Review of the Russian collusion narrative

[Mountain Man]

And it doesn't bother you that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign and is wholly lacking credibility?

[Juvenal]

And it doesn't bother you that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign and is wholly lacking credibility?

That's begging both questions: whether the Steele dossier was influenced by its source of funding, and how much of the dossier is credible.

From Simpson's testimony, Steele was given an open-ended assignment, but not otherwise directed.

pp. 82-83, [line numbers cleared for readability]

Q. [Heather Sawyer, Chief Oversight Counsel, Senator Feinstein] And specific to the engagement with regard to the research on Candidate Trump, why did you specifically ask Mr. Steele to do that work?

A. [Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS] The way our firm runs we pursue things, you know, somewhat out of curiosity. So we didn't know -- it was opaque what Donald Trump had been doing on these business trips to Russia. We didn't know what he was doing there. So I gave Chris -- we gave Chris a sort of assignment that would be typical for us which was pretty open ended. We said see if you can find out what Donald Trump's been doing on these trips to Russia.

Since Chris and I worked together over the years there's a lot that didn't need to be said. That would include who is he doing business with, which hotels does he like to stay at, you know, did anyone ever offer him anything, you know, the standard sort of things you would look at. I don't think I gave him any specific instructions beyond the general find out what he was up to.

The Steele dossier is basically raw intelligence, so we should expect inaccuracies. I'm comfortable leaving judgments of its overall credibility with the specialists. That's not to say there hasn't been confirmation of individual findings.

Regarding Carter Page ...

[Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS] So, you know, we would evaluate his memos based on whether he told us something we didn't know from somewhere else that we were then able to run down. So, you know, for example, he, you know, wrote a memo about a Trump campaign advisor named Carter Page and his mysterious trip to Moscow.

[... long ...]

Of course, you know, when we talk about things in the dossier that are confirmed, this is one of the things that I think really stands out as notable, which is that Chris identified Carter Page as someone who had -- seemed to be in the middle of the campaign, between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and he later turned out to be an espionage suspect who was, in fact, someone that the FBI had been investigating for years.

Regarding Sergei Ivanov, pp. 236 ff.

So we looked into Carter Page and we also looked into Igor Sechin and whether Sergei Ivanov was in a position to be managing the election operation, which is what 94 talks about, and we determined that he was.

[...]

Before I got this memo I didn't know about this internal Kremlin structure. It was either this one or the previous one. So in the course of saying who is this Ivanov guy, you know, we looked at Ivanov and found journal articles and other public information about his long history of intelligence. He's a veteran of the FSB, his long history with Vladimir Putin, and his role atop this internal operation.

Simpson's description of Steele is telling.

He was the lead Russianist at MI6 prior to leaving the government and an extremely well-regarded investigator, researcher, and, as I say, we're friends and share interest in Russian kleptocracy and organized crime issues.

[... long ...]

So -- I mean, I hope you won't be insulted, but he's basically a Boy Scout. You know, he worked for the government for a very long time. He lives a very modest, quiet life, and, you know, this is his specialty.

Fusion GPS is a group of former WSJ financial reporters concentrating on open source material. That's as non-partisan as it gets. It should also be noted that Simpson testified on Prevezon and the Magnitsky act as well.

Regarding William Browder, Magnitsky's boss,

At that point somewhere in there the Panama papers came out and we discovered that he had incorporated shell companies offshore in the mid 1990s, in 1995 I believe it was in the British Virgin Islands, and that at some point his hedge fund's shares had been transferred to this offshore company.

This offshore company was managed -- several of his offshore companies were managed by the Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca, M-O-S-S-A-C-K, Fonseca, F-O-N-S-E-C-A, which is known now for setting up offshore companies for drug kingpins, narcos, kleptos, you name it. They were servicing every bad guy around. And I'm familiar with them from other money laundering and corruption and tax evasion investigations that I've done.

I'll note parenthetically that William Browder talks a lot about the Panama papers and the Russians who are in the Panama papers without ever mentioning that he's in the Panama papers. This is, again, a public fact that you can check on-line.

These guys look like pros, and look like they subcontract to pros, too. Like any information, the material in the dossier isn't enough without corroboration, but that doesn't bother me, it's just a fact.

In any case, the suggestion that the opposition research was inaccurate because of its funding, and more, that the dossier itself wholly lacks credibility, is unwarranted.

[Mountain Man]

The Steele dossier is basically raw intelligence, so we should expect inaccuracies.

Oh, is that the latest excuse? I hadn't heard that one yet.

[Starlight]

It's been a while since I looked at Rosenstein's order.

The Fire and Fury book is interesting with regard to Rosenstein - it suggests his number one life goal was to be the best civil servant he possible could who always did things 'by the book' and was apolitical. As a result, when Trump forced Rosenstein to approve the "why Comey should be fired" memo and drew Rosenstein into the Comey-firing mess, it really upset the guy because he felt his career as the perfect civil servant had been tainted. So Rosenstein responded by getting by-the-book revenge of using his power to appoint a special prosecutor, and he made sure it was the best special prosecutor possible with an unimpeachable reputation and he granted him wide-ranging authority.

I hadn't realized until recently that Rosenstein was solely responsible for Mueller's appointment - I had naively assumed it was a congressional panel and had thought "well at least something Congress does is functioning because they got it right with Mueller".

[Starlight]

And it doesn't bother you that the Steele dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary's campaign

I believe it had previously been funded by other sources and only at the end did the Hillary campaign take over the funding of it.

and is wholly lacking credibility?

It keeps being repeatedly and systematically confirmed as true. You're in lala land if you think it's all false.

[Mountain Man]

I believe it had previously been funded by other sources and only at the end did the Hillary campaign take over the funding of it.

It keeps being repeatedly and systematically confirmed as true. You're in lala land if you think it's all false.

This is your brain on fake news.

A conservative website that most people had never heard of before started the dossier, but it was the Hillary campaign that paid for it and did the vast majority of the work. People say, Why does that matter? but as the saying goes, consider the source.

As far as anything being confirmed, all of them are inconsequential details, and nothing in it implicates the President.

----------

The Washington Post - October 2017

[One] reason people have paid so much attention to [the dossier] is the unproven assertion — generally described as “salacious” — that Trump was party to a particular event in a Moscow hotel room. You already know what I’m referring to, so I won’t get into it.

That assertion is unproven — as are many of the other claims in the document. That includes the overarching claim that Russian government officials allied with Trump employees and campaign aides to help his election. But the importance of assessing that claim has led Trump supporters to dismiss the dossier and its contents out of hand and critics of the president to lift up individual statements as accurate to suggest that the overarching claim is, as well.

[...]

It’s also worth noting that the information included in the reports is mostly unverified “humint” — intelligence gathered by talking to people. As Wired noted shortly after the dossier was published, such intelligence will usually be flagged with indicators suggesting how credible the sources and claims should be considered. The dossier lacks that.

Writing for the National Review, David Satter offered that the dossier also seemed to comport with the idea of Russian actors deliberately sharing information meant to position Russia in a particular way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.44a0769baca9

[Teallaura]

Well, I can't say with certainty, but if a democrat was suspected of colluding with a foreign adversary, of possibly being blackmailed, or of actually being purposfully treasoness, I don't believe that the democrats in power would look the other way or actually work to impede an investigation into that possibility as the republicans are now definitely doing.

I find that rather naive - and it flies in the face of history and facts. I admit, my own growth politically had most to do with my leaving the Democrat party - well, finally, anyway (took me 10 years to admit to myself that no, I'm not a democrat any more) - but I was well past tired of trying to defend a party that so routinely let me down in the ethics department.

The problem is that all politicians come in size human and the people who are supposed to keep them accountable are too busy throwing things at each other.

[JimL]

I find that rather naive - and it flies in the face of history and facts.

What history, I don't know of any Democrat being investigated for obstructing an investigation into his administrations possible collusion with a foreign adversary or of his/her party working to undermine that investigation.

I admit, my own growth politically had most to do with my leaving the Democrat party - well, finally, anyway (took me 10 years to admit to myself that no, I'm not a democrat any more) - but I was well past tired of trying to defend a party that so routinely let me down in the ethics department.

That's odd, my experience was just the opposite. I was a democrat in the same sense that I, and most christians, are christian. I was born into it. When I started to pay more attention to politics I decided to become an independent until I realized who Republicans actually are and what they stood for at which time I switched back to democrat realizing that I could never again vote for a republican anyway because of that. I have found that there is only one reason the republican party pretends to support your social/ethical agenda, and thats so that they can stab you in the back economically a la Trump and his band of thieves.

The problem is that all politicians come in size human and the people who are supposed to keep them accountable are too busy throwing things at each other.

In my opinion the problems are many, the system is rigged, big money is to much of a factor, voting is made difficult rather than easy, and many people, for various reasons, aren't civic minded enough to participate in the political process.

[Teallaura]

What history, I don't know of any Democrat being investigated for obstructing an investigation into his administrations possible collusion with a foreign adversary or of his/her party working to undermine that investigation.

Oh, there's plenty of corruption to go around - and I think you know it.

That's odd, my experience was just the opposite. I was a democrat in the same sense that I, and most christians, are christian. I was born into it. When I started to pay more attention to politics I decided to become an independent until I realized who Republicans actually are and what they stood for at which time I switched back to democrat realizing that I could never again vote for a republican anyway because of that. I have found that there is only one reason the republican party pretends to support your social/ethical agenda, and thats so that they can stab you in the back economically a la Trump and his band of thieves.

Trump wasn't my candidate - neither was Clinton, for that matter. But thus far, Clinton is the one that stabbed me in the back. I still regret defending him.

I'd go independent but I respect them least of all - oh some truly are principled and I do respect that but most are just pretentious.

In my opinion the problems are many, the system is rigged, big money is to much of a factor, voting is made difficult rather than easy, and many people, for various reasons, aren't civic minded enough to participate in the political process.

I see valid points here - but if the system is truly rigged, whoever's doing it is a moron.

[Juvenal]

I believe it had previously been funded by other sources and only at the end did the Hillary campaign take over the funding of it.

A conservative website that most people had never heard of before started the dossier, but it was the Hillary campaign that paid for it and did the vast majority of the work.

An unspecified Republican donor initially engaged Fusion GPS, but Steele was not brought in until after the DNC took over the funding. The entirety of the Steele dossier and the majority of Fusion's opposition research was delivered in support of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

As far as anything being confirmed, all of them are inconsequential details, and nothing in it implicates the President.

Manafort and Page's relationships with Russian intelligence are confirmed and consequential, the former confirmed as receiving financial support from the Kremlin, the latter confirmed as an espionage recruit.


While Mueller's brief includes "links and/or coordination" with the Trump campaign, the headline is "RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION," a topic that is both far more consequential and far broader than cooperation with Trump campaign figures. Independent of any consequences for Trump, this interference remains an active issue, and one which has to date been poorly addressed by congress, and not at all by the current administration.

Anecdotally, I can personally confirm that the Russian botnet on FB is still active. A couple of months ago, one of my rare public postings, a news story, was picked up by FB's algorithm. One of the responses, in English, came from the account of what appeared to be a young Georgian woman, (not our Georgia), with no more than a half dozen public posts of her own, all of which were in Georgian script.

[Starlight]

Independent of any consequences for Trump, this interference remains an active issue, and one which has to date been poorly addressed by congress, and not at all by the current administration.

Anecdotally, I can personally confirm that the Russian botnet on FB is still active. A couple of months ago, one of my rare public postings, a news story, was picked up by FB's algorithm. One of the responses, in English, came from the account of what appeared to be a young Georgian woman, (not our Georgia), with no more than a half dozen public posts of her own, all of which were in Georgian script.

While I am sure Putin would love it if he were truly able to rig US elections, and while I am sure that various groups in Russia try to nudge US elections in their preferred direction (just as thousands of US-based groups do)... I have yet to see any examples of activities that seem to be sufficiently large in scope and effect that make me think they might have influenced the 2016 outcome or would influence the outcome of future elections.

[Mountain Man]

I find that rather naive - and it flies in the face of history and facts. I admit, my own growth politically had most to do with my leaving the Democrat party - well, finally, anyway (took me 10 years to admit to myself that no, I'm not a democrat any more) - but I was well past tired of trying to defend a party that so routinely let me down in the ethics department.

I think you'll find that a lot of Republican voters feel the same way, though perhaps to a lesser extent. It's one of the reasons I identify as a conservative rather than a Republican.

[Cow Poke]

I think you'll find that a lot of Republican voters feel the same way, though perhaps to a lesser extent. It's one of the reasons I identify as a conservative rather than a Republican.

Yup! I used to get a lot of mail soliciting donations from Republicans - I write in large red magic marker letters - "grow a spine - meanwhile, take me off your list". I rarely get any mail from them anymore.

[Mountain Man]

Manafort and Page's relationships with Russian intelligence are confirmed and consequential, the former confirmed as receiving financial support from the Kremlin, the latter confirmed as an espionage recruit.

They were on the federal radar long before the dossier was cobbled together, and a lot of the information about Page came from newspaper articles, meaning Steele isn't the big-time intelligence agent he and the liberal media made him out to be.

While Mueller's brief includes "links and/or coordination" with the Trump campaign, the headline is "RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION," a topic that is both far more consequential and far broader than cooperation with Trump campaign figures. Independent of any consequences for Trump, this interference remains an active issue, and one which has to date been poorly addressed by congress, and not at all by the current administration.

"Interference" is such an unspecific term that it's almost meaningless. Literally anything could be deemed "interference". Whatever Russia did to influence the opinions of the electorate - assuming they did anything at all - it's certainly no worse than what our own media did to tip the balance in Hillary's favor. Or what the Democrats did to their own constituents when they cheated Bernie out of the nomination. At worst, the Russians exposed Hillary and the Democrats for what they really are; in other words, they allegedly did the job our own media refused to do.

[JimL]

They were on the federal radar long before the dossier was cobbled together, and a lot of the information about Page came from newspaper articles, meaning Steele isn't the big-time intelligence agent he and the liberal media made him out to be.


"Interference" is such an unspecific term that it's almost meaningless. Literally anything could be deemed "interference". Whatever Russia did to influence the opinions of the electorate - assuming they did anything at all - it's certainly no worse than what our own media did to tip the balance in Hillary's favor. Or what the Democrats did to their own constituents when they cheated Bernie out of the nomination. At worst, the Russians exposed Hillary and the Democrats for what they really are; in other words, they allegedly did the job our own media refused to do.

Well, Putin and the Russians are definitely on the side of the Republicans. You got that right, MM!