ADVERTISEMENT

Thoughts on memo? It’s out now

CO, here is a law blog. From it I get below. You are either holding the FBI to a higher standard than law enforcement is held to, or demanding Page deserves a higher standard. Steele is basically a CI in this case. CI's almost ALWAYS come with baggage. From the blog:

The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?

According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.

Now I have no problems making warrants much harder in all cases. It is the civil libertarian in me. We should very, very, very seldom allow warrants based on statements based on people under or facing criminal sanction. It should follow a murderer would lie.

But I believe we issue many warrants every day on far less credible sources than a former member in good standing of British Intelligence. So, holding the FBI to the same standard, holding Page to the same standard, it is obvious you are just playing games here.
 
Then there is the fairly significant problem of those who wrote the affidavits and presented the probable cause to the FISA court. They gave false information to a Federal Judge. Lying to a judge to obtain a warrant is not the thing one ought to do unless one just loves the glint that comes off of stainless steel bracelets.

Please do tell what this false information was that made it into an affidavit that you have never looked at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Trey Gowdy, of 2 year Benghazi fame, provides some sound things from those on the right to think about. I found this point especially salient:

On Andy McCabe, who stepped down recently as Deputy FBI Director: "I found him to be a professional witness even though I disagree with some of the decisions he made. And I think we've got to get to some point in life where you can disagree with the decision-making process that someone engaged in, without believing that they are corrupt or somehow part of the 'deep state', whatever that means.”

https://www.axios.com/gowdy-memo-re...258-42077e74-40d9-409b-8e88-62b7d76bf302.html
 
The false information was representing the dossier as having a mere “political connection” when the FBI fuc*ing knew the dossier was funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Warrant applications are given under oath in affidavit form which means the affiant has personal knowledge and vouches for the credibility of the material presented. We know that the dossier was only “minimally corroborated”. I don’t know what standard of care you expect from the FBI but I hold them to higher standards than they showed here.
That's not false information. That's not providing all the information you have. Do you honestly think the judges weren't smart enough to figure out who was funding it? What I find most amusing in this whole mess to deflect by the Trump team is the fact that they are going after Republican judges , Republican appointees, and for the most part Republican FBI agents. The FBI released new information on Hillary 10 days before the election . Media ate her alive for a week. They then said never mind, it's nothing. Her polls dropped like a rock and many experts consider that piece to have changed the outcome of the race. Also at the time, BOTH candidates were under investigation by the FBI, yet we only knew of one. At every single speed, debate, and rally Trump pointed that out and played it for all its worth. And now we are spending all this time and supposed to believe that the FBI was working to BEAT Trump? How anyone can come to that conclusion is beyond me. But of course.....Trump supporters...
 
That's not false information. That's not providing all the information you have. Do you honestly think the judges weren't smart enough to figure out who was funding it? What I find most amusing in this whole mess to deflect by the Trump team is the fact that they are going after Republican judges , Republican appointees, and for the most part Republican FBI agents. The FBI released new information on Hillary 10 days before the election . Media ate her alive for a week. They then said never mind, it's nothing. Her polls dropped like a rock and many experts consider that piece to have changed the outcome of the race. Also at the time, BOTH candidates were under investigation by the FBI, yet we only knew of one. At every single speed, debate, and rally Trump pointed that out and played it for all its worth. And now we are spending all this time and supposed to believe that the FBI was working to BEAT Trump? How anyone can come to that conclusion is beyond me. But of course.....Trump supporters...

You are damn right that is false information. Leaving a false or incomplete impression is not fulfilling the legal duty of providing the basis for the warrant under oath. The FBI deliberately omitted references to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic Party in the material provided to the judge. They knew the facts. A benign "politically motivated" description is so ambiguous it could mean anything. Hell, your woman's group would qualify.

Oh, you don't need to lecture anybody about deflecting given the your post.
 
CO, here is a law blog. From it I get below. You are either holding the FBI to a higher standard than law enforcement is held to, or demanding Page deserves a higher standard. Steele is basically a CI in this case. CI's almost ALWAYS come with baggage. From the blog:

The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?

According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.

Now I have no problems making warrants much harder in all cases. It is the civil libertarian in me. We should very, very, very seldom allow warrants based on statements based on people under or facing criminal sanction. It should follow a murderer would lie.

But I believe we issue many warrants every day on far less credible sources than a former member in good standing of British Intelligence. So, holding the FBI to the same standard, holding Page to the same standard, it is obvious you are just playing games here.
This is correct. Even if you believe the memo, there us nothing wrong with DOJ's behavior. This narrative is designed to enrage people who don't know any better. Lawyers who try to convince you it's a scandal are either lying, or incompetent.
 
Last edited:
This is correct. Even if you believe the memo, there us nothing wrong with DOJ's behavior. This narrative is designed to engage people who don't know any better. Lawyers who try to convince you it's a scandal are either lying, or incompetent.
Lawyers, by definition, are competent, therefore, it's lying or not lawyers.
 
CO, here is a law blog. From it I get below. You are either holding the FBI to a higher standard than law enforcement is held to, or demanding Page deserves a higher standard. Steele is basically a CI in this case. CI's almost ALWAYS come with baggage. From the blog:

The defendants challenged the warrant on the ground that the affidavit had failed to mention the remarkable ulterior motives of the informant. The affidavit didn't mention that the "informant" was actually a married couple that had been in a quarrel with the defendants; that the couple was facing criminal charges themselves and had been "guaranteed by the prosecutor that they would not be prosecuted if they provided information"; and that they had been paid by the government for giving the information. The affidavit didn't mention any of that. A big deal, right?

According to the court, no. "It would have to be a very naive magistrate who would suppose that a confidential informant would drop in off the street with such detailed evidence and not have an ulterior motive," Judge Noonan wrote. "The magistrate would naturally have assumed that the informant was not a disinterested citizen." The fact that the magistrate wasn't told that the "informant" was guaranteed to go free and paid for the information didn't matter, as "the magistrate was given reason to think the informant knew a good deal about what was going on" inside the house.

Now I have no problems making warrants much harder in all cases. It is the civil libertarian in me. We should very, very, very seldom allow warrants based on statements based on people under or facing criminal sanction. It should follow a murderer would lie.

But I believe we issue many warrants every day on far less credible sources than a former member in good standing of British Intelligence. So, holding the FBI to the same standard, holding Page to the same standard, it is obvious you are just playing games here.

Hokaayyy . . . . . .

This is an interesting issue that requires getting into the legal weeds and splitting legal hairs. I'll try to be brief.

First of all, I disagree with Mr. Kerr. I don't consider Steele an "informant." Informants are normally victims of crimes, witnesses of crimes, or otherwise have personal knowledge of the crime. Sometimes the informant will be a "confidential informant," CI, an individual whom the cops have a prior relationship with and have established credibility. Litigation abounds over the reasonableness of relying on an informant. Steele was none of these in the strict sense. In a broad generic sense Steele provided information, but he was not an "informant" as that term is used in search warrant (and arrest warrant) cases.

So what was Steele? Let me illustrate with an example. Mr. Fingers is caught shoplifting from a store in the mall. Fingers is turned over to the mall security and Mr. Mall Cop calls in officer Real Cop to haul Fingers away. Mall Cop informs Real Cop of the facts of the case. Real Cop takes those facts, and recites them under oath and applies for a warrant to search Fingers' vehicle. The judge issues the warrant. Is that a good warrant?

Steele is Mr. Mall Cop. Mall Cop is technically not an informant in the sense that Kerr discussed it and as used in the cases Kerr cited. He is not a first hand witness. He is not a victim. He is a third party. The general law is that cops have a stronger duty to verify third party information than victim or witness information.

As I alluded to above, I have litigated this case. In my case my cop client relied on information (which may have been given in affidavit form, I don't remember) from an out of state police agency. Taking that information without more, my client vouched for it, applied for a search warrant, and searched the premises of the out of state criminal defendant's aunt in Colorado. They were looking for correspondence that the defendant had sent to his aunt that proved culpability. Importantly we need to remember that the third party was an out of state cop, not simply an investigator or researcher like Steele. Aunt sued for a bad warrant and violation of the 4th Amendment. I moved to toss the case because my client relied on a cop's information. That is called the "Fellow Officer Rule". The court denied my motion because the law is that the cops have a reasonable duty to verify any information from any third party, whether or not an informant or fellow officer. The judge held that it was up to the jury to determine whether my client discharged his duty. Judge was probably correct. As a side note, the Fellow Officer Rule would likely have required a dismissal if there was a close relationship between the facts supporting the warrant and the execution of the warrant. For example, had Mall Cop been another real cop, officer Real Cop would be reasonable and justified in relying on that other real cop information under the Fellow Officer Rule.

The question is whether the FBI was reasonable in relying on Steele's information. I think clearly no. This is why I think Page has a nice payday coming in the civil case. Steele was known to be funded by Clinton and the Democrats. Steele was vetted by agent Ohr whose wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS. The FBI deliberately concealed important facts from the judge. Comey said Steele's information was only "minimally vetted". And as we now know, there was a concerted effort by agent Strzok and his in-house FBI attorney lover to go after Trump.

Oh, I don't think Real Cop's warrant is good. Real Cop had a duty to at least interview the store personnel who caught Fingers.
 
Hokaayyy . . . . . .

This is an interesting issue that requires getting into the legal weeds and splitting legal hairs. I'll try to be brief.

First of all, I disagree with Mr. Kerr. I don't consider Steele an "informant." Informants are normally victims of crimes, witnesses of crimes, or otherwise have personal knowledge of the crime. Sometimes the informant will be a "confidential informant," CI, an individual whom the cops have a prior relationship with and have established credibility. Litigation abounds over the reasonableness of relying on an informant. Steele was none of these in the strict sense. In a broad generic sense Steele provided information, but he was not an "informant" as that term is used in search warrant (and arrest warrant) cases.

So what was Steele? Let me illustrate with an example. Mr. Fingers is caught shoplifting from a store in the mall. Fingers is turned over to the mall security and Mr. Mall Cop calls in officer Real Cop to haul Fingers away. Mall Cop informs Real Cop of the facts of the case. Real Cop takes those facts, and recites them under oath and applies for a warrant to search Fingers' vehicle. The judge issues the warrant. Is that a good warrant?

Steele is Mr. Mall Cop. Mall Cop is technically not an informant in the sense that Kerr discussed it and as used in the cases Kerr cited. He is not a first hand witness. He is not a victim. He is a third party. The general law is that cops have a stronger duty to verify third party information than victim or witness information.

As I alluded to above, I have litigated this case. In my case my cop client relied on information (which may have been given in affidavit form, I don't remember) from an out of state police agency. Taking that information without more, my client vouched for it, applied for a search warrant, and searched the premises of the out of state criminal defendant's aunt in Colorado. They were looking for correspondence that the defendant had sent to his aunt that proved culpability. Importantly we need to remember that the third party was an out of state cop, not simply an investigator or researcher like Steele. Aunt sued for a bad warrant and violation of the 4th Amendment. I moved to toss the case because my client relied on a cop's information. That is called the "Fellow Officer Rule". The court denied my motion because the law is that the cops have a reasonable duty to verify any information from any third party, whether or not an informant or fellow officer. The judge held that it was up to the jury to determine whether my client discharged his duty. Judge was probably correct. As a side note, the Fellow Officer Rule would likely have required a dismissal if there was a close relationship between the facts supporting the warrant and the execution of the warrant. For example, had Mall Cop been another real cop, officer Real Cop would be reasonable and justified in relying on that other real cop information under the Fellow Officer Rule.

The question is whether the FBI was reasonable in relying on Steele's information. I think clearly no. This is why I think Page has a nice payday coming in the civil case. Steele was known to be funded by Clinton and the Democrats. Steele was vetted by agent Ohr whose wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS. The FBI deliberately concealed important facts from the judge. Comey said Steele's information was only "minimally vetted". And as we now know, there was a concerted effort by agent Strzok and his in-house FBI attorney lover to go after Trump.

Oh, I don't think Real Cop's warrant is good. Real Cop had a duty to at least interview the store personnel who caught Fingers.
So the Brits capture an ISIS member who says they overheard a conversation that Mr Smith is planning a terror attack. The Brits call us up and share that. We have other Intel which says ISIS was trying to recruit Mr Smith. Do we get a warrant, or do we have to fly a CIA agent over to conduct the interview.

Let's recall the FBI already believed the Russians were targeting Page
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
So the Brits capture an ISIS member who says they overheard a conversation that Mr Smith is planning a terror attack. The Brits call us up and share that. We have other Intel which says ISIS was trying to recruit Mr Smith. Do we get a warrant, or do we have to fly a CIA agent over to conduct the interview.

Let's recall the FBI already believed the Russians were targeting Page

That sounds like Curveball. If Mr. Smith is a US citizen on US soil, yeah, there is duty to verify.
 
That's not false information. That's not providing all the information you have. Do you honestly think the judges weren't smart enough to figure out who was funding it? What I find most amusing in this whole mess to deflect by the Trump team is the fact that they are going after Republican judges , Republican appointees, and for the most part Republican FBI agents. The FBI released new information on Hillary 10 days before the election . Media ate her alive for a week. They then said never mind, it's nothing. Her polls dropped like a rock and many experts consider that piece to have changed the outcome of the race. Also at the time, BOTH candidates were under investigation by the FBI, yet we only knew of one. At every single speed, debate, and rally Trump pointed that out and played it for all its worth. And now we are spending all this time and supposed to believe that the FBI was working to BEAT Trump? How anyone can come to that conclusion is beyond me. But of course.....Trump supporters...
So the FBI cost Hillary the election? Not Russians on Twitter? Maybe it was Russians bots tweeting about the FBI? Meanwhile, still no evidence against the president of collusion or conspriacy.
 
You are ok with unverified oppo trash being used as evidence in a US court?

I am OK if this is the standard most are judged on. Our entire legal system seems to survive on information from people we would all refuse to associate with. At a minimum, Steele is a trained pro and not a career criminal seeking a couple years off.

Read the court case I mentioned, the type of people that gave the government critical info. In your mind, how is Steele less credible?
 
You are ok with unverified oppo trash being used as evidence in a US court?

Evidence is evidence. What does it matter the source? Especially, as in this case it’s (1) disclosed and (2) but one piece. Plus, Steele is not some common criminal. He’s a trained intelligence officer.

Steele wasn’t biased. He smelled something and acted as an intelligence officer would. Are all cops “biased” because they follow leads and develop theories based on objective evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Simple. He was motivated by extreme personal animus for Trump and paid by the DNC and Clinton, et al for his services.

Did you read the court case mentioned and the biases there? Plus Steele claims he did not know the Democrats were paying. GPS was paid, they paid Steele.
 
Evidence is evidence. What does it matter the source? Especially, as in this case it’s (1) disclosed and (2) but one piece. Plus, Steele is not some common criminal. He’s a trained intelligence officer.

Steele wasn’t biased. He smelled something and acted as an intelligence officer would. Are all cops “biased” because they follow leads and develop theories based on objective evidence?
Steele wasn't a cop. He marketed connections he made as a spy to an opposition research firm. He wrote the dossier with no obligation to be accurate objective or fair, or to verify anything. Plus he HATED Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Steele wasn't a cop. He marketed connections he made as a spy to an opposition research firm. He wrote the dossier with no obligation to be accurate objective or fair, or to verify anything. Plus he HATED Trump.

What’s you source for the hate? Hannity doesn’t count.
 
Did you read the court case mentioned and the biases there? Plus Steele claims he did not know the Democrats were paying. GPS was paid, they paid Steele.
But Steele was being paid by someone from the start to do research on Trump. The informant in your blog was paid after the fact to rat. Not the same.
 
What’s you source for the hate? Hannity doesn’t count.
Here's one:

In one passage, it claims that Steele, after he was “terminated as a source,” maintained contact with Bruce Ohr, who was then associate deputy attorney general.​

“Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at subsequently in official FBI files — but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.” The memo also claims that Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS “to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.” The memo says that Ohr later provided the FBI with the opposition research, but the Ohrs relationship with Steele was “inexplicably concealed” in the FISA application.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
You are ok with unverified oppo trash being used as evidence in a US court?
Hillz, importantly, there is no reason to think any facts taken from Steele were unverified when used. The memo tries to imply that, but it is careful not to claim it outright, and multiple people have said the info was very much verified. Plus, we know from people who have been through this process that the idea of unverified facts making it into a finished FISA application is unlikely, made all the more unlikely by the fact the judge granted the warrant.
 
The informant also had pre existing personal bias.
Was the couple in your case telling the truth? Was their testimony verified, or was it used to verify other evidence? Or was is made up from whole cloth? Who knows? As with the dossier Steele was paid to write. How much is actually true?
 
That's not false information. That's not providing all the information you have. Do you honestly think the judges weren't smart enough to figure out who was funding it? What I find most amusing in this whole mess to deflect by the Trump team is the fact that they are going after Republican judges , Republican appointees, and for the most part Republican FBI agents. The FBI released new information on Hillary 10 days before the election . Media ate her alive for a week. They then said never mind, it's nothing. Her polls dropped like a rock and many experts consider that piece to have changed the outcome of the race. Also at the time, BOTH candidates were under investigation by the FBI, yet we only knew of one. At every single speed, debate, and rally Trump pointed that out and played it for all its worth. And now we are spending all this time and supposed to believe that the FBI was working to BEAT Trump? How anyone can come to that conclusion is beyond me. But of course.....Trump supporters...

You are damn right that is false information. Leaving a false or incomplete impression is not fulfilling the legal duty of providing the basis for the warrant under oath. The FBI deliberately omitted references to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic Party in the material provided to the judge. They knew the facts. A benign "politically motivated" description is so ambiguous it could mean anything. Hell, your woman's group would qualify.

Oh, you don't need to lecture anybody about deflecting given the your post.
You seem a little triggered. Sorry none of the legal scholars appear to agree with you, except the ones I'm certain Fox his dug up.
 
That's not false information. That's not providing all the information you have. Do you honestly think the judges weren't smart enough to figure out who was funding it? What I find most amusing in this whole mess to deflect by the Trump team is the fact that they are going after Republican judges , Republican appointees, and for the most part Republican FBI agents. The FBI released new information on Hillary 10 days before the election . Media ate her alive for a week. They then said never mind, it's nothing. Her polls dropped like a rock and many experts consider that piece to have changed the outcome of the race. Also at the time, BOTH candidates were under investigation by the FBI, yet we only knew of one. At every single speed, debate, and rally Trump pointed that out and played it for all its worth. And now we are spending all this time and supposed to believe that the FBI was working to BEAT Trump? How anyone can come to that conclusion is beyond me. But of course.....Trump supporters...
So the FBI cost Hillary the election? Not Russians on Twitter? Maybe it was Russians bots tweeting about the FBI? Meanwhile, still no evidence against the president of collusion or conspriacy.
There is never a single cause. You sound like Trump saying no evidence over and over. There is plenty of evidence the public knows. Certainly Mueller has even more. Isn't that obvious?
 
how is Steele less credible?
Simple. He was motivated by extreme personal animus for Trump and paid by the DNC and Clinton, et al for his services.
Certainly not. Steele is a reputable investigator. He considered the information he had on Trump very troubling. As most people around the world he knew how devastating having this man in office would be for the US. It's not like he had a personal feud with Trump.
 
Hillz, importantly, there is no reason to think any facts taken from Steele were unverified when used. The memo tries to imply that, but it is careful not to claim it outright, and multiple people have said the info was very much verified. Plus, we know from people who have been through this process that the idea of unverified facts making it into a finished FISA application is unlikely, made all the more unlikely by the fact the judge granted the warrant.
The memo suggests that news sources were used as verification.

Moreover, despite presenting dossier information as probable cause on four separate occasions — for the initial FISA warrant in October 2016, and three times in the ensuing months — the FBI failed to verify the dossier’s explosive allegations and failed to inform the court that its efforts to corroborate the allegations had been ‌unavailing. ‌Indeed, the memo relates that the government once presented a news story to the court as corroboration for Steele’s claims, apparently unaware that Steele himself was the source for the news story.​
 
Certainly not. Steele is a reputable investigator. He considered the information he had on Trump very troubling. As most people around the world he knew how devastating having this man in office would be for the US. It's not like he had a personal feud with Trump.
If he was so troubled, he should gone to the troubled of verifying his stories.
 
Here's one:

In one passage, it claims that Steele, after he was “terminated as a source,” maintained contact with Bruce Ohr, who was then associate deputy attorney general.​

“Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.’ This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at subsequently in official FBI files — but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.” The memo also claims that Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS “to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump.” The memo says that Ohr later provided the FBI with the opposition research, but the Ohrs relationship with Steele was “inexplicably concealed” in the FISA application.​
That's not hate. That's being passionate about knowing how unqualified he was, but mainly how compromised he thought he was.
 
Last edited:
The memo suggests that news sources were used as verification.

Moreover, despite presenting dossier information as probable cause on four separate occasions — for the initial FISA warrant in October 2016, and three times in the ensuing months — the FBI failed to verify the dossier’s explosive allegations and failed to inform the court that its efforts to corroborate the allegations had been ‌unavailing. ‌Indeed, the memo relates that the government once presented a news story to the court as corroboration for Steele’s claims, apparently unaware that Steele himself was the source for the news story.​
Of course it implies that. The purpose of the memo is to fool you into thinking the FBI is corrupt. The truth is there are probably many sources used in the affidavit, perhaps dozens.
 
That's not hate. That's being passionate about knowing how unqualified he was.
Guys, this is irrelevant. The FBI didn't wire tap Trump. They tapped Page. He wasn't even working on the campaign when it happened. This whole "Steele hates Trump" thing is a sideshow. Designed by Nunes to cause you to draw a line from Page to Mueller, even though exactly zero reason or evidence that such a line should be drawn is provided in the memo.
 
Guys, this is irrelevant. The FBI didn't wire tap Trump. They tapped Page. He wasn't even working on the campaign when it happened. This whole "Steele hates Trump" thing is a sideshow. Designed by Nunes to cause you to draw a line from Page to Mueller, even though exactly zero reason or evidence that such a line should be drawn is provided in the memo.
I think you mean it is legally irrelevant? It is strategically relevant in a way analogous to what OJ's attorney's did wrt the search without a warrant that turned up the bloody glove. The method there was to make OJ into a victim of racial bias and, thereby, induce a jury to acquit him. Trump and Nunes are playing the same game of trying to make Trump into the victim of liberal bias and thereby induce conservatives to want to find a reason to let him off. Let's call it strategic polarization. It is Trump's primary strategy card that he plays over and over. It works with juries and it will work with those who identify as conservative making impeachment unlikely...but what will it do to the larger polity? That is not clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Guys, this is irrelevant. The FBI didn't wire tap Trump. They tapped Page. He wasn't even working on the campaign when it happened. This whole "Steele hates Trump" thing is a sideshow. Designed by Nunes to cause you to draw a line from Page to Mueller, even though exactly zero reason or evidence that such a line should be drawn is provided in the memo.

At the moment we have no idea if Mueller has used Page information at all.

Vox seems
to present some of the best news any more. Just linking it since they point out there is no known link between Page and Mueller.
 
Simple. He was motivated by extreme personal animus for Trump and paid by the DNC and Clinton, et al for his services.


I think some of you are confusing Steele's alarm over what his sources revealed about Trump with "extreme personal animus".I'm also willing to bet that as the head of MI-6s "Russia desk" for a decade and his network of Anti-Putin agents,including dissidents,Russian emigres,and civil libertarians Steele likely leaned more to the right,when it comes to politics.He did not know he was working for the DNC,he just knew that another former intelligence agent he had worked with in the past (Simpson) called him in June 2016 and asked him to investigate Trump's business dealings with Putin.In a Nov 2017 interview with Vanity Fair,Steele gave a clue as to what kind of info may be part of his dossier...

"As federal investigators pore over the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, the work of ex-British spook Christopher Steele continues to loom large. At least part of Robert Mueller’s probe has been informed by Steele’s infamous dossier, which alleges substantive ties between Donald Trump and the Russian government. Though Trumpworld has cast doubt on the document’s legitimacy, with former Trump aide Carter Page dubbing it the “dodgy dossier,” Steele has stood by his research and, reportedly, has offered up another tip: zero in on the president’s foreign real-estate deals.

In December of last year, Steele informed Luke Harding, a journalist for the Guardian, that “the contracts for the hotel deals and land deals” between Trump and individuals with the Kremlin ties warrant investigation. “Check their values against the money Trump secured via loans,” the former spy said, according to a conversation detailed in Harding’s new book, Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. “The difference is what’s important.”

According to his book, Steele did not elaborate on this point to Harding, but his implication was clear: it’s possible that Trump was indebted to Russian interests when he descended Trump Tower’s golden escalator to declare his candidacy. After the real-estate mogul suffered a series of bankruptcies related to the 2008 financial crisis, traditional banks became reluctant to loan him money—a reality he has acknowledged in past interviews. As a result, the Trump Organization reportedly became increasingly reliant on foreign investors, notably Russian ones. As Donald Trump Jr. famously said in 2008, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/christopher-steele-robert-mueller-trump-russia-dossier

You do realize that Simpson paid Steele upfront,and that both men shared a mutual investigative background,and a deep concern for what they were hearing about the relationship between Putin and Trump? It was the info his sources turned up that prompted Steele to take his findings to the FBI-he wasn't working for them.He wasn't soliciting the FBI for a job or for funds-Simpson is the one who called him out of the blue and asked him to see what he could dig up on Trump and Russia.

"And so, on a warm day last June, Christopher Steele, ex-Cambridge Union president, ex-M.I.6 Moscow field agent, ex-head of M.I.6’s Russia desk, ex-adviser to British Special Forces on capture-or-kill ops in Afghanistan, and a 52-year-old father with four children, a new wife, three cats, and a sprawling brick-and-wood suburban palace in Surrey, received in his second-floor office at Orbis a transatlantic call from an old client.

It started off as a fairly general inquiry,” Steele would recall in an anonymous interview with Mother Jones, his identity at the time still a carefully guarded secret. But over the next seven incredible months, as the retired spy hunted about in an old adversary’s territory, he found himself following a trail marked by, as he then put it, “hair-raising” concerns. The allegations of financial, cyber, and sexual shenanigans would lead to a chilling destination: the Kremlin had not only, he’d boldly assert in his report, “been cultivating, supporting, and assisting” Donald Trump for years but also had compromised the tycoon “sufficiently to be able to blackmail him.”

And in the aftermath of the publication of these explosive findings—as nothing less than the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was impugned; as congressional hearings and F.B.I. investigations were announced; as a bombastic president-elect continued to let loose with indignant tirades about “fake news”; as internal-security agents of the F.S.B., the main Russian espionage agency, were said to have burst into a meeting of intelligence officers, placed a bag over the head of the deputy director of its cyber-activities, and marched him off; as the body of a politically well-connected former F.S.B. general was reportedly found in his black Lexus—Christopher Steele had gone to ground."

Yet even at the tail end of his peripatetic career at the service, Russia, the battleground of his youth, was still in his blood and on his operational mind: from 2004 to 2009 he headed M.I.6’s Russia Station, the London deskman directing Her Majesty’s covert penetration of Putin’s resurgent motherland.

And so, as Steele threw himself into his new mission, he could count on an army of sources whose loyalty and information he had bought and paid for over the years. There was no safe way he could return to Russia to do the actual digging; the vengeful F.S.B. would be watching him closely. But no doubt he had a working relationship with knowledgeable contacts in London and elsewhere in the West, from angry émigrés to wheeling-and-dealing oligarchs always eager to curry favor with a man with ties to the Secret Service, to political dissidents with well-honed axes to grind. And, perhaps most promising of all, he had access to the networks of well-placed Joes—to use the jargon of his former profession—he’d directed from his desk at London Station, assets who had their eyes and ears on the ground in Russia.

How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

Source E was “an ethnic Russian” and “close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump.”

This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot,” the talkative Source E “admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.” Then this: “The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform.” And finally: “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”

Then there was Source D, “a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow,” and Source F, “a female staffer” at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel, who was co-opted into the network by an Orbis “ethnic Russian operative” working hand in hand with the loquacious Trump insider, Source E.

These two sources told quite a lurid story, the now infamous “golden showers” allegation, which, according to the dossier, was corroborated by others in his alphabet list of assets. It was an evening’s entertainment, Steele, the old Russian hand, must have suspected, that had to have been produced by the ever helpful F.S.B. And since it was typical of Moscow Center’s handwriting to have the suite wired up for sound and video (the hotel’s Web site, with unintentional irony, boasts of its “cutting edge technological amenities”), Steele apparently began to suspect that locked in a Kremlin safe was a hell of a video, as well as photographs.

Steele’s growing file must have left his mind cluttered with new doubts, new suspicions. And now, as he continued his chase, a sense of alarm hovered about the former spy. If Steele’s sources were right, Putin had up his sleeve kompromat—Moscow Center’s gleeful word for compromising material—that would make the Access Hollywood exchange between Trump and Billy Bush seem, as Trump insisted, as banal as “locker-room talk.” Steele could only imagine how and when the Russians might try to use it."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...ssian-dossier-was-compiled-christopher-steele

Imo,the memo tries to create an animus between Steele and Trump on a personal level that didn't exist.Simpson hired Steele to look into Trump/Russia,and what he learned when he did frightened Steele.Not even sure if he knew about Page's history,or if his sources reported on the July 2016 trip by Page to Moscow because of the Steele connection.If you look at Steele's background,MI-6,SAS,battlefield commander in Afghanistan he comes off as more of a Torry than some left wing Brit...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
That reads like a cheap novel. Where's the proof?

I have other questions, like how such an accomplished soldier/spy doesn't know he's been tasked to create opposition research.

Again, interesting theories etc, but unless he has access to the "safe of secret tapes", his speculation is no better than Zekes as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT