WTF Community

The Steele Dossier Considered Post-Mueller

General Discussion
#9

Thanks @Turingtest for making inquiries as to the validity of any Trump/Republican argument now…that this was all just a ‘coup’ attempt. I agree it is absurd and looking for far-right arguments on Mueller etc. to understand what they are driving home.

And also reminding us that ‘confirmation bias’ - which basically says we believe our argument, no matter what will continue to work in T’s favor…because no matter what his base is going to believe him.

I agree that the spun narrative coming out of Team T - including as his Number One accessory -Atty Gen. Barr continues to be - T never did what so many on the left accused him of - colluding w/ Russians, in the tank with Russia/Putin and that this attempted ‘coup’ which began w/ a counterintelligence mission as @Pet_Proletariat points out started by the ‘deep state’ (all intel agencies) before the election. The main point T always wanted to be that he won the election fairly. And that T would not obstruct justice because he was unfairly pursued by Intel, the Press…and there was NO COLLUSION/

AG Barr captured the narrative and placed little doubt in the majority of T voters that T was not guilty, which the rest of the thinking world thought otherwise.

So the theory might be from T 'n Co that given that the CIA, FBI, DNI (Brennan, Comey and Clapper then Coats) were in cahoots with one another and stirred up the Russian issue prior to the election.

I began to read what counter-arguments might be from Breitbart, Fox sources and I came across the intel document that the Right is taking issue with - namely this group of ‘treasonous’ intel people. Brennan, who was appointed by Obama to replace Petraeus and I believe resigned from CIA has been attacked via taking away his security clearance, Comey fired and Dan Coats has been holding steady to his job, but is a target of T’s ire.

They are looking at the origins of the Russia Investigation and starting with the predicate…well, the Intelligence agencies were out to get T…and Barr is going to find out how/why.

This is the report they (T/Barr) want to shred, as well as continue down the path of the 19 angry prosecutors, Strzok…etc.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf (correct!)

For reference ONLY…and to determine how the arguments are being made. I know we do not use these sources because they are non-factual…BUT worth a look.

  • Deep inside a 7,700-plus word Washington Post article published June 23, 2017, the newspaper detailed the highly compartmentalized nature of the original Russia interference investigation and the manner in which other U.S. intelligence agencies were deliberately kept in the dark.

  • According to the newspaper, in the summer of 2016, CIA Director John Brennan convened a “secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.”

  • The Post described the unit as so secretive it functioned as a “sealed compartment” hidden even from the rest of the U.S. intelligence community; a unit whose workers were all made to sign additional non-disclosure forms.

…
The usual suspects - Brennan, Clapper, AG Loretta Lynn and Comey and their secretive mission.

The number of Obama administration officials who were allowed access to the Russia intelligence was also highly limited, The Post reported. At first only four senior officials were involved: Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and then-FBI Director James Comey. Their aides were all barred from attending the initial meetings, The Post stated.

And then, by extension, T can order up Barr to delve into the Intelligence agencies Intel to conjure up any argument he wants. And of course this is meant to be disruptive and to undermine the power and authority of the Intel agencies.

Not sure I am making any other point aside from the PR strategy and legal one from T and Barr is to present any intel to refute any claim that T is guilty of any crime and continue to ignore the Russian interference in elections because that hits to close to T’s legitimacy as a president who won fairly.

3 Likes
#10

Well, I read all of it. The intelligence re: Russia came from where intelligence is supposed to come from, “the intelligence community,” specifically from Brennan, then-CIA director, in August 2016. Obama, sensibly, ordered that Brennan get consensus, not, apparently, of 17 agencies, as has often been reported (all under the Director of National Intelligence), but of the FBI and NSA as well as the CIA. He also ordered that an assessment be made of vulnerabilities, which would regard potential threat, not factual harm. And he directed that staff seek b-partisan support for confronting Moscow.

It took a long time for the NSA to buy in, and in the end they weighed in at only “moderate confidence,” due to the fact that some critical information had come from other governments, presumably the five foreign countries relaying signals intelligence re: Team Trump and Russians and/or Australia. The attempt at a bi-partisan agreement to confront Russia failed, because, predictably, the GOP reps suspected a political stunt. In the end, Obama did not rock the boat prior to the election. In retrospect, maybe he wishes he had, but that would likely have just put is in another kettle of hot water than the one we’re in now, regardless of who won. Finally, in late December, Obama acted.

The fundamental problem is that intelligence conclusions minus “method and means” reads a whole like a possible fiction. Why did Brennan go to Obama in August? Uh, because staff came to him first. What staff, and what did they tell him? Sorry, that’s classified.

Looking at the most liked comments at Breitbart, it boils down for them to Obama dreaming it all up and SAYING Brennan had come to him, for political gain. When confronted with the fact that none of this was made public prior to the election, the answer is: 1) that Obama, like many people, thought HRC would prevail; and 2) that once she did not prevail, the phony Russia story would be the kind of “insurance” that Strozck (sp?) spoke of in one of his texts.

It’s hilarious that evidence of secret agencies being ultra-secret about an ultra-sensitive matter–cutting the video, not including any of it in the daily intelligence briefing, counts as evidence not of caution but of treachery.

Short of just throwing open the entire national intelligence apparatus, the only remedy I can see is treating the matter like any other conspiracy: ask what would also have to be true if there were the conspiracy, and see if it IS true; and ask how many people would have had to be involved–"in on it–for the conspiracy to get off the ground. This latter often reduces the idea of a conspiracy to absurdity. E.g., From Facebook, Twitter, and Google, there has emerged evidence regarding phony accounts traceable to Russia. In order for this evidence to be part of a false narrative, many employees of all three of these companies would have to be in on the plot, which is absurd. AND, when Steele’s “false” narrative, bought and paid for by HRC, turns out to be largely confirmed by the life-long Republican Mueller investigation, you need to have Mueller and all his lawyers “in on it.”

But as we know, there are die-hard adherents of virtually every conspiracy theory, including ones more irrational than this one.

4 Likes
#11

Thanks for wading in on what the Intel agencies did, and thought, what Obama didn’t or couldn’t do regarding revealing Russian activity prior to the election…and pouring over the various what ifs.

It now does feel like an official spy v. spy T-Russia-IntelliSpygate Mad magazine edition 2019.

Appreciate your separating what the possible arguments could be from the right -

And that the Intel agencies did a supersecret, secret-beyond-secret mini lab to do a fake “Russia interfered” report can be detailed and verified that it was a purposeful pursuit of the facts that Russia had shown interested and WAS interfering in what voters were thinking about.

When you also look at whatever loosely built argument from the House Republican report, and said NO Russian influence, period you see more GOP railroading the argument…no collusion, you guys dreamed this up.

Just pulled up this NPR piece on what can be confirmed or refuted from Obama’s end as far as taking action against the Russians before (Obama privately said to Putin - knock it off) and McConnell would not allow the warning Obama wanted to give on Russian meddling.

Private warnings

Among other things, top U.S. intelligence officials — including then-CIA Director John Brennan — privately warned their Russian counterparts not to persist with their active measures. Obama himself told Russian President Vladimir Putin not to interfere in the election. These warnings did not work.

Publicity

Obama administration officials also told reporters on background that Russian intelligence operatives were behind the cyberattacks that led to the release of emails stolen from political figures and institutions. Later, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson formally blamed the Russian government in an official statement.

Although it wasn’t universally accepted, the active measures campaign became a part of the political campaign itself. Trump and opponent Hillary Clinton traded barbs about the Russian interference during their debates.

Diplomatic response

After Election Day, Obama ordered the U.S. intelligence community to issue a public report about the Russian scheme. Once it had — and concluded Russia’s attack was aimed at helping Trump and hurting Clinton — the United States imposed a slate of punitive measures against Moscow. In addition to imposing new sanctions, Washington also expelled a number of Russian diplomats and closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York.

…

A partisan tightrope

Former Vice President Joe Biden also has complained that the White House wanted Republicans to join in a bipartisan statement announcing and condemning the interference campaign. In Biden’s telling, however, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wouldn’t go along.

But that didn’t stop then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., from alluding publicly to the Russian campaign in a letter to then-FBI Director James Comey. And Comey reportedly wanted to announce the active measures in an op-ed column, as Newsweek reported in March 2017. Two sources with knowledge about the matter told Newsweek that Obama administration officials blocked the effort.

This constant revision of the facts and respinning them to meet their objections is frightening - Make Russiagate go away…let’s try Spygate instead. The fact that T has power as does Barr makes it even scarier.

It should not be so difficult to identify and agree on the truth…when it comes to some of the fundamentals. Obviously norm-busting is the way now. :astonished:

6 Likes
#12

Excellent conversation.

In my rereading of this thread I realized we learned something new this week about Brennan. Trump never actually went through with revoking his security clearance. He just said he did.

The White House said a month later that the president was ordering the revocation of Mr. Brennan’s clearance. But the White House never followed through with the complex bureaucratic work it would have taken to strip the clearance, according to a person familiar with the process.

How do you all think this will impact the other-side’s argument?

4 Likes
#13

The trouble is that people who steadfastly refuse to even read the report of the Special Counsel just will not accept anything that appears in NPR, or, for that matter, in any of the rest of the normal media.

By the way, FOX has discontinued comments, and breitbart has declined in prominence. The new hotbed of lunacy online is the website of the Federal Society, of all things…

Once known for taking an interest in Supreme Court nominations (their right), and having members like George Conway, Kellyanne’s husband and currently fierce Trump critic; and Ted Olsen, Bush’s lawyer in Bush v. Gore, but also litigator in support of gay marriage, it now reads a lot like Infowars, with comments that are genuinely unhinged.

2 Likes
#14

Two things to be thankful for, a POTUS that has a serious follow-through deficiency and a staff that has no problem just shining on his dumbest ideas.

As to why this is a story now, I don’t know…

3 Likes
#15

Thx for the tip…yes the all-powerful Federalist Society which brought us Gorsuch and Kavanaugh…

A mecca for Righties…

Question- Isn’t George Conway Iii going a little rogue (or face saving)from his ‘alt right’ brethren - forming a group called the Checks and Balances group…some of whom are also Federalist Socity members? Not quite within the purview of the Federalists…but just to the side.

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/14/kellyanne-conways-husband-reagans-counsel-are-among-lawyers-warning-that-trump-imperils-democracy/?outputType=amp

4 Likes
#16

Yep. Conway’s going a lot rogue. Checks and Balances is a splinter group of the Federalist Society, formed on the eve of their last convention. Checks and Balances is specific for the purpose of pushing back against Trump.

On another related front, the staff of the now-defunct Weekly Standard–and some others–have formed a blog-podcast called “The Bulwark.” It is under the aegis of something called “Defending Democracy Together.” The goals of the latter conform pretty well with those of Checks and Balances.

I highly recommend "The Bulwark,"although, being that I’m not conservative, there are a few cringe-worth moments. One thing’s for sure: they are vehemently anti-Trump. They also advocate for a sane resolution to the immigration puzzle.

In my view, it is these rogue Republicans who will win the day for us.

3 Likes
#17
1 Like
#18

It’s amazing how many Right-leaning people believe Steele’s stuff is 100% fiction; even people who, reading on and between the lines, fancy themselves to be rationalists.

Thinking back, the biggest “hit” on the dossier–besides Cohen and Prague–has been the “salacious” part; as if there is some logical contradiction to “salacious” and “trump” appearing in the same sentence. In my view, the hookers and water sports meant Steele was onto something.

2 Likes
#19

It doesn’t get more Reality TV than this…Hannity can amp up the (false) outrage and point to the (missing) facts. Yes, very true - salacious = smarmy = Trump.

Hannity is pablum for the ‘idiot’s delight’ meal, and wrapped in self-righteous anger about it. No facts necessary.

I think it just comes down to Pin the Tail on the Donkey…the children’s game where you must affix the blame onto someone, so it must be Steele. :carousel_horse:

2 Likes
#20

Good find. I read most of the comparison and agree with the author. I am of the opinion of what Prof. Lawrence Tribe said on MSNBC rrecently, ÖPEN AN INQUIRY ALREADY Congress! The GOP reps in both houses will not support an Impeachment Inquiry or a hearing in the Senate. N
ow… If Trump keeps stepping on his dick in public statements like he did with the recent ABC interview and the poll numbers keeping dropping (the economy could slide toward recession - that will scare everyone…) maybe enough GOP Senators will do the right thing. I suppose that is wishful thinking especially since there is enough Russian money floating around to keep them all on board with the lie.

4 Likes
#21

I wonder if the Trump-effect will lessen even with some of the base? I think if the tav returns and money laundering were made public by hearings in Congress - no more hiding behind the great unknown. Trump’s balloon is losing air. I think it is possible that even FOX talking heads will not be enough to keep the lie going. I sure hope do and will do what I can to help turn the tide.

4 Likes
#22

There is also ~RepublicansForTheRuleofLaw.comn

3 Likes
#23

dragonfly9

Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark and George Will were on Bill Maher’s show on Friday. I haven’t watched it yet, but it could be interesting.

1 Like
#24

Watched this week’s Bill Maher Show with two conservative guests - Charlie Sykes The Bulwark and George Will (formerly a Republican, and now Independent, and formerly of he WSJ, now commentator for NBC/MSNBC - George Will’s profile)

In the first part of the show, Charlie Sykes talks about the bully nature of politics - Pushing for dominance by driving out the other guy, and not compromising in the least. He condemns Conservatives for their “Performative Wokeness” which is the act of driving your idea, humiliating ‘other’ and keeping a monotone culture at any cost.

Sykes dislikes the Democratic ‘do nothingism’ which is that they should go for the Impeachment. NOW. The criticism on Dems is they get wrapped into the supporting the aggrieved, taking care of victims, siding with elites/Hollywood and have gotten more spineless. These characteristics are what drive conservatives mad. (go figure?)

George Will who left the Republican party in 2017 after a lifetime of being one, believes the Democrats are supremely weak. He carries a list of all their ‘dumb’ ideas.

George’s Dumb Democratic ideas List
Ending Private Insurance
Eliminate Electoral College (not feasible)
Give terrorists the vote (prisoners?)

Will says it was only 402 counties that voted in Obama in 2012, and the same 402 counties that voted in T in 2016.

Bill Maher hates the weak liberals, the Religious Right but hates T even more, and condemns his victim status.

Here’s the Overtime section of Bill Maher’s show with George Will and Charlie Sykes answering questions, along with Martin Short, Eliot Spitzer and Bari Weiss. More sparring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BpMQcahNg

1 Like
#25

More debunking of what the Steele Dossier says

2 Likes
#26

This topic was automatically closed 15 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

#8

Yup. Lawfare’s great, but they count as “center-left” and thus are avoided like the plague by Trump devotees.

3 Likes
#5

Exactly. It’s a narrative.

What I don’t understand is how it could be an attempted coup that also exonerates Trump? The Mueller Report explicitly says it does not exonerate the President. And it also states the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation began July 2016, way before the election. How can it be a coup if Trump wasn’t even elected yet?

Best free and easy to read timeline of the entire investigation :point_down: bookmark this one kids :bookmark::open_book:

Public Testimony of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS

The Public Steele Dossier

The Mueller Report

4 Likes