This entire saga will continue unless the Trump Justice Department fires Mueller and investigates it by the Congress of the United States of America.
With Muller as the resident partisan hatchet man the saga will continue until We the People, rise up and tell Paul Ryan to quit wasting our money.
A U.S. District court judge has put a former British spy one step closer to facing questions under oath about the controversial dossier he authored alleging President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team plotted with Russian agents.
A ruling by Judge Ursula Ungaro allows lawyers for a Russian technology executive named in the dossier to seek British approval to question onetime MI6 agent Christopher Steele about the funding and sourcing of the dossier under oath.
“I suspect that I’ll be the first to speak to him,” Gubarev’s attorney, Valentin Gurvits, told ABC News this week. “I know that he is trying very hard to prevent that from happening.”
The potential interview with Steele is part of a widening effort to pierce the secrecy surrounding the now infamous dossier that raised the first questions about then-candidate Trump’s ties to Russia.
The 35-page document contains a range of unverified allegations, some of which have been discredited, laying out a history of ties between several Trump associates and Russia operatives.
It also levels salacious claims about Trump’s own behavior during a visit to Moscow in 2013 – claims Trump later refuted and denounced during a Jan. 11 news conference.
“I think it was disgraceful, disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out,” Trump said.
THE NATIONAL REVIEW
December 16, 2017
We need to know the answer.
President Trump ought to direct his Justice Department and FBI to provide the House Intelligence Committee with the FISA warrant application, any FISA warrant application, in which they relied on information from the Steele dossier in seeking court permission to spy on the Trump campaign.
It may well be that they did not rely on the dossier.
It is ridiculous, though, that we are still in the dark about this.
(Andrew McCarthy) I have long experience with how scrupulously the FBI and Justice Department work in the often controversial foreign-intelligence realm.
They care deeply about their honorable reputation with the FISA court, just as the judges of that secret tribunal care deeply about not being perceived as a “rubber-stamp” for the government.
I have thus given our agencies the benefit of the doubt here.
While urging that we have disclosure (with all due care to protect intelligence methods and sources), I have presumed that the FBI and DOJ would never fraudulently present the FISA court with fanciful claims attributed to anonymous Russian sources as if they were a refined product of U.S. intelligence collection and analysis.
This, after all, is a “dossier” that former FBI director James Comey dismissed as “salacious and unverified” in Senate testimony just six months ago.
When a court is asked for a warrant, the government must provide the judge with a basis to believe the information proffered is credible, by vouching that the source has been reliable in the past, by corroborating the information offered, or both.
If Comey adjudged Steele’s information unverified in June 2017, it had to have been unverified ten months earlier.
That’s when the FBI and Justice Department obtained a FISA warrant for Carter Page, who had been loosely described as a Trump campaign adviser.
Powered by Consequently, I have assumed that the following happened.
The FBI already had information that Page was something of an apologist for the Putin regime. although the record, we shall see, is more complex than that.
Thus, the FBI and DOJ may have combined that information with some claims mined out of the dossier; but they would not have included Steele’s claims without corroborating them independently.
See the entire article below.
This combination of information, doubtless added to by intelligence not known to us, was crafted into the application presented to the FISA court.
This would be the normal, appropriate process.
Exactly when during the summer of 2016 the surveillance of Page began is unclear. Importantly, however, an unidentified government official told the New York Times that the FBI and DOJ waited until Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign before seeking the warrant, investigators being leery of crossing the line of direct spying on a political campaign member.
The Trump team distanced itself from Page in early August, so it was presumably around this time when monitoring began.
To summarize, it is entirely possible that a surveillance warrant for Page was obtained based on no information from Steele, or at least no information the FBI had failed to corroborate independently.
Alas, an alternative theory has gathered momentum due to the drip, drip, drip of disturbing new disclosures, coupled with the fact that the Obama administration was in the tank for Trump’s opponent.
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from prior collaborative investigations.
The dossier was steered into the FBI’s hands as it began to be compiled in the summer of 2016.
And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee, “discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election.”
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion.
It is the time frame during which Ohr’s boss, Yates, was pushing an absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to become Trump’s national-security adviser) over Flynn’s meetings with the Russian ambassador.
Yates was ultimately fired by Trump for insubordinately refusing to enforce his “travel ban”; Ohr has been demoted for failing to disclose his meetings with Steele and Simpson.
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe (then and now the FBI’s No. 2 official) in mid-August 2016 — i.e., right around the time the Page FISA warrant was obtained.
At the meeting, top national-security personnel discussed the prospect that Donald Trump could be elected president, which they regarded as frightening but highly unlikely.
In the text, Strzok told Page, “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk” (of a Trump presidency).
Strzok suggested that the FBI needed “an insurance policy” against a Trump presidency despite its seeming improbability.
The FBI and Justice Department have stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee’s attempts to probe investigators’ political bias against Trump and to learn whether the Steele dossier, again, a Clinton-campaign product, was used to obtain the FISA warrant.
Thus, there is reason to be suspicious that the Steele dossier was used for this purpose.