Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 15, 2018

We thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele's reporting holds up over time. In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos ...

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The dossier is actually a series of reports -- 16 in all -- that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story -- the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.

This is why the smearing of Christopher Steele and the FBI has been so insidious. Steele did nothing more than gather information from sources that provided it to him. He had no agenda, he gave no directions to shape what was given him. He gathered and compiled, then he reported to multiple others what he believed was credible, though raw, intelligence.

And I welcome anyone to post links showing credible sources proving that any allegation within Steele's dossier has been proven definitively false. For according to Lawfare and everyone else reporting on the dossier, nothing of substance within its allegations has yet to be proven conclusively false regardless of what the Bottomless Pinocchio says on a repeated noise loop.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-12-14 11:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trampy is pissed off that Steele leaked about being pissed on.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-14 11:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Steele

#3 | Posted by bored at 2018-12-15 12:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

It's all fake news to Trump Pets.

Steele is a fraud I tells ya, and here's the proof!

www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-15 12:42 AM | Reply

Things the dossier got right:

Over the period March-September 2016 a company called [redacted] and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct "altering operations" against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked to one [redacted] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, [redacted] were significant players in this operation.

Additionally, it reports:

the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the Wikileaks platform. The reason for using Wikileaks was "plausible deniability" and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.

The indictment of 12 officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) corroborates these allegations from Steele's sources. In particular, the indictment alleges:

3. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the "Clinton Campaign"), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign's chairman.

4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee ("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.

5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.

6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."

7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ([Wikileaks]), that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government. The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-12-15 07:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Paul Manafort makes a few appearances in the dossier, including those described above. One report from July 2016 says:

Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership. This was managed on the Trump side by the Republican candidate's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter Page, and others as intermediaries.

Elsewhere, Steele reports that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych "confided in Putin that he did authorize and order substantial kick-back payments to Manafort as alleged but sought to reassure him that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide clear evidence of this."

The official record supports this second allegation: Manafort's work for, and bankrolling by, Yanukovych is at the core of the criminal charges against him -- conduct he has admitted. The superseding indictment filed by Mueller's office in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia goes into extensive detail about Manafort's ties to Yanukovych and other Ukrainian political and business interests....

This isn't close to all the corroborating details we've found to be included in the various charging documents filed by Mueller/DOJ, nor is it exhaustive of everything Steele compiled vis-a-vis Trump and Russia related contacts and business interests.

Sorry, but someone is going to have to tell us exactly what in the Steele dossier has been "discredited" in any manner that the President's honesty has been by repeating the same proven lies dozens and dozens of time fully knowing that they're 100% false and intentionally misleading.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-12-15 07:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

"none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

#4 | Posted by Corky

Nor has it been proven to be true.

#7 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-12-15 11:46 AM | Reply

oops, didn't scroll down far enough to see this was already posted.

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-15 12:09 PM | Reply


@#6 ... This isn't close to all the corroborating details we've found to be included in the various charging documents filed by Mueller/DOJ, nor is it exhaustive of everything Steele compiled vis-a-vis Trump and Russia related contacts and business interests. ...

As the various deep investigations unfold, they are exposing a lot of evidence that confirms what is in the Steele Dossier. As the article says, so far, not a thing in the dossier has been shown to be false, and a lot of what is in the dossier has been corroborated.

It is no longer a surprise to me how vehemently the Dossier was attacked when it was released, those attacking it knew the validity of what it contained.

What I wonder now is will the rest of the dossier be confirmed? Are Mr Mueller and the SDNY sitting on the corroborating evidence because it may not be the correct time to release it?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-15 12:28 PM | Reply


The summary, from the cited article:

...As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele's reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be -- whether because it's untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller's team. We will return to it as the public record develops....


#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-12-15 12:47 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

#4 | Posted by Corky

Nor has it been proven to be true.

#7 | POSTED BY ComrAde Snippy

Wrong. It's hard to see things when your head is so far up your traitorous Russian loving ---.

#11 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-12-15 02:50 PM | Reply

"Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence."

No, he was a weapon chosen and pointed by Hillary. That's pretty damn obvious now.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-12-15 07:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Christopher Steele: Car Antenna

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-15 07:37 PM | Reply

Steele did not form conclusions. His so-called "dossier" was just a collection of intelligence reports of information he received from his field operatives -- raw information that had to be evaluated and corroborated before use. So far, large parts of it are holding up, with more of it yet to be corroborated. I would fully expect that some of his operatives' info would be inaccurate to some extent, but that just hasn't yet happened.

#14 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-12-16 11:45 AM | Reply

#12 - HRC Tourette's.
The result of some weird HRC obsession.
That word "obvious" means something different to you than everyone else=, too.

G-d damn you're funny.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2018-12-16 11:47 AM | Reply

No, he was a weapon chosen and pointed by Hillary. That's pretty damn obvious now.

#12 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

I know, right?

I, too, hate it when reality is used against me!

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-12-16 01:25 PM | Reply

Nor has it been proven to be true.

#7 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Nothing that doesn't fit your warped ideologies with can be proven true to you by anyone.

YOU are not a reasonable person.

So why should anyone bother?

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-12-16 01:29 PM | Reply

No, he was a weapon chosen and pointed by Hillary. That's pretty damn obvious now.

#12 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT AT 2018-12-15 07:20 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 4

Actually, he was hired by Republicans! Ha ha!

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-17 01:57 AM | Reply

A pack of unsubstantiated rumors and outright lies, labeled as a dossier.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-12-17 10:14 AM | Reply

#19 Please tell me which claims in the dossier have been shown to be lies.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 10:31 AM | Reply

Literally, the article and reality are showing the dossier is accurate.

#21 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-17 10:32 AM | Reply

No, he was a weapon chosen and pointed by Hillary. That's pretty damn obvious now.

#12 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT

I will accept that. Maybe even a gun pointed by Hillary. With the bullets being the demonstrated crimes and corruption of the Republicans during the campaign.

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-12-17 11:56 AM | Reply

#19 Please tell me which claims in the dossier have been shown to be lies.

#20 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-12-17 10:31 AM

Many of the claims in the dossier remain unverified to this day. That it was used as a basis to obtain a FISA warrant is, at-best, troubling.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-12-17 12:04 PM | Reply

rehnquist appointed fisa judges.

#24 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-12-17 12:07 PM | Reply

Many of the claims in the dossier remain unverified to this day.

That is different from the statement i responded to, which said the dossier was "a pack of...outright lies." That you are unable to confirm certain aspects of it does not make it a lie.

That it was used as a basis to obtain a FISA warrant is, at-best, troubling.

It wasn't the sole basis for any FISA warrant, its origin was disclosed to the FISA judge, and intelligence reports are routinely used in FISA applications.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-17 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Many of the claims in the dossier remain unverified to this day."

Only to the willingly stupid. If you were to be shown audio and video of Trump being peed on, you would question it.

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-12-17 01:46 PM | Reply

That it was used as a basis to obtain a FISA warrant is, at-best, troubling.

Not in the real world. That's just Andrew McCarthy --------.

www.brennancenter.org

Not that it matters if it was or wasn't. That's just something else to get the right-wing up in arms about.

This 'dossier' has turned out to be surprisingly accurate.

#27 | Posted by YAV at 2018-12-17 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That it was used as a basis to obtain a FISA warrant is, at-best, troubling.
#23 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Not for the portions that were corroborated. Do you know which parts of the dossier were used as justification for FISA warrant? If not, there's not much basis to your troubling concern.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-12-17 03:48 PM | Reply

FBI Would've Been Derelict Not to Use Steele Dossier for the Carter Page FISA Warrant

Even from the limited unredacted information available to the public, including the criminal charges brought against the Russian individuals who associated with Page, the repeated and expanded applications for renewals, and the fact that the Republican Party platform on Russia and Ukraine changed during the operative time period of Page's involvement in the campaign, it is our view that the FISA application sufficiently makes out the necessary showing of probable cause to support the court's approval. Four separate federal judges agreed.

In his National Review article McCarthy says that the FBI, "which I can't help but think of as my FBI after 20 years of working closely with the bureau as a federal prosecutor, would never take an unverified screed and present it to a court as evidence." Similarly, we cannot imagine the FBI that we know after decades of combined experience would ignore the evidence that was presented to them and decline to seek a warrant for Carter Page when it did. In fact, if the FBI had failed to investigate such allegations, we (and the American people) would've been entitled to find them derelict in carrying out their duties.

(From YAV's link in #27.)

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-12-17 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

'That it was used as a basis to obtain a FISA warrant is, at-best, troubling."

Troubling... if you are President Donald J. Trump, ore one of his co-conspirators.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-17 03:56 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort