Did The FBI Mislead The Senate Intelligence Committee On The Steele Dossier? The Media Is Not Interested

136px-US-FBI-ShadedSealsenate_large_sealI recently wrote a column concerning a pattern of willful blindness by the media as new evidence emerges of serious wrongdoing by the FBI in the origin and continuation of the Russian collusion investigation. The latest information comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee which released a declassified briefing report to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 on the Steele dossier’s Primary Sub-source. It is hard to read the document linked below and not conclude that the FBI misled the Congress on the subject.  This occurred after the FBI misled the FISA court, including the submission of falsified documents to continue the surveillance.

The statement that most stands out from the briefing is that the Primary Sub-source “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier to the extent he could identify it.”

Keep in mind that this is a statement made in 2018.  FBI agents had already warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. Indeed, Steele’s allegations were quickly discredited by the FBI. In 2017, key agents were aware that the basis for the FISA applications were dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media.  Both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified that they would not have signed off on surveillance if they knew this information at the time.  Yet, the media seems uninterested in how this countervailing information was buried, even in briefings to the intelligence committees.

Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate the year before. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in collusion with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.

The reference to the sub-source in the new document is particularly troubling because that individual told the FBI that he “has no idea” where some of the language attributed to him came from in the Steele report. He expressly denied being the source for some of the information. That would seem a tad more than even a “significant concern.” Yet, the Senate was told he had no significant concerns.  In fact, he said that he “never mentioned” the information and  “did not know the origins” of information.  On some point, he said he had no recollection of ever giving the information to Steele.  He also directly contradicted Steele in how he characterized the information.

The report also states that “[a]t minimum, our discussions with [the Primary Sub-source] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”

However, again, the sub-source said that he had no idea where some of the information attributed to him came from. That would seem to contradict this statement directly.  He said that he has “zero” corroboration for some of the information while other claims were just stuff that he heard over drinks or was meant in “jest.”

The point is not that this source is clearly telling the truth or that this proves a deep-state conspiracy. Rather, the question is why this document has received virtually no media attention — as with earlier declassified documents.  It is at best misleading by omission and at worse intentionally false in its briefing of a congressional intelligence committee. The media spent years exploring every possible claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, which were found to be baseless. Yet, these recent documents raise serious questions of false statements to Congress to keep that investigation going. These serious allegations of false statements and false evidence in an investigation that targeted figures associated with the opposing party and its presidential campaign. Indeed, the recent documents show, in direct contradiction of prior statements, the FBI used briefings with Trump as part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The response from the media? Crickets.  Nada.  Not interested.

We should be interested. This is why I continue to support the investigation by John Durham and why former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has called for continuing these investigations. The problem is that there seems a virtual new blackout on the new evidence being declassified. After using tanker loads of ink on the unfounded collusion theories, the media seems unwilling to use a drop of ink on the evidence of misconduct in pursuing that investigation. In today’s echo-journalistic world, there is no place for such stories that challenge the prior narrative.

This declassified document and other related material may be accessed at the following link: judiciary.senate.gov/fisa-investigation.

588 thoughts on “Did The FBI Mislead The Senate Intelligence Committee On The Steele Dossier? The Media Is Not Interested”

  1. “There was no “plan” to set up Flynn by the FBI. That was one of multiple options discussed in a meeting prior to the interview ”

    BTB, You do not know nor does the NYT know that there was no plan. It’s conjecture. The likelihood of everything falling into place like it did seems like a statistical once in a lifetime. The written word indicating such a thought was being considered combined with prior events and how the events unfolded point to things very different than you wish to believe.

    All you did is damage your credibility:

    “There was no “plan” to set up Flynn by the FBI.” Is a very definite statement to make without proof.

    The rest of your comment also damages your credibility because that statement has been explained to you numerous times and you haven’t altered your statement to conform what is known and has been proven.

    1. Allan – there was a criminal conspiracy – that is exactly what the exchanges that lead up to Flynn’s interview are.

      When people in government discuss entrapping someone – that is a conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights under color of law.

      There is ALOT that Horowitz found that was WRONG.

      But most of it was not criminal.

      I am also MOSTLY with Barr in dropping the prosecutions of assorted members of the FBI for lying.

      BUT he should have dropped every prosecution in the SC investigation based on “lying” on exactly the same basis.

      It is in fact WORSE for law enforcement to be lying under oath or to investigators,

      Prosecutors can drop charges even after conviction – Barr should have dropped those against Stone.

  2. OT: Are we a less racist nation today? Interesting article from the NYTimes.

    Justice Dept. Accuses Yale of Discrimination in Application Process
    The Trump administration said the university discriminated against Asian-American and white applicants. Yale defended its practices and vowed to maintain them. …

    The charge, coming after a two-year investigation, is the administration’s second confrontation with an Ivy League school; two years ago, it publicly backed Asian-American students who accused Harvard in a lawsuit of systematically discriminating against them.

  3. Darren can you please help out. I have posted something in response to Dee and when it didn’t appear posted it again with slight changes but it still remains in cyberspace. I am going to try and repost it under this since the tests come through but the posting doesn’t. Thanks in advance.

  4. Biden and Harris made their first appearance together today. Scott Adams summed it up:

    “Biden’s lies today were enormous and notable, given that lying is his big complaint about Trump. And there will be no fact-check from #EnemyOfThePeople so I guess it worked on low-information voters.” @ScottAdamsSays

    The media has one job: get Democrats elected and run cover for them. The blatant media bias is disgusting to most Americans who are now paying attention. Will Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get Fact Checked? Fat chance.

    The media is unquestionably the Enemy of the People.

  5. “In March of 1921, I witnessed the clash of a three-person machine-gun squad with a demonstration march comprised of as many as 5,000 participants.—
    A minute after the order to fire was given, the demonstrators vanished from the scene even though not one single person had been
    injured. The sight of this event had something magical about it; it evoked that deep sense of delight which takes hold of one when an
    ignoble demon is unmasked.”

    — Ernst Junger, “On Pain”


  6. Jonathan Turley, I enjoyed reading your article, and I agree with you, however, please note that the terms “media” and “data” are plural.

  7. “The FBI” never says anything. Only people talk. Either officials, with names, or some rumor-monger without a name. People were lying, FBI people.

    ” In 2017, key agents were aware that the basis for the FISA applications were dubious and likely false.” These agents were lying. They should be indicted, tried, and punished if convicted.

    Media silence is to support the Dem gov’t criminals in avoiding any punishment. Everybody who supports Dems supports this injustice.

  8. Jonathan: There is a conspiracy theory making the rounds that AG Barr is planning an “October surprise” to help Trump get over the finish line despite all his troubles. e.g., poor poll numbers due to his total mishandling of the coronavirus, etc. The “October surprise” has an ignoble history in US presidential elections. Both Democrats and Republicans have resorted to it. In 1972 Nixon and Henry Kissinger announced 12 days before the election that “peace is at hand” in the Vietnam war–even though the war would continue for 3 more years. The announcement negated McGovern’s main platform and Nixon cruised to victory. Now what is not a conspiracy theory is how Barr operates and what he may do in late October to overcome Biden’s lead in the polls. From day one Barr has proved a loyal supporter of Trump’s political interests. So there will be no holes barred (no pun intended) in pursuing the Trump agenda.

    This brings us to the John Durham investigation and what it may portend for a possible “October surprise”. Barr has tasked Durham with a sweeping global probe to try to discredit the consensus of the US intelligence that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in support of Trump. No small task. But Barr thinks Durham is up to this major responsibility. Trump has said the entire Russian investigation was “corrupt” and Barr/Durham are out to prove it. Although the DOJ is not supposed to comment about ongoing investigations Barr observes the rule more in the breech than in its observance. He has publicly said that Durham’s job is “to bring justice to people who are engaged in abuses if he [Durham] can show that there were criminal violations,…”. Barr would like nothing better then for Durham to bring criminal indictments against former CIA director John Brennan and former national intelligence chief James Clapper. On Fox News in April Barr made his bias even clearer: “I think what happened to [Trump] was one of the greatest travesties in American history. Without any basis, they started this investigation of his campaign, and even more concerning, actually is what happened after the campaign, a whole pattern of events while he [Trump] was president.So I–to sabotage the presidency, and I think that–or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency”. No fair and impartial administration of justice under Barr’s DOJ!

    What is clear is that Barr is willing to go to any lengths to try to “sabotage” Biden’s chances of electoral victory–that is the whole purpose of the Durham investigation. He is declassifying intelligence documents, publicly exposing confidential and anonymous sources of information and passing this information on to Lindsey Graham, another Trump supporter, who then can claim: “The entire Russia investigation was corrupt!”.

    Now it appears you also have jumped on the Barr bandwagon to try to discredit the Russia investigation and provide the basis for the latest “October surprise”. If Barr pulls it off you will no long be able to complain the press has ignored the issue. It will be on the headlines of every major newspaper in the country!

    1. AS a health care professional i get so tired of hearing how Trump screwed up and did little during covid BS. He did more than Hillary ever would have as they want the population reduced.The man provided hospital ships PPE and vents and he did with the private sector, a Dem would never have thought of and we are much better off for it. As for masks, stop making yourself sick, They do not help that much N 95 and surgical if you are going to wear one and a new one each time. No you can’t hang it on your car mirror and wear it 30 times you raise your risk by a large margin.Fauci is not your friend.

      1. Dee, your conjecture that “He did more than Hillary ever would have” is only that: a conjecture.

        The fact is that Trump did **much less** than many other leaders around the world and **much less** than he could have done.
        Some relevant details here:

        We rank 10th worst in the world in deaths per capita, and that doesn’t even consider all of the people who now have longterm health and/or economic problems.

        COVID-19 itself was not Trump’s fault, but his horrendous response is absolutely his fault.

        1. “Dee, your conjecture that “He did more than Hillary ever would have” is only that: a conjecture.”
          Correct, but it is still a valid conclusion. Predictions about alternate futures can never be more than conjecture.

          “The fact is that Trump did **much less** than many other leaders around the world and **much less** than he could have done.”
          But you are begging the question – What matters ?

          Many countries did more, many did less. Outcomes have ZERO correlation between what world leaders did and outcomes.

          Sweden did almost nothing, and they did as well as the US and Europe – with less economic damage. and they are mostly through this and have a very high probability that their future is brighter than any other country. C19 has nearly disappeared in Sweden AND people have been returning to normal for a long time.

          Nowhere else in the world can claim that. Nowhere else in the world dare hope that. The Swedes KNOW that they are nearly through.

          Why are you linking to a comment as evidence of something ?

          “We rank 10th worst in the world in deaths per capita,”
          True – but several European countries did far worse, and the US is doing better than the EU as a whole
          And those countries that did worse than the US implimented the draconian measures you demand.

          Further most of the nations that purportedly did better do not have systems of reliable data,

          There is much more possible criticism of your statistical gamesmanship – such as that you are not comparing apples to apples.
          C19 reached countries strongly connected to global exchange first – many parts of the world are only starting into C19.

          If you eliminated NY from the US – the US would fall near the bottom of the world in deaths/100m.

          High death rates/million correlate strongly to population denisity.

          “and that doesn’t even consider all of the people who now have longterm health and/or economic problems.”
          Yes, Damn it We MUST do something!!!! it is entirely irrelevant whether we have any actual ability to accomplish any good,
          Still we must do Something!!! We must spend Trillions, F over peoples liberty – not to reduce deaths, not to improve outcomes but just to prove we care!!!

          “COVID-19 itself was not Trump’s fault, but his horrendous response is absolutely his fault.”
          And yet the US outcome is indistinguishable from countries that did as you demand.

          You are under the delusion that there was something to be done.

          You are demanding mask mandates – yet many countries that have done better than the US in the data you cite – have no masks at all.

          Egypt and Bangeledesch had very low Death rates purportedly – should they be our model ?

          AGAIN there is no positive correlation between the impact of C19 and the measures that various governments have taken.
          There are a few steps that have proven clearly harmful – such as sending infected patients to nursing homes.

          You argue for manditory masks – I have argued for real world testing of the effectiveness of masks.

          Regardless accross the world many countries have mandated masks, many have not.
          There is little evidence of meaningful impact.

          If you want to use FORCE – we need more than competing claims of experts who are not near in agreement.
          We need actual real world evidence that what you intend to impose by force WORKS.

          You have cited lab evidence that Masks are effective.

          There are numerous drugs – including HCQ that are dramatically effective in lab tests.

          If all you need is lab tests – then why isn’t HCQ being mandated for everyone?
          It is extremely effective in vitro.

      2. I will not give Trump as much credit as you – mostly because the power of the President is (and should) be limited.

        But the amazing story of C19 is the incredible response of the Free Market.

        We F’d the economy, The Chinese cut us off from PPE, Demand turned on a dime – suddenly we needed TP, Hand Sanitizer, PPE, Ventalators.

        And the free Market Delivered.

        Every morning the shelves in LA cleared of TP, every night they were fully restocked.
        No matter how much TP we horded – there was more the next day.

        In a week or two there was enough Hand Sanitizer to fill an ocean.

        For a Few weeks government lied to us about masks so hospitals would not run out,
        In a very short time there wre masks for everyone – China be damned. And the US was exporting PPE.

        We purportedly were going to need ventalators out the wahzoo. So Musk started making them from car parts.
        In the end there was no shortage.

        Regardless whatever we needed – the free market was there.

        Not Democrats, not Republicans, not Trump, Free Markets.

        And yet we have badly educated young adults from our best colleges rioting, looting, burning and ranting about marxism.

        WE are currently fighting about reopening our schools – it might not be safe for teachers.

        Most teachers and professors today should be FIRED for F’ing up our kids.

        We need to reopen schools – but we need new teachers. Ones that are teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 – not that math is racist. ‘
        Ones that are teaching our kids to aspire to success, not victimhood.

        1. John Say,
          “Ones that are teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 – not that math is racist. ‘”

          This sort of nonsense is mostly coming from professors. Most teachers actually want to teach math.

          1. Our K12 education is not as corrupt as our higher education – but there are still lots of problems.

            The education system leans heavily to the left in much of the country.

            It does not prepare kids to improve there circumstances as adults.

  9. ” F.B.I. officials had sufficient reason to open the investigation into links between Russia and Trump campaign aides in 2016″
    Correct – the standard is reasonable suspicion – that is incredibly low.
    This is also relevant to Trump’s request that Ukriane investigate Biden which had an even LOWER standard.

    “acted without political bias”
    False Horowitz DID NOT conclude that. He explicitly disowned any such claim in his testimony.
    He specifically noted that he was barred by the IG rules from finding political bias absent an admission of Bias.
    He was asked whether the texts of Strzok and many other things were indicia of Bias and he agreed they were, but that was outside of his scope.

    “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced”
    That is correct. The standard for the IG is not the same as for Durham.

    “The report also rebuffed other conservative claims that the F.B.I. spied on the Trump campaign as part of a politicized plot.”
    False – that was not within the scope of the IG.

    ” It confirmed that the F.B.I. opened the inquiry in July 2016 as stolen Democratic emails spilled out and investigators learned that a Trump campaign aide bragged that he had been told that Russia had information that could damage Hillary Clinton.”
    That is correct.

    “Investigators did not open the inquiry based on a notorious dossier of opposition research from Christopher Steele, a former British spy whose research was funded by Democrats, Mr. Horowitz found….”
    That is only “litterally” correct. The investigation was opened based on reports of the Downer exchange with Papadoulis.
    Those reports INACCURATETLY asserted that Papadoulis was referencing the DNC emails.
    When through interviews of Downer and Papadoulis it was determined that the exchange did NOT refer to the DNC emails, the Downer information ceased to exist as a basis for continuing the investigation. It was AT THAT Time that the Steele Dossier became the justification for continuing the investigation. From Sept/Oct 2016 through Jan 2017 the Steele Dossier was the Only justification for the investigation.
    THAT was Horowitz’s FINDING.
    After Jan 2017 Horowitz found that there was insufficient justification to continue XFH.

    I have no idea if your Blumenthal exchange is accurate – you are not a trustworthy source.
    Regardless, it is either flat out Wrong or incredibly literal.

    There is numerous documented and admitted Confidential Human Sources that would used against the Trump campaign
    It is still not established who Mifsud worked for – but it is HIGHLU unlikely it was the Russians. It is near certain some western intelligence agency – the most likely being the FBI – however Horowitz could not find evidence Mifsud worked for the FBI.
    Stephan Halper was absolutely used against the Trump campaign, he was definitely in the employ of the US government, but not the FBI
    Azra Turk – an assistant of Halper was also used unsuccessfully as a Honey Pot on Papadoulis. It is not known who she worked for

    Beyond that the entire purpose of the FISA warrants was to SPY on the Trump campaign.

    I would note the scope of the Horowitz investigation was the FBI and DOJ. Horowitz did not and was unable to investigate outside the FBI and DOJ. Further Horowitz could only question former FBI/DOJ people with their permission – most refused.
    Horowitz was required – just as with the Clinton probe to accept the judgments and conclusions of the FBI except where directly contradicted by the evidence. As an example Horowitz explicitly noted that most of Comey’s decisions in the Clinton email case were outside the norms. But they were still within the law.

    You have repeatedly argued that intent is required for an 18 USC 793(f) prosecution – that is false there have been many. It is also false as Intent is trivially established in this case. But it WAS inside of Comey’s prosecutorial descretion to recomend not to prosecute – even if it was outside the norms. Though Horowitz did chastize Comey for infringing on AG Lynch’s domain.

    So the Horowitz Report is both Damning and very limited in scope.

  10. It also didn’t identify Hillary Clinton as the individual who paid to have him write the document. That is part of an ongoing investigation given several other of her activities..

    1. Clinton didn’t pay Steele. Steele was hired and paid by Fusion GPS.

      1. To keep the discussion honest, let’s follow the money. The Clinton Campaign paid Fusion GPS through their attorney, Perkins Coie. The laundering of the money ultimately results in the fact that Clinton paid Steele.

        1. You have a strange definition for money laundering.
          And if you use your logic, then if Trump hires a company who employs an illegal immigrant (something he’s done), then Trump himself is paying that illegal immigrant. Is that really what you want to argue?

          1. “And if you use your logic, then if Trump hires a company who employs an illegal immigrant (something he’s done), then Trump himself is paying that illegal immigrant. Is that really what you want to argue?”

            The left argues that all the time.

            If I hire a lawyer to buy a house for me,
            Is it my house ? Or does it belong to the lawyer ?

            Regardless, are you saying that Clinton did NOT want Perkins Coie to get dirt on Trump ?

            You have claimed that the fake contacts between Trump and Russians would have been crimes if they were real.
            If Trump went through several cuttouts like Clinton would that have made them legitimate ?

            How many layers of lawyers etc does it take to make your shit quit stinking ?

        2. CTHD always tries to confuse the issues with trivialities.

          Hillary pays a capo who pays Vinnie who then kills Fince Voster.

          Was Hillary a part of Fince Voster’s death? The strange and dark workings of a CTHD mind is that Hillary is totally uninvolved with the murder.

      2. Who was paid by Perkins Coie who was paid by HFA.

        Lots of cutouts does not change anything.

  11. I think the 7 GOP senators, including Johnson, went to Russia in 2018 to ‘cash in’?

  12. “mislead” ain’t that the same thing as perjury…..? I know, I know I only have a BA in Social Science but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once and I know a lie when I read a lie….

Comments are closed.