

How are they unrelated and not showing repeated behavior?



But, according to the following, he was... in 2013 and 2014.

https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/r...ant-2013-2014/

Bolded for clarity in your quoted post.

[Felya]

Did anyone else hear the faint but distinct sound of goal posts being moved?
And here I thought @Dacien was going to quietly leave the thread in shame.

My replies are seeking clarification, not trying to shame. Just sayin’...

[Orbitus]

Bolded for clarity.

So, there is no clarification? Since there is no bolding?

[Edge-]

Carter Page actually cooperated with the FBI, and actually helped take down the Russian spy attempting to recruit him.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....nor_scout.html

Aware of that, but the reporting indicates that a FISA warrant was maintained, at least periodically, over the course of multiple years following 2013. So his cooperation with the FBI on this doesn't mean that there weren't ongoing suspicious contacts that the FBI felt warranted a FISA warrant, and provided enough evidence to a judge to agree with them.

It's like saying a guy who admitted to robbery once, plead guilty, and ratted out his co-robbers couldn't have robbed another bank because he cooperated once. That's a pretty silly position to take.

[Felya]

So, there is no clarification? Since there is no bolding?

He bolted his original post. It’s the part about handing over secret documents.

[Draco-Onis]

I know your master the Donald keeps harping on the dossier but the facts are out there and they have proven a lot of information from the dossier true not only that it's not even the basis for the Mueller report. For people who claim COMPLATE AND TOTEL EXONORATION WINNNG!!!! you guys seem pretty desperate. I guess anything so you don't have to talk about supporting a criminal.

[Dacien]

Aware of that, but the reporting indicates that a FISA warrant was maintained, at least periodically, over the course of multiple years following 2013. So his cooperation with the FBI on this doesn't mean that there weren't ongoing suspicious contacts that the FBI felt warranted a FISA warrant, and provided enough evidence to a judge to agree with them.

Christopher Steele as a source was featured prominently in the application, and McCabe stated in testimony, at least a according Rep. Jim Jordan and others, that sans the Steele dossier, there would have been no warrant.

Ultimately we'll know more when the IG report comes out this month or next, according to reports. There are some analysts I follow, some who nailed the Mueller report to a tee years before anybody was willing to believe it, who suggest that the entire Barr smearing theater has been a pre-emptive attack against the report. That the report is going to be a difficulty.

We shall see.

[Orbitus]

Christopher Steele as a source was featured prominently in the application, and McCabe stated in testimony, at least a according Rep. Jim Jordan and others, that sans the Steele dossier, there would have been no warrant.

Ultimately we'll know more when the IG report comes out this month or next, according to reports. There are some analysts I follow, some who nailed the Mueller report to a tee years before anybody was willing to believe it, who suggest that the entire Barr smearing theater has been a pre-emptive attack against the report. That the report is going to be a difficulty.

We shall see.

The fact that you took that fucking Gym Jordan fucking seriously, is on you, not us. Jim Jordan is nothing but Trump's left nut's ball washer. Nunes is the right ball washer, and Gaettz is the taint cleaner.

[Ripster42]

The fact that you took that fucking Gym Jordan fucking seriously, is on you, not us. Jim Jordan is nothing but Trump's left nut's ball washer. Nunes is the right ball washer, and Gaettz is the taint cleaner.

You can read the redacted fisa stuff here. Source 1 (steele) definitely features in the initial application. He's not the only source, but he's definitely prominent. The thing is, steele is a guy who, as the redacted sheet notes, has a history of being a reliable source. Steele himself said his dossier is 70-85% accurate. So far, that's been pretty much what we're seeing. If people are complaining that we're using reliable sources as a part of the evidence needed to obtain a warrant, they're hacks.

The fact that page lied about his contacts that steele said he had (page later admitted that he did meet those people and discuss those subjects) means steele was justified in his suspicions, and the application was also justified. It helps that we know, from the renewals, that the warrant was obtaining new information. People dismissing the steele dossier because he got one thing wrong (that they can point to) when steele himself said it was raw intel and not 100% accurate, are hacks.

[TexasRules]

You can read the redacted fisa stuff here. Source 1 (steele) definitely features in the initial application. He's not the only source, but he's definitely prominent. The thing is, steele is a guy who, as the redacted sheet notes, has a history of being a reliable source. Steele himself said his dossier is 70-85% accurate. So far, that's been pretty much what we're seeing. If people are complaining that we're using reliable sources as a part of the evidence needed to obtain a warrant, they're hacks.

The fact that page lied about his contacts that steele said he had (page later admitted that he did meet those people and discuss those subjects) means steele was justified in his suspicions, and the application was also justified. It helps that we know, from the renewals, that the warrant was obtaining new information. People dismissing the steele dossier because he got one thing wrong (that they can point to) when steele himself said it was raw intel and not 100% accurate, are hacks.

Why are you trying to have a rational discussion with orbitus? His response has no semblance of a coherency toward the subject matter, it is just him reposting his shitstorm posts to make his friends like him more.. It adds nothing to the discussion, nor will it ever. Not even sure why he is bringing Jim Jordan in to this discussion. Most of the people here will deny that spying happened because they only see the world through their rose colored glasses. We'll see how they attack John Durham. I am sure according to oribtus he will be replacing Jim Jordan as a nut washer, because that is how rational people debate.

The fact that all these people disregard a state department official's notes to back their party is incredulous. They have to defend, because they think that is what all good anti trump haters do. They don't care what she said even though it was given to the FBI to show how Steele was incredibly against Trump and would do anything, include feed media against his fbi informant agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty clear you haven't even read the piece you're citing. The guy says one thing and then assumes a conclusion that has nothing to do with what the facts he cited state. And you Trumpkins just eat it up. Because it feeds your narrative that somehow, through all this, Trump is not a criminal.

I was citing her notes as facts, what are you referencing me to at this point? Please tell me where in her notes that a guy assumes a conclusion. You Trumpkins always pay attention to the only part you want to read. Bad Trumpkin.

[Daelak]

Why are you trying to have a rational discussion with orbitus? His response has no semblance of a coherency toward the subject matter, it is just him reposting his shitstorm posts to make his friends like him more.. It adds nothing to the discussion, nor will it ever. Not even sure why he is bringing Jim Jordan in to this discussion. Most of the people here will deny that spying happened because they only see the world through their rose colored glasses. We'll see how they attack John Durham. I am sure according to oribtus he will be replacing Jim Jordan as a nut washer, because that is how rational people debate.

The fact that all these people disregard a state department official's notes to back their party is incredulous. They have to defend, because they think that is what all good anti trump haters do. They don't care what she said even though it was given to the FBI to show how Steele was incredibly against Trump and would do anything, include feed media against his fbi informant agreement.

Steele wasnt "anti Trump". His assets in Russia related the information they gathered on Trump. Assets that have helped ALL western intelligence since before the fall of the USSR. And piece of shit Republicans now have the gall to discredit and smear a western spy who has deep cover assets in a hostile foreign power's midst. Steele isnt a O'Keefe or the myriad of other fake conservative activists who fabricate shit up to disseminate online. He was in the foremost expert in Russian active intelligence measures before the fall of the USSR.

[Ripster42]

Why are you trying to have a rational discussion with orbitus? His response has no semblance of a coherency toward the subject matter, it is just him reposting his shitstorm posts to make his friends like him more.. It adds nothing to the discussion, nor will it ever. Not even sure why he is bringing Jim Jordan in to this discussion. Most of the people here will deny that spying happened because they only see the world through their rose colored glasses. We'll see how they attack John Durham. I am sure according to oribtus he will be replacing Jim Jordan as a nut washer, because that is how rational people debate.

The fact that all these people disregard a state department official's notes to back their party is incredulous. They have to defend, because they think that is what all good anti trump haters do. They don't care what she said even though it was given to the FBI to show how Steele was incredibly against Trump and would do anything, include feed media against his fbi informant agreement.

You're one of the people I qualify as a hack, as displayed by your title. Steele was against trump because of the evidence he uncovered. A prosecutor isn't biased against a defendant if they uncover information that the defendant is guilty and indict him. Bias is inherently unfounded. As has been noted, steele wasn't the one who gave buzzfeed the dossier. It was leaked from mccain's office. You lying doesn't reflect well on you.

- - - Updated - - -

Steele wasnt "anti Trump". His assets in Russia related the information they gathered on Trump. Assets that have helped ALL western intelligence since before the fall of the USSR. And piece of shit Republicans now have the gall to discredit and smear a western spy who has deep cover assets in a hostile foreign power's midst. Steele isnt a O'Keefe or the myriad of other fake conservative activists who fabricate shit up to disseminate online. He was in the foremost expert in Russian active intelligence measures before the fall of the USSR.

Not quite true. He was anti-trump... after he received information that he was compromised by russia. He wasn't biased.

[TexasRules]

Steele wasnt "anti Trump". His assets in Russia related the information they gathered on Trump. Assets that have helped ALL western intelligence since before the fall of the USSR. And piece of shit Republicans now have the gall to discredit and smear a western spy who has deep cover assets in a hostile foreign power's midst. Steele isnt a O'Keefe or the myriad of other fake conservative activists who fabricate shit up to disseminate online. He was in the foremost expert in Russian active intelligence measures before the fall of the USSR.

The notes taken by state official Kathleen Kavalec who interviewed him disagree with what you are posting. They are referenced here in this thread. Feel free to read them and link me your information that you are using to back up your claims. As I said, mine are in this thread. And she gave these notes about Steele to the FBI before their FISA applications.

[Ripster42]

The notes taken by state official Kathleen Kavalec who interviewed him disagree with what you are posting. They are referenced here in this thread. Feel free to read them and link me your information that you are using to back up your claims. As I said, mine are in this thread. And she gave these notes about Steele to the FBI before their FISA applications.

Again, someone isn't biased against someone if they have a justified reason for disliking them (say, receiving intel that they're compromised by a hostile foreign power).

[TexasRules]

You're one of the people I qualify as a hack, as displayed by your title. Steele was against trump because of the evidence he uncovered. A prosecutor isn't biased against a defendant if they uncover information that the defendant is guilty and indict him. Bias is inherently unfounded. As has been noted, steele wasn't the one who gave buzzfeed the dossier. It was leaked from mccain's office. You lying doesn't reflect well on you.

- - - Updated - - -



Not quite true. He was anti-trump... after he received information that he was compromised by russia. He wasn't biased.

And yet Kathleen Kavalec's notes are contrary to what you are saying about Steele. Are you saying she is lying to the FBI? Are you saying that you don't believe a state official, or that you don't trust a state official?

My name is a reference created in response to someone belying the reputation and laws about Texas, but then again, you can take it anyway you want..... feel free to think that I am a hack, people who post on an internet message board as much as you do have no idea about the outside world from your bubble.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, someone isn't biased against someone if they have a justified reason for disliking them (say, receiving intel that they're compromised by a hostile foreign power).

Again, you did not read her notes. If you had, Steele should not have been a source at all for the FBI for leaking information to the media while being an informant, it violates his confidentiality agreement. Her notes show exactly how much he did not want Trump to be President.