Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The last time I heard, the memos had been 60-70% corroborated.
And yet McCabe could not point to even ONE fact from the dossier that was corroborated other than the one fact Steele gathered from a newspaper (that Carter Page visited Moscow). Note: McCabe didn't have to uncover sources. Or methods. All he had to do was point to ONE fact from the dossier that was "corroborated" by the FBI. He couldn't.
Actually they did in fact there were no material facts of crimes which is necessary for a FISA application, just that tricky and clever little POS from Clintons.
This is a lie.
The FISA application had considerable support material in addition to the Steele Dossier, much of which has been corroborated.
Accurate information has been posted dozens of times of this forum and affirmed by countless lawmakers, many of them Republicans.
No matter how many times this lie is repeated, it is still a lie.
And yet McCabe could not point to even ONE fact from the dossier that was corroborated other than the one fact Steele gathered from a newspaper (that Carter Page visited Moscow). Note: McCabe didn't have to uncover sources. Or methods. All he had to do was point to ONE fact from the dossier that was "corroborated" by the FBI. He couldn't.
A lot of information cannot be revelaed in open hearings when there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
A lot of information cannot be revelaed in open hearings when there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
Again, he was not asked about how they confirmed/corroborated things. No sources or methods. He was asked WHETHER they corroborated anything. And he couldn't point to anything AT ALL. Not one fact was corroborated. Other than "Carter Page went to Moscow" which was in newspapers at the time.
Again, he was not asked about how they confirmed/corroborated things. No sources or methods. He was asked WHETHER they corroborated anything. And he couldn't point to anything AT ALL. Not one fact was corroborated. Other than "Carter Page went to Moscow" which was in newspapers at the time.
He declined to answer in an open hearing when asked what fact had been corroborated. Refusing to answer is materially different than being unable to point to anything that was corroborated.
He declined to answer in an open hearing when asked what fact had been corroborated. That is different than being unable to point to anything.
That is exactly the same as being unwilling to point at anything. If they corroborated anything, he could have pointed to that fact. Saying "we corroborated this" does not reveal either methods or sources. Hell, he could even say "we corroborated some other things, but I can only tell it in a closed meeting". He didn't.
He had nothing. And he apparently didn't want to lie to Congress. Which I guess makes him better than Clapper et al.
What makes me wonder though is with testimony like McCabe's where do people get the gall to claim that "60-70% of the dossier was corroborated"?
That is exactly the same as being unwilling to point at anything. If they corroborated anything, he could have pointed to that fact. Saying "we corroborated this" does not reveal either methods or sources. Hell, he could even say "we corroborated some other things, but I can only tell it in a closed meeting". He didn't.
He had nothing. And he apparently didn't want to lie to Congress. Which I guess makes him better than Clapper et al.
What makes me wonder though is with testimony like McCabe's where do people get the gall to claim that "60-70% of the dossier was corroborated"?
Sorry, but refusing to answer the question is not the same as “we couldn’t corroborate anything” no matter how much you want to read into it.
When people with no reason to lie that have read the unredacted FISA application advise that there were “sound reasons” to grant the FISA warrant contained in it, I’m not buying that its foundation is an uncorroborated dossier, regardless of what Terr the random internet poster is claiming.
Sorry, but refusing to answer the question is not the same as “we couldn’t corroborate anything” no matter how much you want to read into it.
When people with no reason to lie that have read the unredacted FISA application advise that there were “sound reasons” to grant the FISA warrant contained in it, I’m not buying that its foundation is an uncorroborated dossier, regardless of what Terr the random internet poster is claiming.
Ah argumentum ad verecundiam. Just blind trust. We don't need to see any proof, allegations are enough. Reminds me of Stalin times. "If he is arrested, he's guilty, "organy" don't arrest innocent people" was a common refrain back then.
That is exactly the same as being unwilling to point at anything. If they corroborated anything, he could have pointed to that fact. Saying "we corroborated this" does not reveal either methods or sources. Hell, he could even say "we corroborated some other things, but I can only tell it in a closed meeting". He didn't.
He had nothing. And he apparently didn't want to lie to Congress. Which I guess makes him better than Clapper et al.
What makes me wonder though is with testimony like McCabe's where do people get the gall to claim that "60-70% of the dossier was corroborated"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
