The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016. Steele’s American lawyer was present for the conversation.
... Steele has become a villain to Trump allies who claim that anti-Trump DOJ officials conspired to undo the results of the 2016 election. Conservatives have also seized on Mueller’s conclusion that no criminal conspiracy existed between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin as evidence that Steele’s sensational dossier was a fraud.
But the extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.
I don't buy that for a moment. The notion that the FBI acted "properly" in 2016 is quite simply absurd. So, this otherwise noteworthy event will have to remain "briefly noted" until we get further information.
It is inconceivable to me that anybody working for the OIG would leak any result of an interview with Steele.ReplyDelete
It is inconceivable to me that any news article could accurately summarize the content of a 16 hour interview, let alone succinctly express what conclusions the investigators reached.
The 'sources' for this article must be the so-called 'allies' of Steele referenced in the article. Why should they have any more credibility than Steele himself?
"It is inconceivable to me that anybody working for the OIG would leak any result of an interview with Steele."Delete
Excellent point, and one that I wish I'd made myself. Can you name the last time we had a leak from OIG? Me neither.
There's nothing there. It uses a source confirming Steele's interview as the hook for a story that supplies no other new information. It's an opinion piece that merely restates The Narrative. Total distraction from the underlying facts.ReplyDelete
Steele's credibility? LOL! Steele was a stenographer--he has no first hand knowledge of anything. Otherwise, known as hearsay.
The Big Lie repeated. Too funny. And totally corrupt.
"The Big Lie repeated."Delete
Politico is a Dem house organ.ReplyDelete
MI6 has had two years to prepare for this eventuality and no doubt Steele has been extensively coached on how to testify with minimal damage to the Deep State. His first priority has always been to protect UK intelligence agencies and then avoid incriminating former DOJ/FBI officials as much as possible. Horowitz likely used this opportunity to gather as much on-the-record testimony as possible in preparation for Durham calling the coup conspirators before a Grand Jury. The key tell on how useful this was will be if Durham subpoenas Halper, who holds both US and UK citizenship. Halper would fight the subpoena, and then it's a question of UK extradition. With the recent embarrassment by the UK ambassador, they may have to comply or face Trump's wrath.ReplyDelete
Yes to it all.Delete
Don't forget that there are right-thinking Brits who are outraged at this stuff, too.Delete
Britain will throw almost anyone overboard to protect the relationship with the USA.
Just wait until Prince Andrew's behavior comes out with Epstein.