Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Federal lawyers probing the origins of the investigation of ties between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign have interviewed the author of a "dossier" that alleged misconduct between Trump and Moscow, prompting the lawyers to extend their inquiry.

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.

MFA:

Three attorneys from the Inspector General's office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers' travels... . One of the two sources said Horowitz's investigators appear to have found Steele's information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Another alt-right (R)tarded talking point bites the dust!

Thanks for the article Gal! 👍

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-07-09 10:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#2 You're welcome. :)

#3 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 04:27 PM | Reply

Followup reporting by Natasha Bertrand at Politico:

Trump dossier author Steele gets 16-hour DOJ grilling

The interview was contentious at first, according to two people familiar with the matter, but investigators ultimately found his testimony credible and even surprising.
www.politico.com

William Barr's shilling for Trump may have just hit a snag
www.washingtonpost.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

C'mon. One sad Sunday morning Steele woke up covered with shame, despair and hooker pee, and said "Hey, I could use this on that Trump thingy I'm supposed to be doing! Ka-Ching!!"

#5 | Posted by Spork at 2019-07-09 07:35 PM | Reply

Thanks for the article Gal! 👍

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson

Our Gal Tuesday is the best!

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-09 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Thanks for Being Best Gal!

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-09 07:52 PM | Reply

- Best Gal!

Bar none.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2019-07-09 08:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#4

That WaPo op-ed article has a bunch of embedded links to some rather interesting reads.

thx!

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-07-09 09:39 PM | Reply

Excellent article!! Thanks for posting. As others have said, you're the best, Gal! :)

#10 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-09 10:22 PM | Reply

Aw, shucks. Thanks, guys! :-)

#11 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 11:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hmmm.

In my experience, finding someone credible during the interview and then extending an investigation because of what he said isn't necessarily a good thing for the witness or a sign that the investigation is going the witnesses way.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-09 11:34 PM | Reply

Maybe they are extending the investigation in order to find some other reason(s) to give Trump and Barr the conclusions they want to hear.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 11:41 PM | Reply

Or maybe they extended the investigation in order to follow-up on the new information Steele provided.

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-09 11:44 PM | Reply

#13

Could be, they also could be chasing down a few leads that Steele gave them that provided the information that he based the dossier on. Having (albeit limited) experience with Federal investigations like this, if they already had "reached" a conclusion then they would have tied it up after talking to Steele, checking the box, so to speak.

By reputation, Horowitz is a straight shooter so if his investigation that found something that his bosses don't like, he wouldn't care.

If Horowitz gets replaced, worry.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-09 11:48 PM | Reply

I also wonder, given Steele's abrupt turnaround about testifying after the DOJ and MI5 had some not so secret meetings, whether Steele got immunity for talking to the DOJ.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-09 11:50 PM | Reply

What's with all of the Gal props on this thread?

Gal fncks up cancer, which is pretty cruel, when you think about it.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-09 11:59 PM | Reply

I'll take Steele's word for most anything Russia related.

At MI5 (like our CIA), his job was head of the 'Russia desk,' with connections spanning the globe, and years of experience with all things Russia.

Initially hired by conservatives because of his credentials and experience in that position.

#18 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-07-10 02:08 AM | Reply

I also wonder, given Steele's abrupt turnaround about testifying after the DOJ and MI5 had some not so secret meetings, whether Steele got immunity for talking to the DOJ.

Immunity for what, compiling raw intelligence for a private entity, then (outside his contract) openly sharing found information with the FBI? What exactly would he have legal exposure for outside of sycophant-land where any investigation of Trump and his campaign's activities apparently is extralegal?

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-07-10 08:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Immunity for what"

I was wondering that myself.

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-07-10 09:39 AM | Reply

Meanwhile, remembering that Steele's work and that of Fusion GPS was first funded by GOPers seeking opposition research to Trump in his candidacy for President, the investigators paused in their work. Steele's replies in the meeting with DOJ members sealed the deal. The investigation, touted from the rooftops by AG Bill "I'm NOT a shill" Barr, soon 'went to live on a farm', never to be heard from again.

And that, kids, is how the unbelievers in the Trump camp came to believe...

#21 | Posted by catdog at 2019-07-10 10:48 AM | Reply

#19-20

Not sure what type of immunity he would be seeking, but don't forget he refused to come to the US for his interview because he was worried that he might be "detained", which is why the interview took place in England. Savvy people don't do that unless they think that detention might be a distinct possibility.

Pure speculation, of course, but he might have been looking for blanket immunity for anything that may come from the investigation, which is a smart move on his part given how partisan the Dossier has become.

#22 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 12:11 PM | Reply

he refused to come to the US for his interview because he was worried that he might be "detained"

That's more an indictment of the cryptofascist you carry water for on a daily basis than it is of anything Steele might have done.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2019-07-10 12:20 PM | Reply

... but don't forget he refused to come to the US for his interview because he was worried that he might be "detained"....

Based on all we know publicly regarding Steele's reaction in October 2016 that the FBI wasn't using the information he gave them to investigate the nexus of Trump's campaign and Russian influence (along with Steele's stated fears that Trump was compromised and might be an agent of Putin and the Kremlin), it's completely rationale that Steele had no desire to place himself on a spit for the sake of then-President Trump's DOJ investigations. Steele had no history of controversy up until that point and he only did the job he was tasked at doing like he had scores of times before. He didn't invent information, he reported what other sources he found reputable had told him.

However, with Trump calling the investigations of his campaign's actions both a 'witch hunt' and an attempted coup, is it really far-fetched that Steele was afraid that he could be conceivably renditioned or have evidence of something criminal drummed up against him should he again return to US jurisdiction? He already stated that he was opposed to all that Trump stood for and his work product alone stood to undermine the President's legitimacy. Of course he wants nothing to do with Trump's America as it stands today and who could blame him? He did his duty to relay the truth of what he knows and discovered from the safety of his own nation.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-07-10 12:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of course he wants nothing to do with Trump's America as it stands today and who could blame him?

Not me. I don't blame him.

My one really wealthy friend, who has companies all over the world, and who is a multi-millionaire will not come back until Trump is done and gone.

If had a million dollars I would probably be living in France right now.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-10 02:13 PM | Reply

England MI-5 told the FBI it wasn't credible months before it was leaked to get FISA criminally false warrants. The usual suspects didn't care. When you have major newspapers in your pocket, you can create any BS story you want - how many times have we seen that?

And people still fall for it.

The Revolution will not be televised.

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-07-10 03:05 PM | Reply

#23

Put your head between your knees and take a deep breath into Shreek's paper bag, Angry Joe, I was trying to answer Tony and Gal's question.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 04:28 PM | Reply

it's completely rationale that Steele had no desire to place himself on a spit for the sake of then-President Trump's DOJ investigations.

is it really far-fetched that Steele was afraid that he could be conceivably renditioned or have evidence of something criminal drummed up against him should he again return to US jurisdiction?

Agreed (except for the renditioned part, which is overly dramatic), which is why he wisely refused to be interviewed in the US and may have wanted blanket immunity...if I was his counsel, I would have insisted on it.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 04:31 PM | Reply

He already stated that he was opposed to all that Trump stood for and his work product alone stood to undermine the President's legitimacy.

To me, this is part of the problem: I know that Fusion was initially tasked with getting opo research on Trump by elements of the GOP, but Steele's admission of bias, as set for above, taints the objectivity that you want an investigator to have. Couple that with an opposing party that not only hates Trump but will do anything to bring him down, and that puts any conclusions that Steele is able to draw, from information from paid Russian sources, into question.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 04:35 PM | Reply

should be "as set forth above"

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 04:36 PM | Reply

I was trying to answer Tony and Gal's question.

And that excuses your idiotic post...how exactly?

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-07-10 04:50 PM | Reply

... Steele's admission of bias, as set for above, taints the objectivity that you want an investigator to have.

As I understand it, Steele did not have any determinant anti-Trump bias when he started his investigation. He became anti-Trump when the evidence became obvious to him that Trump had been groomed/assisted by Russia for decades and that he was likely compromised and a direct threat to the US and western allies alike. His most intense ire was because he thought the American electorate should have known about the information on Trump that was already out there (but not in a coherent nor chronological manner) that would have brought people to question him more directly, especially when the FBI was playing reputational pinata with his main opponent.

And to be clear, I believe that Steele was more concerned with the ramifications of Russia having a potentially-compromised friend inside the White House as he continued to see Trumpers lie about any contacts with Russians when he documented scores of them. I feel that in this case, you're more like Trump - it wasn't personally about him or his myriad personal issues. It was about Russia first and foremost and the frightening prospect of an enemy with access to all the West's activities and secrets, especially the singular linchpin to global security.

And based upon the last 2 1/2 years, Steele wasn't wrong to be concerned about the destabilizing policy/actions undertaken by Trump. If anything he might have underestimated the tumult.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-07-10 05:49 PM | Reply

#31

Like I said, take a deep breath and read Tony's #24 and my #28 as many times as you need to understand the conversation.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 05:55 PM | Reply

#32

I have seen articles that comport with your version and others that say the exact opposite. The only person that knows what Steele's animus is and from whence it sprang is Steele himself.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that Steele was very concerned about what he was finding, but at some point animus taints any investigation regardless of subject or source.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 06:00 PM | Reply

I really don't think Steele has much to worry about from a legal standpoint. He was paid to do a job and that's what he did. What made his dossier so controversial was the role it played (the extent of which is not yet known) in the investigation(s) of Team Trump. The only thing he did was leak the dossier to the media against a stated agreement with the FBI.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-07-10 06:02 PM | Reply

#35

Agreed, my speculation on Steele potentially requesting immunity comports with Tony's very valid point in #24 that Trump's anger about the whole thing would make anyone wonder if they were going to be detained if they came into the US on some trumped up (all puns intended) charges.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 06:07 PM | Reply

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that Steele was very concerned about what he was finding, but at some point animus taints any investigation regardless of subject or source.

But the only ones trying to discredit 'everything' because of perceived bias are Trump defenders. Police are biased, prosecutors are biased, judges are biased, HUMANS are biased, it's inescapable. But even when direct evidence of potential bias is uncovered, they still receive deference up until the point their bias reaches criminality. In the case of Trump, every investigator is 'biased' against him because they follow normal procedure when evidence regarding he and his staff merited looking into.

Trump and his campaign members were caught by those surveilling Russians which led investigators to look deeper into what and why they were doing what they did. Any American LEO should have been pissed that such behavior and actions - which were publicly decried as lies - were indeed factually true, regardless of their purpose. How can anyone of conscious and a believer in justice and the Constitution not become impacted by subversion in plain sight?

I've yet to see a coherent argument of 'bias' against Trump that was manifest in the facts and details uncovered in the investigations, just smears of investigators for their private feelings which have never been connected to anything they did professionally. It's ridiculous to claim that political bias was at the root of Trump's investigations when those doing them were largely Republicans, as are the vast majority of LE for obvious reasons. They are wrongly smeared by the likely criminals whose wrongdoing they managed to uncover. Personal bias does not translate to professional bias unless you have the facts and evidence to prove such a connection.

#37 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-07-10 06:21 PM | Reply

Personal bias does not translate to professional bias unless you have the facts and evidence to prove such a connection.

I agree 100% and have no personal reason to believe that Steele had any preconceived bias' going into his investigation. But as to his later statement "that he was opposed to all that Trump stood for", that shows a strong bias, regardless of origin, timing or source, that raised red flags for me. Those same flags would come out if Comey had said, after the election, that "he was opposed to all that Hillary Clinton stood for."

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-07-10 06:55 PM | Reply

Steele may have been afraid he would get Ritter'ed.
He is a ----- and knows what can be done to frame people.

#39 | Posted by bored at 2019-07-10 07:24 PM | Reply

Steele also believes that Trump is compromised by Putin and has many jack boots eager to silence Trumps critics.

#40 | Posted by bored at 2019-07-10 07:26 PM | Reply

If you think his bias against Trimp makes him a bad source when investigating Trump then you must believe all police are bad sources since they have a bias against criminals

#41 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-07-10 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"that he was opposed to all that Trump stood for", that shows a strong bias, regardless of origin, timing or source, that raised red flags for me."

I doubt you even could find a someone neutral to Trump. If you know anything about Trump then you either love or hate him. There are very few that are aware of Trump's history that are in between.

So I guess that means you would hire a spy who loves trump to investigate trump.

Good thinking Vern.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-07-10 07:45 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