Article

2017-09-09 -Lurid Crime Tales-

Retired CIA SES: A Second Look at the Steele Dossier - Knowing what we know now

[Just Security] - Editor’s Note: In this special Just Security article, highly respected former member of the CIA’s Senior Intelligence Service, John Sipher examines the Steele dossier using methods that an intelligence officer would to try to validate such information. Sipher concludes that the dossier’s information on campaign collusion is generally credible when measured against standard Russian intelligence practices, events subsequent to Steele’s reporting, and information that has become available in the nine months since Steele’s final report. The dossier, in Sipher’s view, is not without fault, including factual inaccuracies. Those errors, however, do not detract from an overarching framework that has proven to be ever more reliable as new revelations about potential Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin and its affiliates has come to light in the nine months since Steele submitted his final report.

Emphasis added.

SES = Senior Executive Service

Posted by Besoeker 2017-09-09 06:57|| || Front Page|| [11144 views ] Top

Mixing truth with fiction, sometimes referred to as 'half-truth' or 'partial truth' is generally regarded as misrepresentation.

Yes, it contains a drivers seat, a gear box, tires, a windscreen, and a cooling system. It must surely be a Mercedes-Maybach S650 Cabriolet

Posted by Besoeker 2017-09-09 07:13|| 2017-09-09 07:13|| Front Page Top

#2 I'd afraid Mr. Sipher enjoys a confidence in the FBI not shared by many. He also makes no mention of Christopher Steele's connection to Fusion GPS, an “oppo firm” funded by Hillary’s supporters. Nor does he mention the unique relationship of former FBI Director Comey to the Clinton's.

One clue as to the credibility of the sources in these reports is that Steele shared them with the FBI. The fact that the FBI reportedly sought to work with him and to pay him to develop additional information on the sources suggest that at least some of them were worth taking seriously. At the very least, the FBI will be able to validate the credibility of the sources, and therefore better judge the information. As one recently retired senior intelligence officer with deep experience in espionage investigations quipped, “I assign more credence to the Steele report knowing that the FBI paid him for his research. From my experience, there is nobody more miserly than the FBI. If they were willing to pay Mr. Steele, they must have seen something of real value.”

Posted by Besoeker 2017-09-09 07:33|| 2017-09-09 07:33|| Front Page Top

#3 So the FBI, which refused to pursue Hillary's obvious and already public crimes, is to be trusted over a bundle of nonsense about her political opponent?

Posted by Rob Crawford 2017-09-09 12:53|| 2017-09-09 12:53|| Front Page Top

#4 I am not surprised by allegations that the Kremlin was attempting to undermine Ms. Clinton, in an attempt to weaken the united states government, particularly in the period in which she seemed very likely to win the election.
However I would suspect that the Kremlin would be equally likely to attempt to undermine Trump once he started to look like a viable candidate, just in case he might win.
I fail to see how reports about supposed Trump crazy behavior in Russia suggest collusion between the Russians and Trump. It sounds much more like an attempt to embarrass and discredit him.
Moreover, the entire claim of collusion between Trump and the Russians, seems, according to this article, to be based on this "dossier", which has been used, ever since the electionas far as I can tell, to sow dissent aimed at Trump in this country.
Given that this "dossier" was apparently paid for and disseminated by the Democratic Party in an attempt to discredit Trump, and that the sources in this document are primarily Russian agents, it is plausible to me that the Democrats, and the FBI have been colluding with the Russians to discredit Trump, just exactly in the manner that the documents claim that Trump was attempting to discredit Clinton.
The main difference is that the Democratic Party apparently paid for this information, as opposition research, and no evidence that I have seen asserts that the Trump campaign paid for any particular anti-Clinton information.
This reminds me of how much the Clinton campaign and the press howled about Trump not willing to declare that he would accept the result of the election, and how silent they are about the gigantic efforts by the Democrats and the press to refuse to accept the the results of the election once it happened .
One was mere talk, the other an attempt to subvert our democracy.
This report could really be evidence of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Daniel 2017-09-09 21:15|| 2017-09-09 21:15|| Front Page Top

00:52 Skidmark
00:33 EMS Artifact