What explains the FBI's deep faith in Trump dossier author Christopher Steele?

AZRWinger · #1 (**permalink**) 03-09-2018, 07:49 AM

Since the House Intelligence committee memo revealed the use of the unverified Steele dossier as a key part of the justification to spy on a political campaign there has been a non-stop effort to portray the foreign intelligence officer as so pristine his work ought to be accepted at face value.

Quote:

One of the most remarkable takeaways from the new documents released in the Trump-Russia investigation is the degree to which FBI officials were determined to believe dossier author Christopher Steele — even after it became clear he had lied to them. In their drive to win a warrant to wiretap sometime Trump volunteer Carter Page — along with Paul Manafort, one of only two Trump figures known to be wiretapped in the investigation — the bureau rested most of its case on Steele's information, and the officials who filed the warrant application seemed resolved to believe Steele even after his credibility came into question.

When Buzz Feed published the dossier it did so with the disclaimer that the public should decide if it's true. But that skepticism was dismissed by the FBI. Why? Because FBI management was determined to do what ever it took, including lying to the FISA court, to get warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Quote:

The FBI warrant application "relied heavily" on the dossier, according to the referral, and "the bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier."

It turns out the FBI had no alternative to relying on Steele's credibility as an article of faith.

Quote:

In part, the FBI trusted Steele because it had to; the bureau had no other evidence that would have sufficed to win a warrant to wiretap Page. "The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page," the Grassley-Graham referral said, "although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele's dossier as well." At another point in the referral, Grassley and Graham wrote that the FBI "relied more heavily on Steele's credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims."

The FBI even went so far as to promise to pay its prize informant at the same time he was collecting a paycheck funded by the Clinton campaign. As a condition of payment the FBI insisted Steele could not leak his dossier to the press. Steele assured them he had not.

Quote:

But the FBI denied Steele's press contacts in the surveillance application, which was dated October 21. Then, on October 31, Mother Jones published an article clearly based on Steele's information. Reading it, the FBI could no longer pretend that its valuable informant was not also sharing his anti-Trump information with the press. The FBI formally terminated its agreement to work with Steele, and thereafter kept up its relationship with him through a backchannel connection, the Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife was an employee of Fusion GPS.

The FBI cut off payment to Steele for lying to them but continued to use unverified information from his dossier to justify secret surveillance.

But what to tell the FISA court? The FBI couldn't tell the truth that Mr Reliable source had been dismissed for lying to them. So, a cover story was concocted.

Quote:

January 2017, when the FBI went back to the FISA court to ask permission to extend the surveillance of Page, the bureau conceded it had ended its relationship with Steele because of his "unauthorized disclosure of information to the press." The FBI explained that Steele was upset about the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation, and in his anger at the FBI took his information to reporters. "[Steele] independently and against the prior admonishment from the FBI to speak only with the FBI on this matter, released the reporting discussed herein [that is, the dossier] to an identified news organization," the FBI wrote in the application to extend surveillance.

But the anger story wasn't true. No matter how angry Steele might have been about the re-opening of the Clinton investigation, the fact is, Steele talked to the press — Post, Times, New Yorker, CNN, Yahoo — before the Clinton investigation was re-opened. It was part of his work for Fusion GPS.

But the FBI needed to believe Steele to keep spying on Trump in furtherance of the Russian witch hunt. So, that is what they did.

Quote:

Why? The FBI went into the relationship with Steele believing he was reliable. His information about Trump was spectacular, and if true would be the basis of a historically important FBI investigation. And Steele had denied talking to the press. And one more thing, Grassley and Graham drily noted: "Lying to the FBI is a crime." FBI officials did not want to admit that Steele had lied to them, in part because if they did, their prized informant would be in legal jeopardy, instead of the investigation's real target, Donald Trump.

So in the end, the FBI vouched for Steele and his information without verification and without fully grappling with the question of Steele's honesty. "The FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing candidate," the Grassley-Graham referral said. "It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/b...rticle/2648488

mr wonder · #2 (**permalink**) 03-09-2018, 09:42 AM

...tangled webs and all that...

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 03-09-2018, 10:25 AM

I'm on board except for this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

But the FBI needed to believe Steele to keep spying on Trump in furtherance of the Russian witch hunt. So, that is what they did.

They used the dossier to start/continue spying, but they didn't "need to believe Steele"...

They just had to SAY they did, in court, to get the necessary warrant to spy on their enemy...

FrancSevin · #4 (**permalink**) 03-09-2018, 02:42 PM

I was looking up the definition of the term "Collusion Conspiracy" and found this;
STUNNING=> Susan Rice Ordered NSC Officials To 'STAND DOWN' Amid Russian Hacking Fears

The Special Prosecutor is looking for connections of the Trump campaign, a private non government entity, to the Russian government's dabbling in our elections.
Question, has the Mueller investigation found anything close to what is obvious and apparent, going on with our own government employees, to the rest of the world?

AZRWinger · #5 (**permalink**) 03-10-2018, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

I was looking up the definition of the term "Collusion Conspiracy" and found this;
STUNNING=> Susan Rice Ordered NSC Officials To 'STAND DOWN' Amid Russian Hacking Fears

The Special Prosecutor is looking for connections of the Trump campaign, a private non government entity, to the Russian government's dabbling in our elections.
Question, has the Mueller investigation found anything close to what is obvious and apparent, going on with our own government employees, to the rest of the world?

Susan Rice giving a stand down order fits with the pre election pattern of tamping down reports of so-called Russian interference adopted by the Obama administration and Democrats. Obama offered the risible excuse that he didn't want to appear too partisan for Hillary.

The DNC simply ignored FBI warnings their servers were compromised. Hillary was going to coast to an easy victory so the last thing Obama and the Democrats wanted was questions about the legitimacy of the election. Obama even made a speech claiming our election could not be tampered with and denouncing Trump for questioning the legitimacy of the election results.

After the election the focus shifted to underming Trump with grave concerns about collusion with the Russian boogeyman. As Mueller's lynch mob of Trump haters has demonstrated actual, significant Russian interference is of no interest unless it can be used to attack Trump. We see this with indictments and coerced guilty pleas for offenses that do not demonstrate Russian interference. Even the latest showboating by indicting 13 Russians for insignificant and incompetent attempts to influence the election are nothing but a partisan swipe at Trump's assertion their was no Russian interference in the election.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
FrancSevin, GetAClue, mr wonder

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
jimbo

The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
AZRWinger