Good, but Deripaska missing

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 08:02:09 +0000

In reply to Why the Discredited Dossier

and Olga Galkina is a likely Russian agent or asset who fed Danchenko much of the bogus info like Cohen in Prague, and now she's signed an affidavit for Alfa Bank to help them wreak revenge on anyone who treated Russiagate as the real scandal it was, thanks to the Russian diainfo that crept it several claims, including trying to figure out what the Trump-Alfa-Soectrum DNS spoofing was about (likely a red herring to throw people off the scent of other more nefarious hacking and social media rigging, and to create a flawed narrative easy to tear down - "See!? They got this wrong, so nothing is true."

Sorry, these should be connected. https://t.co/E2Ylxx0lCn
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 1, 2021

And here's my thread on why reading Konstantin Kilimnik's stenographer on the dossier is an exercise in hilarity.https://t.co/d03kSqlOmz
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) December 1, 2021

Why the Discredited Dossier

artappraiser — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 07:45:37 +0000

In reply to Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters

Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation

Donald J. Trump and his backers say revelations about the Steele dossier show the Russia investigation was a “hoax.” That is not what the facts indicate.

By Charlie Savage @ NyTimes.com, Dec. 1, 2021

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump and his allies have stepped up an effort to conflate the so-called Steele dossier with the Russia investigation following the indictment of a researcher for the document on charges that he lied to the F.B.I. about some of its sources.

Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax.”

But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.

What was the Steele dossier?

It was a series of memos about purported Trump-Russia links written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, during the 2016 campaign.

It cited unnamed sources who claimed there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and that Russia had a blackmail tape of Mr. Trump with prostitutes. In addition to giving his memos to his client, Mr. Steele gave some to the F.B.I. and reporters. Buzzfeed published 35 pages in January 2017.

Many things that were not immediately apparent about the dossier have since become clearer. It grew out of a political opposition research effort to dig up information about Mr. Trump funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic Party. Their law firm, Perkins Coie, contracted with a research firm called Fusion GPS, which subcontracted research about Trump business dealings in Russia to Mr. Steele. Mr. Steele in turn hired Igor Danchenko, the recently indicted researcher, to canvass for information from people he knew, including in Europe and Russia.

What was the Russia investigation?

It was a counterintelligence and criminal inquiry into the Russian operation to manipulate the 2016 presidential election by hacking and anonymously dumping Democratic emails and by spreading propaganda using fake accounts on American social media platforms. The scrutiny of Russia’s activities included examining the nature of links between Trump campaign associates and Russians to see if there was any coordination.

The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” He did not charge any Trump associate with a criminal conspiracy.

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. The indictment accuses Mr. Danchenko of lying about that call and of concealing that a Democratic Party-linked public relations executive was his source for a claim about Trump campaign office politics.

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?

No. Mr. Trump and his allies have insinuated that the F.B.I. based the Russia investigation on the dossier. But when counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established that Mr. Steele’s reports reached that counterintelligence team on Sept. 19, 2016.

The basis for the investigation was instead that WikiLeaks had disrupted the Democratic National Convention by releasing Democratic emails believed to have been stolen by Russian hackers, and that an Australian diplomat said a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser had bragged to him about apparent outreach from Russia involving an offer to help the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Mrs. Clinton.

Did the F.B.I. take any investigative step based on the dossier?

Yes. The F.B.I. took the dossier seriously based on Mr. Steele’s reputation, and used some of it — without independent verification — for a narrow purpose that led to a dead end and became a political debacle. It included several claims from Mr. Steele’s memos in applications to wiretap Carter A. Page, a former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser with ties to Russia. In 2019, the Justice Department’s inspector general sharply criticized the F.B.I. for numerous flaws in those wiretap applications.

While the dossier-tainted wiretap of Mr. Page has received significant attention, it was a small part of the overall investigation, which issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communications records, made 13 requests to foreign governments under mutual legal assistance treaties, and interviewed about 500 witnesses. Mr. Page was not charged with a crime, and only a handful of the 448 pages in the Mueller report focus on him.

Did investigators rely on the dossier for their findings?

No. The Mueller report does not present claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues focused on by investigators did not come up in the dossier.

The dossier makes no mention, for example, of a July 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russians and senior campaign officials including Donald Trump Jr., who eagerly accepted the request for a meeting after being told they were bringing dirt on Mrs. Clinton.

Nor does the dossier mention that in August 2016, Konstantin V. Kilimnik — described in the 2019 Mueller report as having “ties to Russian intelligence” and in a partly declassified, bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2020 as a “Russian intelligence officer” with possible ties to Russia’s election interference operations — flew to the United States to meet with Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

Investigators established that the two had discussed whether Mr. Trump, if elected, would bless a peace plan effectively allowing Russia to control eastern Ukraine, and that Mr. Manafort had shared internal polling data and campaign strategy information with Mr. Kilimnik, which the Treasury Department later said he passed on to a Russian spy agency. (The government has not declassified evidence for its escalating accusations about Mr. Kilimnik.)

The Senate report said Mr. Manafort’s “willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services” represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.”

Did Mueller rely on the dossier for any criminal charges?

No. The special counsel investigation led to indictments of 34 people and three companies. Many of those indicted — like Mr. Kilimnik — reside abroad and have not faced trial. Mr. Mueller obtained nine guilty pleas or jury convictions, including half a dozen close Trump associates. None of those indictments cited the dossier as evidence.

The fact that Mr. Mueller did not obtain sufficient evidence to charge Trump associates with conspiracy is subject to disputed interpretations that overlap with the debate over the dossier’s significance. Trump supporters frame the lack of conspiracy charges as proof there was no collusion. By combining this with the false premise that there would not have been any Russia investigation without the Steele dossier, they portray Mr. Trump as a victim of a hoax.

Beyond pointing out that there is a range of cooperation and coordination that falls short of the legal definition of “conspiracy,” Trump skeptics argue that Mr. Mueller never definitively got to the bottom of what happened in part because of Mr. Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation — like dangling a pardon before Mr. Manafort to keep him from cooperating.

What was the main impact of the dossier?

Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.

Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

Charlie Savage is a Washington-based national security and legal policy correspondent. A recipient of the Pulitzer Prize, he previously worked at The Boston Globe and The Miami Herald. His most recent book is “Power Wars: The Relentless Rise of Presidential Authority and Secrecy.” @charlie_savage • Facebook

Was the Steele dossier a kind

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 27 Nov 2021 01:27:38 +0000

In reply to Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters

Was the Steele dossier a kind of cover to discredit any investigation on Manafort? Because they know they’d be investigated so they throw some nonsense in there

Although Trump still asked Comey about the pee tapes.
— Mulling Mueller (@MullingMueller) November 26, 2021

And, again, SOMEONE had paid Steele to investigate Manafort before the Dems did. Most likely someone is Deripaska's lawyers, which would have made it easy to target Steele's sources.
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) November 26, 2021

Durham's last perjury BS

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Nov 2021 08:39:37 +0000

In reply to Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters

Durham's last perjury BS

(why would he trust a special investigator appointed by Trump anyway?)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/durham-indictment-of-trumps-russ...

Mate sucks Putin dick again

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 25 Nov 2021 06:32:41 +0000

In reply to Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters

Mate sucks Putin dick again

Let's return to "if we can find 1 glaring mistake in the Dossier, we can make all of Russiagate (far from just the Dossier) go away".

Olga Galkina fed Danchenko the "Cohen in Prague" lie and others - so why is Durham going after Danchenko and not Galkina?

Double feature:

To say nothing of accounting for what it might mean that the dossier became a part of the election operation.https://t.co/2mjXMWKv1D
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) November 24, 2021

dagblog - Comments for "Five Trump-Russia 'Collusion' Corrections We Need From the Media Now -- Just for Starters"

Good, but Deripaska missing

Why the Discredited Dossier

Was the Steele dossier a kind

Durham's last perjury BS

Mate sucks Putin dick again