Aside from specific info about the election-meddling operation, the Russian modus operandi WRT cyber was known to IT experts and particularly those that specialized in Russia well before there was a Steele dossier. I would think that was easy to confirm.
Have either Sen. Grassley or Sen. Graham ever been caught lying? If they have, does that mean we should ignore everything they say now? If not everything, how much of what they say should we ignore?
Without the FISA applications, the letter is essentially meaningless. Maybe it’s 100% accurate, maybe it’s 0%.
But aside from what it contains, the letter’s very existence is dishonest. It a criminal referral to investigate Steele for violating 18 U.S.8. § 1001 which Graham and Grassley know doesn’t apply to Steele. It’s a false referral. And it was publicized and declassified. How often do you see a bogus classified criminal referral get announced, then declassified and released to the public shortly thereafter?
Can’t remember the last time. Was it the Throckmorton Scandal?
Hm, good point. That does make me a bit more suspicious of Grassley.
He’s been saying that he intends to release the transcripts of all the interviews his committee has undertaken, but my Spidey sense has been telling me that there’s probably a catch in there somewhere. Your point increases that sensation.
I was also thinking that the letter doesn’t say that any of the Steele dossier had been disproven. Whereas, if any of it could be disproven, the letter would certainly said so. So this letter: (1) confirms that none of the Steele memo has been disproven, (2) confirms that portions of the Steele memo have been independently verified, and (3) confirms that the FBI had other evidence supporting the FISA application.
Got a nickel says they never cared that it was pointless, just those lovely words “criminal referral”. What cannot be proven can be effectively insinuated. And repeated every time his name comes up, this Steele guy, currently under criminal investigation, says… You know the drill.
Gotta wonder at the man’s priorities. Three to five million illegal votes were cast for the Whore of Babylon. Granted, that’s only three to five percent of the one hundred million illegal aliens currently infiltrated into our country… But still.
A conspiracy on that scale and the FBI, the DOJ, any of the security agencies… didn’t have a clue what was happening right under their noses! Nor even to this day!
Somehow, the Obama FBI could find this dollar store James Bond, but this gigantic conspiracy goes unnoticed? Makes you wonder.
Have any parts of the Steele dossier have been proven false?
None that we now of, RickJay.
I don’t think that none of the memo being disproven (even if correct) is at all meaningful. It’s very difficult to prove a negative. And the types of allegations in this dossier are particularly so.
Suppose the memo alleges that Carter Page had a meeting with so-and-so and they discussed such-and-such (which seems to be the type of thing that dossier primarily consists of). How in the world might that be proved false (even if it is)?
And this is especially so if you’re willing to accept far-fetched scenarios as possibilities. So the dossier alleges that Cohen traveled to Prague in late August (IIRC) for nefarious Russia-related purposes. And you have no record of him entering the country and he’s documented as being elsewhere for part of that time. Is that proof that it’s false? Well maybe not. He could have snuck in to Prague by land and have no record of it, and the time window is wide enough that you (possibly) can’t document his location for the entire time. This is not to say that it’s completely unreasonable to assume that such may have happened. The point is rather that once you grant these types of possibilities, it becomes even more difficult to prove the negative, and makes the “not been disproved” even more meaningless.
Re your second point, it’s again my understanding that the parts of that dossier which have been verified are not the damaging parts (e.g. the fact that Page did travel to Russia and meet some officials is verified but traveling to Russia and meeting officials is not something that would support a warrant).
I should also add that the basis for the Grassley letter is that Steele is being sued by someone his dossier accused of being involved in Russian election hanky-panky. (At least part of) Steele’s response has been to back away from his own role in vouching for the dossier, saying essentially “hey, I never said this stuff was accurate, I just said it’s worth looking into”. Steele is also being sued by Cohen (the Trump lawyer who was supposed to have gone to Prague) and possibly others.
At the very least, it suggests a high level of confidence by these people that their supposed misdeeds have not been uncovered and won’t be uncovered in a court case, which would be very peculiar if these events actually happened and might at any moment be exposed by Mueller’s report.
Oooh, lumps of conjecture floating in “maybe” gravy! You know what would set it off nicely? A dash of cite! Garlic cite if you are bold, but a bit of cite, anyway.
Page has been a person of interest to the FBI since 2013, and has been under surveillance since 2016. Sure, negatives are difficult to prove, but if there was any evidence the dossier was wrong about someone, Page would be that someone.
Again, negatives are difficult to disprove, but the FBI has been looking into dossier claims since 2016 has hasn’t disproven a single claim…that seems telling.
If the only verified parts of the dossier were trivial, the letter would have said so. The fact that it didn’t is proof that substantial claims have been independently verified.
Anyone can be sued by anyone for anything. Trump in particular (for whom Cohen works) is fond of filing nonsense lawsuits. So, the lawsuits fall in the category of “wake me when it actually goes to deposition (i.e., never)”
I don’t see how that follows. The FBI has been interested in Page for a while, since they’ve been aware that Russian agents have attempted to use him for their purposes. OK. Now the dossier says these Russian efforts have been successful, in the form of Page meeting with Russian officials and negotiating about this or that. If in fact Page never met with those government officials or if he never negotiated those deals, how would prior FBI interest in Page make that easier to disprove?
FBI interest in Page doesn’t mean they had a guy on his tail 24/7. They apparently didn’t even have a wiretapping warrant until the dossier.
I disagree with this assessment.
In the case of the Gubarev lawsuit in London, the lawsuit is at that point (lawyers are currently quibbling over whether Steele can’t be questioned for security reasons). But there have been all sorts of filings already, which is where the material cited by Grassley comes from. This is not a nonsense lawsuit.
The Cohen lawsuit is at an earlier stage, as he filed it just before some sort of deadline was about to expire.
Nope, they didn’t have a guy on his tail, but he was a person of interest staring in 2013 and they did have a wiretapping warrant starting in 2016, and an interest in investigating the claims in the dossier, and nothing in the dossier has ever been disproven. That’s not proof, but it certainly is telling.
OK, that’s your right. But the letter was clearly written to discredit the Steele dossier, and it admitted that information in the Steele dossier had been independently verified. If the independently verified information had been trivial I can’t imagine a reason they wouldn’t state that. Which means substantial information must have been independently verified.
That’s not a lawsuit against Steele.
I haven’t reviewed the Cohen lawsuit, but given his reputation I assume it’s garbage and will go nowhere.
We’re mostly rehashing things at this point. But one minor comment:
I don’t know why you believe this is relevant, but FWIW, you’re wrong about it. There are several lawsuits, but the one I am (and Grassley is) referring to is against Steele. See e.g. https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html or https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/02/05/us/politics/05reuters-britain-court-steele.html
When you said “In the case of the Gubarev lawsuit in London, the lawsuit is at that point (lawyers are currently quibbling over whether Steele can’t be questioned for security reasons)”, the only lawsuit I’m aware of where “lawyers are currently quibbling over whether Steele can’t be questioned for security reasons” is the Buzzfeed lawsuit, though I’m happy to look at anything you provide that says differently.
What’s the difference which lawsuit is at which point? The lawsuits are both over the same thing, and are essentially the same WRT the specific point we’re discussing.
However, I should say FTR that on looking around a bit it appears that you’re correct that the particular libel lawsuit that Steele’s lawyers are objecting to him testifying about is the US lawsuit against Buzzfeed and not the London one against Steele himself. My apologies.
Still, I don’t see the relevance of which lawsuit is at which point. Both lawsuits are based on the same underlying allegations. The point is that there’s a serious lawsuit alleging that Gubarev was libeled in the Steele dossier.