kocher wrote: ↑
Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:36 pm
No he isn't. His testimony is still secret. Close sources to McCabe deny it unequivocally. What is
on record is the FBI's response to the memo, "material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy." I'm guessing that McCabe tidbit is part of that inaccuracy.
Well, his sources close to him may dispute it, as you would expect especially since they're all in full-on damage control. But other sources that were in the room say he did admit that. So I guess we'll have to see the underlying documentation...which undoubtedly will see the light of day at some point...to substantiate exactly what was said.
He didn't regard it as "mostly" salacious and unverified, and definitely not "entirely" as the memo says, but rather certain parts of it were. I don't doubt that. Steele was regarded as credible by American and British intelligence agencies alike, now show me where any intelligence official disregards the parts of the dossier about Page.
Steele, while possibly regarded as credible, is also regarded as being highly partisan. “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'” Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign. To just blindly take his word on everything is tantamount to letting Chuck and Nancy outline conclusions concerning President Trump.
Once again, all of this will come out when the underlying documentation...the separate testimony and actual FISA applications...make landfall. Then will come the IG's conclusions that will either substantiate or disprove what Nunes and the other members of the committee allege. With the track records of Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others on the left, I'm more inclinded to believe Nunes, Gowdy and the other members who wrote the memo.