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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Roland99

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

Tom Nichols on the Steele Dossier. Really good thread! [View all]





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