Chris Steele: Source From Hell--Or What?

Eric Felten's article today about Russia Hoax fabulist Chris Steele and Steele's FBI handler--Michael Gaeta--is strangely not as thorough as one usually expects from Felten's past work:

Supposedly Reliable Steele Acted 'Crazy,' His FBI Handler Says: 'People's Ears Were Bleeding.'

The article is fine, as far as it goes--Felten concentrates on Gaeta's and the FBI's dismay when Steele turned out to be the source for an article by ueber-sleazy 'journalist' David Corn. Corn's article--A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump--Has the bureau investigated this material?--came out in Mother Jones on October 31, 2016, just a week before the election. Corn's article is, typically, full of innuendo and anonymously sourced characterizations. Coming in the immediate wake of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey's reopening of the Hillary email case, Corn hints at possible negligence on the part of the FBI in not following up on the 'Veteran Spy's' information about supposed Trump - Russia collusion, leading off with a statement by noted champion of bipartisanship, Senator Harry Reid:

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information.”

The FBI was predictably upset that their supposed top source, Steele, was participating in a hit job on the Bureau. Steele's handling agent, Michael Gaeta was dispatched to contact Steele--tellingly, not so much to read Steele the riot act but to find out what had gone wrong. Was it something the FBI had done or neglected to do? Was Steele in a huff about slow payments? Was this payback for the Bureau's slowness?

DiGenova: Brennan A Witness Against Comey?

Joe diGenova gave a very interesting interview this past Monday on WMAL. In the interview--for which I've transcribed most of his remarks--he touches on a number of important points, some of which we haven't heard much about and some of which also contradict the conventional wisdom:

1. Joe argues strongly that Brennan is probably in the clear--unless he lied to Durham. But, he also argues, that almost certainly means Brennan will now, willy nilly, be a witness against Comey.

2. Joe also believes that Bill Priestap--who I previously thought may have cooperated with the investigation--is now in the crosshairs, because it was Priestap who lied to the Senate about the Danchenko interview. The fact that Priestap has refused to testify voluntarily seems to confirm this.

3. Joe further believes that John Carlin, who presented false certifications to the FISC, is also a target. I have to wonder whether that is just the tip of the DoJ iceberg in this Durham investigation.

4. Finally, Joe offers his view on the Chris Wray situation, arguing that Trump can't afford to fire Wray--much as he undoubtedly wants to. I think his position on this is pretty sound. It's one thing for the Dems to invent one hoax issue after another, all of which are pretty transparently bogus  to the bulk of the public. It's another thing for Trump to initiate a brouhaha when he's trying to focus on his positive achievements. That's been my position in the past--that Wray is safe through the election--and it still seems the best bet. After the election, all bets are off.

More On Fallout From The Strzok Notes

Please note that I have corrected this post based on info from commenter Cassander--Sally Yates was NOT Acting AG at the time of the Oval Office meeting re Flynn.


The enormity of the revelation from the Peter Strzok notes is slowly starting to sink in. It's not that the notes reveal things that--realistically--we didn't know already. It's that we can now look to the future and get some idea of what could be in the offing--what has the Progs and Libs and crazy Lefties of all sorts bouncing off the walls.

Let me start my pasting in some dressed up comments from earlier this morning, exchanges with commenters.

My initial impression upon looking at the Strzok notes was that they appeared to have been taken by a participant at the Oval Office meeting involving Obama, Biden, Sally Yates (NB: Did AG Loretta Lynch absent herself deliberately?) and disgraced former FBI Director Jim Comey. But there's no way that a guy at Strzok's level could have been present at such a meeting. We'll probably find out later how it worked. I don't believe Comey could have recorded it, so I'm guessing--just a guess--that Comey took notes on his way back to FBIHQ and then, as part of a briefing for the Russia Hoax inner circle at FBIHQ, read the notes to participants in that briefing--who took notes on Comey's notes. Perhaps if we could get a look at the redacted portions of the notes we'd understand fully. Or, perhaps Strzok wasn't actually present at that Comey briefing but received a second hand briefing, and took notes from someone else who was reading their notes from the Comey briefing.

However it worked, the very fact that there were any such briefings raises interesting prospects for the future, prospects that the Barr/Durham investigation is unquestionably focused on. We have to presume that at the Comey briefing issues that flowed from the Oval Office meeting were discussed. Issues like: Where do we go from here? What concrete steps do we at the FBI take?

Durham will want to know--among other things:

UPDATED: I Was Wrong About 'CR Cuts'

Yesterday a friend pointed out to me that I was mistaken regarding the meaning of a Peter Strzok reference to "CR cuts." For that I apologize. Here's the short version:

Whereas I thought that the words "CR cuts" referred to "tech cuts" associated with the Crossfire Razor, i.e., Michael Flynn case, in fact the reference is to the Steele dossier. 

Now here's the longer explanation.

First, I want to be clear that this changes nothing regarding the Flynn/Kislyak conversations as far as issues of non-minimization or 'unmasking' are concerned. The testimony of disgraced former Director James Comey and of Andrew McCabe is explicit: Those conversations were written up, at least initially, in the form of 'tech cuts' and Flynn's name was not minimized or redacted. The reason for his name was not minimized was that Flynn was already the subject of a Full Investigation and thus fell within the exceptions to the minimization requirements. I've covered all that previously, and it all remains 'operative.' As a reminder, here's what a 'tech cut' is:

In FBI parlance a FISA order is referred to as "technical coverage". Or, simply, a "tech." The typed up summaries of, for example, telephone conversations captured in that way are referred to as "tech cuts" or, commonly, as "cuts."

Thus, I assumed that "CR" meant "Crossfire Razor" and "cuts" meant "tech cuts." However, there's a sort of dual context involved:

1) The context at the time Strzok and Lisa Page were texting, and

2) The context at the time I was writing.

To start with #2, I was writing in the context of new documentary revelations regarding the Flynn case, and debates about whether Flynn's name had ever been masked and, if not, why not. I was able to address those issues successfully, but then wrongly assumed, working from incomplete data, that "CR cuts" fell into the same category. In other words, I assumed that Strzok and Bill Priestap were objecting that DNI James Clapper should not be providing raw tech cuts to the White House. 

Now we turn to #1. Here's the fuller data, the full text thread between Strzok and Page on January 3, 2017, slightly reformatted:

UPDATES: Priestap Now Front And Center In The Flynn Case

Former head of Counterintelligence for the FBI, Bill Priestap (now retired) is featured in new and, presumably, soon to be unsealed FBI records regarding the framing of Michael Flynn. John Solomon provides a sneak preview--FBI notes detail effort to catch Flynn in lie to 'get him fired' as Trump adviser:

A senior FBI official's handwritten notes from the earliest days of the Trump administration detail a tortured debate among officials to use a bureau interview of then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to get him to lie so "we could prosecute him or get him fired." 

The notes and other emails were provided to Flynn's lawyers under seal last week and released Wednesday night by court order, providing the most damning evidence to date of potential politicalization and misconduct inside the FBI during the Russia probe. 

The notes show FBI officials discussed not providing Flynn a Miranda-like warning before his January 2017 interview —  a practice normally followed in such interviews — so that he could be charged with a crime if he misled the agents, the officials said. 

That's Peter Strzok and Lisa Page who had that discussion. Andrew McCabe would have had operational control of the Flynn interview, and Lisa Page was his legal counsel. It all fits in.

"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?," the handwritten notes of the senior official say. 

Multiple officials confirmed to Just the News that the author of the notes is William Priestap, the now-retired FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence and the ultimate supervisor for fired agent Peter Strzok, who led the Russia probe.

I left Priestap off my original list of targets, but his role here is perfectly logical.

Justice Department officials are investigating whether Priestap's notes were written in conjunction with meetings he had with top leaders like then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, officials said. A special prosecutor is reviewing DOJ's and the FBI's handling of the Flynn prosecution, which led to the former Trump adviser and retired general pleading guilty to lying to the FBI under a plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia case.

Yeah, I'll bet they are!

Question: When did it become official FBI business to get someone fired? When did that became a legitimate goal of an interview regarding matters outside the FBI's responsibility? It seems to me that anyone involved in this is in a very hard place. Even if they somehow elude prosecution, Flynn will own them.

UPDATE 1: I've had a chance to look at some of the unsealed documents: US v Flynn - new unsealed docs.

What I see here is three things:

1) Peter Strzok emails James Baker Baker for legal advice on how "DD" (Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) should respond to various scenarios when McCabe makes the phone call to Flynn to send Strzok over for the interview. The scenarios that Strzok puts forward all appear to be aimed at hiding from Flynn the true nature of the interview. This is part of what Bill Priestap (below) will refer to as "game playing"--an "ambush" or "gotcha" plan of attack to frame Flynn.

2) Strzok and Lisa Page email re when "1001" (False Statement) warning should/must be given in an interview.

3) And this is most important. Bill Priestap's handwritten notes regarding what the interview is all about in the first place. Priestap's notes come in two parts. The first part, on the left side, are brief. However, the notes on the right side are longer, and appear under the heading "Afterwards." My guess is that these are notes that Priestap made either in advance of presenting an argument orally or perhaps as a draft for an email. Priestap says in this portion of the notes that he thought about the proposed Flynn interview "last night"--presumably after a discussion/meeting. Clearly Priestap began having second thoughts on the advisability of the proposed meeting--he thinks the FBI should "rethink" the whole idea.

Priestap's counter proposal is that the interview should be conducted on the up and up, by being open with Flynn about the FBI's concerns and by showing him the transcript of his conversation with Kislyak. Priestap regards the plan as proposed by others as smacking of "game playing," of a "gotcha" approach. And so he asks: What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to learn the truth, or are we trying to catch Flynn in a lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired? Priestap appears, after thinking about it overnight, to favor trying to learn the truth! He was, of course, overruled. He ends by stressing the risks of the proposed "game playing" approach--"the White House will be furious." He wants to "protect our institution"--the FBI--whereas the coup plotters are perfectly willing to risk all.

Overall, Priestap strikes me as a sap. How could he ever believe that the talk of a Logan Act violation was actually serious? It must have been a sore trial for the coup plotters to have to deal with a dummy like Priestap who didn't understand "What's urgent?"

That's my summary, but here's my transcript of Priestap's notes:

* We have a case on Flynn and Russians 

* Our goal is to resolve case 

* Our goal is to determine if Mike Flynn is going to tell the truth & his relationship with Russians 

* Can quote [REDACTED] 

* Shouldn't [REDACTED] 

Review [illegible?] alone 

* Afterwards

* Interview 

* I thought [about?] it last night, + I believe we should rethink this

* What's urgent? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?

* We regularly show subjects evidence with he goal of getting them to admit their wrongdoing 

* I don't see how getting someone to admit their wrongdoing is going easy on him 

* If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DoJ + have them decide

* Or, if he initially lies, then we present him [REDACTED] + he admits it, document for DoJ, + let them decide how to address it 

* If we're seen as playing games, WH will be furious

* Protect our institution by not playing games

I presume Priestap cooperated with OIG and is now cooperating with John Durham.

UPDATE 2: Sidney Powell stated to Hannity tonight that while the emails have, of course, always been in FBI custody, the written notes may not have been. She also stated with regard to the notes--which are being widely attributed (as above) to Bill Priestap--she is still not certain of the identity of the person who wrote those notes.

Lee Smith's Good Interview Re Info Sharing, McCabe

Author Lee Smith, The Plot Against The President, did a good interview on Fox last night regarding Eric Felton's bombshell article about the FBI doing "info/intel sharing" with Chris Steele and Fusion GPS.

Smith phrases things very well in the interview. For example, he points out the middleman "liaison" role of Chris Steele and how that sheds light on the FBI's role in the Russia Hoax vis a vis the Clinton campaign. The fact that the information flow was bi-directional means that not only was the Clinton campaign (Fusion GPS) sharing with the FBI and the FBI was using that oppo research to target Trump. But that bi-directional flow also means that the FBI was sharing with the Clinton campaign (Fusion GPS, again). Steele, in effect, becomes the FBI liaison to the Clinton campaign. And, as we saw yesterday, the FBI knew that that's what they were doing.

Smith also lets drop that Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap, High Bureau Officials as I put it yesterday, were involved in the intel sharing with Steele. Yesterday I suspected that when Horowitz referred to a "Section Chief" that would logically be Strzok. Smith, with better sources, has apparently nailed it down that the Section Chief in question was, in fact, Strzok.

Smith also appears to agree with me that the purpose of the information flow to Steele from the FBI was so that Steele could use that information to feed "source information" back to the FBI for use in the FBI application. We've seen similar information laundering operations involving media accounts, in which leaks to the media were presented by the FBI to the FISA court as independent corroborating information.

All of this goes toward proving and fleshing out the Big Picture conspiracy of the Russia Hoax--a conspiracy that involved key players at the top of the FBI, State, CIA, DoJ, the White House, and the Clinton campaign.

At the end of the interview a very important point is made regarding Andrew McCabe's excuses re the FISA applications, in which McCabe tries to push the blame off on the field agents, when in fact the whole Russia Hoax operation--as Felten documents--was very closely held at FBIHQ:

I know there was some news about the non-prosecution of McCabe, but if you think McCabe is out of the woods on this one he's got another think coming, because between Barr and Durham and the things that are going on at the Department of Justice, this show is not yet over.

Watch it--you'll be glad you did:

Are You Ready For This: Did ITALY Try To Overthrow Trump?

Look, I'm sorry for teasing this, but I don't want to write when so much is speculation. To get the gist of it, go to GP: Rumors Swirling that Fired Italian Spies Were Connected in Plot to Eliminate Trump. Here's the summary of how the plot was supposed to work:

Members of Italian intelligence were approached by Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration, and the Deep State in order to frame Trump by PLANTING EVIDENCE on American servers to force Trump to step down from office. 

In other words, members of Italian intelligence found a target in Occhionero, a Republican-sympathizer who had two servers for his company, Westland Securities, located in America. One was in Washington State, and the other in West Virginia. 

The plan was for Italian Intelligence to hack into these servers, plant classified emails from Hillary’s servers inside these servers on American soil, and then alert the FBI. 

The FBI would then raid these locations, “discover” these e-mails, investigate, link these servers to Trump… 

And then force Trump to resign.

This is about Italy and Italians, so it's totally convoluted and speculative, but mixed with teasing factual details. What we do know is this, via CTH:

What Bill Priestap Had To Say

Today Doug Collins released Bill Priestap's testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary, which took place on June 5, 2018. Priestap's testimony was a relative nothing burger compared to the testimony of others, but it does provide some useful insights into the top reaches of FBI management as well as important aspects of FBI internal procedures. The focus of the questioning was heavily on the Hillary email case, but the Russia Hoax was also addressed. What emerges is that Priestap was pretty much absent in place, and the incredulity of the questioners shows through at certain points, despite their efforts at civility. It seems clear that Strzok was more in charge than his nominal superior, Priestap.

In what follows, I'll work through Priestap's testimony in its original order, highlighting a few areas of interest. In doing so I'll quote Priestap at some length.

The first area has to do with the nature of FBI investigations. A lot of bad information has been spread, especially by Andy McCarthy (who has, however, corrected some of his earlier assertions in this regard), to the effect that FBI Counterintelligence investigations do not involve criminal violations. Nothing could further from the truth, and this is particularly relevant to Crossfire Hurricane which, as I have argued, had a criminal predicate at its origin. In one of his more lucid moments, Priestap corrects that whole misconception:

Q: Sir, it seems like the intent of a counterintelligence investigation may not be prosecution, and that's maybe something that distinguishes it from sort of a more traditional criminal investigation. Would that be correct?

A: Yeah. No, I appreciate you saying that. Our objective, again, is to protect vital assets. Sometimes the best way to protect is via prosecution. Often, it's through a whole variety of other things, from intelligence collection to disruption to you name it. The goal is to protect. The goal isn't -- the primary goal isn't just prosecution. Prosecution is one tool we use to protect.

Q: Are there ever situations where you have sort of a case which involves a hybrid, because --

A: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Q: Yeah. So, for example, if there's conduct that, you know, may be a violation of the criminal law of the United States, and at the same time, obviously, there's a strong counterintelligence interest in that.

A: Absolutely. We do a number of cases that are prosecuted, but it's just -- again, it's one way we can go with cases. It's not the only way. What I'm trying to say is we do have a lot of law enforcement experience, but that's not the extent of our toolkit. It's just a part of it. (pp. 35-37)

Bill Priestap's Partially Leaked Testimony

Jeff Carlson has the summary of the latest (partially) leaked testimony at the Epoch Times. This time it's the testimony of Bill Priestap, recently retired from the position of Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. There are only a few significant takeaways from his testimony.

First, Priestap flatly contradicts disgraced former FBI Director Comey's frankly non-credible claim that Priestap told him (Comey) not to brief Congress re the Crossfire Hurricane case. Non-credible, because Comey first states that the practice is to brief the Gang of Eight Intelligence group on "sensitive cases," but then claims Crossfire Hurricane was not briefed because it was "a matter of such sensitivity"--its sensitivity is precisely why it should have been briefed. Here's how the questioning of Comey went:

Just How Reliable Is Christopher Steele?

PLEASE NOTE: In what follows I adopt a narrow focus. I focus closely on the FBI's claims for Christopher Steele's reliability, rather than on the reliability of what was contained in the "dossier"--which all FBI officials who have spoken on the matter have characterized as "unverified."

The famous "Dossier" on Donald Trump--supposedly compiled by British ex-MI6 spook Christopher Steele acting as a contractor for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, themselves contractors for the Hillary Clinton Campaign--"salacious and unverified" though it might have been, was "crucial" to the FBI's efforts to obtain the original FISA on Carter Page as well as the three renewals of that FISA. That the "dossier" was "salacious and unverified" we have on the authority of disgraced former FBI Director James Comey, and that it was "crucial" to the Carter Page FISA is attested by the equally disgraced former Deputy Director and later Acting Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe.

In the Carter Page FISA application the FBI presents material from the "dossier" without referencing it as an actual document. Rather, it presents material from the "dossier" as reporting provided by Christopher Steele as "Source #1." The concealing of source identities is usual in FISA applications. To make up for this secrecy in the interests of security, at least in theory, the FBI provides characterizations of their sources as well as specific facts that vouch for the reliability of the sources in question, to provide the FISC judge with a factual basis upon which to assess the case for granting a FISA order.

Since we know the person who is supposed to have been behind the Carter Page FISA application, it seems reasonable to inquire: just how reliable was Christopher Steele? After all, if verification of the dossier was still "in its infancy"--i.e., it basically hadn't been verified at all--at the time the FISA application was submitted to the FISC, according to the FBI's top Counterintelligence official, Bill Priestap, then it would follow that the reliability of the material presented in the application would stand or fall with the reliability of the source. So, what does the FBI say in the application about Steele's reliability as a source?