![]() ![]() The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us that the FBI did not have (redacted) on any other Steele sub-source."įootnote 342, also states that Steele's firm, Orbis, may have been singled out by the Russians. The Times noted that the FBI "considered whether Russia had polluted the stream of intelligence, but did not give it much credence," citing a former official.Īnother newly declassified footnote speaks directly to Steele's sources, though some sections are still redacted.įootnote 347 says that the FBI "received information in early June 2017 which revealed that, among other things, there were (redacted) personal and business ties between the sub-source and Steele's primary Sub-source contacts between the sub-source and an individual in the Russian Presidential Administration in June/July 2016 (redacted) and the sub-subsource voicing strong support for candidate Clinton in the 2016 US elections. The New York Times noted last year that in a lawsuit deposition about the dossier, "Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, replied, 'Yes.'" Steele was also asked during the deposition whether he warned Fusion GPS "that a central problem when you are a Russian intelligence expert is disinformation and the Russians have a long history and advanced capability in disinformation?" Steele has insisted that his information was unverified. "The Supervisory Intel Analyst told us he was aware of these reports, but that he had no information as of June 2017 that Steele's election reporting source network had been penetrated or compromised." ".n early June 2017 USIC (US Intelligence Community) report indicated that two persons affiliated with RIS (Russian Intelligence Services) were aware of Steele's election investigation in early July 2016," the footnote said. intelligence community report indicated that two individuals "affiliated" with Russian intelligence knew of former British spy Christopher Steele's "election investigation" in early July 2016, three months before the FBI would begin citing the dossier. It is unclear whether those suits will face a similar fate.Newly declassified footnotes from a government report, first obtained by CBS News, show that despite multiple warnings about Russian targeting and the potential for disinformation, the FBI relied on the controversial Steele dossier to secure surveillance warrants for a Trump campaign aide before and after the 2016 election.Īmong the revelations, a 2017 U.S. The plaintiffs’ lawyer seized on that comment, writing in a statement that they are “pleased that the Court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr Steele’s negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election-which they did not.”Īlfa Bank has brought similar defamation suits against Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that hired Mr Steele, and BuzzFeed, which published the dossier in full in January 2017. ![]() Judge Epstein found that Mr Steele was “engaging in speculation” to the extent that the dossier suggests Alfa was involved in Russia’s election interference. He added: “The Steele dossier generated so much attention and interest in the United States precisely because its content relates to active public debates here.”Īlfa Bank and its three founders played a fairly limited role in the dossier, describing the men as providing informal advice to President Vladimir Putin on foreign affairs. He said that Alfa Bank, founded by the three Russians, failed to provide evidence that Mr Steele acted with “actual malice” - that is, that he “knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for its falsity.” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |