Russiagate has fallen apart, with special counsel John Durham exposing the notorious Steele Dossier as a collection of lies and made-up stories. But you wouldn’t know it by reading most of the Christopher Steele: Beginning in March 2016, the former British spy collects rumor and innuendo supposedly from “inside sources.” But his primary source really is . . .media, which have mostly ignored the story.
More importantly, they haven’t faced up to their own part in pushing this witch hunt. Relying on one anonymous source — ex-British spy Christopher Steele — they spun a supposed conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russia. But they never revealed the fact that Steele was being paid by Hillary Clinton’s campaign for opposition research, and they never examined Steele’s sources, who were unreliable or nonexistent.
Here’s how the media amplified Steele’s baseless claims to create hysteria. None of these stories have been updated, no corrections have been made.
The players
Hillary Clinton: Pays law firm Perkins Coie for campaign services, which hires research group Fusion GPS to do opposition reporting on Donald Trump. They in turn hire . . .
Christopher Steele: Beginning in March 2016, the former British spy collects rumor and innuendo supposedly from “inside sources.” But his primary source really is . . .
Igor Danchenko: A former Brookings Institution analyst who worked closely with foreign affairs specialist Fiona Hill. Danchenko claims to hear from Sergei Millian, a real estate broker with ties to Russia, of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin. But special counsel John Durham says the phone calls with Millian never happened, Danchenko just made it up. Danchenko has been charged with lying to investigators. Another Danchenko source was . . .
Charles Dolan Jr.: A longtime Democratic operative for the Clintons, he passes on idle chatter and even admits to the FBI that he made up a conversation with a GOP operative that he passes along to Danchenko. This all leads to . . .
The Steele dossier: A collection of memos filled with every made-up, speculative, unverified thing Steele collects, packaged up as a grand conspiracy.
The whisper campaign
July 2016: Besides giving the dossier to the Clinton campaign, Steele also makes a copy for an FBI agent in Rome and starts pushing for an investigation.
September 2016: Frustrated he isn’t getting the big public FBI investigation he wants, Steele meets for off-the-record chats with The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, Mother Jones, The New Yorker and CNN. This leads to two stories:
“US intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin,” Yahoo News, Sept. 23, 2016
Then: Steele speaks to journalist Michael Isikoff about Trump adviser Carter Page, saying his dealings with Congress were being discussed by “senior members of Congress.” One “senior member” was noted dirty trickster Harry Reid, then Senate minority leader, who was given a copy of the dossier — and then kept writing letters to the FBI before the election pushing for an investigation. The FBI would use the dossier as part of its justification to wiretap Page.
Now: We know an FBI lawyer lied on the affidavit to wiretap Page, claiming he wasn’t an informant for the CIA even though Page had given the agency intelligence. The wiretaps turned up nothing, and Carter was never charged with a crime. Isikoff doesn’t reveal that the same person is responsible for feeding this story to the FBI, Reid and him: Steele.
“A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump,” Mother Jones, Oct. 31, 2016
Then: Just days before the presidential election, David Corn is the first journalist to refer to the Steele Dossier (though he doesn’t name Steele). He allows the spy, anonymously, to claim “there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.” He also says he’s giving the FBI “several memos — some of which referred to members of Trump’s inner circle.” Harry Reid keeps pushing Steele’s claims, writing a letter to the FBI that “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government.”
Now: We know that Steele knew of no such “established exchange.” His “source,” Igor Danchenko, made that up. The FBI also doesn’t have a full investigation going; they wouldn’t interview Steele until early 2017. But by sending the dossier to the FBI, it gave Democrats like Reid the chance to say, falsely, that Trump was being investigated.
The gloves come off
November-December 2016: The media is in a state of shock after Trump wins the election. Though they don’t reveal the dossier, it fuels coverage critical of Trump’s transition. Then . . .
“These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia,” BuzzFeed, Jan. 10, 2017
Then: Steele’s dossier is published in full by BuzzFeed, even though editor Ben Smith admits it can’t be verified and in fact has some obvious errors. The rationale: “so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.”
Now: The dossier was circulating because Hillary Clinton operatives made sure it was. The campaign paid for the dossier, then Steele and lawyers from Perkins Coie gave it to everyone they could — FBI agents, politician like Harry Reid and John McCain, and major media outlets.
Key Claims in Trump Dossier Said to Come From Head of Russian-American Business Group,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2017
Then: Sergei Millian, founder of the Russian American Chamber of Commerce, is named as the source of “Some of the most explosive parts of a dossier containing unverified allegations [about] President Donald Trump.” Millian, who supposedly claimed a “conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and Moscow, relayed the information to a third party, who gave it to the British ex-spy, the Journal says.
Now: We know the “third party” was Danchenko, who never spoke to Millian, special counsel John Durham says. Danchenko is charged with making false statements for repeatedly claiming he spoke to Millian, suggesting he just made up the “conspiracy” he fed to Steele. Millian always has denied being a source for the dossier. The Wall Street Journal’s source is anonymous, but the fact that Millian is named points to either Danchenko or Steele as the likely candidates, as they still try to claim the dossier is credible.
“Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2017
Then: The article claims that “Senior FBI officials believe that the former British intelligence officer who compiled the dossier, Christopher Steele, has a credible track record, and he briefed investigators last year about how he obtained the information. One American law enforcement official said that FBI agents had made contact with some of Mr. Steele’s sources.”
Now: Leaks from intelligence officials always present the investigation as deadly serious. Not leaked, but later revealed, is that former FBI agent Peter Strzok interviewed the dossier’s main source, now known to be Igor Danchenko, in early 2017 and it didn’t go well. Danchenko said he passed on “rumors and speculation” and that he couldn’t back up the claims made in the dossier. Strzok said Steele “may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his subsource network.’’ Strzok printed out a copy of the Times report and wrote in the margins, “we are unaware of any Trump advisors engaging in conversations with Russian intelligence officials.” The Times still has not corrected the story.
“Who is ‘Source D’? The man said to be behind the Trump-Russia dossier’s most salacious claim,” Washington Post, March 29, 2017
Then: Following on the January report in the Journal, the Washington Post says that Millian is behind the claim that “Trump had hired prostitutes at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton and that the Kremlin has kept evidence of the encounter.” The Post continues to pump up the Millian’s claims as possible, saying “there are also indications that he had contacts with Trump’s circle.”
Now: Again, Durham found Millian never spoke to Danchenko, and the hotel story is a complete fabrication.
Revisionism
“How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt,” The New York Times, Dec. 31, 2017
Then: As the dossier looks more and more flimsy, the FBI scrambles to justify the investigation into Trump, with the media’s assistance. The Times quotes anonymous officials: It wasn’t the dossier that caused the FBI to open an investigation. “Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America’s closest intelligence allies.” A low-level Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told Australia’s top diplomat in Britain that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. That’s what caused the FBI to start an investigation in July 2016. Though “Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an FBI agent . . . that information was not part of the justification to start a counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.”
Now: We know the dossier was used as justification to wiretap Carter Page, even if Papadopoulos’ idle chatter — he had heard the information from a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, but didn’t receive any of this supposed dirt — came out around the same time. The story reads now like the FBI anonymously trying to minimize an embarrassment. Nonetheless, the Times wins a Pulitzer for this story and other reports.
The fallout
The media’s coverage of the Trump campaign, fueled by the Steele Dossier, finds a Russian under every bed. But in the end, little comes of it. Michael Flynn is fired as national security adviser after media outcry over his pre-inaugural conversations with the Russian ambassador, but such outreach is typical of incoming administrations. Papadopoulos pleads guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI, with no suggestion that he worked with the Russians. Carter Page, despite months of wiretaps, is not charged. The most serious charges are against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, but are entirely related to tax and bank fraud with his own businesses.In the end, the Mueller report finds no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The dossier is debunked. Yet these stories remain unflagged by Twitter or Facebook. The headlines are still there.
No comments:
Post a Comment