Yeah but look who paid Steele, and who knew it, and when:
How do you know the Clinton campaign was unaware that Steele was interacting with the FBI?
That’s unredacted?
Because one of the sources that Sara “I’ll Say Anything Trump Wants Me To” Carter uses in her article says exactly that.
How have I shifted? What are my 2 claims? What even is a legal claim? Or are you talking about my opponents? Yeah, they started out saying anyone reading the footnote would know the funder. Now they are saying the FBI did not know the funder. I don’t see how the first is a “legal” claim (but I think whatever you mean by that is moot, but to ahead: explain if it isn’t moot).
You’re misrepresenting what everyone else has said. People have been saying that the judge would know the funder is a political opponent, not necessarily the specific identity. You’ve been asked a half dozen times why the name of the political opponent has any bearing, and you ignore those requests.
Looks like the reply with quote missed the second one. I wouldn’t be surprised if they falsely denied it. And at any rate, it is tangential to this debate.
I explained it in my “informal equation” post, and my “funding capabilities of the funder” post.
Wait, so you don’t believe some part of the cite you have provided?
Under what legal doctrine do judges consider the “funding capabilities of the funder?”
“Would know” is not the same as “did know” and what the issue is what the FBI reported and what the courts looked at. As pointed before, by now the judges do know even about the manufactured controversy and would had complained to the FBI about what they “omitted” in the previous FISA.
Since nothing has come in that regard, I do think one can deduce that the “omission” was/is not as important as Nunez, Fox news or you wanted to make it.
You mean PAID by Fusion GPS, who was PAID by a law firm who was PAID by the DNC/Clinton. Even the article you linked to specifies that Steele didn’t know who was the initial source of funds in the beginning, and it’s a little murky based on the timeline whether or not Steele knew at the time he made contact with the FBI, nor is it clear if he did know 100% for certain, whether he divulged that information to the FBI.
And even if he did, what difference does it make? Cruz or Clinton or George Soros, what does it matter? You’ve been asked this question ~10 times in this thread, and the best response you can come up with is that you think if Chris Steele was paid less money from a political opponent of Trump with smaller pockets, he would have somehow been able to provide better information.
Again, the three most critical pieces of information to divulge from the FBI’s perspective in the FISA warrant are:
-
Steele’s trustworthiness, based on credentials and previous history.
-
That his information lines up broadly with other independent investigations.
-
That he was potentially biased because the ultimate source of his funds was from a political opponent of Trump.
Could Clinton’s name have been mentioned, assuming the FBI knew for certain at the time? Sure. But you haven’t made a strong argument why it would have mattered.
Someone provided a link claiming the Clinton campaign denied knowing the FBI was interacting with Steele: moot for this thread.
Give some people enough money to find evidence and they will invent stories, or end up paying people for stories which they invent for the money.
There’s some truth to that - it’s what Trump has done dozens of times to many women.
But do you think Cruz, Kaisch, Rubio et al couldn’t afford $186k to hire Steele?
And again, if the Clinton campaign fabricated all this stuff about Trump and Russia, (a) why didn’t they use it? and (b) why do Trump associates keep getting arrested?
So you think your average judge expects that a former law enforcement officer, now working as a private detective, is likely to produce false information and - further - use that information to report a crime, because someone hired them to investigate a political opponent?
I would say that if you, as a judge, would find that to be likely, then I am glad that you are not a judge and I would recommend that you stay out of any occupation that has a requirement of being able to make reality-based conclusions.
Who knows who lied for money? Maybe some of Steele’s Russian sources?
But that would be Russian Collusion wouldn’t it?
“No, YOU’RE the puppet!”
Seriously. A guy with a long career in British intelligence is just going to start fabricating things for what is really a temp job… and then take his bogus story to the FBI, leading to indictments. But Republican Robert Muller hasn’t seen fit to indict anyone associated with Steele for lying to the FBI?
You expect us to believe this tripe?
He wasn’t that good of an investigator: the FBI ended up firing him.
And he was even accused of lying to the FBI:
" "Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September –before the Page application was submitted to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] FISC in October –but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts,” the memo read. "
So why didn’t he get arrested for fabricating his dossier by either the FBI or Muller?
The quote is talking about other lies.
What hypothetical dollar amount would have made you more likely to believe the information that a PI doing oppo research dug up? It obviously can’t be something low like $100, right? But yet apparently $186k means he must be just making stuff up, even for a former MI6 Russian field office head with a reputation at stake.
Where is your magic number?
When Steele reported that Russia was favoring Trump, do you believe that to be a fabrication?