Who were Christopher Steele’s Russian sources for the dossier on Trump?
[NOTE: Please see the update in an ADDENDUM at the bottom of this post.]
Congress would like to know [emphasis mine]:
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes has issued a subpoena to David Kramer, a former State Department official who, in late November 2016, traveled to London to receive a briefing and a copy of the Trump dossier from its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Kramer then returned to the U.S. to give the document to Sen. John McCain…
McCain later took a copy of the dossier to the FBI’s then-director, James Comey. But the FBI already had the document; Steele himself gave the dossier to the bureau in installments…
…Kramer told House investigators that he knew the identities of the Russian sources for the allegations in Steele’s dossier. But when investigators pressed Kramer to reveal those names, he declined to do so.
Now, he is under subpoena. The subpoena, issued Wednesday afternoon, directs Kramer to appear again before House investigators on Jan. 11.
Knowing Steele’s sources is a critical part of the congressional dossier investigation, for both sides. If one argues the document is unverified and never will be, it is critical to learn the identity of the sources to support that conclusion. If one argues the document is the whole truth, or largely true, knowing sources is equally critical.
Beyond that, there is another reason to know Steele’s sources, and that is to learn not just the origin of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair. There is a growing belief among some congressional investigators that the Russians who provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American election as much as the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some investigators’ views, they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the American political system.
It may be that the Democratic efforts to tie Trump to Russian propaganda will circle back and point the finger at their own (and John McCain’s) ties to Russian propaganda.
[NOTE: I think that the two best people to follow on the Russia/dossier/collusion/influence stories are Andrew C. McCarthy and Byron York. The article linked in this post is by York.]
ADDENDUM: I was following a link in a recent story about Kramer’s testimony, and it led me to the York article I discussed in this post. I assumed the article was new because the story I was following was new, but the York article is approximately two months old. The new news (as opposed to the older news in the York article) is that Kramer took the Fifth, refusing to testify at all.
And now the following has been announced:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have requested the Justice Department to criminally investigate Steele to determine if he was misleading about how the dossier was distributed and his contacts with media.
It remains to be seen whether we will ever learn the answer to the question in the title of this post. But inquiring minds would dearly love to know.
Confused: Kramer is to appear again on Jan.11 ?
Frog:
Apparently, I was the confused one. I’ve added an ADDENDUM to the post that says the following–
I was following a link in a recent story about Kramer’s testimony, and it led me to the York article I discussed in this post. I assumed the article was new because the story I was following was new, but the York article is approximately two months old. The new news (as opposed to the older news in the York article) is that Kramer took the Fifth, refusing to testify at all.
And now the following has been announced:
It remains to be seen whether we will ever learn the answer to the question in the title of this post. But inquiring minds would dearly love to know.
There is the fellow by the name of Winer of the State Department, one of Kerry’s men, who is old friends with both Steele and Sidney Blumenthal, one of Hillary’s hatchmen. Winer claimed to be a go between the two giving documents from Blumenthal to Steele. When this came out there was speculation that Blumenthal was the actual creator of the contents of the Steele dossier, no Russians were actually involved.
BTW, there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. The DNC never allowed the FBI to investigate.
Is this a new request re Steele sent to the Justice Dept. by Grassley and Graham? They already sent one on him on January 5th.
Ann:
As you can see if you follow the link, that article was written yesterday, but it doesn’t say when the Grassley/Graham request was filed.
All my alarms go off when someone takes the fifth. I suppose that is unfair — there might be a reason other than personal guilt that leads them to do so. But in this case I am very suspicious. I hate to immunize him to get his testimony, but I guess I would like to see that done. If there is any way his testimony leads to Blumenthal, I think immunity would be worth it. And if he does testify, chances are very good justice would ultimately be done, when he goes to Ft Marcy Park and shoots himself six times in the back.
I wonder if some of the Democrats are remembering the old proverb that it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie —
PS That’s the word meaning “recline” not “obfuscate”, just in case there are any maleducated children reading this — Google couldn’t even complete the search term after priming with “let sleeping dogs”.
(idiomatic) To leave things as they are; especially, to avoid restarting or rekindling an old argument; to leave disagreements in the past.
I think it likely that Kramer lied the first time about knowing the identity of Steele’s sources. It is possible that to buff up the dossier, he lied about knowing the sources’ identities- it is difficult to put together a rational reason he would claim to know, but refuse to identify them before an authorized legislative committee. The only explanation that makes sense is that he didn’t identify because he didn’t know them. He took the 5th today to cover for that perjured testimony.
Concerning Steele, if he was played by the Russians, he’s a useful idiot and nothing more. The Spectator did a piece on this last week.
Frankly, I don’t think we will know the sources involved until proper historians are working on this. It’s a question of protecting sources.
Very likely the committees on the American side of this won’t learn anything sooner than us either. They show no interest in protecting sources.
Another option, however, is available: Mueller can try to independently collaborate the claims.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/in-defence-of-christopher-steele/
(idiomatic) To leave things as they are; especially, to avoid restarting or rekindling an old argument; to leave disagreements in the past.
Did you know that burying the hatchet and burying the weapons of war, are mentioned by the red Indians and the Book of Mormon?
Both in the same context of peace and not using them.
Looks like we’re in Lois Lerner and Loretta Lynch territory.
(Yes, folks, that’s one ‘ell of a lot of ‘els.)
Well, at least the Democrats are consistent…..
On the other hand, I wonder if this fine fellow can be forced to testify. (National security, you know….)
DC needs to move unto the next conspiracy. America, home of the brave, is looking to be getting not so tolerant and brave…