From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
259
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

259 Views
Message 1 of 8

 


@Panjandrum wrote:

jimc91:   Well he was recently interviewed for 16 hours in June and that's what the article is about.  Let not you heart be troubled, the truth about that dossier is about to come out.  Finally...

 

 

Uh oh, sounds like you have another bombshell in waiting. This one will no doubt turn out to be another dud like all the others that gets gullible people all exercised for a couple of days then disappears.


Somewhat like the ten thousand plus lies that tRump has told ever since he perjured himself taking the oath of office...

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
259
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
265
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

265 Views
Message 2 of 8

jimc91:   Well he was recently interviewed for 16 hours in June and that's what the article is about.  Let not you heart be troubled, the truth about that dossier is about to come out.  Finally...

 

 

Uh oh, sounds like you have another bombshell in waiting. This one will no doubt turn out to be another dud like all the others that gets gullible people all exercised for a couple of days then disappears.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
265
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
278
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

278 Views
Message 3 of 8

@jimc91 wrote:

@john258 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier

 

Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.

 

The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable. 

 

“Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed. The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.


For sure, Steele may have valuable information to aid Justice’s internal affairs probe into misconduct during the 2016 Russia election probe. His dossier alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow ultimately was disproven, but not before his intelligence was used to secure a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.  

 

Investigators are trying to ascertain what the British intelligence operative told the FBI about his sources, his relation to the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, his hatred for Donald Trump, his Election Day deadline to get his information public and his leaking to media outlets before agents used his dossier to justify a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

 

There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence. If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.

 

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

 

The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.

 

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.


In other words, it was mostly useless.

 

“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

 

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.

 

The FBI’s final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent’s interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.

The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.

 

The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.

 

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir PutinRosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.

 

Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele’s dossier spun. 

 

Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder’s fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”

That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.

 

The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

 

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.


Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

 

Again, Steele’s intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.

 

The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them. Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators “he was told the tapes were fake,” according to a footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller’s characterizations. 

 

Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.

 

But even then, his dossier’s theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.

 

Even State officials, who listened to Steele’s theories in October 2016 — less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request — instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.

 
Any effort to use Steele’s belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI’s reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. “Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele’s dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations,” Meadows told me.

The FBI’s own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as “salacious and unverified” and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, “There’s no big there there.” FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele’s dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.

 

Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele’s intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified. 

 

The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele’s dossier is credible or that the FBI’s reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.

 

They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 

 

 


Here we go again. You use an opinion article which even the Hill has a disclaimer on as fact. The first thing this author does is use words that cover anything he writes. He never  gives what the story really was just says it could not be verified. The second thing is he says Steele worked all of the stories in the report. That is false. Steele collected these stories from his sources and put them together in the report. Steele in most cases never said he verified they were true or not. That was left to others, and so far none of the things in the report have been proven untrue. Fact is most of the worlds intel agencies had a lot of these stories in their files and the report allowed them to finish checking some of them out, and none were proved false, but some were proved true. The sex tapes on Trump were proved true, and that was confirmed by the Russian who got them for Michael Cohen (Trump) so they would not leave Russia. That is documented by 2 sources. The Steele report was started by Reb. not Dems, and Dems took it over when the Reb. lost to Trump and did not need it.

You told another poster they were wrong is using an opinion piece as fact in a post they made, now you do the same thing and try and make all believe it is ok. The far right at work.


 

Actually you are wrong, @john258 .  This article written by John Solomon is full of citations and references.  Now you are right that John works for The Hill dot com and oversees the opinion department of the organization, but he himself is a highly recognized investigative Journalist.

 

The deep dive he has been involved in for the past 2 years since he and Sara Carter broke the FISA abuse scandal during the Obama Administration.  The  last year of their watch some very unusual anomalies occurred and these 2 journalist discovered it and have written a series of articles about it.  Well worth the read and it's NOT OPINION, it's fact based, well sourced and lists references and citations through out the articles.

 

 


No I am correct. He uses words is such a way that people who do not understand the subject will think what he writes is true. It is not by fact. Sara does the same thing. Fact is all far right writers will do it. Read Michael Wolfs new book and he explains how Shawn started the new far trend of using some small truthful items and mixing them with lies so the far right enablers will get excited about them. Steve Bannon told us it is nonsense but the enablers do not understand that. You posted opinion which is based on untruths. It is sad to see the far right enablers descend into the White Nationalist mode of telling all to leave the country. The south was this way for years, and is now heading back to the old ways. Looks like all the help they got from people in the north helping them improve their lives is being repaid by them in backing a White Nationalist mob boss as President to be Dictator. In time he will do what Hitler did when he got rid of a lot of his brown shirts.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
278
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
292
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

292 Views
Message 4 of 8

@john258 wrote:

@jimc91 wrote:

FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier

 

Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.

 

The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable. 

 

“Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed. The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.


For sure, Steele may have valuable information to aid Justice’s internal affairs probe into misconduct during the 2016 Russia election probe. His dossier alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow ultimately was disproven, but not before his intelligence was used to secure a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.  

 

Investigators are trying to ascertain what the British intelligence operative told the FBI about his sources, his relation to the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, his hatred for Donald Trump, his Election Day deadline to get his information public and his leaking to media outlets before agents used his dossier to justify a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

 

There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence. If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.

 

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

 

The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.

 

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.


In other words, it was mostly useless.

 

“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

 

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.

 

The FBI’s final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent’s interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.

The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.

 

The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.

 

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir PutinRosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.

 

Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele’s dossier spun. 

 

Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder’s fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”

That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.

 

The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

 

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.


Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

 

Again, Steele’s intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.

 

The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them. Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators “he was told the tapes were fake,” according to a footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller’s characterizations. 

 

Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.

 

But even then, his dossier’s theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.

 

Even State officials, who listened to Steele’s theories in October 2016 — less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request — instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.

 
Any effort to use Steele’s belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI’s reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. “Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele’s dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations,” Meadows told me.

The FBI’s own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as “salacious and unverified” and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, “There’s no big there there.” FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele’s dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.

 

Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele’s intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified. 

 

The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele’s dossier is credible or that the FBI’s reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.

 

They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 

 

 


Here we go again. You use an opinion article which even the Hill has a disclaimer on as fact. The first thing this author does is use words that cover anything he writes. He never  gives what the story really was just says it could not be verified. The second thing is he says Steele worked all of the stories in the report. That is false. Steele collected these stories from his sources and put them together in the report. Steele in most cases never said he verified they were true or not. That was left to others, and so far none of the things in the report have been proven untrue. Fact is most of the worlds intel agencies had a lot of these stories in their files and the report allowed them to finish checking some of them out, and none were proved false, but some were proved true. The sex tapes on Trump were proved true, and that was confirmed by the Russian who got them for Michael Cohen (Trump) so they would not leave Russia. That is documented by 2 sources. The Steele report was started by Reb. not Dems, and Dems took it over when the Reb. lost to Trump and did not need it.

You told another poster they were wrong is using an opinion piece as fact in a post they made, now you do the same thing and try and make all believe it is ok. The far right at work.


 

Actually you are wrong, @john258 .  This article written by John Solomon is full of citations and references.  Now you are right that John works for The Hill dot com and oversees the opinion department of the organization, but he himself is a highly recognized investigative Journalist.

 

The deep dive he has been involved in for the past 2 years since he and Sara Carter broke the FISA abuse scandal during the Obama Administration.  The  last year of their watch some very unusual anomalies occurred and these 2 journalist discovered it and have written a series of articles about it.  Well worth the read and it's NOT OPINION, it's fact based, well sourced and lists references and citations through out the articles.

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
292
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
299
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

299 Views
Message 5 of 8

@Richva wrote:

Oh good. then the Regressives won't mind if we have each of the allegations in the Steele Dossier investigated to make sure they are not accurate............right?


Why did Mueller never interview Steele?  

 

Well he was recently interviewed for 16 hours in June and that's what the article is about.  Let not you heart be troubled, the truth about that dossier is about to come out.  Finally...

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
299
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
334
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

334 Views
Message 6 of 8

Oh good. then the Regressives won't mind if we have each of the allegations in the Steele Dossier investigated to make sure they are not accurate............right?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
334
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
340
Views

Re: FBI: Steele's dossier

340 Views
Message 7 of 8

@jimc91 wrote:

FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier

 

Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.

 

The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable. 

 

“Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed. The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.


For sure, Steele may have valuable information to aid Justice’s internal affairs probe into misconduct during the 2016 Russia election probe. His dossier alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow ultimately was disproven, but not before his intelligence was used to secure a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.  

 

Investigators are trying to ascertain what the British intelligence operative told the FBI about his sources, his relation to the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, his hatred for Donald Trump, his Election Day deadline to get his information public and his leaking to media outlets before agents used his dossier to justify a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

 

There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence. If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.

 

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

 

The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.

 

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.


In other words, it was mostly useless.

 

“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

 

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.

 

The FBI’s final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent’s interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.

The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.

 

The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.

 

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir PutinRosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.

 

Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele’s dossier spun. 

 

Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder’s fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”

That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.

 

The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

 

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.


Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

 

Again, Steele’s intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.

 

The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them. Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators “he was told the tapes were fake,” according to a footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller’s characterizations. 

 

Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.

 

But even then, his dossier’s theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.

 

Even State officials, who listened to Steele’s theories in October 2016 — less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request — instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.

 
Any effort to use Steele’s belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI’s reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. “Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele’s dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations,” Meadows told me.

The FBI’s own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as “salacious and unverified” and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, “There’s no big there there.” FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele’s dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.

 

Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele’s intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified. 

 

The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele’s dossier is credible or that the FBI’s reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.

 

They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 

 

 


Here we go again. You use an opinion article which even the Hill has a disclaimer on as fact. The first thing this author does is use words that cover anything he writes. He never  gives what the story really was just says it could not be verified. The second thing is he says Steele worked all of the stories in the report. That is false. Steele collected these stories from his sources and put them together in the report. Steele in most cases never said he verified they were true or not. That was left to others, and so far none of the things in the report have been proven untrue. Fact is most of the worlds intel agencies had a lot of these stories in their files and the report allowed them to finish checking some of them out, and none were proved false, but some were proved true. The sex tapes on Trump were proved true, and that was confirmed by the Russian who got them for Michael Cohen (Trump) so they would not leave Russia. That is documented by 2 sources. The Steele report was started by Reb. not Dems, and Dems took it over when the Reb. lost to Trump and did not need it.

You told another poster they were wrong is using an opinion piece as fact in a post they made, now you do the same thing and try and make all believe it is ok. The far right at work.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
340
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
431
Views
7
Replies

FBI: Steele's dossier

431 Views
Message 8 of 8

FBI's spreadsheet puts a stake through the heart of Steele's dossier

 

Some in the news media have tried in recent days to rekindle their long-lost love affair with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and his now infamous dossier.

 

The main trigger was a lengthy interview in June with the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general, which some news outlets suggested meant U.S. officials have found Steele, the former Hillary Clinton-backed political muckraker, to be believable. 

 

“Investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising,” Politico crowed. The Washington Post went even further, suggesting Steele’s assistance to the inspector general might “undermine Trumpworld’s alt-narrative” that the Russia-collusion investigation was flawed.


For sure, Steele may have valuable information to aid Justice’s internal affairs probe into misconduct during the 2016 Russia election probe. His dossier alleging a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Moscow ultimately was disproven, but not before his intelligence was used to secure a surveillance warrant targeting the Trump campaign in the final days of the 2016 election.  

 

Investigators are trying to ascertain what the British intelligence operative told the FBI about his sources, his relation to the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, his hatred for Donald Trump, his Election Day deadline to get his information public and his leaking to media outlets before agents used his dossier to justify a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on ex-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

 

There is evidence Steele told the DOJ in July, and the State Department in October, about all of these flaws in his work, and that State officials even detected blatant inaccuracies in his intelligence. If so, all of that information should have been flagged by the FBI as potentially derogatory information weighing against Steele’s use as a source for the FISA warrant.

 

But lest anyone be tempted to think Steele’s 2016 dossier is about to be mysteriously revived as credible, consider this: Over months of work, FBI agents painstakingly researched every claim Steele made about Trump’s possible collusion with Russia, and assembled their findings into a spreadsheet-like document.

 

The over-under isn’t flattering to Steele.

 

Multiple sources familiar with the FBI spreadsheet tell me the vast majority of Steele’s claims were deemed to be wrong, or could not be corroborated even with the most awesome tools available to the U.S. intelligence community. One source estimated the spreadsheet found upward of 90 percent of the dossier’s claims to be either wrong, nonverifiable or open-source intelligence found with a Google search.


In other words, it was mostly useless.

 

“The spreadsheet was a sea of blanks, meaning most claims couldn’t be corroborated, and those things that were found in classified intelligence suggested Steele’s intelligence was partly or totally inaccurate on several claims,” one source told me.

 

The FBI declined comment when asked about the spreadsheet.

 

The FBI’s final assessment was driven by many findings contained in classified footnotes at the bottom of the spreadsheet. But it was also informed by an agent’s interview, in early 2017, with a Russian that Steele claimed was one of his main providers of intelligence, according to my sources.

The FBI came to suspect that the Russian misled Steele, either intentionally or through exaggeration, the sources said.

 

The spreadsheet and a subsequent report by special prosecutor Robert Mueller show just how far off the seminal claims in the Steele dossier turned out to be.

 

For example, U.S. intelligence found no evidence that Carter Page, during a trip to Moscow in July 2016, secretly met with two associates of Vladimir PutinRosneft oil executive Igor Sechin and senior government official Igor Divyekin — as part of the effort to collude with the Trump campaign, as Steele reported.

 

Page did meet with a lower-level Rosneft official, and shook hands with a Russian deputy prime minister, the FBI found, but it was a far cry from the tale that Steele’s dossier spun. 

 

Likewise, Steele claimed that Sechin had offered Page a hefty finder’s fee if he could get Trump to help lift sanctions on Moscow: “a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return.”

That offer, worth billions of dollars, was never substantiated and was deemed by some in U.S. intelligence to be preposterous.

 

The inaccuracy of Steele’s intelligence on Page is at the heart of the inspector general investigation specifically because the FBI represented to the FISA court that the intelligence on Page was verified and strong enough to support the FISA warrant. It was, in the end, not verified.

 

Another knockdown of the dossier occurred when U.S. intelligence determined former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen was not in Prague in the summer of 2016 when Steele claimed he was meeting with Russians to coordinate a hijacking of the election, the sources said.


Steele’s theory about who in the Trump campaign might be conspiring with Russia kept evolving from Page to Cohen to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. None of those theories checked out in the end, as the Mueller report showed.

 

Again, Steele’s intelligence was wrong or unverifiable.

 

The salacious, headline-grabbing claim that Russians had incriminating sex tapes showing Trump engaged in depraved acts with prostitutes also met a factual dead end when the FBI interviewed the Georgian-American businessman who claimed to know about them. Giorgi Rtskhiladze told investigators “he was told the tapes were fake,” according to a footnote in the Mueller report. Rtskhiladze’s lawyer subsequently issued a letter taking issue with some of Mueller’s characterizations. 

 

Steele had some general things right, of course, including that the Russians were behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. Of course, there were public reports saying so when Steele reported this.

 

But even then, his dossier’s theory of how the hackers worked, who paid them and how they communicated with Trump was determined in the FBI spreadsheet and subsequent Mueller investigation to be far from accurate.

 

Even State officials, who listened to Steele’s theories in October 2016 — less than two weeks before his dossier was used to support the FISA request — instantly determined he was grossly wrong on some points.

 
Any effort to use Steele’s belated cooperation with the inspector general's investigation to prop up the credibility of his 2016 anti-Trump dossier or the FBI’s reliance on it for the FISA warrant is deeply misguided.

 

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a key defender of Trump, said he talked with DOJ officials after the most recent stories surfaced about Steele and was told the reporting is wrong. “Based on my conversations with DOJ officials, recent reports which suggest Christopher Steele’s dossier and allegations are somehow deemed credible by DOJ, are simply false and not based on any confirmation from sources with direct knowledge of ongoing investigations,” Meadows told me.

The FBI’s own spreadsheet was so conclusive that it prompted then-FBI Director James Comey (no fan of Trump, mind you) to dismiss the document as “salacious and unverified” and for lead FBI agent Peter Strzok to text, “There’s no big there there.” FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified that nine months into reviewing Steele’s dossier they had not found evidence of the collusion that Steele alleged.

 

Two years later, Mueller came to the same conclusion: Steele’s intelligence alleging a conspiracy was never verified. 

 

The next time you hear a pundit suggesting Steele’s dossier is credible or that the FBI’s reliance on it as FISA evidence was justified, just picture all those blanks in that FBI spreadsheet.

 

They speak volumes as to what went wrong in the Russia investigation.

 

BY: John Solomon

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
431
Views
7
Replies
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors