The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23393]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, I'll play, but you need to be clear.  Are you referring to

"Predicated Investigations"

 

and

 

"Statutory Requirements'?

Yes. And more specifically the subsection under III.A labeled “probable cause”. 

[David Dennison 18651]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. And more specifically the subsection under III.A labeled “probable cause”. 

Who decides whether there is sufficient probable cause?

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes. And more specifically the subsection under III.A labeled “probable cause”. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm quite sure you'll continue to be vague and beat off to what is surely just more trolling on your part.

Why don't you actually lay out your exact reasons for believing that there was not probable cause for the surveillance on Page?  I mean, if you have any you can articulate?  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

So while Anastasis is gaslighting y'all, Trump is being impeached over completely different crimes. 

You see the thing about mobsters like Trump is that they commit 100s of crimes.  So even if we, wrongfully, throw away the Russia investigation as fruit of the poisonous tree for Anastasis, we can still impeach Trump.

It should be telling to you that Anastasis never discusses Trump's other crimes or overall incompetence. He also never discusses the fact that Russia interfered in our elections. One has to assume that he supports both Trump and Russia's goals.  He is trying to operate in a small niche so he can be a huge fan of Trump without ever actually admitting it. 

That being said, the investigation was justified under current law.  We do need to reel this shit in though. Anastasis isn't really interested in doing so, however, because he votes for people that implemented all of it because they want to be able to go after brown people. 

You know, watching Sensebrenner attack his own law, the Patriot Act, yesterday was funny. I kept waiting for him to say "it was never intended for white people!  This injustice will not stand!"

[Anastasis 23393]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who decides whether there is sufficient probable cause?

Hopefully people who are not being present with 17 errors, omissions and misstatements by the fbi. 
 

come on guys. Are there not at least a few reasonable posters willing to engage this topic. I mean, there was a pretty broad base involved when it came to shouting down people pointing out that the Steele dossier was garbage and the probable cause was suspect. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23393]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm quite sure you'll continue to be vague and beat off to what is surely just more trolling on your part.

Why don't you actually lay out your exact reasons for believing that there was not probable cause for the surveillance on Page?  I mean, if you have any you can articulate?  

There is nothing vague. I have referred you to the specific sections that draw the distinctions I have been highlighting.  Don’t worry. I’ll give you a detailed long cat on probable cause when I can quote off pdf efficiently. 

[David Dennison 18651]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Hopefully people who are not being present with 17 errors, omissions and misstatements by the fbi. 
 

come on guys. Are there not at least a few reasonable posters willing to engage this topic. I mean, there is as a pretty broad base involved when it came to shouting down people pointing out that the Steele dossier was garbage and the probable cause was suspect. 

Did the IG say the warrant shouldn't have been issued?

[Anastasis 23393]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

So while Anastasis is gaslighting y'all, Trump is being impeached over completely different crimes. 

You see the thing about mobsters like Trump is that they commit 100s of crimes.  So even if we, wrongfully, throw away the Russia investigation as fruit of the poisonous tree for Anastasis, we can still impeach Trump.

It should be telling to you that Anastasis never discusses Trump's other crimes or overall incompetence. He also never discusses the fact that Russia interfered in our elections. One has to assume that he supports both Trump and Russia's goals.  He is trying to operate in a small niche so he can be a huge fan of Trump without ever actually admitting it. 

That being said, the investigation was justified under current law.  We do need to reel this shit in though. Anastasis isn't really interested in doing so, however, because he votes for people that implemented all of it because they want to be able to go after brown people. 

You know, watching Sensebrenner attack his own law, the Patriot Act, yesterday was funny. I kept waiting for him to say "it was never intended for white people!  This injustice will not stand!"

Hard to be more completely intellectually dishonest than you just pulled off. 

[Anastasis 23393]

I seriously expected a little more posting integrity out of this crew. Not sure why. 

[David Dennison 18651]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I seriously expected a little more posting integrity out of this crew. Not sure why. 

What did the IG say about whether the warrant on Carter Page was appropriate?

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Hard to be more completely intellectually dishonest than you just pulled off. 

Not really man. You are practically nowhere to be found on Trump in general. You've also narrowed this thing down so you never have to pick a side on election interference. 

So do you like Russia fucking around in our elections or not?

[jimmyjazz 45546]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

come on guys. Are there not at least a few reasonable posters willing to engage this topic.

Oh, fuck you.  Seriously.  What a bitch you are.

[Brisketexan 104557]

I seriously expected a little more posting integrity out of this crew. Not sure why. 

When you stand in the middle of the street yelling about low priority stuff, you don’t much respect. Shocker.

We have an admin that does what you’re supposedly so worried about, but they do it in violation of the law and will face no consequences because their criminal organization controls the only body that could hold them accountable. And that merits effectively zero concern from you.

So you’ll understand why sane people think you’re making an ass of yourself. Wait...you won’t understand that at all. Zero self awareness.

[Anastasis 23393]

3 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not really man. You are practically nowhere to be found on Trump in general. You've also narrowed this thing down so you never have to pick a side on election interference. 

So do you like Russia fucking around in our elections or not?

I’ve stated my belief that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki, impeached based on volume II of mueller report, and impeached based on Ukraine situation. I have opined on Russian election interference in this thread ad nauseum, and suggested steps to be taken moving forward, both internally facing and externally. Seriously. You guys are putting on a pathetic showing. 

[David Dennison 18651]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I’ve stated my belief that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki, impeached based on volume II of mueller report, and impeached based on Ukraine situation. I have opined on Russian election interference in this thread ad nauseum, and suggested steps to be taken moving forward, both internally facing and externally. Seriously. You guys are putting on a pathetic showing. 

So, the IG must have said the judge should have rejected the warrant application for Carter Page, right?

[jimmyjazz 45546]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I’ve stated my belief that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki, impeached based on volume II of mueller report, and impeached based on Ukraine situation. I have opined on Russian election interference in this thread ad nauseum, and suggested steps to be taken moving forward, both internally facing and externally. Seriously. You guys are putting on a pathetic showing. 

Nah.  It's mostly just that any serious post you make gets lost in dozens of posts full of nothing but vague, pedantic bullshit.  That's on you.

[Brisketexan 104557]

Nah.  It's mostly just that any serious post you make gets lost in dozens of posts full of nothing but vague, pedantic bullshit.  That's on you.

If you take away vague, pedantic bullshit, Anastasis would turn to dust.

[Anastasis 23393]

It’s only vague and pedantic to people who have not read the report. 

[Brisketexan 104557]

It’s only vague and pedantic to people who have not read the report. 

And to people who see that your priorities are insanely out of whack. Don’t forget those people. So, like, most people.

[Anastasis 23393]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And to people who see that your priorities are insanely out of whack. Don’t forget those people. So, like, most people.

If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts, if the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Good thing the law and the facts are on our side.

[Anastasis 23393]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good thing the law and the facts are on our side.

Not in this case of the use of uncorroborated political opposition research collected by a foreign intelligence operative by the FBI to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against an American citizen. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Well, no.  Horowitz' findings are not consistent with other statements about the "essentiality" of the Steele dossier in securing the surveillance warrant on Page, but regardless, that dossier was not promoted as corroborated, and therefore it was already viewed with a jaundiced eye by the FISA court.

[Anastasis 23393]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, no.  Horowitz' findings are not consistent with other statements about the "essentiality" of the Steele dossier in securing the surveillance warrant on Page, but regardless, that dossier was not promoted as corroborated, and therefore it was already viewed with a jaundiced eye by the FISA court.

 

Go ahead and click. "Central and essential role in the decision to seek a FISA order".

We can come back and discuss the veracity of the Steele reporting and how it related to meeting the probable cause standard in more detail tomorrow. In that context we will discuss further corroboration, Steele's methods, and how it was presented to the FISA court. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23393]

First though, let's take the babiest of steps. Establishing a common understanding of the distinction between the standards required related to predication of an investigation versus the establishment of probable cause for FISA surveillance.

 

A. Predicated Investigations

Where the FBI has an authorized purpose and factual predication-that is, allegations, reports, facts or circumstances indicative of possible criminal activity or a national security threat, or the potential for acquiring information responsive to foreign intelligence requirements-it may initiate an investigation. The predication requirement is not a legal requirement but rather a prudential one imposed by Department and FBI policy. 41 Predicated investigations that concern federal crimes or threats to the national security are divided into Preliminary Investigations and Full Investigations. 42 Preliminary Investigations may be opened on the basis of any "allegation or information" indicative of possible criminal activity or threats to the national security. Authorized investigative methods in Preliminary Investigations include all lawful methods (to include CHS and UCE operations) except mail opening, search warrants, electronic surveillance requiring a judicial order or warrant (Title III or FISA), or requests under Title VII of FISA. A Preliminary Investigation may also be converted to a Full Investigation if the available information provides predication for a Full Investigation.43 As described in more detail in Chapter Three, both Crossfire Hurricane and an earlier counterintelligence investigation on Carter Page were initiated as Full Investigations, and thus we focus on the requirements for this level of predicated investigation.44

Under Section 11.B.3 of the AG Guidelines and Section 7 of the DIOG, the FBI may open a Full Investigation if there is an "articulable factual basis" that reasonably indicates one of the following circumstances exists: • An activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity; • An individual, group, organization, entity, information, property, or activity is or may be a target of attack, victimization, acquisition, infiltration, or recruitment in connection with criminal activity in violation of federal law or a threat to the national security and the investigation may obtain information that would help to protect against such activity or threat; or • The investigation may obtain foreign intelligence that is responsive to a requirement that the FBI collect positive foreign intelligence-i.e., information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations or foreign persons, or international terrorists. The DIOG provides examples of information that is sufficient to initiate a Full Investigation, including corroborated information from an intelligence agency stating that an individual is a member of a terrorist group, or a threat to a specific individual or group made on a blog combined with additional information connecting the blogger to a known terrorist group. 45

A Full Investigation may be opened if there is an "articulable factual basis" of possible criminal or national threat activity. When opening a Full Investigation, an FBI employee must certify that an authorized purpose and adequate predication exist; that the investigation is not based solely on the exercise of First Amendment rights or certain characteristics of the subject, such as race, religion, national origin, or ethnicity; and that the investigation is an appropriate use of personnel and financial resources. The factual predication must be documented in an electronic communication (EC) or other form, and the case initiation must be approved by the relevant FBI personnel, which, in most instances, can be a Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) in a field office or at Headquarters. As described in more detail below, if an investigation is designated as a Sensitive Investigative Matter, that designation must appear in the caption or heading of the opening EC, and special approval requirements apply.

All lawful investigative methods may be used in a Full Investigation, including electronic surveillance and physical searches under FISA. 46 However, as described above, the FBI must consider the least intrusive means or method to accomplish the operational objectives of the investigation.

 

Now, probable cause standard.

 

 

Probable Cause

The electronic surveillance and physical search provisions of FISA require the FISC to make a probable cause finding based on information submitted by the government. Specifically, the FISC must find probable cause to believe that: (1) the target of the electronic surveillance and physical searches is a foreign power or, as described in more detail below, the agent of a foreign power; (2) for electronic surveillance, that each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is being directed is being used, or is about to be used, by the foreign power or agent of a foreign power; and (3) for physical searches, that each of the premises or property to be searched is or is about to be owned, used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from the foreign power or agent of a foreign power. In determining whether probable cause exists, a judge may consider the target's past activities, as well as the facts and circumstances relating to his current or future activities. 120 Where the FISC authorizes the electronic surveillance or physical search of a U.S. person, the Attorney General may authorize, for the effective period of the FISC's order, the targeting of the U.S. person for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information while such person is reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. 121

According to FISA guidance issued by OGC, probable cause means the following: "[P]robable cause" is reason to believe, based on the available facts and circumstances, as well as the logical inferences that can be drawn from them. It is determined by the totality of the facts and circumstances, as viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. Probable cause [means] probability, not certainty, and, thus, is significantly lower than the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" necessary to support a criminal conviction. It is also lower than the "preponderance of the evidence" required in most civil cases. The FISA guidance also states: [OGC] recommends that a field agent seeking a FISA order focus on the object of the belief required, i.e., the facts and circumstances demonstrating that the target of the proposed search or surveillance is an agent of a foreign power and that the premises to be surveilled ... is used by that agent of a foreign power, rather than on the quantum of the belief involved. If you can show that a target is engaged in certain activities, and that he is engaged in them for or on behalf of a foreign power, you have won most of the battle. 122 Unlike wiretap applications in a criminal case, which require the government to establish probable cause to believe that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a specific criminal offense, among other requirements, FISA does not require that the government show a nexus to criminality . 123 Rather, a probable cause finding under FISA "focuses on the status of the target as a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power," which is discussed in more detail below .124 The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) that accompanied the 1978 passage of FISA explains the rationale for the different probable cause standards:

f electronic surveillance is to make an effective contribution to foreign counterintelligence, it must be available for use when necessary for the investigative process. The criminal laws are enacted to establish standards for arrest and conviction[,] and they supply guidance for investigations conducted to collect evidence for prosecution. Foreign counterintelligence investigations have different objectives. They succeed when the United States can insure that an intelligence network is not obtaining vital information, that a suspected agent's future access to such information is controlled effectively, and that security precautions are strengthened in areas of top priority for the foreign intelligence service.... Therefore, procedures appropriate in regular criminal investigations need modification to fit the counterintelligence context. [FISA] adopts probable cause standards that allow surveillance at an early stage in the investigative process by not requiring that a crime be imminent or that the elements of a specific offense exist. 125 Given these differences, the FISA guidance notes that the strictures developed to assess the reliability of informants providing information used to support a wiretap application in criminal cases do not necessarily apply to FISA. 126 However, the FISA guidance nonetheless cautions that probable cause determinations should take into account "the same aspects of reliability ... as in the ordinary criminal context, including the reliability of any informant, the circumstances of the informant's knowledge, and the age of the information relied upon." The FISA guidance instructs agents to "look to the totality of the information and consider its reliability on a case-by-case basis" when judging the information supporting a FISA application. 127

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[workswithseed 2035]

Seems like you're not the only one to think that fisa sucks.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

This is almost his entire top campaign staff.  

[Anastasis 23393]

Maybe a good time for a break from the original content.  I am sure that a few people would prefer the message come from other sources.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67691/the-crossfire-hurricane-reports-inconvenient-findings/

The Crossfire Hurricane Report’s Inconvenient Findings

This picture is, in its own way, and for very different reasons, as disturbing as the image of a Deep State cabal with a vendetta against Trump: Vendettas are at least specific.  Whereas the grave defects in the surveillance of Page seem more likely to be symptoms of a more apolitical, and therefore more systemic, form of bias.  Their underlying causes—reliance on sources whose claims are hard to directly check, imperfect information, case agents making judgments about which facts in a vast sea of data might be legally material—aren’t peculiar to elections but endemic to intelligence.

 

I think this makes a point worth considering. If we grant the OIG his conclusion, that he could not establish political bias based on an evidentiary or testimonial basis, the problem may be in fact much much worse. Not for DJT of course, who's rhetoric on the topic is driven only by his pathological narcissism and has been counterproductive providing cover for people who only want to deflect. But for all the rest of us, it's a different story.  Because if this case does not represent an acute failure driven by the expression of political bias, it very likely represents an institution bias, as John Goldsmith of Lawfare has put it. Not an institutional political bias, but a finger on the scale leading the process to systematically perverse results. In reality, political bias in the process would be a much easier problem to address.  What we may be (are likely, imo) looking at, rather, is a foundational and systematic problem not easily resolved without wholesale reform.  The audit proposed by the OIG will provide insight, if it actually ever sees light of day. 

   

[triplehorn 2664]

 

Trump campaign, via Stone, coordinated with a Russian military intelligence cutout to optimize stolen material to influence our election.  And Trump did so, with gusto.

Of course they have all lied, perjured, witness tampered and obstructed justice to cover it up.  And one by one they're going to prison.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

Obvious criminals are obvious.

[David Dennison 18651]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Not in this case of the use of uncorroborated political opposition research collected by a foreign intelligence operative by the FBI to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant against an American citizen. 

Is there a legally binding decision anywhere that supports your position that the Carter Page warrant was unlawful?

[Anastasis 23393]

So let's talk conclusions regarding dossier for a bit. tl;dr: It's total garbage. 

 

Maybe we jump off here.  Don't take is personal Ant, I actually appreciate that you have indicated a willingness to reassess positions based on the IG report. So we'll see how this goes.

 

On 12/9/2019 at 2:18 PM, Anastasis said:

Don’t worry, I will. Gonna be later in the week. But maybe in the meantime you can tell me what it says about Steele’s credibility. I recall that you opined on  the result of an interview between the OIG and Steele and how a leak from his lawyers reflected on a determination of his credibility. Anything in there that leads you to reconsider?

  

On 12/9/2019 at 3:36 PM, Captainant said:

Care to refresh my memory of that post?

Here is what I was referring to, from July 9, when you tried to spike the football on me based on a reuters and a politico piece. BTW, it's amazing at this point in the entire arch of this story line that people still haven't figured out to be suspect the motivations of anonymous sources.

 

On 7/9/2019 at 4:04 PM, Captainant said:

Paging @Anastasis, please pick up the courtesy phone. Your crow is ready to eat. And Politico did some followup reporting on the issue as well

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016. Steele’s American lawyer was present for the conversation.

So unless Reuters and Politico are fake news with shit reporters and zero journalistic integrity, I'm inclined to believe this initial reporting.

 

It's OK, you are not the only one here who grossly misjudged Steele's credibility, and the veracity of his reporting. Let's just use this one as a representative selection.  I thought that the ones where he is referred to as a hero (surpassing Mueller even) and his work the Bible were a little over the top for inclusion here.

 

On 11/27/2018 at 11:00 AM, Brisketexan said:

Re: the Steele dossier, which 1) Trump repeatedly refers to as "discredited," and 2) whenever any facts actually do come out, they match up with what was recorded in the dossier....I have a question....

Does "discredited" mean "dead-on, balls accurate?"  Because I have a confuse.

*my comments in bold, quotes from report in italics*

The specific substantive allegations of the Steele dossier contents have never been corroborated, outside limited circumstantial facts which were in the public domain. The review found significant problems with Steele's characterizations of the sub-sub-source derived material. It was a game of fucking telephone, resulting in the pivotal components used to establish probable cause in the surveillance warrant. And Steele didn't even appreciate the underlying network that his raw "intelligence was coming from. He had extremely limited understanding of the provenance of the material he was packaging up. His sources told the FBI that the content was "rumor and speculation", "just talk", and "conversations with friends of beers". They never expected that Steele would roll this up and present it as legitimate.  It appears that Steele embellished the reporting and interweaved analysis with the reporting in such a way to blur the distinction between what was originating between Steele's ears and what was coming from his Russian sub-sub sources. 

 

In the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as described in detail in Chapters Four and Six of this report, the team undertook substantial efforts to verify Steele's election reporting, including interviewing Steele; identifying and interviewing certain of Steele's sub-sources; undertaking CHS and Under Cover Employee (UCE) meetings with Papadopoulos, Page, and a high-level Trump campaign official; conducting database inquiries; open source research; and seeking information from other U.S. government intelligence agencies. 506 However, we found that corroboration for the election reporting proved to be elusive for the FBI to identify. FBI officials told us that the singular nature of the reporting (e.g., its recounting of conversations between a small number of persons) made it extremely difficult to verify. 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 and relied on in the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts, most of which were in the public domain, such as the dates that Page traveled to Russia, the timing of events, and the occupational positions of individuals referenced in the reports.

In addition to the lack of corroboration, we found that the FBl's interviews of Steele, the Primary Sub-source, and a second sub-source, and other investigative activity, revealed potentially serious problems with Steele's description of information in his election reports. For example, as noted above, the Primary Subsource's accounting of events during his/her January 2017 interview with the FBI (after the filing of the first FISA application and Renewal Application No. 1, but before the filing of Renewal Application No. 2) was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person 1, as well as those in Report 94 concerning the meeting between Page and Sechin. In addition, another sub-source told the FBI in August 2017 (after the filing of Renewal Application No. 3) that information in Steele's election reporting attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated." Because the sub-sources themselves could have furnished exaggerated or false information to Steele, as well as to the FBI during their interviews, the cause of these inconsistencies remains unknown. According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the FBI ultimately determined that some of the allegations contained in Steele's election reporting were inaccurate, such as the allegation that Manafort used Page as an intermediary (Report 95) and that Michael Cohen had travelled to Prague for meetings with representatives of the Kremlin (Reports 134, 135, 136, and 166). Although the Supervisory Intel Analyst also stated that some of the broader themes in Steele's election reporting were consistent with USIC assessments, such as Russia's desire to sow discord in the Western Alliance, he further told us that, as of September 2017, the FBI had corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting, and much of that information was publicly available. 507

 

A little more detail on Steele's methods:

An important aspect of the FBI's assessment of Steele's election reporting involved evaluating Steele's source network, especially whether the sub-sources had access to reliable information. As noted in the first FISA application, Steele relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele; Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting. 334 The FBI employed multiple methods in an effort to ascertain the identities of the sub-sources within the network, including meeting with Steele in October 2016 (prior to him being closed for cause) and conducting various investigative inquiries. For example, the FBI determined it was plausible that at least some of the sub-sources had access to intelligence pertinent to events described in Steele's election reporting. Additionally, the FBI's evaluation of Steele's sub-sources generated some corroboration for the election reporting (primarily routine facts about dates, locations, and occupational positions that was mostly public source information). Further, by January 2017 the FBI was able to identify and arrange a meeting with the Primary Sub-source. 335

The FBI conducted interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting. In particular, the FBI's interview with Steele's Primary Subsource in January 2017, shortly after the FBI filed the Carter Page FISA Renewal Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele's descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI's January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134's description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. 337 Report 134 stated that, according to a "close associate" of Sechin, Sechin offered "PAGE/ TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft" in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. 338 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a "brokerage. " 340

The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March 2017 about the election reporting and his/her communications with Steele. The Washington Field Office agent (WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of Steele's reports was far more "conclusive" than was justified. The Primary Subsource also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Subsource's statements in reports or present them as facts. According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."341 The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she "takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/her] with 'a grain of salt."'

In addition, the FBI interviews with the Primary Sub-source revealed that Steele did not have good insight into how many degrees of separation existed between the Primary Sub-source's sub-sources and the persons quoted in the reporting, and that it could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For example, the Primary Sub-source stated to WFO Agent 1 that, in contrast to the impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that their information was "from someone else who may have had access."

The Primary Sub-source also informed WFO Agent 1 that Steele tasked him/her after the 2016 U.S. elections to find corroboration for the election reporting and that the Primary Sub-source could find none. According to WFO Agent 1, during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source said the corroboration was "zero." The Primary Sub-source had reported the same conclusion to the Crossfire Hurricane team members who interviewed him/ her in January 2017.

Following the January interview with the Primary Sub-source, on February 15, 2017, Strzok forwarded by email to Priestap and others a news article referencing the Steele election reporting; Strzok commented that "recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal [Steele] may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network." According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the reporting was difficult to discern and could be attributed to a number of factors. These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source. 342

Another factor complicating the FBI's assessment of the Steele election reporting was the Primary Sub-source's statement to the FBI that he/she believed that information presented as fact in the reporting included his/her and Steele's "analytical conclusions" and "analytical judgments," and not just reporting from sub-sources.

 

This part is also fun.  After talking with Primary sub-source, the FBI doesn't seem to think that maybe cluing the FISC into the substantive findings regarding teh veracity of the material would be a good idea.  In fact, what they do add is a statement that only suggests that the information reported by Steele, originating with the Primary sub-source, is actually truthful. What the fuck? If the FISC cannot fucking operate with a posture of trust in the course of an ex parte proceeding, this system is fatally fucking flawed. 

 

  As discussed in Chapter Eight, Carter Page FISA Renewal Application Nos. 2 and 3 advised the court that following the January interview with the Primary Subsource, "the FBI found the Russian-based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative." Renewal Application Nos. 2 and 3 continued to rely on the Steele information, without any revisions or notice to the court that the Primary Subsource contradicted the Steele election reporting on key issues described in the renewal applications. We found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team ever considered whether any of the inconsistencies warranted reconsideration of the FBI's previous assessment of the reliability of the Steele election reports, or notice to OI or the court for the subsequent renewal applications.

There is an exceeding amount of detail in the actual report, but I think that this is more than enough to demonstrate the extremely flawed nature of the Steele election reporting, the process used to generate that reporting, and the diligence taken by the FBI when deploying that reporting to establish probable cause for the most intrusive surveillance activities we conduct.

But wait, there's more...

Crossfire Hurricane team members told us that in the spring 2017 they determined that they needed to interview Steele more extensively about his election reporting and ask questions to account for new information that the Primary Sub-source had provided during his/her interview...

The FBI's interview with Steele in September 2017 further highlighted discrepancies between Steele's presentation of information in the election reporting and the views of his Primary Sub-source. 343 For example, Steele told the interviewing agent and analyst that Reports 80, 95, 97, and 102, which range in date from June 20 to August 10, 2016, included information from a sub-source who was "close" to Trump. 344 Steele further advised the FBI staff that this sub-source was the same person who originally provided the Primary Sub-source with the information concerning Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow, and that the Primary Sub-source met with this sub-source two or three times. However, we were told by WFO Agent 1 that the Primary Sub-source stated that he/she never met this sub-source and that other sub-sources were responsible for the Ritz Carlton reporting. The Primary Sub-source also told the FBI interviewers as well as WFO Agent 1 that he/she received a telephone call from an individual he/she believed was this sub-source but was not certain of the person's identity and that the person never identified him/herself during the call. 345

...

In Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele also made statements that conflicted with explanations from two of his sub-sources about their access to Russian officials. For example, Steele explained that the Primary Sub-source had direct access to a particular former senior Russian government official and that they had been "speaking for a while." The Primary Sub-source told the FBI, however, that he/she had never met or s oken with the official. Steele also stated that one sub-source was one of a few persons in a "circle" close to a particular senior official. The FBI obtained information from the sub-source that contradicted Steele's interpretation.

 

  

18 hours ago, Captainant said:

Per the OIG report, the Steele dossier was essential to obtaining FISA approval - but so was Steele's "background and its assessment of his reliability". Now, I can certainly agree that the system needs more checks and balances and oversight, however Steele's established history, credibility, and existing status as a confidential human source were equally essential to obtaining FISA approval.

This is a well made point.  It is absolutely critical that the FBI provide to the FISC an accurate and complete assessment of the CHS's credibility and reliability. So let's explore what the FBI found out about his credibility and how it was presented to the FISC court.

Finally, the FISA request form referred to Steele as a "reliable source, whose previous reporting to the FBI has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As noted later in this chapter, while Steele had previously provided information to the FBI that helped the FBI further criminal investigations, his reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding.

...

As described earlier, because the FBI did not have information corroborating the Steele reporting relied upon in the Carter Page FISA application, it was particularly important for the application to articulate to the court the FBI's assessment of the reliability of the source. Toward that end, the final application included in a footnote the following source characterization statement regarding Steele:

Steele is  a former - and has been an FBI source since in or about October 2013. [Steele's] reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses [Steele] to be reliable. 296 [Steele] has been compensated approximately $95,000 by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to [Steele]. 297

The OIG found no documentation in the Woods File indicating that Steele's handling agent, Handling Agent 1, approved this language, as required by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Standard Minimization Procedures Policy Guide (FISA SMP PG) discussed in Chapter Two. Case Agent 1, who as described earlier compiled the Woods File and completed the Woods Procedures, told us that he was not aware of this requirement. 298 Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that he did not approve this language, and that his OIG interview was the first time he ever saw it. Further, Handling Agent 1 said that although he found Steele to be reliable in the past, only "some" of Steele's past reporting had been corroborated and most of it had not. He also stated that Steele's reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding.

Case Agent 1, the OGC Unit Chief, and the OGC Attorney told us that they did not recall or know the specific circumstances that led to the use of "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings" in the final application instead of language that more closely tracked what Handling Agent 1 had provided. Emails and other FBI documents reflect that Case Agent 1 borrowed the exact language used in the final application from an Intelligence Memorandum on the Steele reporting, which the Supervisory Intel Analyst and Staff Operations Specialist (SOS) had prepared in late September 2016. 299 Case Agent 1 told us that he most likely wanted to make sure that the language in the FISA application was consistent with how Steele was described in that document, which he believed had been vetted by analysts.

The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the phrase "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings" was a reference to Steele's reporting in the FIFA investigation. He said that neither he nor anyone else on the team reviewed any of the documents or court filings in the FIFA case file, and he did not "dig into" exactly how Steele's reporting was used in the FIFA case. He said that his entire knowledge about Steele's role in and significance to the FIFA investigation came from Handling Agent 1, though he said he did not recall what he specifically learned from Handling Agent 1 regarding how Steele's information was used in the FIFA investigation.

...

Given the importance of a source's bona fides to a court's determination of credibility-particularly in cases where, as here, the source information supporting probable cause is uncorroborated-we believe the failure to comply with FBI policy requiring that Steele's handling agent review and approve the language in the source characterization statement was an important one. This failure may have resulted in the court being left with the misimpression that Steele's past reporting ( or at least some of it) had been deemed worthy by prosecutors of being relied upon in court or that more of his information had been corroborated than was actually the case. Further, as we describe in Chapters Six and Eight, additional documentation became available to the Crossfire Hurricane team subsequent to the first FISA application that provided information contrary to the characterization of Steele in the first FISA application, including the finding of a formal FBI source validation review in March 2017 that Steele's past reporting on criminal matters, which included the FIFA case, was "minimally corroborated." Despite this information, the description of Steele in the FISA renewal applications did not change.

 

 

And just for grins, one more wrinkle. The dossier as Russian disinformation.

Although an investigation into whether Steele's election reports, or aspects of them, were the product of a Russian disinformation campaign was not within the scope of this review, or within the scope of the OIG's oversight role, we examined the extent to which the Crossfire Hurricane team considered this possibility in its assessment of Steele's reporting. Priestap told us that he recognized that the Russians are "masters at disinformation" and that the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware of the potential for Russian disinformation to influence Steele's reporting.

...

Steele told us that Russian intelligence is "sophisticated" and relies on disinformation. He said it can involve "planted information," which he described as "controlled information," and that often the information is true but with "bits missing and changed." For his part, Steele told us that he had no evidence that his reporting was "polluted" with Russian disinformation.

The Intel Section Chief told the OIG that the FBI's efforts to identify possible Russian disinformation in the Steele election reporting included trying to corroborate the reporting, learning as much as possible about Steele's sub-sources, and fully assessing Steele. According to an FBI memorandum prepared in December 2017 for a Congressional briefing, by the time the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was transferred to the Special Counsel in May 2017, the FBI "did not assess it likely that the [Steele] [ election reporting] was generated in connection to a Russian disinformation campaign." Priestap told us that the FBI "didn't have any indication whatsoever" by May 2017 that the Russians were running a disinformation campaign through the Steele election reporting. Priestap explained, however, that if the Russians, in fact, were attempting to funnel disinformation through Steele to the FBI using Russian Oligarch 1, he did not understand the goal.

...

As discussed in Chapter Four, Steele performed work for Russian Oligarch l's attorney on Russian Oligarch l's litigation matters, and, as described later in Chapter Nine, passed information to Department attorney Bruce Ohr advocating on behalf of one of Russian Oligarch 1 's companies regarding U.S. sanctions. 348 Priestap, the Intel Section Chief, and other members of Crossfire Hurricane told us that they were unaware of Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, who was the subject of a Crossfire Hurricane case, and that they would have wanted to know about them. 349 Priestap, for example, told us "I don't recall knowing that there was any connectivity between [Steele] and [Russian Oligarch 1]." Priestap told us that he believed it was "completely fair" to say that the FBI should have assessed Steele's relationship with Russian Oligarch 1.

Stuart Evans, NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw 01, stated that if 01 had been aware of the information about Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, it would have been evaluated by 01. He told us: "Counterintelligence investigations are complex, and often involve as I said, you know, double dealing, and people playing all sides.... I think that [the connection between Steele and Russian Oligarch 1] would have been yet another thing we would have wanted to dive into. "350

 

Y'all catch that guys? That last part is an interesting wrinkle.  Oleg Deripaska was a client of Christopher Steele.  Oleg Deripaska was also a target of the CH investigation. Christopher Steele was providing information from a questionable network of Russians to influence the direction of an FBI campaign into Russian interference in the US election, of which his client was a target. What a world.  And particularly relevant to the Mueller invetigation, why didn't Mueller pull on this string. Seems kinda relevant to an investigation of Russian influence activities related to the 2016 election.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[Captainant 27442]

 

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Y'all catch that guys? That last part is an interesting wrinkle.  Oleg Deripaska was a client of Christopher Steele.  Oleg Deripaska was also a target of the CH investigation. Christopher Steele was providing information from a questionable network of Russians to influence the direction of an FBI campaign into Russian interference in the US election, of which his client was a target. What a world.  And particularly relevant to the Mueller invetigation, why didn't Mueller pull on this string. Seems kinda relevant to an investigation of Russian influence activities related to the 2016 election.    

First off, I appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly research and cite a post. I have some issues with the conclusions you're drawing here though around the credibility of Steele. Who else but someone who is 1) already an established CHS and 2) already in established contact with a questionable network of russians would you turn to to get information about actions by a questionable network of russians?

And regarding "why didn't Mueller pull this string", Mueller did not follow the money in his investigation. It was a bright red line laid out by the trump admin, and still has yet to be pierced (see: Mazars, New York State, et al. court cases), and is still being fiercely defended by trump and his cronies. I'm sure there's nothing bad hiding in the finances around old Oleg, the GOP, and the rest of the russian oligarchy republican donors. 

And I'm sure that when malfeasance is overturned in those investigations, we'll see everything from trump ignoring it, to the GOP endorsing it, to people on this board poking holes in the process while completely ignoring the substance of the findings.

[Anastasis 23393]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I have some issues with the conclusions you're drawing here though around the credibility of Steele. Who else but someone who is 1) already an established CHS and 2) already in established contact with a questionable network of russians would you turn to to get information about actions by a questionable network of russians?

But see, the point of the section of the report I quoted was that they were not aware of his relationship with OVD.  If they would have been aware, it would have been yet another red flag potentially undermining the reporting, and requiring additional vetting prior to use of the reporting to guide the investigation. But this is really tangential to the content of that post. 

Priestap, the Intel Section Chief, and other members of Crossfire Hurricane told us that they were unaware of Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, who was the subject of a Crossfire Hurricane case, and that they would have wanted to know about them. 349 Priestap, for example, told us "I don't recall knowing that there was any connectivity between [Steele] and [Russian Oligarch 1]." Priestap told us that he believed it was "completely fair" to say that the FBI should have assessed Steele's relationship with Russian Oligarch 1.

Stuart Evans, NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw 01, stated that if 01 had been aware of the information about Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, it would have been evaluated by 01. He told us: "Counterintelligence investigations are complex, and often involve as I said, you know, double dealing, and people playing all sides.... I think that [the connection between Steele and Russian Oligarch 1] would have been yet another thing we would have wanted to dive into. "350

[GW Hayduke 1952]

[triplehorn 2664]

holy crap, this is remarkable.

As it relates to FISA warrants and 702 wiretaps/incidental recordings in the course of surveillance of foreigners abroad, check out this amazing C-SPAN 7 min exchange from Lindsey Graham in a Senate hearing.  Pay particular attention to what he's focused on starting at about the 3:30 mark:

This happened in July 2017.  Lindsey's abrupt flip to become a servile Trump bootlick happened a few months later in Oct. 2017.  It sure sounds like Lindsey is using himself personally as an example because he knows he is vulnerable based on certain conversations he's had, and which he does not want to be accessed and used against him for political damage/blackmail.  Based on what happened weeks later in Oct, it appears the political blackmail he's concerned about is came true, and ironically it likely came from within - Trump/WH.  

It would be a next level set-up, but it's conceivable Graham spoke with Kislyak or some other Russian official acting as an agent in the 2016 election scheme and was set up by said Russian who may have broached verboten topics on the phone.  Conceivably, even if Graham was not a party to active participation, even a conversation where he is made aware of criminal conspiracy and failed to report or act could end his career.  Additionally, it would be expected that the Russians would have this on tape.  Perhaps it would give Lindsey comfort to know Russians had it and not our IC where he could be unmasked. 

Either  way, in hindsight today, Graham's demeanor and line of questioning in the C-SPAN clip is extraordinary.  The govt officials trying to answer his questions have to be feeling in their gut that Lindsey is in reality revealing concern about himself personally.  Lindsey wants personal assurance, and it's cringeworthy.

[David Dennison 18651]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

So let's talk conclusions regarding dossier for a bit. tl;dr: It's total garbage. 

 

Maybe we jump off here.  Don't take is personal Ant, I actually appreciate that you have indicated a willingness to reassess positions based on the IG report. So we'll see how this goes.

 

  

Here is what I was referring to, from July 9, when you tried to spike the football on me based on a reuters and a politico piece. BTW, it's amazing at this point in the entire arch of this story line that people still haven't figured out to be suspect the motivations of anonymous sources.

 

 

It's OK, you are not the only one here who grossly misjudged Steele's credibility, and the veracity of his reporting. Let's just use this one as a representative selection.  I thought that the ones where he is referred to as a hero (surpassing Mueller even) and his work the Bible were a little over the top for inclusion here.

 

*my comments in bold, quotes from report in italics*

The specific substantive allegations of the Steele dossier contents have never been corroborated, outside limited circumstantial facts which were in the public domain. The review found significant problems with Steele's characterizations of the sub-sub-source derived material. It was a game of fucking telephone, resulting in the pivotal components used to establish probable cause in the surveillance warrant. And Steele didn't even appreciate the underlying network that his raw "intelligence was coming from. He had extremely limited understanding of the provenance of the material he was packaging up. His sources told the FBI that the content was "rumor and speculation", "just talk", and "conversations with friends of beers". They never expected that Steele would roll this up and present it as legitimate.  It appears that Steele embellished the reporting and interweaved analysis with the reporting in such a way to blur the distinction between what was originating between Steele's ears and what was coming from his Russian sub-sub sources. 

 

In the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, as described in detail in Chapters Four and Six of this report, the team undertook substantial efforts to verify Steele's election reporting, including interviewing Steele; identifying and interviewing certain of Steele's sub-sources; undertaking CHS and Under Cover Employee (UCE) meetings with Papadopoulos, Page, and a high-level Trump campaign official; conducting database inquiries; open source research; and seeking information from other U.S. government intelligence agencies. 506 However, we found that corroboration for the election reporting proved to be elusive for the FBI to identify. FBI officials told us that the singular nature of the reporting (e.g., its recounting of conversations between a small number of persons) made it extremely difficult to verify. 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 and relied on in the FISA applications, and was only able to confirm the accuracy of a limited number of circumstantial facts, most of which were in the public domain, such as the dates that Page traveled to Russia, the timing of events, and the occupational positions of individuals referenced in the reports.

In addition to the lack of corroboration, we found that the FBl's interviews of Steele, the Primary Sub-source, and a second sub-source, and other investigative activity, revealed potentially serious problems with Steele's description of information in his election reports. For example, as noted above, the Primary Subsource's accounting of events during his/her January 2017 interview with the FBI (after the filing of the first FISA application and Renewal Application No. 1, but before the filing of Renewal Application No. 2) was not consistent with and, in fact, contradicted the allegations in Reports 95 and 102 attributed to Person 1, as well as those in Report 94 concerning the meeting between Page and Sechin. In addition, another sub-source told the FBI in August 2017 (after the filing of Renewal Application No. 3) that information in Steele's election reporting attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated." Because the sub-sources themselves could have furnished exaggerated or false information to Steele, as well as to the FBI during their interviews, the cause of these inconsistencies remains unknown. According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the FBI ultimately determined that some of the allegations contained in Steele's election reporting were inaccurate, such as the allegation that Manafort used Page as an intermediary (Report 95) and that Michael Cohen had travelled to Prague for meetings with representatives of the Kremlin (Reports 134, 135, 136, and 166). Although the Supervisory Intel Analyst also stated that some of the broader themes in Steele's election reporting were consistent with USIC assessments, such as Russia's desire to sow discord in the Western Alliance, he further told us that, as of September 2017, the FBI had corroborated limited information in the Steele election reporting, and much of that information was publicly available. 507

 

A little more detail on Steele's methods:

An important aspect of the FBI's assessment of Steele's election reporting involved evaluating Steele's source network, especially whether the sub-sources had access to reliable information. As noted in the first FISA application, Steele relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele; Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting. 334 The FBI employed multiple methods in an effort to ascertain the identities of the sub-sources within the network, including meeting with Steele in October 2016 (prior to him being closed for cause) and conducting various investigative inquiries. For example, the FBI determined it was plausible that at least some of the sub-sources had access to intelligence pertinent to events described in Steele's election reporting. Additionally, the FBI's evaluation of Steele's sub-sources generated some corroboration for the election reporting (primarily routine facts about dates, locations, and occupational positions that was mostly public source information). Further, by January 2017 the FBI was able to identify and arrange a meeting with the Primary Sub-source. 335

The FBI conducted interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting. In particular, the FBI's interview with Steele's Primary Subsource in January 2017, shortly after the FBI filed the Carter Page FISA Renewal Application No. 1 and months prior to Renewal Application No. 2, raised doubts about the reliability of Steele's descriptions of information in his election reports. During the FBI's January interview, at which Case Agent 1, the Supervisory Intel Analyst, and representatives of NSD were present, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that he/she had not seen Steele's reports until they became public that month, and that he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source's statements in multiple sections of the reporting. 336 For example, the Primary Sub-source told the FBI that, while Report 80 stated that Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow had been "confirmed" by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump's alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was "rumor and speculation" and that he/she had not been able to confirm the story. A second example provided by the Primary Sub-source was Report 134's description of a meeting allegedly held between Carter Page and Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft, a Russian energy conglomerate. 337 Report 134 stated that, according to a "close associate" of Sechin, Sechin offered "PAGE/ TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 percent (privatized) stake in Rosneft" in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. 338 The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/her subsources furnished information for that part of Report 134 through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. 339 We reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a "brokerage. " 340

The Primary Sub-source was questioned again by the FBI beginning in March 2017 about the election reporting and his/her communications with Steele. The Washington Field Office agent (WFO Agent 1) who conducted that interview and others after it told the OIG that the Primary Sub-source felt that the tenor of Steele's reports was far more "conclusive" than was justified. The Primary Subsource also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Subsource's statements in reports or present them as facts. According to WFO Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that "it was just talk." WFO Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from "word of mouth and hearsay;" "conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;" and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump's sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in "jest."341 The Primary Sub-source also told WFO Agent 1 that he/she believed that the other sub-sources exaggerated their access to information and the relevance of that information to his/her requests. The Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that he/she "takes what [sub-sources] tell [him/her] with 'a grain of salt."'

In addition, the FBI interviews with the Primary Sub-source revealed that Steele did not have good insight into how many degrees of separation existed between the Primary Sub-source's sub-sources and the persons quoted in the reporting, and that it could have been multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For example, the Primary Sub-source stated to WFO Agent 1 that, in contrast to the impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that their information was "from someone else who may have had access."

The Primary Sub-source also informed WFO Agent 1 that Steele tasked him/her after the 2016 U.S. elections to find corroboration for the election reporting and that the Primary Sub-source could find none. According to WFO Agent 1, during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source said the corroboration was "zero." The Primary Sub-source had reported the same conclusion to the Crossfire Hurricane team members who interviewed him/ her in January 2017.

Following the January interview with the Primary Sub-source, on February 15, 2017, Strzok forwarded by email to Priestap and others a news article referencing the Steele election reporting; Strzok commented that "recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal [Steele] may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network." According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the reporting was difficult to discern and could be attributed to a number of factors. These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source. 342

Another factor complicating the FBI's assessment of the Steele election reporting was the Primary Sub-source's statement to the FBI that he/she believed that information presented as fact in the reporting included his/her and Steele's "analytical conclusions" and "analytical judgments," and not just reporting from sub-sources.

 

This part is also fun.  After talking with Primary sub-source, the FBI doesn't seem to think that maybe cluing the FISC into the substantive findings regarding teh veracity of the material would be a good idea.  In fact, what they do add is a statement that only suggests that the information reported by Steele, originating with the Primary sub-source, is actually truthful. What the fuck? If the FISC cannot fucking operate with a posture of trust in the course of an ex parte proceeding, this system is fatally fucking flawed. 

 

  As discussed in Chapter Eight, Carter Page FISA Renewal Application Nos. 2 and 3 advised the court that following the January interview with the Primary Subsource, "the FBI found the Russian-based sub-source to be truthful and cooperative." Renewal Application Nos. 2 and 3 continued to rely on the Steele information, without any revisions or notice to the court that the Primary Subsource contradicted the Steele election reporting on key issues described in the renewal applications. We found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team ever considered whether any of the inconsistencies warranted reconsideration of the FBI's previous assessment of the reliability of the Steele election reports, or notice to OI or the court for the subsequent renewal applications.

There is an exceeding amount of detail in the actual report, but I think that this is more than enough to demonstrate the extremely flawed nature of the Steele election reporting, the process used to generate that reporting, and the diligence taken by the FBI when deploying that reporting to establish probable cause for the most intrusive surveillance activities we conduct.

But wait, there's more...

Crossfire Hurricane team members told us that in the spring 2017 they determined that they needed to interview Steele more extensively about his election reporting and ask questions to account for new information that the Primary Sub-source had provided during his/her interview...

The FBI's interview with Steele in September 2017 further highlighted discrepancies between Steele's presentation of information in the election reporting and the views of his Primary Sub-source. 343 For example, Steele told the interviewing agent and analyst that Reports 80, 95, 97, and 102, which range in date from June 20 to August 10, 2016, included information from a sub-source who was "close" to Trump. 344 Steele further advised the FBI staff that this sub-source was the same person who originally provided the Primary Sub-source with the information concerning Trump's alleged sexual activities at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Moscow, and that the Primary Sub-source met with this sub-source two or three times. However, we were told by WFO Agent 1 that the Primary Sub-source stated that he/she never met this sub-source and that other sub-sources were responsible for the Ritz Carlton reporting. The Primary Sub-source also told the FBI interviewers as well as WFO Agent 1 that he/she received a telephone call from an individual he/she believed was this sub-source but was not certain of the person's identity and that the person never identified him/herself during the call. 345

...

In Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, Steele also made statements that conflicted with explanations from two of his sub-sources about their access to Russian officials. For example, Steele explained that the Primary Sub-source had direct access to a particular former senior Russian government official and that they had been "speaking for a while." The Primary Sub-source told the FBI, however, that he/she had never met or s oken with the official. Steele also stated that one sub-source was one of a few persons in a "circle" close to a particular senior official. The FBI obtained information from the sub-source that contradicted Steele's interpretation.

 

  

This is a well made point.  It is absolutely critical that the FBI provide to the FISC an accurate and complete assessment of the CHS's credibility and reliability. So let's explore what the FBI found out about his credibility and how it was presented to the FISC court.

Finally, the FISA request form referred to Steele as a "reliable source, whose previous reporting to the FBI has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings." As noted later in this chapter, while Steele had previously provided information to the FBI that helped the FBI further criminal investigations, his reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding.

...

As described earlier, because the FBI did not have information corroborating the Steele reporting relied upon in the Carter Page FISA application, it was particularly important for the application to articulate to the court the FBI's assessment of the reliability of the source. Toward that end, the final application included in a footnote the following source characterization statement regarding Steele:

Steele is  a former - and has been an FBI source since in or about October 2013. [Steele's] reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses [Steele] to be reliable. 296 [Steele] has been compensated approximately $95,000 by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to [Steele]. 297

The OIG found no documentation in the Woods File indicating that Steele's handling agent, Handling Agent 1, approved this language, as required by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Standard Minimization Procedures Policy Guide (FISA SMP PG) discussed in Chapter Two. Case Agent 1, who as described earlier compiled the Woods File and completed the Woods Procedures, told us that he was not aware of this requirement. 298 Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that he did not approve this language, and that his OIG interview was the first time he ever saw it. Further, Handling Agent 1 said that although he found Steele to be reliable in the past, only "some" of Steele's past reporting had been corroborated and most of it had not. He also stated that Steele's reporting had never been used in a criminal proceeding.

Case Agent 1, the OGC Unit Chief, and the OGC Attorney told us that they did not recall or know the specific circumstances that led to the use of "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings" in the final application instead of language that more closely tracked what Handling Agent 1 had provided. Emails and other FBI documents reflect that Case Agent 1 borrowed the exact language used in the final application from an Intelligence Memorandum on the Steele reporting, which the Supervisory Intel Analyst and Staff Operations Specialist (SOS) had prepared in late September 2016. 299 Case Agent 1 told us that he most likely wanted to make sure that the language in the FISA application was consistent with how Steele was described in that document, which he believed had been vetted by analysts.

The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the phrase "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings" was a reference to Steele's reporting in the FIFA investigation. He said that neither he nor anyone else on the team reviewed any of the documents or court filings in the FIFA case file, and he did not "dig into" exactly how Steele's reporting was used in the FIFA case. He said that his entire knowledge about Steele's role in and significance to the FIFA investigation came from Handling Agent 1, though he said he did not recall what he specifically learned from Handling Agent 1 regarding how Steele's information was used in the FIFA investigation.

...

Given the importance of a source's bona fides to a court's determination of credibility-particularly in cases where, as here, the source information supporting probable cause is uncorroborated-we believe the failure to comply with FBI policy requiring that Steele's handling agent review and approve the language in the source characterization statement was an important one. This failure may have resulted in the court being left with the misimpression that Steele's past reporting ( or at least some of it) had been deemed worthy by prosecutors of being relied upon in court or that more of his information had been corroborated than was actually the case. Further, as we describe in Chapters Six and Eight, additional documentation became available to the Crossfire Hurricane team subsequent to the first FISA application that provided information contrary to the characterization of Steele in the first FISA application, including the finding of a formal FBI source validation review in March 2017 that Steele's past reporting on criminal matters, which included the FIFA case, was "minimally corroborated." Despite this information, the description of Steele in the FISA renewal applications did not change.

 

 

And just for grins, one more wrinkle. The dossier as Russian disinformation.

Although an investigation into whether Steele's election reports, or aspects of them, were the product of a Russian disinformation campaign was not within the scope of this review, or within the scope of the OIG's oversight role, we examined the extent to which the Crossfire Hurricane team considered this possibility in its assessment of Steele's reporting. Priestap told us that he recognized that the Russians are "masters at disinformation" and that the Crossfire Hurricane team was aware of the potential for Russian disinformation to influence Steele's reporting.

...

Steele told us that Russian intelligence is "sophisticated" and relies on disinformation. He said it can involve "planted information," which he described as "controlled information," and that often the information is true but with "bits missing and changed." For his part, Steele told us that he had no evidence that his reporting was "polluted" with Russian disinformation.

The Intel Section Chief told the OIG that the FBI's efforts to identify possible Russian disinformation in the Steele election reporting included trying to corroborate the reporting, learning as much as possible about Steele's sub-sources, and fully assessing Steele. According to an FBI memorandum prepared in December 2017 for a Congressional briefing, by the time the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was transferred to the Special Counsel in May 2017, the FBI "did not assess it likely that the [Steele] [ election reporting] was generated in connection to a Russian disinformation campaign." Priestap told us that the FBI "didn't have any indication whatsoever" by May 2017 that the Russians were running a disinformation campaign through the Steele election reporting. Priestap explained, however, that if the Russians, in fact, were attempting to funnel disinformation through Steele to the FBI using Russian Oligarch 1, he did not understand the goal.

...

As discussed in Chapter Four, Steele performed work for Russian Oligarch l's attorney on Russian Oligarch l's litigation matters, and, as described later in Chapter Nine, passed information to Department attorney Bruce Ohr advocating on behalf of one of Russian Oligarch 1 's companies regarding U.S. sanctions. 348 Priestap, the Intel Section Chief, and other members of Crossfire Hurricane told us that they were unaware of Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, who was the subject of a Crossfire Hurricane case, and that they would have wanted to know about them. 349 Priestap, for example, told us "I don't recall knowing that there was any connectivity between [Steele] and [Russian Oligarch 1]." Priestap told us that he believed it was "completely fair" to say that the FBI should have assessed Steele's relationship with Russian Oligarch 1.

Stuart Evans, NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw 01, stated that if 01 had been aware of the information about Steele's connections to Russian Oligarch 1, it would have been evaluated by 01. He told us: "Counterintelligence investigations are complex, and often involve as I said, you know, double dealing, and people playing all sides.... I think that [the connection between Steele and Russian Oligarch 1] would have been yet another thing we would have wanted to dive into. "350

 

Y'all catch that guys? That last part is an interesting wrinkle.  Oleg Deripaska was a client of Christopher Steele.  Oleg Deripaska was also a target of the CH investigation. Christopher Steele was providing information from a questionable network of Russians to influence the direction of an FBI campaign into Russian interference in the US election, of which his client was a target. What a world.  And particularly relevant to the Mueller invetigation, why didn't Mueller pull on this string. Seems kinda relevant to an investigation of Russian influence activities related to the 2016 election.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So FISA judges should be suspect of anonymous sources.

Got it.

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Lindsey is just posing hypotheticals.  It has nothing to do with him personally.  LOL.

[Bama Chick 28596]

No.  I didn't say that.  I said that malfeasance has always been happening.  Rules didn't stop Nixon from engaging in malfeasance just like laws don't stop criminals.
I think Reagan marked the end of an era.  The rise of partisanship really took off during the Clinton years and seems to really have spiralled into clown show theater these days. 

Lee Atwater would be offended by the disrespect of his life’s work.

If he weren’t roasting in hell.

[JimmyJames 12271]

First of all, props for Anastasis for finally answering a question by longcatting the thread. 

Second of all,  negative props to Anastasis for finally answering a question by longcatting the thread, as opposed to just answering it. 

Nevertheless, we’re still back to right where we started. Given the lenient standard for the issuance of warrants, there was probable cause for issuing the carter page FISA warrant and even if you think there really wasn’t, who really gives a flying fuck?

The issue is totally meaningless unless and until Congressman Anastasis introduces his bi-partisan bill to eliminate FISA abuse. Like that’s gonna happen. But if he ever does, and despite his lame insults thrown my way, he has my total and complete support! As President shitstain might say.

[Anastasis 23393]

 

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nevertheless, we’re still back to right where we started. Given the lenient standard for the issuance of warrants, there was probable cause for issuing the carter page FISA warrant and even if you think there really wasn’t, who really gives a flying fuck?

The standards are lenient, perhaps, and represent an even easier hurdle to clear when the FBI does not adhere to the basic standards, policies, and procedures intended to protect civil liberties. But who gives a flying fuck I guess. 

As a result of the 17 significant inaccuracies and omissions we identified, relevant information was not shared with, and consequently not considered by, important Department decision makers and the court, and the FISA applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. We also found basic, fundamental, and serious errors during the completion of the FBI's factual accuracy reviews, known as the Woods Procedures, which are designed to ensure that FISA applications contain a full and accurate presentation of the facts. We do not speculate whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omission, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome. Nevertheless, the Department's decision makers and the court should have been given complete and accurate information so that they could meaningfully evaluate probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a U.S. person associated with a presidential campaign. That did not occur, and as a result, the surveillance of Carter Page continued even as the FBI gathered information that weakened the assessment of probable cause and made the FISA applications less accurate.

We determined that the inaccuracies and omissions we identified in the applications resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to Department attorneys and failing to identify important issues for discussion. Moreover, we concluded that case agents and SSAs did not give appropriate attention to facts that cut against probable cause, and that as the investigation progressed and more information tended to undermine or weaken the assertions in the FISA applications, the agents and SSAs did not reassess the information supporting probable cause. Further, the agents and SSAs did not follow, or even appear to know, certain basic requirements in the Woods Procedures. Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted NSD's Office of Intelligence (01) in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information. We found that the offered explanations for these serious errors did not excuse them, or the repeated failures to ensure the accuracy of information presented to the FISC.

...

In the preparation of the FISA applications to surveil Carter Page, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to comply with FBI policies, and in so doing fell short of what is rightfully expected from a premier law enforcement agency entrusted with such an intrusive surveillance tool. In light of the significant concerns identified with the Carter Page FISA applications and the other issues described in this report, the OIG today initiated an audit that will further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. We also make the following recommendations to assist the Department and the FBI in avoiding similar failures in future investigations.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

If the inspector general investigated practically any search warrant process in America they could issue a similar report. Wouldn’t change the outcome though and the warrant would have still been lawfully executed and will continue to do so thousands of times a day every single day. 

I guess we only become concerned about it when it effects a figure of some importance, like president shitstain. Then it’s a matter that requires an IG report. 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by JimmyJames

[Brisketexan 104557]

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

the OIG today initiated an audit that will further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. We also make the following recommendations to assist the Department and the FBI in avoiding similar failures in future investigations.

....unless directly ordered by AG Barr or President Trump.

They didn't say the important part.

Again, you presume that there are rules.  There are only rules when they might protect the administration or the criminal organization that is the GOP political entity.  Beyond that, there are no rules, the admin and the party can do whatever they want.

So, in contexts like this, "rules" are actually dangerous, because they create the ILLUSION that we are governed by the rule of law.  Which distracts people and takes our focus off of the existential problem -- that there is no rule of law.

[Anastasis 23393]

ABG.

Always Be Grifting.

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Why in the blue hell would you use a Seth Abramson book as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing?

Come the fuck on.

[Captainant 27442]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

ABG.

Always Be Grifting.

 

It really is amazing how you toe the line of "I'm not a trump supporter" but always use the same straight outta fox inflammatory style as a trump supporter

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It really is amazing how you toe the line of "I'm not a trump supporter" but always use the same straight outta fox inflammatory style as a trump supporter

You're just not smart enough to understand.  None of us are.

[Anastasis 23393]

Speaking of grifters. Here's another fun fact.  According to the OIG report the FBI interview with the Primary Sub-source had seriously undermined Steele's reporting during the January interview. The most salacious parts including the pee pee tape, and the core components of the brokerage arrangement had been undermined when they went to the Primary Sub-source.  Of course, that little fact didn't stop Comey from trotting around spinning the tale when it helped his book sales.

 

[Anastasis 23393]

28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It really is amazing how you toe the line of "I'm not a trump supporter" but always use the same straight outta fox inflammatory style as a trump supporter

There's nothing Fox News about that post.  Abramson is a straight up grifter. Squeezing the last few dimes he can out of people who want to cling to dossier tales as some reliable source of information and insight. 

 

I hope that you are no longer in that camp. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[DDD Dad 14250]

25 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're just not smart enough to understand.  None of us are.

None of us is.