Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Steele dossier" in English language version.
In particular, Steele's sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin ... and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. ... Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton ("kompromat") and noted "the possibility of its being released to Candidate #l's campaign." (Note: "Candidate #1" refers to candidate Trump.) This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos.
In subsequent FISA renewals, DOJ provided additional information obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele's reporting.
Worth noting: The report finds that U.S. intelligence agencies did not use information from the infamous Steele dossier to support its findings. The dossier was included in a highly classified annex to the assessment, which was in line with President Obama's directive.
The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals.... the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier.
But Steele was right that Page attended high-level meetings with Russians during his trip, even though Page was denying it at the time.
Asked by CNN's Alisyn Camerota to explain his position, Woodward said, 'I have read those 35 pages, and the quality is not good.'
But five years later, the credibility of the dossier has significantly diminished. A series of investigations and lawsuits have discredited many of its central allegations and exposed the unreliability of Steele's sources.
Steele and his company said they had nothing to do with Buzzfeed's 'unauthorized online publication.'
The defendants 'did not intend the December memorandum or its content to be made public (and) did not provide the December memorandum to BuzzFeed or any other media organization.'
On November 2, 2017, the defendant further stated to the FBI that Steele incorrectly believed the defendant had met in-person with Millian, and that he (the defendant) did not correct Steele in that misimpression. (p. 24)
I've read the dossier. I feel very confident that no material that was produced and delivered to us appears in that dossier. It was all new information to me when I read it. And beyond that, I think the dossier itself makes pretty clear that the information was gathered after the time that we ceased working with Fusion on matters related to Donald Trump, to my recollection. There's markers in the dossier about when meetings happened, and when information was gathered and this kind of thing that post-dates our Trump research. And I personally see zero overlap in the work product. ... In my view, I feel confident in saying that there is no overlap between the work provided to us and the work that appears in that document.Searchable version
There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said. "So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.
some of the dossier's broad implications — particularly that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an operation to boost Trump and sow discord within the U.S. and abroad — now ring true and were embedded in the memo Steele shared with the FBI before the agency decided to open an investigation.
Originally published] on February 18, 2017, by The Australian.
And thus, the pee tape was born.
the exuberance over Durham's indictments of Sussmann and Danchenko, particularly among Trump supporters, was, if not irrational, then exaggerated. ... Durham may well be convinced that the Trump–Russia narrative was a hoax and that the Alfa Bank angle was similarly bogus, ... [but] His indictments, however, make no such claim. Instead, they narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself. It is therefore irrelevant to Durham's prosecutions whether the Trump–Russia narrative was true or false. (italics original)
This information has been described as the starting point that led to an FBI investigation and then the Mueller probe into Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.
[A] real driving force for me in writing the book was taking on the Steele dossier as a case study in how reporters can get manipulated or allow themselves to be manipulated and the havoc that results from that.
The simplicity of the scheme has always been staring us in the face: Donald Trump's 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The report blacked out Mr. Danchenko's name and other identifying information. But within two days, a post on a newly created blog entitled 'I Found the Primary Subsource' identified him, citing clues left visible in the F.B.I. document.
Was the dossier a reliable source of information? No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy. No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false. When the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017, he told the bureau that he thought the tenor of the dossier was more conclusive than was justified; for example, Mr. Danchenko portrayed the blackmail tape story as rumors and speculation that he was not able to confirm. He also said a key source had called him without identifying himself, and that he had guessed at the source's identity.
I've read the dossier. I feel very confident that no material that was produced and delivered to us appears in that dossier. It was all new information to me when I read it. And beyond that, I think the dossier itself makes pretty clear that the information was gathered after the time that we ceased working with Fusion on matters related to Donald Trump, to my recollection. There's markers in the dossier about when meetings happened, and when information was gathered and this kind of thing that post-dates our Trump research. And I personally see zero overlap in the work product. ... In my view, I feel confident in saying that there is no overlap between the work provided to us and the work that appears in that document.Searchable version
The Committee found that the information provided by Christopher Steele to FBI was not used in the body of the ICA or to support any of its analytic judgments. However, a summary of this material was included in Annex A as a compromise to FBI's insistence that the information was responsive to the presidential tasking.
Haha not exactly. Ran into him in the courtyard of our hotel in Rome. He wanted me to meet his wife. Which I did. Very nice. That was it. We've never gone anywhere together.
"Footnote 112" "concluded with additional information from a May 2018 interview".
I'm telling you emphatically that I've not been to Prague, I've never been to Czech [Republic], I've not been to Russia.
We defend BuzzFeed's decision to publish
Gaetz used his allotted time to fire off a number of conspiracy theories, including that the dossier prepared by Christopher Steele was based on Russian disinformation.
Raw intelligence is essentially high-grade gossip, without the expectation it would be made public unless it is further verified.
The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles. ... 'Steele dossier,' a collection of largely unverified reports ... [that] had identified businessman Sergei Millian as "Source D," the unnamed figure who passed on the most salacious allegation in the dossier to its principal author ... Steele.
On Facebook and in literature for his Russian chamber of commerce, he posted a photo of himself with Trump, snapped at a horse track in Miami in 2007 after he said 'mutual associates' introduced them.
Dolan racked up numerous, but not high-profile, roles in Democratic circles. He served as a state chairman for President Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns and remained active within the Democratic Party alongside his public relations work. He advised Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and served as a volunteer for her 2016 campaign, according to the indictment.
However, the report released Dec. 9 by Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, says this about the dossier and Page: 'We determined that prior to and during the pendency of the FISAs, the FBI was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page contained in the election reporting [i.e., dossier] and relied on in the FISA applications.'
That the dossier didn't make it to the team that was investigating interference until this late point means it was impossible that the predicate for the investigation was those reports. What's more, there was clear reason to launch the probe: specifically, the information from the Australians and the various points at which Trump's team was intertwined with Russian interests.
Finally, there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes's claim goes off the rails — and why he earns Four Pinocchios.
Finally, and for the record, I can state categorically that neither Oleg Deripaska, nor any Kremlin proxy, funded our 2016 Trump-Russia investigation; knew of its existence; or provided any of the intelligence included in our reporting.
