Dossier debunked

To quote Comey:

"In the main, it was not true," Comey responded. "And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who know what's going on are not talking about it. And we don't call the press to say, 'hey, you got that thing wrong about the sensitive topic.' We have to leave it there."
​

What Comey, in context, was referring to, is the use of "unnamed sources" related to stories created about classified information.

 

RodB is relying on false info from eleven months ago that went no where. An example is posted below.

Carter Page exonerated after being a Trump 'adviser' (not) surveilled by FBI
Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chatter' started by osu68, Apr 12, 2017. https://ohiostate.forums.rivals.com...-a-trump-adviser-not-surveilled-by-fbi.63020/

 

It was the part that led Fusion GPS to inform the FBI because of its blackmail potential. It was the part that Susan Rice suggested the CIA tell Obama about. It was the part that led Comey to brief Trump. Other than that, not too important, I guess.

 

Show us where he said that, ocean515.

 

What I posted was a quote from Comey. Your question is answered in the part I bolded and underlined.

Perhaps you're having a comprehension problem...

Comey stated there are no unnamed sources who know anything about the classified information they are using. So, to those who read and understand, what he said was any statement from unnamed sources regarding classified information is not based on fact.

Hope that helps.

 

The golden shower stuff was the most explosive of the dossier. But I never said it was the most important part of the FISA application.

A FISA warrant is ONLY good in regards to the subject speaking with FOREIGN subjects[/QUOTE] Sorry, not true. How did they get Flynn's recording if not for a FISA warrant on the Russian ambassador?

 

It isn't clear what he is referring to exactly, but His language is specific to something. The article refers to information gathered from phone intercepts, which may not be true. We know that Papadopolous, Page, and Junior were making contacts all along.

 

You seem to be working pretty hard to side step what Comey stated in plain English.

Perhaps you should review the full transcript of his testimony.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/08/full-text-james-comey-trump-russia-testimony-239295

Relevant part:

RISCH: I remember, you talked with us shortly after February 14th, when the "New York Times" wrote an article that suggested that the trump campaign was colluding with the Russians. Do you remember reading that article when it first came out?

COMEY: I do, it was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance in their communications.

RISCH: Correct. That upset you to the point where you surveyed the intelligence community to see whether you were missing something in that. Is that correct?​

COMEY: That's correct. I want to be careful in open setting, but —

RISCH: I'm not going to go any further than that, so thank you. In addition to that, after that, you sought out both Republican and Democrat senators to tell them that, hey, I don't know where this is coming from, but this is not the case. This is not factual. Do you recall that?

COMEY: Yes.

RISCH: Okay. So again, so the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?

COMEY: In the main, it was not true. And again, all of you know this. Maybe the American people don't. The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who know what is going on are not talking about it. We don't call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about the sensitive topic. We have to leave it there.

I mentioned to the chairman the nonsense around what influenced me to make the July 5th statement. Nonsense. But I can't go explaining how it is nonsense.

RISCH: Thank you. All right. So those three things we now know regarding the active measures, whether the president is under investigation and the collusion between the trump campaign and the Russians. I want to drill right down, as my time is limited, to the most recent dust up regarding allegations that the president of the United States obstructed justice. Boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There's 28 words now in quotes. It says, quote, I hope -- this is the president speaking — I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words, is that correct.

COMEY: Correct.

RISCH: You wrote them here and put them in quotes.

COMEY: Correct.

RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go?

COMEY: Not in his words, no.

RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?

COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.
​

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/pres...estigation-michael-flynn-before-firing-2017-5

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...igation-of-michael-flynn-source-idUSKCN18C19Y

COMEY: Correct.​

RISCH: Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go?

COMEY: Not in his words, no.​

RISCH: He did not order you to let it go?

COMEY: Again, those words are not an order.​

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑Show us where he said that, ocean515.

So you misdirected a meaning of the quote. Thank you. Comey said and implied no such thing as your conclusion.

 

Wrong.

Next.

 

It seem to me that George Papadopolous, Mike Flynn, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort easily meet that standard.

 

What Comey was suggesting is that some sources used by the press don't have accurate information. The fact that they were unnamed has nothing to do with their credibility.

This is the article in question.........https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

As it turns out, Comey's characterization of the story is wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/james-comey-new-york-times-article-russia.html?_r=1

 

Wrong.

Next.

 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-false-backlash-over-anonymous-sources/

Virtually all of the stories regarding the chaos and mismanagement of the Trump White House originated with unnamed sources and later turned out to be true.

Nobody doubts that HR McMaster is toast, based on this long standing pattern.

And Trump will lie about the time of day.

Because of that, Anonymous sources have more credibility than the sitting President does.

 

To the bold, that is what I have been commenting on. His claim is that sources of any kind are not credible, because the people who know what is going on, aren't talking.

Your article from the wounded NYT uses unnamed sources......

That's rather ironic, don't you think?

Of course, it is quite possible Comey "lacked candor" when he claimed "those of us who know aren't talking", which if true, would indicated the "unnamed" and "anonymous" may actually be people who know, and are talking, despite the laws prohibiting such actions.

It's all rather stupefying and remarkably disappointing behavior across the board.

 

Thank you. It seems pretty obvious what the context was right there. He doesn't seem to be worried about the use of "unnamed sources", but instead the accusation of electronic intercepts.

 

"Chaos" and "mismanagement" are subjective references.

There is nothing factual about such claims. They are only opinions, which have created tremendous revenue streams for the outlets blowing such dog whistles.

 

It's apparent you want to apply selective reading in order to maintain your claims.

That is your prerogative.

 

So you have your feelz but can't prove the reelz. It's only your opinion, and you can't approve it.

It's like RodB says he understands FISA warrants when he has not a clue.

 

You're lacking candor.....

 

If Republicans grow a patriotic bone and impeach Trump, there will be many many charges from the dosier that are waaay more serious than "Golden showers"

Normally, "golden showers" would be the most explosive charge in history for any President. Totally unheard of, and would justify all the fisa orders they could get their hands on. But given the criminal activity of this guy, it's barely equivalent to a parking ticket by comparison.

 

You project opinion as fact: that is lacking candor.

 

If this is what you're basing your attack on articles based on unnamed sources on, you might want to try a less pathetic effort.

After all, the Times turned out to be correct. Indeed, the original article turned out to be accurate in every respect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

 

LOL.

But you wrote this:

"Comey said and implied no such thing as your conclusion."
​

To that my response is:

So you have your feelz but can't prove the reelz. It's only your opinion, and you can't prove it.

​

 

You taught me well.....