Operation Boomerang is underway

**ravenmaniac4life** · 06-06-2019, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

if you read anything ive posted in here, ive been saying that he cannot be lying if he thought it was true at the time. they flat out asked him if he knew that wasnt a part of CNN and he said "no i did not".

so again. how is he lying? how does that support that he was lying when he wrote the dossier? how does that one part of the dossier being based on bad intel, mean the other parts that have been corroborated are now BS? I do not see the correlation.

Hold on...

Let me see if I understand you here.

A veteran intel agent finds nefarious information on a random blog post.

He believes the information is true so he creates a dossier containing information from this random blog post.

He later realizes that the information on this random blog post is bullshit.

So, you're saying because a veteran intel agent said that he believed a random blog post was true...he wasn't lying?

OK

Are you being serious or are you joking?

**JAB1985** · 06-06-2019, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

Well then if this was the case, then he provided unchecked, unverified data in his report. Whether you consider that lying or just shitty workmanship is irrelevant to the major point. That the FBI used unverified data as justification for getting FISA warrants.

well thats the problem with assuming that it was entirely unverified. we only know of some of this being unverified because of counter intelligence we already had correct? i believe that to be the case even today, at least public knowledge that some of it is not confirmed or debunked even now. what about intel we had that supported it? That doesnt mean in PART it wasnt accurate information used as justification for getting a FISA warrant. I dont get the all or nothing approach. what has been said from the beginning, and from the nunes memo/DNC rebuttal, supports that this was only used in part, of an ongoing investigation. why wouldnt i use part of the intel i know is correct to investigate whether the parts i do not know are or are not correct?

**ravenmaniac4life** · 06-06-2019, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

well thats the problem with assuming that it was entirely unverified. we only know of some of this being unverified because of counter intelligence we already had correct? i believe that to be the case even today, at least public knowledge that some of it is not confirmed or debunked even now. what about intel we had that supported it? That doesnt mean in PART it wasnt accurate information used as justification for getting a FISA warrant. I dont get the all or nothing approach. what has been said from the beginning, and from the nunes memo/DNC rebuttal, supports that this was only used in part, of an ongoing investigation. why wouldnt i use part of the intel i know is correct to investigate whether the parts i do not know are or are not correct?

What's been corroborated?

What NEW information was in the dossier that we didn't already know (ie, emails from WikiLeaks).

Every NEW allegation that Steele made in the dossier cannot be verified or was a lie w/zero evidence to corroborate (ie, the pee tape, Page’s meetings in Russia with Putin operatives, the purported Michael Cohen trip to Prague)

All of the Steele assertions that you're probably alluding to that are apparently true were already known at the time (ie, Carter Page’s very public July 2016 trip to Russia, CrowdStrike's UNPROVEN assertion that Russia hacked the DNC emails and passed them to WikiLeaks).

So, because Steele put this "corroborated info" that was already known in the dossier, it gives legitimacy to the blog posts?

So again, what NEW information did Steele discover that has since been corroborated?

The answer: NOTHING

**CarrollCoRaven** · 06-06-2019, 11:12 AM

I don't believe they even need Steele's testimony. They have plenty of evidence that Comey lied to the FISA court, among other things. I bet JAB still believes Trump colluded with Russia.

**NCRAVEN** · 06-06-2019, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

if you read anything ive posted in here, ive been saying that he cannot be lying if he thought it was true at the time. they flat out asked him if he knew that wasnt a part of CNN and he said "no i did not".

so again. how is he lying? how does that support that he was lying when he wrote the dossier? how does that one part of the dossier being based on bad intel, mean the other parts that have been corroborated are now BS? I do not see the correlation.

In addition to what's below. Do you REALLY believe with all we know that this gut REALLY didn't know the blog post was BS?

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

Hold on...

Let me see if I understand you here.

A veteran intel agent finds nefarious information on a random blog post.

He believes the information is true so he creates a dossier containing information from this random blog post.

He later realizes that the information on this random blog post is bullshit.

So, you're saying because a veteran intel agent said that he believed a random blog post was true...he wasn't lying?

OK

Are you being serious or are you joking?

**blah3** · 06-06-2019, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

well thats the problem with assuming that it was entirely unverified. we only know of some of this being unverified because of counter intelligence we already had correct? i believe that to be the case even today, at least public knowledge that some of it is not confirmed or debunked even now. what about intel we had that supported it? That doesnt mean in PART it wasnt accurate information used as justification for getting a FISA warrant. I dont get the all or nothing approach. what has been said from the beginning, and from the nunes memo/DNC rebuttal, supports that this was only used in part, of an ongoing investigation. why wouldnt i use part of the intel i know is correct to investigate whether the parts i do not know are or are not correct?

You cannot use unverified data in a FISA Warrant. This, well they were just investigating allegations is just folly when weighed against that. I mean, these FISA courts and warrants are supposed to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Clearly they were not by the highest level of the FBI. It's outrageous.

**ravenmaniac4life** · 06-06-2019, 11:30 AM

If anybody doesn't know how sinister the FBI acted in this whole charade...simply look into the entire situation regarding George Papdopolous. Seriously.

That entire setup explains everything.

When you look at the MSM's articles and TV commentary on what happened to him, you'll see exactly how the MSM is simply a cover for the bureaucrats in Washington.

**NCRAVEN** · 06-06-2019, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

You cannot use unverified data in a FISA Warrant. This, well they were just investigating allegations is just folly when weighed against that. I mean, these FISA courts and warrants are supposed to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Clearly they were not by the highest level of the FBI. It's outrageous.

**JAB1985** · 06-06-2019, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

You cannot use unverified data in a FISA Warrant. This, well they were just investigating allegations is just folly when weighed against that. I mean, these FISA courts and warrants are supposed to be taken with the utmost seriousness. Clearly they were not by the highest level of the FBI. It's outrageous.

youre twisting my comment, becasue im not saying they did use unverified intel. ive been quite clear that i believe they used part of the dossier that was verified to apply for it. If a part of the dossier as it applies to page is verified and worthy of continuing to investigate him, how does that not apply to what youre saying? why wouldnt you use it?

**JAB1985** · 06-06-2019, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

What's been corroborated?

What NEW information was in the dossier that we didn't already know (ie, emails from WikiLeaks).

Every NEW allegation that Steele made in the dossier cannot be verified or was a lie w/zero evidence to corroborate (ie, the pee tape, Page’s meetings in Russia with Putin operatives, the purported Michael Cohen trip to Prague)

All of the Steele assertions that you're probably alluding to that are apparently true were already known at the time (ie, Carter Page’s very public July 2016 trip to Russia, CrowdStrike's UNPROVEN assertion that Russia hacked the DNC emails and passed them to WikiLeaks).

So, because Steele put this "corroborated info" that was already known in the dossier, it gives legitimacy to the blog posts?

So again, what NEW information did Steele discover that has since been corroborated.

The answer: NOTHING

do you think the trump tower deal was known prior? do you think the russian/wiki connection was known? roger?

theres plenty of claims that have come to light since and articles describing such. theres also some information that he notes in his dossier that were leaked around the same time. I can see why you want to dismiss that as old news (some of it was known prior to some level), but if its added supportive intel, i dont consider that old news.

https://www.businessinsider.com/stee...-what-hasnt-12

**JAB1985** · 06-06-2019, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

In addition to what's below. Do you REALLY believe with all we know that this gut REALLY didn't know the blog post was BS?

what proof do you have that he did?

I dont think pointing to testimony that says he didnt is proof that he did, but thats what you guys are trying to argue.

**blah3** · 06-06-2019, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

youre twisting my comment, becasue im not saying they did use unverified intel. ive been quite clear that i believe they used part of the dossier that was verified to apply for it. If a part of the dossier as it applies to page is verified and worthy of continuing to investigate him, how does that not apply to what youre saying? why wouldnt you use it?

Just stop. You can't use a report where many things are unverified or wrong and then claim that report is reliable evidence. Again FISA COURT. This is not just plain 'investigating' a claim.