↓
 
Home » The Steele dossier and the FISA court: what did the FBI know and when did it know it?

The Steele dossier and the FISA court: what did the FBI know and when did it know it?

The New Neo Posted on by

John Solomon has been doing major reporting lately on the subject of the FBI’s knowledge of the phony nature of the Steele dossier. In the latest of a series of articles he’s written on the subject we find this [emphasis mine]:

…Government officials confirm that an October 2016 email revealing that Steele met with State Department officials — a breach of protocol for an informant if it was unauthorized — was sent to an FBI counterintelligence supervisor.

Multiple sources confirm to me that the recipient of the State Department email was Special Agent Stephen Laycock…

The email to Laycock from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec arrived eight days before the FBI swore to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that it had no derogatory information on Steele and used his anti-Trump dossier to secure a secret surveillance warrant to investigate Trump’s possible ties to Moscow.

Officials tell me that Laycock immediately forwarded the information he received about Steele on Oct. 13, 2016, to the FBI team leading the Trump-Russia investigation, headed by then-fellow Special Agent Peter Strzok…

…[T]he email exchange means FBI supervisors knew Steele had contact with State and had reason to inquire what he was saying before they sought the warrant. If they had inquired, agents would have learned Steele had admitted to Kavalec he had been leaking to the news media, had a political deadline of Election Day to get his information public and had provided demonstrably false intelligence in one case, as I reported last week.

Current and former FBI officials told me it would be a red flag for an FBI informant on a sensitive counterintelligence case such as Russia to go talking about his evidence with another federal agency without authorization.

“This is quite important,” Brock said. “Under normal circumstances, when you get information about the conduct of your source that gives rise to questions about their reliability or truthfulness, you usually go back and reevaluate their dependability and credibility…

Republican House and Senate investigators who spent two years reviewing the Russia case say they were not provided the details of Kavalec’s contact with Steele or told about the existence of her handwritten and typed notes.

Lawmakers believe the new memos provide additional evidence Steele was unsuitable to be an informant before his dossier was used to justify a FISA warrant

The good news is that government officials weren’t so incompetent as to not have relayed the Kavalec information in a timely fashion. The bad news is that the information discrediting the dossier and/or its creator was ignored as Russiagate plowed forward.

But we already had suspected and then surmised that. Now there seems to be proof. Please read the whole Solomon article.

As for what will happen, I’m with Ace on this:

They swore, under penalty of perjury, that they had no derogatory information to undermine the reliability of the Steele dossier — and they did have derogatory information in hand.

But they swore a falsehood to the court anyway.

This is something for which, if proven, the perpetrators should be convicted. Whether they will be or not is quite another question.

My guess is that, if questioned, one of their defenses will be that even though the letter was sent to them prior to their FISA application, they didn’t see it and/or didn’t read it, and therefore acted in good faith and didn’t lie in the application. In other words, fool rather than knave.

[NOTE: John Durham, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, has been appointed by Barr “to examine the origins of the Russia investigation and determine if intelligence collection involving the Trump campaign was ‘lawful and appropriate.'”]

Comments

The Steele dossier and the FISA court: what did the FBI know and when did it know it? — 25 Comments

  1. Sorry, fun note came up and out of the blue:

    Salon Media says they have reached an 11th hour deal to sell the company and its flagship property Salon.com for $5 million. In an SEC filing, Salon also revealed its position was dire and that it would face imminent “bankruptcy and liquidation” if the deal should fall through. “We have agreed to sell substantially all of our assets (the “Asset Sale”), including all pertinent intellectual property rights comprising the Company’s business of owning, operating and publishing the website known as Salon.com,” the filing read.

    We return you to your normal blog…

  2. Apparently John Durham has been on the case for about two months, and he already has a grand jury impaneled. The rats are already attacking each other in true “honor amongst thieves” fashion.

    Break out the popcorn and settle down in your favorite recliner. The next year is going to e one of despair for the left, and I await seeing some who have been speaking recently on CNN donning orange jumpsuits.

  3. You’re probably right, Neo, to think that FBI people will plead incompetence rather than intentional perjury. Sort of like their preposterous judgment of Hillary: No wrongful intent. I don’t believe it, and I hope the DOJ won’t.

  4. There are differing accounts as to the length of Durham’s tenure on the case and it seems that those who know aren’t eager to speak. However, there was sworn testimony before a Congressional committee from a lawyer to one of the subjects of investigation that Durham was conducting a criminal investigation as far back as October 2018.

  5. Implication being if that is so (Oct. 2018) Durham would have been charged under Sessions, then re-charged by Barr.

  7. RE: “The anonymous former official said that Brennan and Clapper opposed Comey’s suggestion because Steele’s report “was in no way” used to develop the intelligence community assessment.”
    This, coupled with the news that AG Barr is working with the intelligence community, leads me to believe that Barr has told them, “work with me to sink Comey, or you go down with him, and the intelligence community has decided to feed Comey to the wolves.

    Message to Comey: they’ve decided on a patsy, and you’re it.

  10. “…work with me to sink Comey…”

    It could, on the other hand, be—simply(!)—a case of setting one’s ducks up in an orderly row and then picking them off one by one….

    I mean, holding Comey alone responsible for this elaborate multi-layered masterpiece of a scheme is surely unfair…(and unAmerican!!).

  11. More from Ace today:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/381326.php
    “Walls Are Closing In: Brennan and Anonymous Official Named “Brohn Jennan” Accuse Comey of Insisting on Putting Fake Steele Dossier in Official Intelligence Assessment; Comey Had Previously Accused Brennan of Trying to Sneak It In”

    He quotes from this post:
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/15/comey-brennan-dossier-rift-gowdy/

    “Comey, a former FBI director, sent an email to subordinates in late 2016 indicating Brennan, a former CIA director, wanted to include materials from the dossier in the intelligence community assessment, known as the ICA, Fox News reported.

    A former CIA official speaking on Brennan’s behalf is disputing the assertion. The former official told Fox that Brennan and James Clapper, a former director of national intelligence, opposed Comey’s push to include Steele dossier information in the ICA….Comey referred to the dossier in the email as “the crown material,” according to Fox’s source. Comey confirmed in a Dec. 17, 2018 closed-door congressional interview that FBI analysts used to the term as a reference to Steele’s report.

    The email appears to be same one that former South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy referred to in an interview Monday on Fox News as well as during Comey’s congressional interview.”

  12. Daily Caller via Ace again, on a story I saw yesterday making the rounds.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/381316.php

    “Obama White House Kept Close Track of FOIA Request About Hillary Clinton’s Emails — A Request That, Coincidentally Enough, Wound Up Being Improperly Denied by the State Department
    A scandal-free administration.”

    That phrase “scandal-free” reminds me a lot of the nutrition labels for health-foodie products, which imply they are “sugar free” in their demeanor, but can’t actually say it out loud, because one of their ingredients is “evaporated cane juice” or one of the other fad euphemisms today.

  13. The feds knew from the start it was a conspiracy, and lacking any concrete, verifiable evidence. They thought they could get away with. I hope Barr proves them wrong.

  15. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/381330.php
    “Soothsayer asked why, if these guys really feared legal jeopardy, they’d continue playing to #TheResistance.

    Well, I’m not saying this is definitely true, but it is a possible answer: Because 35% of the country is hardcore #TheResistance and if you convince them you done good by breaking the law to get OrangeManBad, they’ll basically exercise jury nullification and refuse to convict you.

    Remember Susan MacDougal? Seemed they had her dead to rights, but Clinton worshippers knew that she had refused to testify against Clinton and they refused to convict.”

    Ace also quoted from this post:
    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/443741-jim-comeys-own-words-justify-bill-barrs-review
    “The Mueller report largely has undercut any assertion by Comey that the counterintelligence investigation initiated during Comey’s directorship was founded on solid legal predication.

    So now Comey’s game plan seems to be an appeal to emotion: We had to investigate the Trump campaign because he is such a terrible person and, as articulated by his investigator, Peter Strzok, someone who had to be “stopped.”

    There’s a problem with that. FBI agents are not allowed to investigate individuals based on emotion or because they don’t like someone, or that someone has distasteful character traits. (For this, all politicians should be grateful.)
    …
    Comey’s claim that he and his team did everything “by the book” also should invite scrutiny. He is controversial precisely because so many of his actions were not by the book.

    Conducting any investigation — as Comey did — out of FBI headquarters, let alone the Director’s Office, is not by the book. It is so outside “the book” that current FBI Director Christopher Wray is implementing policy, according to reliable internal sources, that restores investigations exclusively to the field offices and prohibits headquarters — where the FBI most closely intersects with the flame of political D.C. — from ever conducting investigations again. Prudent, and good news for the country.

    Comey said that running confidential human sources and undercover operatives is normal activity. It is, but under tight restrictions. Targeting U.S. citizens working for a presidential campaign with confidential sources, non-FBI undercover investigators, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) electronic surveillance, is not normal. It’s never been done before. There is no “book” for it.
    …”

    The author lists several other “plays” that were not “by the book” — nice use of football meme throughout the post.

    ‘Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions, LLC.”

  16. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/443720-barr-throws-curveball-into-senate-gop-spying-probe

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he supports Barr’s move but signaled concern that a Justice Department investigation could add roadblocks to their ability to force individuals to respond to the GOP investigations on Capitol Hill.

    “I hope it doesn’t hamper it. I’m supportive of the fact that the attorney general is looking into all potential problems, potential crimes,” he said. “But I just want to make sure it does not hamper congressional investigations because our purpose is about … public policy and informing the public.”

    Asked about his previous concerns that a criminal investigation negatively impacts congressional probes, he added: “It does. It absolutely does. It prevents us from getting access … because they’ll say we can’t release that because it will affect our criminal investigation.”
    …
    Johnson said on Tuesday that while the Justice Department would likely focus on “prosecutable crimes,” congressional oversight has “different purposes” and could include “wrongdoing that doesn’t meet the level of prosecutorial crimes,” leaks or improper influence into a campaign that could be prime areas for congressional oversight.

    “We just did this backwards. We should have started with congressional investigations unimpeded by criminal proceedings. Once we issued our reports then we could refer that to the criminal justice system,” Johnson said about the initial report on Russia’s election interference.

    Asked if they were about to do it “backwards” again, he added, “Yes, but now we’re two years into this and the attorney general is going to have to hop on this. I wish the special counsel would have looked into all of the issues.”

    Graham on Tuesday appeared to outline potential areas where his focus could differ from the Justice Department, including addressing what if any legislation is needed in the wake of the 2016 election.

    But he added that when “you’ve got oversight and prosecutions going on at the same time, that could be a very dangerous combination.”

    I disagree with Sen. Johnson on this. One of the dangerous aspects of the combination is the grandstanding that occurs in Congressional investigations, which are all about rumor, innuendo, spinning – if not outright lying, and a total lack of due process and presumption of innocence of any kind.

    If Congress is investigating something that is NOT a crime, but then turns up criminal activity, they should stop immediately and refer it to the DOJ, neither finishing their report first, nor running concurrently with a criminal probe.

    Another dangerous part of the combination is when Congress tries to investigate some act that is not statutorily criminal (such as a violation of their process rules), but pretends like it is and tries to imply to the public that the act is more nefarious than an in-house set-to among the factions.

    If Congress is concerned that an actual crime has been committed, then they should send out trained law enforcement investigators to see if there is anything worthy of a grand jury indictment.
    If their target is tried and found guilty, then they no longer need the political investigation, other than for maybe tying up loose ends and closing legal loopholes that might have been used by the perp – a legitimate legislative function.
    If their target is not convicted, they can still go forward with the “political” investigation, somewhat like a civil action after a criminal trial, but on a foundation of evidence already litigated.

    If the target is not even indicted, they can then run their kangaroo courts unimpeded.
    But if it leaks (hah) that the grand jury returned a no bill, then the public has a better handle on why the investigation is being pursued.

    FWIW, the FBI “investigation” of Clinton should have gone to a grand jury, and she should be in jail.

  17. Barry Meislin on May 15, 2019 at 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm said:
    “…and when did…?”
    * * *
    I bookmarked Smith’s report back in 2018, and thought more should be done about looking into the Shearer dossier, but it kind of disappeared. I don’t know if it surfaced in Mueller’s report, but nothing I’ve read yet has mentioned it (haven’t read his fan-fic novel itself).
    Maybe Durham has that in his bag of tricks.

  18. It is rather simple. The dark side actors assumed the shrew queen would win the EC, thus providing cover and promotions. But in their wisdom they set in motion ‘insurance policies’ just in case she lost the EC. They were treasonous scum, but they were competent enough to hit the ground running with the smoke and mirrors of Rusion collusion via the Steele dossier.

    Time to bring back firing squads. Any other form is cruel and unusual.

  19. “I wish the special counsel would have looked into all of the issues.”

    I assume Johnson is here referring to Mueller.

    If so, is Johnson joking (given the Mueller’s extremely partisan “function” and goal)?

    Or is he being very ironic?

    Or is this a “softening up” campaign—a prelude to going after Mueller?

  20. ‘Comey referred to the dossier in the email as “the crown material,” according to Fox’s source. ‘

    I was under the impression that Comey referred to the Steele dossier as “salacious” and “unverified” (or is that “unverifiable”?)

    What’s up?

    (Or is it a case of “different audiences”?)

  21. More on the Shearer dossier, which was also connected to Sidney Blumenthal.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/trey-gowdy-claims-fbi-relied-on-clinton-ally-sidney-blumenthal-to-corroborate-steele-dossier/

    “I’ve seen the spreadsheet, Martha. I have seen each factual assertion listed in that dossier, and then I’ve seen the FBI’s justification. And when you’re citing newspaper articles as corroboration for a factual assertion that you have made, you don’t need an FBI agent to go do a Google search,” said Gowdy, a former member of the House Intelligence Committee who now serves as a Fox News contributor, in remarks first noted by the Daily Caller. “When the name Sidney Blumenthal is included as part of your corroboration, and when you’re the world’s leading law-enforcement agency, you have a problem.”

  22. “…you have a problem.”

    But that’s just it.

    There was NO problem (except Trump, of course, who HAD to be dealt with).

    NO problem at all.

  24. Barry:

    You may spell it ‘scandal-less’, but I think it’s pronounced ‘scandalous’.

  25. One COULD have a bit of fun, I suppose…(that is, if it is even possible to satirize the most crooked administration evuh; if one even satirize those “high-minded” individuals who cooked up the worst political scandal in the history of the Republic…):

    Hillary could be “Scandal-lass”.
    Brennan “Scandal-louse”.
    The whole crooked crew at DOJ / FBI / DNC / Fusion GPS / Perkins Coie / etc. “Scandal-lice”.
    The Obama WH “Scandal-house”….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑