Steele: Dossier Was Funded By Democrats To Challenge Election

In a surprising admission, the author of the controversial dossier used to secure the secret surveillance on Trump officials admitted that it was paid for by Clinton campaign as a type of insurance to challenge the election.  At the same time, the reporter who helped break the story, Michael Isikoff now says that many of the specific allegations remain unproven and are likely false. 

The Washington Times reported that Steele stated in a declaration in a defamation case that the law firm Perkins Coie wanted to be able to challenge the results of the election based on the dossier.  In an answer to interrogatories, Mr. Steele wrote: “Fusion’s immediate client was law firm Perkins Coie. It engaged Fusion to obtain information necessary for Perkins Coie LLP to provide legal advice on the potential impact of Russian involvement on the legal validity of the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election. Based on that advice, parties such as the Democratic National Committee and HFACC Inc. (also known as ‘Hillary for America’) could consider steps they would be legally entitled to take to challenge the validity of the outcome of that election.”

Ultimately, the Clinton-funded  dossier was used by the Obama Administration to secure secret surveillance targeting Trump officials. Not only was the use of such a document from an opposing candidate concerning, but many of the allegations have never been proven. Indeed, this week the attorney for Michael Cohen repeated his prior categorical denial that a key trip to Prague never occurred in direct contradiction to Steele’s dossier: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there’s good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”

Carter Page, a former Trump adviser, has never been charged.

The Steele admission only magnifies the concerns over the purpose and the use of this dossier, but has received little media attention.

150 thoughts on “Steele: Dossier Was Funded By Democrats To Challenge Election”

  1. Co-conspirators perpetrating an egregious abuse of power as the most prodigious scandal in America political history, the Obama Coup D’etat in America:

    Sessions, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Kerry, Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Clapper, Farkas, Power, Lynch, Rice, Jarrett, Obama et al.

        1. Is it axiomatic that women either create or kill a nation through childbirth? If there are no babies, is there a future? Women got the vote and the nation committed suicide. America’s population is now imported as Americans and America vanish. Does that make women traitors committing the most egregious form of treason – killing the nation? Women are capable of as many as 26 births creating a population sufficient to defend and grow a nation. Are men who love sufficient procreation or women who hate babies and childbirth the true misogynists? Is the 19th amendment a national suicide pact of incoherence and hysteria? China – 1.4 billion. India – 1.3 billion. Can you speak Mandarin? Can you speak Hindi?

      1. Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian collusion, Russian…

      2. Hillary for President, Hillary for President, Hillary for President, Hillary for President, Hillary for President, Hillary for President, Hillary for President…

  2. Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, “We’ll stop it.”

    Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.”

    Lisa Page to Congress, “The texts mean what the texts say.”

  3. COMEY, ROSENSTEIN, MCCABE, YATES ET AL. SIGNED OFF ON FISC APPLICATION INCLUDING FALSE “DOSSIER.”

    “The memo states that Former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and former Attorney General Sally Yates were all required to sign off on the FISC warrant application before it was reviewed and ultimately approved.

    “As required by statute (50 U.S.C.), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications,” the memo reads.

    The memo further claims those officials were aware at the time of their signing that the unsubstantiated Steele opposition research dossier, which was included to bolster their warrant application, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign; but the application did not include that information.”

    – DC

    1. And, therefore, it follows that the dossier has to be full of lies–right Sean Hannity? Nope. “unsubstantiated” is not “untrue”. What in the dossier has been PROVEN to be untrue?

      1. You can’t prove a negative.

        You can make up tons of lies that can never be refuted. thus the old adage: a liar can make up ten new lies in the time it takes to refuse one.

        what are we supposed to do, track down every prostitute in Moscow and ask them if they ever peed on donald trump? ridiculous. you’re full of it.

        when a government official says something is UNSUBSTANTIATED it means that it lacks evidence and thus is not to be taken seriously.

        the bs about the supposed DNC-Russian hack is very much unsubstantiated, too

        https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

      2. – Power unmasks more the once every working day in 2016 – Power used the FBI/Intel/Obama Holdover/”Deep State” apparatus.

        – 260 unmaskings in the final days of the Obama administration.

        “Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was ‘unmasking’ at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

        Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.”

        – Catherine Herridge

        1. George and Zambini: Well, just like Trump, you are adept at name-calling and insults, but what about answering the question I asked?

          BTW Zambini: do you identify with Pat Conroy’s character from the film from which you stole the name, and if so, why? Are you also an insensitive bully who won’t be missed when you die?

  4. TURLEY’S COLUMN HINGES ON WASHINGTON TIMES STORY

    BUT WASHINGTON TIMES STORY INTRIGUES FOR WRONG REASONS

    Professor Turley concludes this column by writing, “The Steele admission only magnifies the concerns over the purpose and use of the dossier, but has received little media attention”.

    This sentence raises an obvious question: “What did Christopher Steele actually ‘admit’ to?” However the Washington Times article is never precisely clear on this point. Though Professor Turely correctly notes this ‘development’ received “little media attention”.

    A Google search revealed that this Washington Times story, from Wednesday of last week, is the only new story on Christopher Steele in the past several months. Interestingly, even conservative news sites failed to pick up this development, whatever this development actually is.

    Here I shall break down and explore the second half of the Washington Times story.

    STORY PROCEEDS AS FOLLOWS:

    In his most recent London court filing, Mr. Steele is defending against a libel lawsuit by citing a discredited story about a computer server, Trump Tower and a Russian bank.

    The suit was brought by three Russian oligarchs who control Moscow’s Alfa Bank. Mr. Steele, under the dossier heading of election interference, accused them of paying cash bribes to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    The bankers — Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan — also sued Fusion GPS.
    The case was dismissed by a D.C. Superior Court judge. Lawyers filed an appeal in U.S. District Court and attached Mr. Steele’s August declarations given in the London court”.

    STOP

    This third paragraph notes that the case by Russian bankers was, “dismissed by a D.C. Superior Court judge”. One might pause here to ask, “Which judge dismissed the case and why?” But the Washington Times provides no details.

    STORY PROCEEDS AS FOLLOWS:

    “Internet traffic data suggested that a computer server of an entity in which the Claimants have an interest, Alfa Bank, had been communicating with a computer server linked to the Trump Organization,” Mr. Steele stated.

    His goal was to show that his unverified dossier was correct when he wrote of an “extensive conspiracy.”

    But the server story has fallen into the “fake news” category by most accounts.

    STOP

    This last sentence is unusual by journalistic standards: “The server story has fallen into the ‘fake news’ category by most accounts”. Specifically what does this actually mean? What is ‘fake news’ for the purposes of this topic? And ‘who’ decided ‘what’ is fake and ‘whose’ accounts compose “most accounts”. Again the Washington Times offers no details.

    STORY PROCEEDS AS FOLLOWS:

    When it began appearing on social media in 2016, some online sleuths looked at the server’s IP address and other data. They traced the server to a location outside Philadelphia that spewed marketing spam.

    A Trump Organization official told The Washington Times last year that some of the spam went to Alfa Bank employees who perhaps stayed in Trump hotels. That’s how Alfa turned up in some emails.

    The New York Times investigated and said the FBI basically came to the same conclusion.
    Mr. Steele didn’t mention the server theory in the dossier itself.

    STOP

    “A Trump Organization official told The Washington Times last year that some of the spam went to Alfa Bank employees who perhaps stayed in Trump hotels. That’s how Alfa turned up in some emails”.

    These two sentences are intriguing! A no-name “official” with the Trump Organization surmised that “perhaps” said Alfa Bank employees were staying at a Trump hotel and “that’s how Alfa turned up in some emails”. Not only is this passage speculative in nature but it also puts Russians bank employees at a Trump hotel!

    STORY PROCEEDS AS FOLLOWS:

    Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson did try to sell the idea to the Justice Department, despite The New York Times’ finding. He met with then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr.

    Trying to prompt an investigation, Mr. Simpson told him the Times story was wrong and the server was used for direct communication, according to Mr. Ohr’s notes turned over to Congress.

    In his court filing, Mr. Steele sought to show cronyism between Trump and the bank by noting that Alfa hired then-private attorney Brian Benczkowski to investigate the server allegation.

    Mr. Benczkowski is now assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, having won Senate confirmation in a near-party line vote.

    Fusion GPS, in defending against the Russians’ libel lawsuit, depicts the three men as corrupt Putin cronies.

    STOP

    “In his court filing, Mr. Steele sought to show cronyism between Trump and the bank by noting that Alfa hired then-private attorney Brian Benczkowski to investigate the server allegation.

    Mr. Benczkowski is now assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, having won Senate confirmation in a near-party line vote”.

    Here again we have a passage fraught with deep intrigue. Alfa, the Russian bank, hired private attorney Brian Benczkowski to investigate the server allegation. And this same Brian Benczkowski is now an Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department??? God that sounds odd!!! And sure enough, a Google search reveals that Benczkowski’s appointment was considered controversial for the reasons noted here.

    STORY PROCEEDS AS FOLLOWS:

    Mr. Steele faces a second defamation suit in London, this one from Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of XBT Holdings and provider of computer servers to thousands of clients.

    In his final December 2016 dossier memo, Mr. Steele accused Mr. Gubarev of actually performing the hacking on Democratic computers under duress from Russian intelligence. He said in a court filing that the allegation came from unsolicited call-ins.

    Mr. Gubarev said the allegations are made up. In Florida, he also is suing BuzzFeed, the news website that published the entire dossier in January 2017.

    STOP, END OF STORY

    As one can see, The Washington Times story raises about 20 questions for every question answered. From a journalistic standpoint, this is one the queerest articles I have seen in a major newspaper; if indeed the The Washington Times can be called a ‘major newspaper’.

    But most revealing in this article is the fact that Attorney Brian Benczkowski went from representing a Russian bank to a top job at the justice Department. That appointment had escaped my notice until now. So I appreciate that Professor Turley put us on to this.

    1. Seth Rich dumped the emails onto a thumb drive and got them to wikileaks.
      Dumb kid thought the truth really mattered and the primary being fixed was something bad. If he got out the word, maybe the papers would help get out the word, and help fix the democratic processes that sidelined Seth’s candidate Bernie.

      Seth, very naive! He got whacked as a result. There’s what you’re busy covering up by shilling for Hillary.

      I hope you are happy with yourself. Do you draw a paycheck from a Hillary outfit too?

      1. And only the Saudis whack their political opponents, right?

        The Clinton Body-Count – What Really Happened

        http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.php#axzz5a48Bd8F3

        “VEROPHARM”

        Joseph Rago –

        “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

        “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
        Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
        Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
        business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
        apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
        then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
        finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
        a speech in Moscow.

        The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
        by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
        Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
        an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
        to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
        dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
        this meeting occurring.”

        http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/world-news/878-wall-street-journal-reporter-asks-russia-for-clinton-information-2-days-later-turns-up-dead

  5. dn,..
    Paul Singer and the Wasnington Free Beacon did hire Fusion GPS to do opposition research on behalf of a candidate running against Trump in the primaries.
    I think the candidate was Marco Rubio. By April-May 2016, Trump had an insurmountable lead over the over candidates for the GOP Nomination.
    The opposition research up to that point was “standard”, domestic op. research, not involving Steele or the Russian Dossier.
    Once Trump became the presumtive nominee, there was no point in continuing the campaign and op.research on behalf of Rubio.
    It was at that point that Paul Singer no longer retained Fusion, and the Hillary Campaign and the DNC , through intermediaries, retained Fusion GPS; and Fusion GPS went beyond the standard domestic op. research to involve Steele and Russian resources to get dirt on Trump.
    By the use of Perkins-Coie to Fusion to Steele and his Orbis firm as intermediaries, both the DNC and the Hillary campaign were able to conceal their involvement until Oct. 2017, nearly a year after the 2016 election.
    There were obviously individuals who authorize the Russian Dossier project and paid for it; when the news broke in Oct. 2017 about the Democratic funding, no individual Democrat(s) was indentified as the one(s) authorizing and paying for the Russian Dossier.
    If we are to believe their statements, Hillary, DW Schultz, and Donna Brazile all knew nothing about this.
    It’s understandable that the Democrats A. Used intermediaries to conceal involvement and B. denied any individual involvement and C. Once discovered, said there was a purely patriotic motive to protect America .
    That’s because the involvement of a British businessman and former spy to use Russian resources for opposition research against a candidate goes far beyond standard opposition research.
    No individual from either the DNC or the Hillary Campaign fund who authorized this project and who authorized payment has stepped forward to “take credit” for it.
    And, as JT notes, there seems to be little or no media interest in finding out.
    There have been numerous attempts to blur the distinction between the early Fusion research during the primaries, funded by Singer, and the involvement of Steele and the Russians .
    Jane Mayer of The Atlantic has tried her damnest to blur that distinction, as have a few other partisan hack “journalists”.
    There is no shortage of attempts in these threads by some to do the same thing.
    There appears to be no interest in examining the overall “irregularities” in the 2016 campaign that rivals the Special Counsel’s investigation of one campaign, and one campaign only.
    Anytime the above facts are presented, I can guarantee you that some weasel will claim “Whataboutism” if there is a suggestion that both sides played it dirty in the 2016 campaign.
    That “defense” as lame as it is common, and it common as dirt.
    That is one common, knee-jerk piece of **** stunt that partisan hacks like to pull.
    The other stunts are perhaps less common, but just as lame.
    There is a reason why there is criticism of the one-sided nature of the Special Counsel investigation, and the one-side coverage of “irregularities” in the 2016 campaign.
    It has to do with a belief that there should be a commitment to equal treatment under the law.
    No amount of “Whataboutism” whining and other stunts changes that, but I recognize the commitment of those who try, as well as those who will lie through their teeth argue against that equal treatment.
    They are well-represented by several of the more “committed” readers who comment here.

  6. The is an old song which relates to these topics and all this nonesense (or facts) about: Russia, Russians, Kremilin. The blander out there is that this person or this group talked with Russia. Sorry. But one cannot “talk” to a geographical area on Earth. Then that defamer will maybe imply that the Russian government, or perhaps Putin, or perhaps the KGB was a person talked to.

    (music–)
    Well I went out with a waitress…
    That i hardly knew…
    How was I to know?
    She was with the Russians too?

    Hillary is with the Russians…
    She’s with the Russians too!
    We can all go to Hell and see the createns too!

    (it goes on)

  7. No news here. No one associated with this investigation has any demonstrable integrity at all. Partisan Democrats are pleased with that, so long as they get what they want.

    1. oh it’s big news actually. it’s a fraud and this is an admission against Hillary’s interests that will work against her many ways.

      it also exposes this as WORSE THAN WATERGATE

  8. Strzok wrote on Twitter, “Deeply saddened by this decision. It has been an honor to serve my country and work with the fine men and women of the KGB.

  9. This ‘insurance policy’ that Strzok and Page emailed about has now been confirmed and is out in the open.
    Now, doesn’t Strzok look like he perjured himself during the July Congressional Hearing?
    His 26 years with the DOJ/FBI is a disgrace. He would be a good KGB agent. Perhaps he should send his resume?

    1. Bulk of $$ to Steele paid by Clinton. But still if Rep candidate(s) involved then by all means Bob Muler – follow the money. Steele is foreign national who used Russian sources. Clinton paid foreign national Steele to work with Russians. Money and efforts were coordinated between for national Steele, his Russian counterparts, and Clinton campaign. This sounds like collusion to me and once I again I am confused as to why this is not being investigated by Muler team. So now can somebody other than dn. Enigma Man, Late4Yoga or PH please shed some light on what is going to help further reduce my confusion heading into holidays. Thanks in advance.

      1. Bill Martin,
        If you are actually relying on shameless propangandists like Lies4 Breakfast and Peter Schill to “shed some light on what is going to further reduce your confusion”, I wish you lots of luck.
        Even if you became fluent in Dianese or SchillSpeak, it ain’t gonna help “shed light” on anything.

      2. Maybe FBI is not investigating Hillary for colluding with Russia because mostly she just hired some lies from them, a little bit of lawful opposition research, if flawed. So why pester Trump? Well, the accusation of collusion against Trump is a big exaggeration likewise. but a persistent one that they are using to punish Trump. The FBI and NSA and CIA comprise an intelligence structure we call the “Deep STate” that has its own interests. They must always have the Russians there to justify their massive budgets and invasive powers. (for a while it was the “GWOT” bogeyman– global war on terror– but that’s been sidelined, for a while!)

        Seth Rich pulled the emails on a thumb drive. The whole Russia thing is nonsense, just a distraction from the first big issue that Hillary stole the primary and uses the DNC as her piggy bank and personal fundraising machine.

        The second big issue is the witch hunt that the Deep State likes because it creates tension with Russia and makes Trump weaker and easier to bully.

        Hillary partisans like it because it exonerates Hillary from failure and by extension exonerates them too for screwing over Bernie in the first place.

        The status quo is what’s at stake.

        1. 1. The FBI is a domestic police force. It doesn’t require a foreign adversary to ‘justify’ its existence. Counter-intelligence is only a modest part of its book. Its budget isn’t massive; it’s just shy of $9 bn.

          2. The business of the NSA / CSS is cryptography and cryptology. It does not require the presence of any particular adversary to justify ist existence, merely adversaries troublesome enough that we benefit from encrypting our communications and trying to crack theirs.

          3. The ‘National Intelligence Budget’, which includes appropriations for the NSA / CSS, the CIA, and two other agencies, is about $59 bn. That of the US Department of Agriculture is as we speak about $140 bn.

          1. uh since you posted this twice i guess will post my reply twice

            …………..

            1) if the FBI didnt need justifications for its invasive powers than why did it lose so many after the Church hearings, and gain so many back after 9/11?

            2) if the NSA doesn’t need an adversary then why did it escalate its dragnet of domestic surveillance massively after 9/11?

            https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/united-states-of-secrets/the-frontline-interview-william-binney/

            3) Putting aside for a moment the fact that FBI has its own sourcing methods, starting with asset forfeitures, both on and off the books; and putting aside all the speculation about how CIA may “supplement” its own official budgets with creative financing– one can only wonder— but the intel service honchos very much want to justify a bigger budget.

            Clapper who is in this anti Trump Deep State combine, was big on escalating his own budget. That was obvious and this article details it.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_print.html

            The document describes a constellation of spy agencies that track millions of surveillance targets and carry out operations that include hundreds of lethal strikes. They are organized around five priorities: combating terrorism, stopping the spread of nuclear and other unconventional weapons, warning U.S. leaders about critical events overseas, defending against foreign espionage, and conducting cyber-operations.

            In an introduction, Clapper said the threats facing the United States “virtually defy rank-ordering.” He warned of “hard choices” as the intelligence community — sometimes referred to as the “IC” — seeks to rein in spending after a decade of often double-digit budget increases.

            The current budget proposal envisions that spending will remain roughly level through 2017 and amounts to a case against substantial cuts.

            “Never before has the IC been called upon to master such complexity and so many issues in such a resource-constrained environment,” Clapper wrote.

            An espionage empire

            The summary provides a detailed look at how the U.S. intelligence community has been reconfigured by the massive infusion of resources that followed the 2001 attacks. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on intelligence during that period, an outlay that U.S. officials say has succeeded in its main objective: preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States.

            The result is an espionage empire with resources and a reach beyond those of any adversary, sustained even now by spending that rivals or exceeds the levels at the height of the Cold War.

            The current total budget request was 2.4 percent below that of fiscal 2012. In constant dollars, it was about twice the estimated size of the 2001 budget and 25 percent above that of 2006, five years into what was then known as the “global war on terror.”

            Historical data on U.S. intelligence spending is largely nonexistent. Through extrapolation, experts have estimated that Cold War spending probably peaked in the late 1980s at an amount that would be the equivalent of $71 billion today.

            Spending in the most recent cycle surpassed that amount, based on the $52.6 billion detailed in documents obtained by The Post plus a separate $23 billion devoted to intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military.

            Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who chaired the House Intelligence Committee and co-chaired the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, said that access to budget details will enable an informed public debate on intelligence spending for the first time, much as Snowden’s disclosures of NSA surveillance programs brought attention to operations that had assembled data on nearly every U.S. citizen.

            “Much of the work that the intelligence community does has a profound impact on the life of ordinary Americans, and they ought not to be excluded from the process,” Hamilton said.

            “Nobody is arguing that we should be so transparent as to create dangers for the country,” he said. But, he added, “there is a mind-set in the national security community: ‘Leave it to us, we can handle it, the American people have to trust us.’ They carry it to quite an extraordinary length so that they have resisted over a period of decades transparency. . . . The burden of persuasion as to keeping something secret should be on the intelligence community, the burden should not be on the American public.”

            Experts said that access to such details about U.S. spy programs is without precedent.

            “It was a titanic struggle just to get the top-line budget number disclosed, and that has only been done consistently since 2007,” said Steven Aftergood, an expert at the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based organization that provides analyses of national security issues. “But a real grasp of the structure and operations of the intelligence bureaucracy has been totally beyond public reach. This kind of material, even on a historical basis, has simply not been available.”

            The only meaningful frame of reference came in 1994, when a congressional subcommittee inadvertently published a partial breakdown of the National Intelligence Program. At the time, the CIA accounted for just $4.8 billion of a budget that totaled $43.4 billion in 2012 dollars. The NSA and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates satellites and other sensors, commanded far larger shares of U.S. intelligence budgets until years after the Cold War ended.

            During the past decade, they have taken a back seat to the CIA.

            The NSA was in line to receive $10.5 billion in 2013, and the NRO was to get $10.3 billion — both far below the CIA, whose share had surged to 28 percent of the total budget.

            Overall, the U.S. government spends 10 times as much on the Defense Department as it does on spy agencies.

            “Today’s world is as fluid and unstable as it has been in the past half century,” Clapper said in his statement to The Post. “Even with stepped up spending on the IC over the past decade, the United States currently spends less than one percent of GDP on the Intelligence Community.”

            IE WE WANT MORE MONEY… the GWOT was the last excuse, what’s the next? oh, hell, why not RUSSIA?

    2. You lost me as soon as I read the words, “NBC reports…”

      Then I read, “Lawfare reports that so far, the available public record appears to largely support the dossier’s accuracy.”

      Reread that sentence. In law, is there such a thing as ‘presumption of truth’? I’d say ‘presumption of Russian disinformation’ is more like it.

      FWIW, Chuck Rosenberg, one of the authors of that Lawfare article, was the guy who held the bible James Comey put his hand on when he was sworn in as FBI director. Chuck is a big anti-Trumper just like his buddy Comey.

      1. Meant to add, that “so far” it’s been over two years of reporters, lawyers, special agents, etc, running this stuff down to all corners of the earth and this is as much as can be said “the dossier”? What does that tell you?

    3. Oh and by the way dn – it is very debatable whether Steele dossier contents are accurate but there is no debate regarding validity of DNC and Podesta emails. Steele dossier linked to Clinton by $$ – foreign nationals and Russian co-conspirators while Muler and is merry men of $600/hour+ attorneys are still trying to link DNC/Podesta emails to Trump campaign. In the immortal words of Dr. Henry Lee: “Something wrong with this picture”.

      1. yes but you observe that nobody in the press much wants to talk about that. isnt that cute? show owns them like a stable of whores owned by a pimp.

    4. Yes, Fusion was initially contacted by a fellow Republican candidate who turned over the information gleaned up to that point to the Clinton Campaign when he lost the nomination. Because Steele’s investigation wasn’t complete and because he had more leads, the Clinton Campaign agreed to continue financing Steele’s investigation.

      BUT, Jon Turley, what does this prove? Does the method by which the information was obtained invalidate it? AND, where’s the proof that anything Steele uncovered wasn’t the truth? What has been specifically disproven so far?

      1. Does the method by which the information was obtained invalidate it?

        Careful there precious; someone might wonder if you’ve escaped the asylum and are calling for Mueller to investigate what was actually in all those allegedly hacked DNC/Clinton emails.

        1. yes it sure can. very much so. in too many ways to count. a perplexing question. of course methods and sources matter.

      2. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned “blurring the dustinction” between the pre-Steele pre-Russian Dossier funding by Paul Singer, and the use of the British firm Orbis to obtain Russian
        opposition research funding by the DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund.
        Natacha, AKA “anonymous”, has been one of the more prolific liars on this matter.

      3. https://youtu.be/ngIKjpucQh8

        Talk by Ray McGovern, 27-Year Veteran of the CIA and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, on “Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?” recorded August 4, 2018 at the Common Good Cafe, University Temple United Methodist Church, Seattle.

  10. I have always looked up to Jonathan Turley as a rational counterbalance to my own biases. Frankly, I feel less so after seeing him on the panel with Ken Starr and perusing this web site. The quality of posts are far more reactionary than I expected. Starr made too many accusations thinly veiled as scholarly commentary, all unchallenged. And, yes, we desperately need honest brokers of political news, but why criticize cnn and msnbc while taking money from Fox? As for the present column, Isikoff may take exception to the broad generalizations of his recent review of the Steele dossier. Not what I heard from him just a few days ago. I suggest direct quotes by him to support such characterizations and that the dossier be put in proper context. As a moderate, I look for demeanor and content to match up. I respect the demeanor but that’s where it stops. Well, looks like I will keep on searching for that voice from the middle that helps me moderate my own views.

    1. John Ziegler recently interviewed Isikoff. I listened to the hour long interview at Media-ite yesterday.

      Ziegler: “Would you agree that a lot of what’s in the Steele dossier has been somewhat vindicated?”

      Isikoff: “No.”

  11. Bill Martin- One of the first and most important steps in any investigation is to define its scope. In many (most?) cases this scope is defined with an eye to a desired outcome. I would wager a cup of coffee that Dossier, FISA abuse, Comey, etc. that don’t involve Trump or Trump team are outside the scope. So no, its not inadvertence or strong leak discipline. As I think you allude.

    1. Now this simple man is starting to get it – start with “desired outcome” and then reverse engineer that to get to defined scope. Thank you R.L. – you have provided much better insight than Enigma Man. That helps me to feel a little less confused by all of this heading into holidays.

  12. Bill Martin – The Meuller team (I’m sure your misspelling was unintentional) hasn’t leaked anything so it shouldn’t surprise you that he didn’t leak something you hope to hear about. When they want something out, it’s almost always in a filing except in a rare case where they overtly put something out in their own name like a copy of the report from the Flynn interview last night.
    Two things that are true about the Dossier; 1. It had no impact on the election whatsoever as it was published in January of 2017 (after the election). 2. It was raw data, never purported that everything in it was true although several things have proven out (Trump Tower Moscow, anyone?). If Trump never paid for Russian hookers it doesn’t excuse the things that were determined to be true.

    Turley is going all out these days to excuse everything Trump while in reality, the noose is tightening and every organization he ever dealt with is under criminal investigation. Nobody around him is unconcerned about possible indictments, not even and especially his adult children.

    When I read about the extent of the Russian attempts to come after Comey and then Mueller. Then watch many Republicans and Congressmen (Nunes comes first to mind) using the exact same techniques to discredit them. And see the same repeated here. I start to wonder about some of you?

      1. No a Russian conspiracy, which a surprising numper of the right (and left) have bought into. Read the Senate report (the still Republican-controlled Senate) and ask yourself who of my friends are saying/doing the exact same things?

        1. Sure you are smarter than Ray McGovern. One of your left wingers who have “surprisingly bought it.” Wow, you really think he’s credulous?

          [wiki] Career
          McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years (April 1963 to August 1990), serving seven U.S. presidents.[5] His CIA career began under President John F. Kennedy, and lasted through the presidency of George H. W. Bush.[6] McGovern chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President’s Daily Brief, and in the mid-1980s was a senior analyst conducting early morning briefings one-on-one with the vice president, the secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the assistant to the president for national security.[7]

          At his retirement in 1990, McGovern received the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medal.[2][7] He returned the medal in 2006.[8]
          —————

          Ray’s big offense: he is a peace activist! And he thinks Hillary stole the primary and the phonies in charge at CIA and FBI cocked up the whole Russia gate nonsense to exonerate her failure and “Delimit” the unfavored policy initiatives of Trump disliked by the deep state foremost a detente with Russia.

          Cold War 2.0 Enigma: you helped make it worse!

    1. So by way of your no harm no foul logic I can deduce that your view of Clinton dossier payments applies to Trump bimbo payments. Nope – dossier was used in FISA court for green light to spy on Trump campaign. Muler released 302 yesterday – it was lame attempt to come across as being transparent when in reality he did that in response to being chastised by court for not delivering that document by Friday per court ordered deadline. If you were trying to explain to me in a simple and convincing manner, you did not do a good job. I am confused, were you trying to convince me or yourself?

    2. Damn it!, Enigma wake the f*ck up! The person who wrote the dossier just came out and told you the damn thing was a scam. What part of that don’t you get???

      You are letting your partisanship and your hatreds and your emotions make an idiot out of you. I truly believe that you are better than that.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. No Squeeky, that’s not what he said. That’s how you are now spinning it. It was always opposition research so I have no illusions as to potential bias. You need for it all not be true when some of it clearly is.

        1. Bullsh*t! You have simply swallowed the DNC hook, and don’t want to admit what a schmuck you have been. This is nothing but “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Part Deux.”

          Remember that one? “Oh no, my poor husband hasn’t been getting blown by Monica! Oh no! And Bill didn’t lie about nothing, neither! This is all just a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!”

          Be a man! Grow up, and let your testicles finally descend, and admit that you have bought into a line of pure dee invented crap, and that it was your own personal flaws as a human being, your own extreme partisan ideology, that led you to being the idiot, snagged by a shiny piece of bait, and drug out of the water, and now lying there, flopping around on the deck, gasping for air.

          You would never have fallen for this obvious pile of stinking crap if it had been invented by Republicans, for use against a Democrat. Nor, would you have swooned and gotten little partisan woodies over the lying whore Christine Ford silliness, if she had been a Republican, and victim, a Democrat. No, then your common sense would have kicked in.

          Admit it, and then you can finally be free. It doesn’t hurt as much as you think it will to just admit that you have been a complete and total fool willing to buy into any silly a$$ bunch of crap put out there by the DNC.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky, someone at the register wants to buy some chewing tobacco and a lottery ticket, so put down the tablet and hop to it.

          2. I admit I’m waiting anxiously for the 17 active criminal and civil investigations against Trump and kin to come to a conclusion. Keep your head in the sand if you like. The bell is tolling and it tolls for Trump.

        2. guys, Enigma has a job to do. don’t give him a hard time about it.

          Prolly the rest of them too.

          See the interesting thing about Democrat warlords like Hillary is that they are really well organized. They are able to get their people out there all singing the same tune. it’s quite impressive!

          They understand the old timey Bolshevik logic that a coherent public message advanced lockstep by all partisans will have a strong effect that belies their actual small numbers.

          yes, that’s right. the hillary partisans and apologists are actually a small number but their adherents in the the federal bureaucracy and the mass media make them seem strong loud and clear. Well, they are well organized, and often that’s all it really takes.

    3. here you watch the whole Ray McGovern speech and he praises Nunes at the end.

      Ray is a retired, decorated,CIA veteran analyst but also a peace activist. Oh and a Jill Stein voter.

      He said truth matters. Does it? Hillary stole the primary from Bernie, there’s a truth you guys still can’t explain. And all these wikileaks came out from DNC on a thumb drive. No Russian hacking. That is false.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngIKjpucQh8&t=198s

      Used after the fact to discredit the winner. A big cocked up story to exonerate the loser, Hillary. And to punish the winner and bring him into line with Deep State dictates such as adverse and tense relations with Russia, required!

      Watch the whole thing if you continue to believe this is all a pro Trump whatever. Ray does not like Trump and this is not about Trump. It is about a massive abuse of process. Worse than Watergate!

      You need to wake up and quit chopping wood for Hillary

      1. No, the truth doesn’t matter at all to Democrats. How many times have I said it,

        “Trying to explain “principles”, truth, logical consistency, or right vs. wrong, to a Democrat, is like trying to explain to a bad, cheating, metal folding-chair using, pants-pulling-down wrestler why he didn’t win the WWF Belt fairly. He is not able to comprehend what you are going on about. All he knows is, that he won the match and belt, and if his girl friend jumped into the ring and whacked the good wrestler over the head with a chair while the referee wasn’t looking- – -well, what difference does that make??? After all, he has the belt. Isn’t that all that matters???”

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. How on Earth can any Trumpster complain about the truth not mattering to Democrats? Trump is the most-prolific liar in POTUS history. I’m seriously beginning to think that someone who is a Trumpster has to be just as crazy as he is.

            1. Mr. Kurtz: Hillary, her campaign, the “e-mail scandal” and “Benghazi” have been gone from the mainstream public discourse for 2 years on now, so why in the hell do you, Hannity, Trump, Tucker, LL “Judge” Jeanne, et al, keep harping about her and these non-scandals? Is it because it is a hook that stirs up uneducated white men who are intimidated by intelligent, accomplished women? Opposing Trump has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

      2. I will agree the Democrat primaries were stacked against Bernie, just as they are in both parties against figures not of the establishment. That doesn’t make all the Russian intervention and Trump criminal activity untrue.

    4. wait, enigma, how do you know what the meuller team has leaked or not?
      are you on it? or admit that you are just speculating

      1. Because President Trump freaks out on Twitter daily b ecause he has no ideas what Mueller knows. It’s the not knowing that’s killing him, he should just acknowledge that Mueller knows everything!

  13. I am just a simple man,so can somebody other than Late4Yoga or PH please explain to me why we have not seen any leaks from Muler team regarding investigation of millions paid by Clinton/DNC to finance Steele dossier using foreign national under campaign finance guise of “legal expenses”. Is Muler team just that good at not leaking its investigation of this matter so far, or is it just something that they inadvertently forget to look into? Surely they cannot be intentionally overlooking this matter as CNN/MSNBC has fervently reminded us that “Bob Muler is beyond reproach”.

        1. I asked for simple explanation to which you have none to offer per your response. Perhaps it is easier for someone such as yourself to accept the truth as served up to you without assessing its validity. To each their own.

          1. Bill Martin,.
            YNOT/SNOT has already extended herself beyond her usual limits of profound, comprehensive, and articulate contributions to this site.
            What you see from YNOT is what you get as far as any substantive comments.

      1. That is a good reason why I do not correspond with people like YNOT/SNOT.
        Beyond her bitchy little 1-2 sentence crap, she contributes nothing to this site.
        At least there is not a large amount of space wasted by that anonymous troll.

        1. Talking with stooped people is tiring thus I don’t waste my time.
          But here you go, what is Mueller to leak? It is known that funding was provided by Clinton campaign and Bush’s(?) so there is nothing to leak.

          1. Anonymous,..
            You spout your normal, non-specific BS as usual.
            If you have something to say, other than parroting what others say, posting links, cutting and pasting, etc.

            ..try saying it.
            As the lead troll groupie/ flunky, you seem incapable of any real discussion.
            I remember you once complained about a lack of substantive comment on these threads; that at least shows that you’re good for a laugh.
            Another one of your complaints was that someone was spending too much time on these threads…that was shortly after YOU were listed as among the “most frequent commentator” in the review for the previous period.

  14. It seems that Democratic Party officials were convinced that the right wing was sufficiently brain-washed with demonization of Russia, that they would join right in with accusations of Russian collusion for which there was no evidence. They, the country, and the world would have been far better off to recognize, condemn, and prosecute Israeli interference in the 2016 election.

    1. They, the country, and the world would have been far better off to recognize, condemn, and prosecute Israeli interference in the 2016 election.

      Hmmm? Do you mean interference like this?

      …an NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign used U.S. taxpayer dollars attempting to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2015.

    2. Israel, huh?

      Foreign nations usually try and influence elections. of course they do. the scale and means are important. Whatever they did in 16 was not any more special than what they did any other year.

      And i am not aware that the israelis did anything all that consequential in 2016. I think you are making that up. I have no special love for them and would blame them for a lot of things they don’t usually get credit for but I am not interested in fabrications. against them nor Russia nor any other foreign nation

      Now if you Saudis favored Hillary I would listen because they paid her charitable foundation a ton so maybe there was something they wanted from her. Like, expanding the war in Syria, which they like—- just as she did and they very much liked toppling former government of Libya?

      Consider that Trump criticized Saudis on campaign trail and also promised not to expand war in Syria.

  15. “The Steele admission only magnifies the concerns over the purpose and the use of this dossier, but has received little media attention.”
    *****************
    Which means, of course, the corporate legacy media is in on the scam.

    1. Notice that even though it’s long been known the Steele slander papers were bought & paid for by H Clinton/DNC & the FBI yet not one of the FISA judges that approved the warrant & it’s renewals have said nothing about being lied to.

      It’s like they’re in on the corruption.

      1. Nor has a FISA judge come out in defense of inclusion of Steele dossier. Judges rumber stamped the FISA warrants and each renewal done upon faulty premise of prior warrant. These judges prefer to lay low and not bring attention to their sloppiness and/or gullibility.

        1. I believe Chief Justice John Roberts is supposed to be supervising that Super Duper Secret handshake & a wink & a nod FISA “Court” where the USC is suspended.

          What Scams! That court needs shut down as it should have never opened, fire most every one at the top of the FBI/DOJ & intel agencies.

        2. AS THEY ALWAYS DO! PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZING FISA PROCESS FOR YEARS. NOW EVEN TRUMP HAS BEEN GORED BY THIS OX AND YET IT LINGERS ON. SAD!

  16. The actions of Mr. Steele (a mercenary), Fusion (a hit team for hire), and Perkins Coie (a bunch of whores) are understandable if not forgivable.

    However the press has failed in its responsibilities, allowing free reign to their bi9ases and partisan motives.

    History will not be kind to those reporters.

    We should also give them the respect that they deserve today – nothing.

Leave a Reply