Reporter who broke news of Steele dossier calls its claims largely 'false'

D

dukkha

Verified User
Michael Isikoff's statements on John Ziegler's Free Speech Broadcasting podcast came a day before Michael Cohen adviser Lanny Davis reiterated that Cohen has never been to Prague -- where, according to the dossier, he traveled to arrange a payment to Russian hackers during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The dossier was created by British ex-spy Christopher Steele and funded by the firm Fusion GPS -- which was retained by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

"In broad strokes, Christopher Steele was clearly onto something, that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there was multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in Trump's campaign,” Isikoff said.

But he added: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."

On four occasions, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court that it "did not believe" Steele was the direct source for Isikoff's Sept. 23, 2016 Yahoo News article implicating former Trump aide Carter Page in Russian collusion.

Instead, the FBI suggested to the court, the article by Michael Isikoff was independent corroboration of the salacious, unverified allegations against Trump in the infamous Steele dossier.
Federal authorities used both the Steele dossier and Yahoo News article to convince the FISA court to authorize a surveillance warrant for Page. ( circular sourcing)

But London court records show that contrary to the FBI's assessments, Steele briefed Yahoo News and other reporters in the fall of 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS -- the opposition research firm behind the dossier. The revelations were contained heavily-redacted documents released earlier this year after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.

"The FBI does not believe that Source #1 [Steele] directly provided this information to the identified news organization that published the September 23rd News Article," the FBI stated in one of the released FISA documents. "Source #1 told the FBI that he/she only provided this information to the business associate and the FBI."

The documents describe Source #1 as someone "hired by a business associate to conduct research" into Trump's Russia ties -- but do not mention that Fusion GPS was funded by the DNC and Clinton campaign.

Instead, the documents say only: "The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump's] campaign." Fox News believes that the U.S. person is Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS.

Page announced in October he is filing a defamation lawsuit against the DNC over the dossier's claims. He is also suing Perkins Coie and its partners, the law firm that represented Clinton’s campaign and hired Fusion GPS.

Page told Fox News’ “Hannity” at the time that his lawsuit goes “beyond any damages or any financial aspects."

“There have been so many lies as you’re alluding to and you look at the damage it did to our Democratic systems and our institutions of government back in 2016. And I’m just trying to get some justice,” he said.

Meanwhile, ex-Cohen attorney Lanny Davis laughed off a suggestion during an MSNBC interview on Sunday that his former client had ever made a trip to Prague to pay Russian hackers.

“No, no Prague, ever, never,” Davis said.

While Cohen's team has long denied he made the trip, the latest denial comes after Cohen pleaded guilty in two separate prosecutions linked to his work for President Trump. Cohen has pledged to cooperate with federal authorities, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team has said he has largely done so.

ANTI-TRUMP EX-FBI AGENT STRZOK'S PHONE WIPED AFTER HE WAS FIRED FROM MUELLER'S TEAM

Fox News reported in August that embattled Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had contact in 2016 with then-colleague Andrew Weissmann, who is now a top Mueller deputy, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it.

The sources said Ohr's outreach about the dossier – as well as Steele; the opposition research firm behind it, Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS; and his wife Nellie Ohr's work for Fusion – occurred before and after the FBI fired Steele as a source over his media contacts. Ohr's network of contacts on the dossier included: anti-Trump former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former deputy director Andrew McCabe; Weissmann and at least one other DOJ official; and a current FBI agent who worked with Strzok on the Russia case.

Weissmann was kept "in the loop" on the dossier, a source said, while he was chief of the criminal fraud division. He is now assigned to Mueller’s team.

Ohr's broad circle of contacts indicates members of FBI leadership knew about his backchannel activities regarding the dossier and Steele.

Congressional Republicans are still trying to get to the bottom of Ohr's role in circulating the unverified dossier, which became a critical piece of evidence in obtaining a surveillance warrant for Page in October 2016.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/li...new-credibility-challenges-from-cohen-isikoff
 
mak2 said:
Which means it is partially true. Was there a not illegal and immoral part?
Click to expand...
can't use "partially true" for a FISA. It's against Woods procedures and FISC requirements.
Yet they did, and swore to it, and Mccabe said there would have not been a FISA if it wasn't for Steele
 
noise said:
can't use "partially true" for a FISA. It's against Woods procedures and FISC requirements.
Yet they did, and swore to it, and Mccabe said there would have not been a FISA if it wasn't for Steele
Click to expand...

Really? I do not recall, and I am not a lawyer, but I didn't think you had to have all the facts before starting an investigation.
 
mak2 said:
Really? I do not recall, and I am not a lawyer, but I didn't think you had to have all the facts before starting an investigation.
Click to expand...
FISA is not an investigation. It's a petition of cause to have surveillance.
Since FISC is an ex parte court - the requirements for those are stringent
 
noise said:
Steele himself said the report was "maybe 50-50 correct"
Click to expand...

And yet, this FAKE document was used by the FBI and CIA to spy on a political campaign. Under Obama, we truly were becoming a third world shit hole Fascist dictatorship.
 
noise said:
can't use "partially true" for a FISA. It's against Woods procedures and FISC requirements.
Yet they did, and swore to it, and Mccabe said there would have not been a FISA if it wasn't for Steele
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
noise said:
FISA is not an investigation. It's a petition of cause to have surveillance.
Since FISC is an ex parte court - the requirements for those are stringent
Click to expand...

Again, I am not a dictionary, but isn't surveillance something you do in an investigation?
 
mak2 said:
Again, I am not a dictionary, but isn't surveillance something you do in an investigation?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer either.
But we are talking about removing Page's Constitutional rights.

In order to do that ( by surveillance) it has to be shown to the court probable cause he was acting as a foreign agent.
But since it's ex parte - FISC requirements are "verified".
For the FBI signatories it's even more stringent the "Woods procedure"

One thing for sure listing Yahoo news as a separate source was knowingly wrong since the FBI knew steel briefed Ishakof.
 
mak2 said:
Again, I am not a dictionary, but isn't surveillance something you do in an investigation?
Click to expand...

Can't google?

50 U.S. Code § 1802 - Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal;...of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—

(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or

(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—

(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.

(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top