Wednesday, July 8, 2020

British Court: FBI Knew Steele's 'Ultimate Client' Was Hillary

There's been a story out today about Chris Steele being ordered to pay a relatively modest amount of money to two Russian businessmen for publishing in his dossier statements that were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.” The amount of money involved is only about $22K.

However, of more interest are some of the judge's findings of fact. Here's the most interesting portion, as reported by John Solomon:

The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court.
The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client "is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and 'Democratic Party Associates' but that 'the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.' The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do," Warby concluded. 
"I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President." the judge added.

Obviously that's not binding in a US court, but it could prove useful. Especially if Steele were ever required to testify in a US court.


  1. But "Bob" Mueller didn't know who Fusion GPS is...

    Well, he only spent $32 million to find out* (that we know of). Maybe he needed more time and money.


  2. This British judge states what many of us have known for some time - but no one in a position of authority has stated it as fact. Other than exposing the Clinton's nefarious tactics (once again) to the public, I'm not sure how this revelation changes the chess pieces on the board.


  3. @DJL

    You have identified the beauty of Obama's 'by the book' defense. We now pretty much know everything they did, but until someone in authority says 'that was wrong', i.e., criminal, its all just 'by the book'.

    In many respects this is what 'lawfare' is all about. Pretty nifty, eh?