Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Roland99

(53,342 posts)
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 04:17 PM Dec 2019

Tom Nichols on the Steele Dossier. Really good thread!





Tom Nichols
@RadioFreeTom
Before we head into #impeachment, here's a quick revisiting of the Steele Dossier. None of you will like it. And remember, I was among those who said it should not have been public. (I am leaving aside whether the FBI should have relied on any it. That's Horowitz's call.) /1


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1210289161741197312.html

Before we head into #impeachment, here's a quick revisiting of the Steele Dossier. None of you will like it. And remember, I was among those who said it should not have been public. (I am leaving aside whether the FBI should have relied on any it. That's Horowitz's call.) /1

You call a spook to get oppo, you get what spooks produce: a harvesting of everything they can find, public and private, true or false. Raw product includes things like "A guy overheard at a cocktail party at Embassy X said this after three Manhattans." That's a spook's job. /2

It will also include stuff that the spook knows - and that experienced analysts know - was put there by the bad guys as disinfo. This is actually useful: It tells you what the bad guys know about your search, and it gives you some insight into how they'd rather mislead you. /3

Normally, a file like this gets sent to analysts, who then go into multiple modes of verification: Internal review, asking for more from the field, checking against stuff known from other sources (including stuff the field might not have), putting out calls to other sources. /4

No one would take such a file, and say: "Well, if this here spook wrote it, it's true." Steele himself knew much of it wasn't true, but it's not the collector's job to weed that out. Collection and analysis are different. (In oppo firms, they're too close, but that's the biz.) /5

But Steele had heard enough to want to alert U.S. authorities. Because even if he couldn't verify each story, he'd heard enough to make him worried. (That's kind of like the "chatter" issue before terrorism. Not exact analogy, but too much info at all is a sign.) /6

Steele could tell that Trump and his coterie were jungled up with the Russians. Which parts he could prove, and which he couldn't, were less important than the realization that the Russians and the candidate were way, way too close. Dangerously so. /7

Put another way, think of how people are investigated for clearances. If you're in hock, have lots of creepy associates, and people who shouldn't know you personally have stories about you - even if some of them are off the wall - it's going to jam up that clearance. Rightly. /8

Steele pushed the panic button on Trump because only an idiot *wouldn't* have done so. Personally, I think the FBI would have been nuts not to move on it. And as Mueller noted, there was no proof of a conspiracy, but plenty of evidence of intentional and desired collusion. /9

It was wrong of Buzzfeed to publish the file. If you've ever been investigated for anything, you have a similar file, full of stuff that might or might not be true. Shouldn't be public. But USG takes a "whole person" approach to investigations, and so did Steele. Rightly
. /10

And it was way wrong of Maddow to play Nancy Drew with the file, because she has no background in either intelligence or Russian affairs. She did her usual thing of jacking up her audience to think they were uncovering SPECTRE or something, and I said so at the time. /11

But in the end, the reality is that the entire Trump circle, including the President, is far too connected to Russia, and imo, compromised by Russian intelligence (mostly through knowledge of Trump's finances.) I said that over a year ago here:
What Jonathan Chait Gets Right About Trump and Russia
Thirty years of contacts with Russia are hard to dismiss as a series of disconnected events.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/10/trump-russia-jonathan-chait-218966

/12
This is a level of Russian infestation that - in a better time in our country - would never have been tolerated. The GOP has used the dumbassery around the Steele file to wear us down and eat what's left of the patriotism of a lot of people. Shame on them - and shame on us. /13

None of these tweets - duh - represent the view of the U.S. government. They are my view that Steele did the right thing, but that we have become a country tolerant of traitorous, scummy conduct on the part of an entire political party.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. /14x
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tom Nichols on the Steele Dossier. Really good thread! (Original Post) Roland99 Dec 2019 OP
So basically he is saying Leith Dec 2019 #1
plenty of intentional collusion NewJeffCT Dec 2019 #2
I don't get that at all Buckeyeblue Dec 2019 #3
not my reading stopdiggin Dec 2019 #4
I read that there is smoke and some fires YessirAtsaFact Dec 2019 #5
Yeah. This is but one piece of the massive trump/Russia entanglement Roland99 Dec 2019 #28
He's saying that it was bad but shouldn't have been made public Proud Liberal Dem Dec 2019 #6
From his admonition of xxqqqzme Dec 2019 #8
Because it gave people the opportunity to say if some of it wasn't true, none of it could be. LisaM Dec 2019 #9
A friend of mine works on the Mars Curiosity probe. cab67 Dec 2019 #18
I have respect for Nichols. cab67 Dec 2019 #19
Do you think ChiTownDenny Dec 2019 #7
Snicker! Leith Dec 2019 #23
Not how I read it at all. cab67 Dec 2019 #17
Try this excellent piece...Chuck Rosenberg retrospective on the Dossier. Ninga Dec 2019 #10
Thanks, that was excellent. OnDoutside Dec 2019 #14
The there there is more there than folks think.... Ninga Dec 2019 #15
Definitely. And until the Dems take full control, I'm holding off on OnDoutside Dec 2019 #16
Smart and advisable. Ninga Dec 2019 #22
EZPZ for me. Steele saw that a candidate for NoMoreRepugs Dec 2019 #11
I don't know what his kick at Rachel Maddow is about. I thought she OnDoutside Dec 2019 #12
What about the story that Ivanka knew Steel years before the document. katmondoo Dec 2019 #13
I respect Nichols cab67 Dec 2019 #20
It was a draft political background opposition document... MartyTheGreek Dec 2019 #21
Thanks for including the whole thread. For some reason Tom blocked me on Twitter. CaptainTruth Dec 2019 #24
RAW initial intelligence reports, that were NOT to be made public. mackdaddy Dec 2019 #25
they sincerely can not make the connection between conservatism and trump. fuck him Kurt V. Dec 2019 #26
If this is accurate, it sounds like this sort of information should not be used hughee99 Dec 2019 #27
Was it wrong gibraltar72 Dec 2019 #29

Leith

(7,802 posts)
1. So basically he is saying
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 04:24 PM
Dec 2019

There's a hell of a lot of smoke, but no probably fire. Maybe a few hot coals. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Buckeyeblue

(5,491 posts)
3. I don't get that at all
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 04:39 PM
Dec 2019

What I get is this: don't believe all of the stories in the dossier but some of them are told to be intentionally false, which is actually a sign that there is something more. But the overall red flag is that Trump is too close to Russia. And that is a problem.

stopdiggin

(11,089 posts)
4. not my reading
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 04:48 PM
Dec 2019

what I heard here -- Steele report was a hodge-podge of true, false and supposition (and no one should have ever assumed differently). And he had every reason in the world to pull the fire alarm.

(and, in fact, he wasn't the only one to do so.)

YessirAtsaFact

(2,064 posts)
5. I read that there is smoke and some fires
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 04:54 PM
Dec 2019

Some smoke is coming from legit wildfires

Some smoke is from fires set for Steele to find

Some smoke is just a smoke bomb

Bottom line is that Trump’s campaign and Trump himself were way too close to Russia. The FBI had to investigate.

xxqqqzme

(14,887 posts)
8. From his admonition of
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 05:56 PM
Dec 2019

Buzzfeed and Rachel, I'm getting investigation and verification of the gathered intelligence becomes more complicated and difficult.

LisaM

(27,758 posts)
9. Because it gave people the opportunity to say if some of it wasn't true, none of it could be.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:19 PM
Dec 2019

That seems to be a common disinformation tactic.

I agree about Rachel Maddow always acting as if she's on the verge of exposing something huge, and then never delivering. I like her, but that circuitous story-telling and connecting the dots - and endless repetition of the same phrases - made her show absolutely unwatchable for me. If I watch MSNBC, it's Brian Williams, because he gets real experts and then listens to what they tell him, instead of asking leading questions.

cab67

(2,962 posts)
18. A friend of mine works on the Mars Curiosity probe.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:54 PM
Dec 2019

NASA puts all kinds of images online, including some she took.

Unprocessed images are used by every sort of crackpot to demonstrate all kinds of crackpottery. She gave up dealing with the quack who thought one of the pictures she took showed the vertebral column of a whale on the surface of Mars.

Remember the ‘face’ at Cydonia on Mars? Same thing. Inadequately processed images, in the digital hands of conspiracy theorists, can cause a lot of havoc.

It’s the same with raw intel. People trained to work with it are better placed to figure out what it means.

cab67

(2,962 posts)
19. I have respect for Nichols.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:57 PM
Dec 2019

I don’t agree with every bit of his book, The Death of Expertise, but he makes excellent points and it’s worth reading.

cab67

(2,962 posts)
17. Not how I read it at all.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:48 PM
Dec 2019

Sounds like he’s saying there’s plenty of fire, but the file was even smokier, and the people who rushed into the smoke looking for fires weren’t trained for the task.

NoMoreRepugs

(9,257 posts)
11. EZPZ for me. Steele saw that a candidate for
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:21 PM
Dec 2019

POTUS and the frickin’ Russians intersected, a whole bunch. We aren’t talking about a Congressman from Bumfuck, Idaho - this is the POTUS - so hell yes u pull every fire alarm in the building.

OnDoutside

(19,906 posts)
12. I don't know what his kick at Rachel Maddow is about. I thought she
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:29 PM
Dec 2019

was very responsible with the dossier, and was at pains to downplay some aspects of it, and realistic about most of it. She also pointed out that it was not a dossier but a series of intelligence memos. Nicholls should refrain from casting shit until the full unredacted Mueller report is released under the next Democratic president.

cab67

(2,962 posts)
20. I respect Nichols
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 06:59 PM
Dec 2019

I don’t agree with every bit of his book, The Death of Expertise, but he makes excellent points and it’s worth reading.

He comes across as someone with whom one could have stimulating discussions that don’t devolve into shouting matches.

MartyTheGreek

(562 posts)
21. It was a draft political background opposition document...
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 07:01 PM
Dec 2019

Dossier made it sound like a complete researched package. Even Steele himself said at may be about 80% accurate.

If I recall either 4 of 7 or 5 of 7, key points in the document were correct. There were meetings at TT. There was a TT Moscow deal in the works, rusky oligarch money laundering, one or two more things. One thing not found is the pee tape but so what!

Like the poster above said, we still don't know what's redacted in the Mueller report. We know that it's enough, that he hand selected a political hack as AG and he did not do his job to uphold the law of the land but this will all come out eventually.

This guy is using too many personal pronouns. He's hurt about something, saying I told you so.

CaptainTruth

(6,546 posts)
24. Thanks for including the whole thread. For some reason Tom blocked me on Twitter.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 08:53 PM
Dec 2019

Not sure why, I never insult folks who are on our side, but sometimes I do challenge their analysis with a different perspective &/or additional facts. I've discovered that some prominent people seem to want to believe they're always right & don't take kindly to having their conclusions challenged, & apparently Tom is one of them.

mackdaddy

(1,520 posts)
25. RAW initial intelligence reports, that were NOT to be made public.
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 09:22 PM
Dec 2019

There was never anything wrong with that. The FBI and intelligence agencies know these are just RAW reports and just a starting point into a real investigation. It was never intended as the final "These are the absolute exact facts" statements.

But the series of reports do point to a very damning situation that Russia was interfering in our elections and Trump at a minimum was very happy and accepting of that interference. And Steele was absolutely right to try to get this to our counter-intelligence people.

As far as I can tell the significant majority (well over half) of the points made in Steele's series of reports have been proven true. And none of this was generally know outside of covert FBI investigations during the second half of 2016.

But, it was made public. Personally I do not see anything wrong with Maddow trying to further investigate the Steele reports. They are out there, so why not?

Who could now argue that Trump is NOT Putin's pet at this point? As the speaker says "With Trump, all roads lead to Putin!"

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
27. If this is accurate, it sounds like this sort of information should not be used
Thu Dec 26, 2019, 10:49 PM
Dec 2019

As any part of a FISA warrant.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tom Nichols on the Steele...