“When Steele took his suspicions about Trump to the FBI in the summer of 2016, it was keeping with Orbis (Christopher Steele’s company) protocol, rather than a politically driven aberration.”

Really? Well, that’s what it says in a lengthy article in NEW YORKER magazine about the British ex-spy who found himself in the middle of a highly partisan investigation of Russian “meddling” in our election. Never mind that we know Steele was quite politically motivated in his work on the dossier; he really didn’t like Trump and wanted him to lose. (The article does mention he felt wretched” about Brexit, so there’s a hint of his leanings.) We haven’t heard much about Steele before now, but naturally we assumed that as a former spy, he wouldn’t be very forthcoming. That assumption would be correct –- there’s much we still don’t know –- but this piece goes into some detail.

Commentary continues below advertisement

Many of us who have followed the trail leading from Hillary Clinton and the DNC to the law firm of Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS and, finally, to Christopher Steele (and to the FBI and back again) would dispute the article’s claim that Steele wasn’t intentionally involved in American politics. The article is typical of stories in left-leaning publications in that it conveniently slants or leaves out information that gets in the way of the preferred narrative. You’ll be frustrated to no end by numerous examples this if you manage to slog through the entire piece. Here’s just one: “Trump’s defenders have accused the Bureau of relying on politically motivated smears to spy on Trump’s campaign (Page), but by then Page was not an advisor to Trump...” Where’s a mention that the warrant for spying includes past communications, too, which would have taken the FBI right into the campaign?

The piece begins as Steele finds out that his name has been turned over to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation. He can’t believe that some people in America are calling him a criminal! (In presenting him as a man of high integrity, a real straight arrow, it reminds me of the way James Comey has been described.) According to Steele, he was contacted by Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS in the spring of 2016 and asked to help “follow some difficult leads on Trump’s ties to Russia.” Steele’s London-based company, Orbis, was apparently the go-to company for investigations having to do with Russia. Steele claims that Simpson named the law firm but not the client (as if anybody couldn’t guess), and that he found out Hillary was the client “several months” later.

Commentary continues below advertisement

The article points out something we know: that Fusion GPS was originally contracted by a Republican who disliked Trump but that Fusion convinced Marc Elias, general counsel for the Clinton campaign, to continue where the work had left off. “This bipartisan funding history belies the argument that the research was corrupted by its sponsorship,” it then states. Beg to differ. Steele was not involved in creating a dossier until the Hillary campaign started ponying up. Indeed, we have quite a bit of evidence that the research was absolutely corrupted by its sponsorship, such as the contributions of Clinton cronies Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, for starters, as well as the participation of FBI official Bruce Ohr’s wife, who (the article mentions dismissively) was paid by Fusion GPS.

In describing how the gathering and reporting of intelligence works, the article casts enormous doubt (probably unintentionally) on the accuracy of the information in the dossier. Alexander Vershbow, a U.S. ambassador to Russia under George W. Bush, says, “In intelligence, you evaluate your sources as best you can, but it’s not like journalism, where you try to get more than one source to confirm something. In the intelligence business, you don’t pretend you’re a hundred percent accurate. If you’re seventy or eighty percent accurate, that makes you one of the best.”

Commentary continues below advertisement

If raw intelligence gathering for something like this can be counted on LESS THAN JOURNALISM to be truthful and verifiable, then what does that say about it? How can it possibly be taken seriously or used for anything other than political smears? Yet Steele felt “professionally obligated” to go to the FBI with it, and, later, through Democratic lawyer friend Jonathan Winer, the State Department, and finally to the media. The article goes on interminably about everyone’s concern about Russia, but NONE of this information was verified. This whole project was politically contaminated from the start.




Comments 1-5 of 24

  • Esther Sims

    03/10/2018 02:53 PM

    Mike, I am so SICK of women and journalists and others trying to dig up dirt on Trump before he was in office. I have never been so disappointed in people. What he did before he was President means absolutely NOTHING to me. I am interested in the economy and my investments doing good so I can continue to enjoy retirement. I wish people would see good and not bad. Find me just a few people that have had no sin in their lives. There need to be bill boards all over the country that say in bold letters, "Oh ye without sin, let him cast the first stone." Makes me want to get rid of my TVs and never read the news!!

  • amos kalicharan

    03/10/2018 09:05 AM

    If Steel fabricated the information he presented in that dossier how could that be his suspicions when he clearly knew that it was not true

  • Charles M

    03/10/2018 07:37 AM

    Another shock for me today - The "New Yorker" magazine is still in business??

  • Dusty Hickey

    03/09/2018 07:54 PM

    How is it possible that Hillary and group could put out to do this Dossier for the election and this be legal in a campaign and some in FBI helped do this. Page so far has not even been indicted about any of this and had been even used one time to help the FBI. Sounds like this was all set up to spy on all of Trump and group for Hillary ? This is any different then when Watergate the guys broke into the DNC trying to get info that might be used against Republicans. Even Pres Nixon had no idea of this he only tried to cover up what they did per their stupidity at the time. If he had just let it go they would have been prosecuted and were anyway and he lost being President. If this was lies set up to use to spy then some people need to be prosecuted? Russia Russia over and over and no way did they help Hillary lose she lost on her own per many did not want her . Tired of this 3 Million voted more for her majority out of Calif. New York not many other places why she lost in the end. No one hardly mentions what the DNC did to keep out Sen Bernie Sanders not even he has said that much and not sure why not?

  • JIm Kindle

    03/09/2018 07:31 PM

    I have one question that all seem to be overlooking and that is, if a person is seen to exhibit the same traits as the shooter did in Florida which is grounds for arresting him and seizing his guns then is it also grounds for arresting some with these same actions and he is driving a car and then arrest him and seize his car??? There has been actions in the past where cars were used as bombs, driving into crowds to kill as many people as possible, by someone with the same traits as these shooters but the car is never blamed yet it is used as a weapon??? Oh ever hear of drunk drivers? So the rules apply seize a gun then seize a car as you would a gun!!!!

    Jim Kindle
    Yuma, Az.


    Virus-free. www.avg.com