Daily Local News (West Chester, PA)
FBI’s misguided faith in dossier author
One of the most remarkable takeaways from the new documents released in the TrumpRussia investigation is the degree to which FBI officials were determined to believe Trump dossier author Christopher Steele — even after it became clear he had lied to them.
In their drive to win a warrant to wiretap sometime Trump volunteer adviser Carter Page — along with Paul Manafort, one of only two Trump figures known to be wiretapped in the investigation — the bureau rested most of its case on Steele’s information, and the officials who filed the warrant application seemed resolved to believe Steele even after his credibility came into question.
The new document is the (mostly) unredacted version of the criminal referral of Steele sent to the Justice Department by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley and subcommittee chairman Lindsey Graham. Like the earlier House Intelligence Committee memo, the Grassley-Graham referral shows that the FBI “relied heavily” on the dossier in its effort to convince the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to give permission to wiretap Page.
In part, the FBI trusted Steele because it had to; the bureau had no other evidence that would have sufficed to win a warrant to wiretap Page. “The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page,” the Grassley-Graham referral said.
The FBI also placed so much faith in Steele because he was a former British spy — a fellow professional — who had worked with the bureau a few years earlier in the world soccer corruption investigation.
But there were two problems with Steele’s credibility, according to the referral: the lack of corroborating evidence and proof that Steele lied to the FBI.
The credibility issue focused on whether Steele shared his dossier allegations with the press. When, in the late summer of 2016, the FBI asked Steele to join the Trump investigation — an extraordinary move, given that it was the middle of a presidential campaign and Steele was being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign — condition was Steele not share his information with the press.
Then, on Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News published an article that was obviously based on Steele’s dossier information. Steele denied to the FBI that he had done that. In turn, the FBI denied to the FISA court that Steele had talked to Yahoo.
But in September, he personally briefed reporters from Yahoo, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and the New Yorker. In October, he did it again — the Post reported that Steele was “visibly agitated” in an anti-Trump fervor during his second visit to the paper. Also in October, Steele added a briefing for the left-wing publication Mother Jones.
That was a lot of talking to the press. But the FBI denied Steele’s press contacts in the surveillance application. Then, on Oct. 31, Mother Jones published an article clearly based on Steele’s information. Reading it, the FBI could no longer pretend that its valuable informant was not also sharing his anti-Trump information with the press. So the FBI formally terminated its agreement to work with Steele.
But what to tell the court? Could the FBI say, “Oh, this guy who provided the bulk of our case against Carter Page has lied to us?”
In its next statement to the court, the bureau conceded it had ended its relationship with Steele because of his “unauthorized disclosure of information to the press.” But the FBI had an excuse.
The FBI explained that Steele was so upset about the FBI’s reopening of the Clinton email investigation that he took his information to reporters. The story wasn’t true. Steele talked to the press — Post, Times, New Yorker, CNN, Yahoo — before the Clinton investigation was re-opened.
Still, the FBI kept faith. The bureau vouched for Steele and his information without verification and without fully grappling with the question of Steele’s honesty. “The FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing candidate,” the Grassley-Graham referral said. “It did so based on Mr. Steele’s personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information.”
Top FBI officials wanted to believe Steele. They needed to believe Steele. So they believed Steele.