Why wouldn’t 1001 apply to Steele?
He’s not an American and his depositions didn’t take place on American soil. While I’ll admit that I don’t fully know how international law works, I feel like it would be pretty hard to press charges against him on that basis. The FBI had the legal standing, when talking to him, of an Italian grandma.
Granted, if he did lie to them, it does make one question how motives and consequently his statements and material more. Whether he can be charged for lying or not is less important at this moment in time.
I don’t think that matters. Sure, there’s a presumption against extraterritorial application of US laws, even for criminal statutes, but that doesn’t generally apply to crimes against the federal government. I don’t think that’s changed recently (but it might have). And it’s certainly not unheard of to charge foreign nationals with violations of US law that occur overseas, as long as there is a “nexus” with the United States.
Am I missing something?
That Steele wasn’t in the U.S. at the time of any interview wouldn’t necessarily be a bar to prosecution since there are plenty of federal crimes someone could commit on foreign soil, which is one of the reasons why Julian Assange is so worried about leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London (though if he has been indicted by a U.S. grand jury, the indictment has been sealed until any extradition attempt is made by the U.S.).
The two biggest obstacles to hypothetically charging and convicting Steele are:
-
Unless he blatantly lied to the FBI while going to them with his concerns or during any interview, the only way he could realistically be charged with an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is if he knew any of the materials in the dossier or any other documents he provided to the FBI were false or otherwise forged. If he had doubts or could not otherwise verify certain information and therefore did not know for sure whether certain information was really true and still handed it over, that would not be enough under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3). So, to successfully prosecute Steele, the U.S. would have to prove with evidence he knew whatever he said was a lie or that Steele knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Steele knew anything in the documents he provided were lies or were otherwise false/forged. Given the myriad sources involved and Steele up-front relying on these sources without independent concrete evidence for some of the claims, that’s a punishingly high bar for a federal prosecutor to have to go.
-
After Steele was indicted, the UK would have to agree to extradite him to the U.S. Given the highly political nature of the calls to investigative and/or prosecute Steele as well as all the questions about how much Trump would be seen to be influencing or forcing the DOJ to prosecute Steele, the UK could simply refuse to turn Steele over.
I don’t think they’re saying he lied in providing false information in the dossier. They’re saying he lied about whether he was providing this information to the media. They have his testimony to that effect, in his libel case.
At a minimum, Steele would be unable to travel to the US due to an outstanding case against him, if there was one. So it’s not like it would have no impact at all.
If that’s the only thing the feds would possibly charge him with, then it will heavily depend on the wording he used whenever he gave a statement to the effect that he was not providing the info to the media. If a journalist was one of Steele’s sources or he talked with a journalist to try and get some corroboration for information he had without intending for that journalist to publish anything, that seems like it would be a solid defense to telling the FBI he didn’t give information to the media (since it would be implied that giving information to the media would mean giving information to the media for the purposes of publishing a story about the information).
If Steele talked with and/or gave information to the media after he talked with the FBI, then that also would not make any statement to the FBI false that he had not providing information to the media, since he had not up until that point afterwards.
To prove the exact timeline and that Steele himself was directly the source for any information given to the media, a federal prosecutor would need either the recorded or written communications themselves, such as email, phone calls, or a recorded conversation or witnesses who could and would testify about what Steele gave them and when. It’s most definitely not clear that federal law enforcement has either and it seems unlikely that Sen. Graham or Grassley would know whether either existed before they sent their memo. If they knew whether either existed, then they would almost certainly have either eluded to them obliquely if either was part of classified materials or referenced them directly in their referral.
Did you read the Grassley letter? Much of what you discuss is dealt with in that letter. (And I already noted in my prior post that there is evidence in the form of Steele’s testimony in his libel case.)
Sorry, been sick for a couple days. The short version of DOJ guidelines are:
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-908-elements-18-usc-1001
Jurisdiction might be a toss up because courts have held it to mean the authority to take action, which the FBI would have. But then there’s venue, which is defined as the “district in which the offense was committed” so that’s a stand in for “jurisdiction” in the other sense of the term.
The issue is not simply giving information to the media; it was disclosing his status as an informant for the FBI to the media (or anyone else), which was expressly forbidden in the agreement he signed with his FBI handler.
Can you please direct us to the “agreement” he signed with his FBI handler? Or any document that indicates he was an official “informant” to the FBI?
Hope you’re feeling better. But I don’t think that’s right. Let’s take the two bolded sections in turn.
Materiality is a low bar, meaning only having “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” Cite. I don’t know the exact “lies” that Steele is alleged to have told. But my understanding is that he (allegedly) lied about the degree of corroboration of his claims. That seems to me to be material. (And, on a pedantic note, if they’re not material then that is not a question of whether 1001 applies to Steele, it’s a question of whether he violated the statute. Same point if he told no lies at all.).
Next is the “jurisdiction” question. Under 1001, the matter that is the subject of the lie (not the liar) must be within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Counterintelligence is clearly within the jurisdiction of the FBI and investigations into federal crimes is within the purview of 1001. Cite. “Jurisdiction” here has nothing to do with venue. (Venue for a crime committed outside the United States is the district where the defendant is arrested or first brought. See 18 USC 3238).
I think we have to conclude that if someone made a materially false statement to the FBI is connection with the Russia investigation it would potentially fall under 1001.
So the only remaining question is whether the fact that Steele is a foreign national or the fact that the “lie” took place outside of the United States matters. I think the answer to both is “no”. There is a presumption against extraterritorial application of US law. But, in Bowman, we learned that “the same rule of interpretation should not be applied to criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for the Government’s jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the Government to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud wherever perpetrated, especially if committed by its own citizens, officers or agents.” Cite. In the last ~95 years, that rule hasn’t been limited to US citizens but has been limited to crimes that relate to “the right of the Government to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud.” There’s a good discussion here. Also, here, a discussion on the application of US criminal law to crimes committed by foreign nationals overseas.
It seems obvious to me that 1001 is a statute that relates to “the right of the Government to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud” but we can debate that further if you’d like. (Cf. a case from the S.D. Fla., noting that “We also note that as an alternate basis for jurisdiction under § 1001, the extraterritoriality doctrine providing jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial offenses whose “extraterritorial acts are intended to have an effect within the sovereign territory” seems applicable to this case.”). I haven’t done a detailed search, but courts appear to have applied 1001 extraterritorially to misstatements to immigration or customs officials as well; which I actually thought was a separate crime.
My point in all of this is that I have no idea whether Steele violated 1001. And I could certainly be wrong on some or all of the above points. But at several points you suggested that the Grassley/Graham letter was rendered less credible because it was clear (to them and to us) that Steele was somehow immune from prosecution under 18 USC 1001, so it was a “dishonest” referral. I still see no support for that claim.
Ok I’m with you on jurisdiction, but where in earth do you get this? The referral is quite clear that the alleged offense is that he talked to the media them told the FBI he didn’t.
Senator Feinstein’s rebuttal analysis to the Grassley-Graham referral is instructive.
You’re right. I was going off of memory of the letter (which didn’t really interest me as much as the legal question). So, I’m less convinced it’s material. Although (and I think this is what I was recalling), I thought that one of the reasons that the FBI (and the FISC) credited the dossier was that was corroborated by independent new reports which turned out to have been based on the dossier. I don’t know. Anyway, my point remains: Steele is subject to 1001, if he in fact violated it.
I don’t know about that.
The core issue that seems to be in dispute - exactly what Steele told the FBI about his press contacts - is hard to assess.
One thing about the Feinstein memo that seems clearly misleading is the claim (second paragraph of page 2) that Grassley’s letter “impl[ied] there was no
independent investigative work done by Steele”. I don’t see any way that could possibly be a good faith reading of Grassley’s letter.
One other point of dispute is about why the FBI terminated the relationship with Steele. Grassley says (top of page 4) it was for discussing the dossier with the media. Feinstein says (top of page 3) it was for disclosing his relationship with the FBI to a reporter.
There’s a couple of things in Feinstein’s rebuttal conclusion that are not in dispute and these tell you all you need to know about the G-G referral.
Christopher Steele heard about a crime being committed and told the cops about it. Like a good guy.
George Papadopoulos heard about a crime being committed and didn’t tell the cops about it. Like a bad guy.
The DOJ and FBI go after bad guys. So as I posted earlier…
I’ll take Feinstein’s interpretation of what Grassley was implying over yours any day.
What is it you find confusing in this paragraph?
(Emphasis mine)
With regard to your second point, you first need to establish their was an official “relationship” that required terminating. No one in this thread has done that, and neither did Grassley. That was Feinstein’s point. You assume a threshold circumstance that has not been shown to be true. If/when you can establish the fact that Steele had an official relationship with the FBI that required terminating, then you can move on to accusing him of violating that “relationship.”
This orchestrated effort on the Right to smear the reputation of one of Britain’s most well-regarded intelligence agents in order to protect a corrupt criminal in the Oval Office from a legitimate investigation and prosecution is really one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen done by our government to a friendly.
Apart from the incalculable damage it has done to our special relationship with Britain, along with other allied intelligence agencies around the world and the long-lingering, detrimental effects it will have on those relationships, going after Steele with nothing more than innuendo, timelines that don’t withstand scrutiny, assertions of bias with no evidence for same, savaging the integrity of our intelligence agencies and all the rest, is akin to attempting to criminally charge the good Samaritan bystander who called 911 when he saw a terrible auto accident. Your lack of concern for what Steele learned and its implications for our country’s future, the sanctity of its election process and the very foundations of our democratic institutions is appalling and inexcusable.
Let me point out yet again that you seem incapable of viewing Steele’s work through an impartial lens. What is so hard about not making any judgment about its veracity one way or the other? Do you not grasp that the FBI – or any other intelligence agency – doesn’t accept as true on its face any report, no matter where it comes from? Do you imagine they suddenly lost their objectivity and impartiality in learning and assessing facts because Trump is involved? Everything you say indicates this is what you believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They’ll be frogmarching the traitorous old bastard out of the Oval in handcuffs, and you’ll still be saying, “But the dossier…!!” and, “Just because they’re investigating his campaign doesn’t mean they’re investigating him!!” You may as well close your eyes and start clicking your heels together three times.
Nothing confusing at all in that paragraph. Where you went off the rails is harder to say.
No, that was not at all Feinstein’s point. It has zero to do with Feinstein’s point.
So there!
It’ll never go to court. It’s a political gambit. First, they assume that he won’t come to the US and that no one will file extradition papers. Secondly, there is no way they want to actually go to court and hear witnesses about where that information came from and why Chris Steele thought it reliable. The bottom line is that maybe some of it isn’t true, but I guarantee that enough of it is true that it would be bad for Trump. There is no way they want a parade of witnesses for two months taking the stand and talking about where they got information about pee tapes, collusion and whatever else.