All they have to do is find one piece of information in the dossier that isn’t true and they’ll completely ignore the fact that humint isn’t always correct, point at the dossier, and say: “See? This isn’t true, so none of it is!” Which is more than enough cover for their generally non-nuanced base to believe it.
As far as that base is concerned, I keep seeing the commercial from Ghostbusters: “We’re willing to believe you!”
As a paid agent of the DNC Steele (through GPS Fusion) served as a conduit for Russian interference in the US election.
The question is why the Russians want to undermine Trump, and why the DNC was so eager to obtain Russian help in influencing the 2016 election it was willing to pay for this ‘information’.
That’s the question? Really? Who is asking this question? Anyone of consequence?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anywhere in the unredacted portion of that document where they say precisely what claims Steele made to the FBI about whether or not he’d talked to the press.
They quote the FBI’s October 26th FISA application as saying “The FBI does not believe that [Steele] provided this information to the press” (where “this information” appears to refer specifically to the Yahoo news article from September 23rd. And they say that the FBI suspended their relationship with Steele in October, because he had leaked to the press due to his frustration with the FBI’s notification to Congress that it was reopening the Clinton email investigation. (That notification happened on October 28th, so this was after the first FISA warrant application on the 23rd.)
But I don’t see anything where they state specifically what Steele told the FBI about his media contacts prior to October 26th – only that the FBI believed Steele hadn’t leaked to the press (and only really that he hadn’t leaked certain specific information). I don’t even see anything saying that Steele was ever asked by the FBI whether he had been a source for the Sept. 23rd Yahoo News article. Perhaps there are details about that in the redacted part.
Without knowing what lie Steele is alleged to have told, or even to what question from the FBI he was responding to when he allegedly lied, I don’t really see much of an accusation here. It seems to be of the form “He must have lied to the FBI about what he told the media, because the FBI’s claims about what they believed imply that they had asked him something and he’d given an answer that wasn’t actually true.” But it’s not even clear to me the FBI said that they thought Steele wasn’t leaking anything, only that he hadn’t leaked specific information such as appeared in the September 23rd Yahoo News article.
So which is it, the FBI told the FISA court that they believed Steele never talked to the media, or they told the FISA court that Steele wasn’t the source of the Yahoo News article? If it’s the latter, then I don’t think it’s actually the case that Steele admitted otherwise in court. And even if he was the source of the Yahoo News article, it’s not clear that he ever said otherwise to the FBI.
Maybe I missed something, or maybe it’s hidden by the redactions… but then again, maybe not.
This statement is so dumb it qualifies as “not even wrong”.
When you say “the Russians” you really just mean “some Russians”, right? Or did you mean to imply that they were working on behalf of the Russian government?
This is a clear case of British collusion if I ever saw one. Our democracy is under threat.
Two points:
(1) AFAICT, OP is miswritten. It wan’t the Senate Judiciary Committee which wrote to DoJ; it was two (important) Senators on that Committee. Admittedly this may be nitpicking, but …
(2) “Hyper-partisan Senators take hyper-partisan position pretending Evil is Good and Black is White” ? Details at Eleven?
No; I think this one should just be filed in the “Dog bites man” bucket.
It’s not wrong. Nothing dumb about citing the known facts of the case.
Are you taking the position that the Russians disseminating ‘dirt’ on a political candidate for use in US election would not qualify as interference? That would kind of let a lot of the air out of the ‘Russia-Gate’ hysteria.
I’m thinking when Steele says he got some of this ‘dirt’ on Trump from a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a ‘former’ Russian intelligence operative still active in the Kremlin in my opinion Occam’s Razor would suggest there is a strong connection to the Russian government.
The question was, “Did you mean to imply that they were working on behalf of the Russian government?” Not, "Did you mean to imply that they had a strong connection to the Russian government?
No one knows whether someone in Russian intelligence or the Russian Foreign Ministry would be speaking on behalf of the Russian government.
The DNC was eager to get dirt from these guys to help influence the election in their favor.
And all these modern medications for delusional ideation… shakes head sadly
This statement is completely unsupported by the facts.
…Steele “had the dirt” in July 2016, which is when he went to the FBI.
The election was in November 2016.
The DNC had four months to use “this dirt.”
They didn’t use it.
How was this plan supposed to work again?
Ballpeenerol. Ask your doctor.
They didn’t have the Russians hacking the FBI for them.
In my estimation paying nearly a million dollars for dirt on Trump from the Kremlin shows a strong interest.
Again: you’re not even wrong.
Again, I’m not wrong.
After months of denials from the DNC regarding the deal, Fusion GPS admitted they took about a million dollars from the Democrats for their efforts.
Steele’s cut was $168K to act as a conduit between sources in the Kremlin and the DNC.
In my estimation, your estimation is completely unsupported by the facts.
Here are the facts:
[ol]
[li]The DNC and Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to do opposition research [/li][li]In the course of conducting this research Fusion found that Trump had a lot of shady Russian ties[/li][li]Fusion hired a Russian expert, Christopher Steele, to dig a little deeper into Trump’s Russia ties[/li][li]Steele gathered intelligence, some of it from sources inside the Russian government working against the interest of the Russian government, that led him to believe that crimes were being committed[/li][li]Steele reported those crimes to the FBI[/li][/ol]
Which of those steps is collusion?
Some of that is correct. This part, “to act as a conduit between sources in the Kremlin and the DNC,” is pure fantasy that in no way fits the facts.