>Several months after Steele signed the deal, he learned that, through this chain, his research was being jointly subsidized by the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. In all, Steele was paid a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars for his work.
>nonpartisan Fact Checker blog at the Washington Post, awarded Nunes’s statement four Pinocchios—his rating for an outright lie. “There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele,” Kessler wrote.
There’s absolutely nothing illegal about paying for oppo research, and there doesn’t look to be anything illegal about the research itself, so I’m not sure what you’re suggesting.
I have yet to read this, although I caught the second half of NPR's "Fresh Air" interview with the author, this morning. (And I definitely intend to listen to the whole thing, and to read this.)
However, from months' worth of reporting from other sources, I gather that Steele and co.'s opposition research was initially contracted by Republican interests competing against Trump in in the primaries.
And I gather, from what I already knew and what I heard further about this in the portion of the Fresh Air interview that I did hear, that Steel's information and resulting concern about Trump, went back several years. Long before Trump became a presidential candidate.
So far, as far as the reporting I've been following, we've yet to encounter anything in the so-called Steele dossier, that's been disproved.
Given all the political opposition to Steele (I name it political, because it does appear to be entirely partisan-based opposition to him, regardless of the legitimate concerns he's raised). Given that, it's a bit remarkable that this dossier has not yet been disproved in any significant aspect. You have to think there are a lot of resources being devoted to doing so.
P.S. I just looked up the URL for that "Fresh Air" show.
But I also think that Trump and the Republicans who've lined up behind him -- and their... "patrons" -- would pay dearly for any and all evidence and publicity that would tarnish if not destroy Steele.
There's been a lot of rhetoric, but I've yet to see an actual fact that contradicts him. And there's more to the dossier than "killer whales" or, as it were, the so-called "golden shower". (And that golden shower, and how it got included, is actually addressed in the interview I mentioned.)
And as the article's author also points out -- this may be in a New Yorker podcast that I heard part of while cooking dinner -- the dossier represents primary intelligence, not a corroborated, final intelligence report. (Or perhaps in that, she was speaking more of a recent memo he wrote, simply describing -- and being clear about the nature of this -- the word going around Russian intelligence and bureaucracy, that Mitt Romney's selection for Secretary of State was scuttled by Russian opposition. I'll have to recheck.)
Even so, I have not yet heard of a major statement in it that's been dis-proven.
Now, I'm "just a guy who follows the news". But, this has become increasingly significant to me, as the months roll by.
one of the issues with the info about Steele that has come out is if he had been'employed'or rendered services to the FBI while also doing the same with MI5 then some rather serious laws were broken.
I'm sure with today's state of the rule of law it'll easily be swept aside.
14 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 38.3 ms ] thread>nonpartisan Fact Checker blog at the Washington Post, awarded Nunes’s statement four Pinocchios—his rating for an outright lie. “There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele,” Kessler wrote.
2 + 2 = 5, apparently.
Clinton campaign paid for the report but wasn't involved in it's production. Pretty standard for opposition research.
However, from months' worth of reporting from other sources, I gather that Steele and co.'s opposition research was initially contracted by Republican interests competing against Trump in in the primaries.
And I gather, from what I already knew and what I heard further about this in the portion of the Fresh Air interview that I did hear, that Steel's information and resulting concern about Trump, went back several years. Long before Trump became a presidential candidate.
So far, as far as the reporting I've been following, we've yet to encounter anything in the so-called Steele dossier, that's been disproved.
Given all the political opposition to Steele (I name it political, because it does appear to be entirely partisan-based opposition to him, regardless of the legitimate concerns he's raised). Given that, it's a bit remarkable that this dossier has not yet been disproved in any significant aspect. You have to think there are a lot of resources being devoted to doing so.
P.S. I just looked up the URL for that "Fresh Air" show.
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/591130207/journalist-charts-t...
I have a tape of politician X performing unspeakable acts with a killer whale. Can you disprove my claim?
But I also think that Trump and the Republicans who've lined up behind him -- and their... "patrons" -- would pay dearly for any and all evidence and publicity that would tarnish if not destroy Steele.
There's been a lot of rhetoric, but I've yet to see an actual fact that contradicts him. And there's more to the dossier than "killer whales" or, as it were, the so-called "golden shower". (And that golden shower, and how it got included, is actually addressed in the interview I mentioned.)
And as the article's author also points out -- this may be in a New Yorker podcast that I heard part of while cooking dinner -- the dossier represents primary intelligence, not a corroborated, final intelligence report. (Or perhaps in that, she was speaking more of a recent memo he wrote, simply describing -- and being clear about the nature of this -- the word going around Russian intelligence and bureaucracy, that Mitt Romney's selection for Secretary of State was scuttled by Russian opposition. I'll have to recheck.)
Even so, I have not yet heard of a major statement in it that's been dis-proven.
Now, I'm "just a guy who follows the news". But, this has become increasingly significant to me, as the months roll by.
> he kept his phones in a Faraday bag—a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block signal detection.
I guess he doesn't keep them in the bag all the time.
I'm sure with today's state of the rule of law it'll easily be swept aside.
Literally no one in Congress or anywhere else has been able to find a single thing wrong with it.
There's some terrifying stuff in there including a mysterious 20 percent share in a Russian oil company. The pee tapes. Etc etc.
Really hoping Mueller brings alot of this to light.