• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Reuters: Steele Dossier 'sufficiently credible' from IG Investigators.

Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Well Shit. Looks like the IG report isn't coming anytime soon.

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.


 
  • LOL
Reactions: Arkage

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,534
1,046
445
deaftourette.com
Well Shit. Looks like the IG report isn't coming anytime soon.

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.


How? I never gave much credence to the Pee tape thing outside of being fodder for jokes by comedians ... But WOW!
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,534
1,046
445
deaftourette.com
Sounds to me like an IG playin politics over objectivity. Can’t fire them all.
How is it playing politics when it says Horowitz's investigation was prompt by Republican allegations?

"Inspector General Michael Horowitz, whose office is an internal Justice Department watchdog, launched his probe in March 2018 amid allegations by Republican lawmakers that the FBI erred in seeking a warrant to monitor Page."
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,671
5,769
880
The headline is a bit misleading no?

Nothing in the article says the dossier is credible, just that they want to extend the investigation after speaking to Steele. He could of told them Obama ordered the investigation for all we know.

Also on Hannity they said that people are stepping forward and thats why the investigation is being extended.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,411
3,465
1,400
From the article whatever information they received from Steele they deemed credible to extend the investigation. We do not know what that information is. It is not mentioned that this is the dossier.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
They wanted to extend the investigation after speaking to Steele. The article didn't make any claims about the credibility of his dossier.

A key focus of the Horowitz probe is whether the FBI followed proper procedures when it applied for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to secretly conduct surveillance on Page and his ties to Russia.
Declassified documents show that the FBI cited information in Steele’s dossier when it asked the secretive FISA court in late 2016 for a warrant to eavesdrop electronically on Page, a U.S. businessman with interests in Russia.

So they're saying that -- in their efforts to determine whether the FBI followed proper procedures when it applied for a FISA -- Steele's information is sufficiently credible to warrant an extension of this investigation.

In other words, they are investigating the FBI's behavior more closely.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
So they're saying that -- in their efforts to determine whether the FBI followed proper procedures when it applied for a FISA -- Steele's information is sufficiently credible to warrant an extension of this investigation.
So it doesn't strike you as odd that the Steele dossier is full of lies, but the information he gave the FBI was deemed as credible? I get that you *want* the dossier to be bunk, as do I, but if it were that cut and dry the IG would be out by now.

What credible information could Steele give them about the dossier at this point?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,671
5,769
880
No, I don't think it is misleading at all. According to one of Reuters sources, there is sufficient evidence to deem the report credible.
LTTP since already a bunch of replies but

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.

Nothing about the Dossier. Since the article is about the interviews with Stelle, wouldnt the information from STeele be what he said in those interviews? I don't see the Dossier mentioned anywhere in the article.

Remember Steele already gave an interrogatory in Britain. So unless he wants to perjure himself he can't say anything different.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
So it doesn't strike you as odd that the Steele dossier is full of lies, but the information he gave the FBI was deemed as credible? I get that you *want* the dossier to be bunk, as do I, but if it were that cut and dry the IG would be out by now.

What credible information could Steele give them about the dossier at this point?
You are making the assumption that they discussed the dossier at all. You are also making the assumption that I *want* the dossier to be bunk. You are also making the assumption that the IG report would be out by now if the dossier was fake. Lots of assumptions.

As I already said, this investigation is about how the FBI handled the FISA application. It says it right there in your article. Pertaining to that investigation, Steele's information seems sufficiently credibly to extend the investigation and look deeper into how the FISA application was handled.

I imagine they asked him how he became involved, who contacted him, how he handled the creation of the dossier, and so forth. He must've told them some new details that prompted them to dig deeper or else -- like you said -- the IG report would be out by now if they uncovered nothing new.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
5,671
5,769
880
Fair enough. What kind of credible information was it that would extend the investigation? I mean, if the dossier is bunk, and Steele knew this, what would delay Horowitz' report? It doesn't add up.
Horowitz is investigating the FISA abuse and start of the investigation, he isn't investigating the Steele Dossier. So after they interviewed Steele they want to talk to him more.

I would think he probably provided some more information on how his Dossier was passed around threw various intelligence orgs like a cheap hooker, or how it was paid for by the DNC, or how Bruce Ohr warned everyone it was bunk, or how he wanted to get the dossier out before the election, or how Kathleen Kavalac warned the FBI and State it was garbage.

For all we know Steele spilled the beans and squealed on Comey/McCabe/Brenan/Fusion/Biden/HRC/Obama.

Everyone knows the Dossier is bunk, even Comey said it was salacious and unverifiable. NY Times said it was probably Russian disinformation. Even Steele himself in his interogatory said it was unverifiable and 50/50.
 

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
374
513
280
With Trump's amazing luck, the hooker pee tape will be so hot (artistic even) that it just boosts his approval ratings when it's released.
 
Last edited:

DKehoe

Gold Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,008
706
1,235
Fuck, I wish we could all just move on from this stuff. It will never end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
6,411
3,465
1,400
Where does it say the information from the interview? You just said in your previous post that we didn't know what the information was.
It’s right in the (real) article headline. The information gathered from talking to Steele is what the article references, not the dossier itself. No one has said the dossier is credible yet.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,329
2,650
375
Sounds like a last leg excuse/desperation attempt "just pretend it was all ok maybe we make it lolol"
Everyone including foreign agents, media and politicians warned the FBI that its a piece of shit lie manifesto and the literal info in there got disproven the first day with staff members that are supposed to be in russia but never have been among other lies. Hell mueller not finding shit as well as two other investigations not finding shit to this democrat funded smear tells the story.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Another source. Makes it sound as if they are referring to the dossier. These are bad optics for Trump.

The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

But the extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.


 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Arkage
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
The information gathered from talking to Steele is what the article references, not the dossier itself. No one has said the dossier is credible yet.
Well, that's not exactly true at all. James Comey has come out and said the dossier is credible. As it stands, we have two different viewpoints regarding the veracity. And finding the man behind the dossier credible doesn't bode well for its detractors.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Another source. Makes it sound as if they are referring to the dossier. These are bad optics for Trump.

But the extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

No, it's bad optics for you to keep attempting to salvage your misleading headline.

From your new article:

The interview is part of an ongoing investigation that the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has been conducting for the past year. Specifically, Horowitz has been examining the FBI’s efforts to surveil a one-time Trump campaign adviser based in part on information from Steele, an ex-British MI6 agent who had worked with the bureau as a confidential source since 2010.
The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

Yet again, nothing about the dossier, merely that Steele was sufficiently credible as a source for the FBI, a role he served since 2010.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Yet again, nothing about the dossier
The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

They questioned him about the dossier. That's what this is referring to. Stop being such a dickhead and read something. JFC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arkage

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
The extensive, two-day interview took place in London while Trump was in Britain for a state visit, the sources said, and delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. The FBI’s decision to seek a surveillance warrant against Page — a warrant they applied for and obtained after Page had already left the campaign — is the chief focus of the probe by Horowitz.

They questioned him about the dossier. That's what this is referring to. Stop being such a dickhead and read something. JFC.
Stop getting emotional and conspiratorial when you're called out on shitty takes. You're unhinged.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Nobody is emotional. This is what the article says. You simply cannot articulate a coherent argument without name calling. You're just like a liberal.
The article doesn't state the dossier was credible, only that Steele's testimony at the two-day interview was. Quote:

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising.

The rest of the Politico article is assumptions based on the Reuters article you already posted.

I'll just cut this short before this spins out of control: do you believe the Steele dossier is credible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,052
1,745
1,490
There is nothing to be made of this Yet as all it seems to imply is that A former spy has some credible intelligence.

That's not shocking, its expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
There is nothing to be made of this Yet as all it seems to imply is that A former spy has some credible intelligence.
True. What surprised me is how this supposedly threw off or surprised the IG inspectors. I mean, we all seem to have this thing figured out. Not sure why the IG doesn't.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,375
4,258
1,265
True. What surprised me is how this supposedly threw off or surprised the IG inspectors. I mean, we all seem to have this thing figured out. Not sure why the IG doesn't.
All that Steele being credible with regards to their investigation means is that he is corroborating what other sources are also telling them. They probably assumed he would lie because he is a foreign spook and would never be extradited.

If anything, this is good news for Trump because it means that they found reason to extend an investigation built on the assumption of FBI malfeasance, and Steele corroborated extant evidence.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
All that Steele being credible with regards to their investigation means is that he is corroborating what other sources are also telling them.
Perhaps that is what it means. But the Politico article details how they quizzed him on his collection methods and subsequent findings. It's hard to believe that doesn't include any dossier details.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
4,375
4,258
1,265
Perhaps that is what it means. But the Politico article details how they quizzed him on his collection methods and subsequent findings. It's hard to believe that doesn't include any dossier details.
Which details though? Mueller debunked the piss tape nonsense in his report.
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Which details though? Mueller debunked the piss tape nonsense in his report.
That's the mystery at this point. But if Steele was found to use credible methods of gathering intelligence, doesn't that poke a hole in the notion that Democrats knew this was a tainted dossier? Pure speculation on my part. But like I said, the IG inspectors being thrown off seems a bit odd at this time.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
That's the mystery at this point. But if Steele was found to use credible methods of gathering intelligence, doesn't that poke a hole in the notion that Democrats knew this was a tainted dossier? Pure speculation on my part. But like I said, the IG inspectors being thrown off seems a bit odd at this time.
Steele's reputation was built up prior to the dossier being paid for by the DNC. His credibility has no bearing on whether the Democrats did or didn't know it was a "tainted dossier".

Though, depending on your definition of "tainted", the fact that a political party paid for it means it was tainted from the start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Though, depending on your definition of "tainted", the fact that a political party paid for it means it was tainted from the start.
Not in a legal sense.

While Steele was indeed a foreign citizen when he compiled, a 2018 report from the then-Republican led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence appeared to clarify that hiring Steele or other non-citizens to do opposition research was within the bounds of existing law.

"Under current federal election law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with any campaign in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition research on a U.S. campaign, so long as the service was paid for at the market rate," reads the report.


 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Not in a legal sense.

While Steele was indeed a foreign citizen when he compiled, a 2018 report from the then-Republican led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence appeared to clarify that hiring Steele or other non-citizens to do opposition research was within the bounds of existing law.

"Under current federal election law, foreigners are prohibited from making contributions or donations in connection with any campaign in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for services, including conducting opposition research on a U.S. campaign, so long as the service was paid for at the market rate," reads the report.


The legality of hiring him is not what I was talking about.

It is the motivations behind the hiring that I am calling attention to. Again, it depends on your definition of "tainted", but it was your assertion in the first place, not mine.

Steele's credibility has nothing to do with whether the Democrats did or didn't know if the dossier was tainted. That would have to be determined by additional facts. Namely, we'd have to find evidence that the Democrats knew (or didn't know) that the information contained in the dossier was false.

They did pay for it, though, so there is a conflict of interests that would discourage them from disavowing their own oppositional research. Hence, my comment about it being considered tainted from the start (depending on one's definition of "tainted").
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
They did pay for it, though, so there is a conflict of interests that would discourage them from disavowing their own oppositional research. Hence, my comment about it being considered tainted from the start (depending on one's definition of "tainted").
That's faulty logic. How do you get oppositional research (which is entirely legal) and not pay for it? Because they wouldn't disavow it? What?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
And from what we know, James Comey has said the dossier was gathered in a credible way. He was the FBI director at the time. If you know that he lied, and everybody on here knows he lied, why doesn't the IG?
That's faulty logic. How do you get oppositional research (which is entirely legal) and not pay for it? Because they wouldn't disavow it? What?
Perhaps they extended the investigation to answer these specific questions.

You were the one who claimed Steele's credibility pokes a hole in the accusation that Democrats knew it was tainted.

You have not backed up that assertion or explained further.

I have pointed out that Steele's credibility doesn't determine whether the Democrat's had knowledge of the dossier veracity. However, I am also pointing out that since they paid for it, they are more likely to believe it. Y'know... since they paid for it.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Speculation:
noun
  1. 1.
    the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
If you're trying to convince me that I shouldn't take your posts seriously, this is a good way to do it. I assume you have a reason for said speculation? Or are you just throwing things at the wall and then attacking people when they call you out on it like usual?

Then let's extrapolate this further. Was the FBI out of line to use the dossier if Steele's methods were credible?
That would depend on several factors:

- did the payment source of the dossier factor into their determination to use it when applying to the FISA court?
- did the FBI corroborate the evidence in the dossier, in light of its source?
- did the FBI have evidence that Steele's credible methods were also followed in this case?

That is, after all, the point of this investigation, according to your first article:

A key focus of the Horowitz probe is whether the FBI followed proper procedures when it applied for a warrant with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to secretly conduct surveillance on Page and his ties to Russia.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
I assume you have a reason for said speculation?
As I posted before, the Politico article details that reason. According to them, the IG Investigators found Steee's interview to be credible. I and others have speculated on what that means. It's not that hard to comprehend, but you're making it.

- did the payment source of the dossier factor into their determination to use it when applying to the FISA court?
It was noted that it was opposition research on page 1.

In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias. Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments — which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS — is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.


- did the FBI have evidence that Steele's credible methods were also followed in this case?
As you noted, Steele's reputation was fairly well known in the FBI. Using the dossier is a sure sign of having trust in his work.

Steele, an ex-MI6 agent, is said to have specialised in Russia and counterintelligence.

Described as having a "good reputation" within the intelligence community, the former MI6 spy was stationed in Moscow in the early 1990s to provide covert surveillance of the crumbling Soviet government.



- did the FBI corroborate the evidence in the dossier, in light of its source?
The FBI doesn't have to corroborate the evidence. There is a major disconnect here with a lot of Trump supporters. Myself included.

McCarthy claims that the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, its source of information, but rather was required to test the credibility of, and reliance on, each sub-source who gave information to Steele. But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications. Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Arkage

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
As I posted before, the Politico article details that reason. According to them, the IG Investigators found Steee's interview to be credible. I and others have speculated on what that means. It's not that hard to comprehend, but you're making it.



It was noted that it was opposition research on page 1.

In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias. Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments — which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS — is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias. Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.


As you noted, Steele's reputation was fairly well known in the FBI. Using the dossier is a sure sign of having trust in his work.

Steele, an ex-MI6 agent, is said to have specialised in Russia and counterintelligence.

Described as having a "good reputation" within the intelligence community, the former MI6 spy was stationed in Moscow in the early 1990s to provide covert surveillance of the crumbling Soviet government.



The FBI doesn't have to corroborate the evidence. There is a major disconnect here with a lot of Trump supporters. Myself included.

McCarthy claims that the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, its source of information, but rather was required to test the credibility of, and reliance on, each sub-source who gave information to Steele. But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications. Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required.
Your speculation -- and the title of this thread -- includes the claim that the dossier is "sufficiently credible" even though neither article made that assertion, so it's a fair question to ask.

Comey was removed from office, so I speculate that they knew the dossier was phony and proceeded anyway. 🤷‍♀️
 
Jun 26, 2018
1,799
1,179
380
42
Milwaukee, WI
Comey was removed from office, so I speculate that they knew the dossier was phony and proceeded anyway.
That's what I wanted to believe, too. But when you look at the facts, it's pretty clear the FBI acknowledged it was oppo research, they used Steele as an asset in the past and it appears they didn't have to corroborate but rather assure the evidence presented aligned with the charges.

So if they did all of this, how would they know it was phony?

If you still have confidence the IG report is going to set the record straight on all this god bless you. But seeing how our government and media are complicit, I'm very much less confident today.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,924
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
That's what I wanted to believe, too. But when you look at the facts, it's pretty clear the FBI acknowledged it was oppo research, they used Steele as an asset in the past and it appears they didn't have to corroborate but rather assure the evidence presented aligned with the charges.

So if they did all of this, how would they know it was phony?

If you still have confidence the IG report is going to set the record straight on all this god bless you. But seeing how our government and media are complicit, I'm very much less confident today.
I'm not confident in our lettered agencies or our complicit media at all, including the upcoming IG report.

That's why I don't have confidence they accepted the dossier naively and without knowledge of its conflicts of interests. That's why I don't have confidence in the assertions drawn in the article you linked from Politico. But hopefully we will be able to see the evidence for ourselves from this probe in the upcoming weeks/months.

Also:



(unrelated case, but this adds to the notion that the dossier was knowingly accepted due to the political biases of the individuals involved)