Connect with us


BOMBSHELL: FBI offered former British Spy Christopher Steele $1 million to corroborate anti-Trump dossier



Christopher Steele

“The FBI offered former British spy Christopher Steele $1 million if he could corroborate the claims in the now-infamous anti-Trump dossier.” The Washington Examiner reported the news unearthed from the testimony of Brian Auten, an FBI senior intelligence analyst who was the first witness called by special counsel John Durham in Igor Danchenko’s false-statements trial.

The Steele dossier claimed then-candidate Donald Trump was colluding with Russia; specifically, a corrupt “conspiracy of cooperation” with Russia’s infamous Vladimir Putin. Igor Danchenko was the “principal source” for the wild accusation.

National Review notes:

Danchenko was Steele’s principal source for the dossier, yet the FBI did not interview him until late January 2017. By that time, the bureau had relied on the dossier information twice (in October 2016 and January 2017) in sworn applications to the FISC that limned Trump — the GOP candidate for the presidency, and then the sitting president — as a tool of the Russian government. The purpose of interviewing Danchenko was to determine whether the Steele allegations were true or false. Obviously, the FBI is supposed to determine that the information has been verified before making an application to the FISC in the first place.

Additionally, “because proceedings before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court are classified and ex parte — meaning only the FBI and Justice Department appear before FISC judges, and there is no notice or discovery ever provided to Americans who are monitored under the court’s warrants — the government has a higher legal obligation than in normal criminal proceedings to ensure that the information presented to the court has been verified.”

“It is thus breathtaking that the FBI would offer an informant $1 million to corroborate his allegations — which is tantamount to an admission that the information is not even supported, much less verified — and yet rely on that unverified and likely false information, not once but four separate times over the course of a year, under oath in applications to the FISC” adds National Review.

Auten was present when the FBI first interviewed Danchenko in January of 2017. National Review reports “Auten wrote a memo analyzing Danchenko’s undermining of Steele’s reporting. Yet the FBI did not share this memo with the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence, which oversees applications to the FISC, much less with the court itself.”

Furthermore, National Review writes:

Far from correcting the record, the FBI represented to the FISC in the April and June 2017 sworn surveillance-warrant applications that it had met with Danchenko (described as “the primary sub-source”) in “an effort to further corroborate Steele’s reporting.” The bureau asserted that it had found Danchenko to be “truthful and cooperative.” Of course, to the extent he had been truthful and cooperative, it was in confirming the FBI’s suspicions that Steele’s allegations were bogus. . . . But the bureau withheld that embarrassing concession. Worse, what it did say would lead any sensible person — particularly one who assumed that the FBI was acting lawfully and honorably — to infer that Danchenko had corroborated Steele’s claims, when the opposite was true.

Remarkably, the FBI did proceed to sign Danchenko up as a paid intelligence source, a status in which he was kept for over three years. It is not yet clear whether this maneuver made it more difficult for Horowitz, Durham, and Congress to investigate the FBI’s performance.

It gets worse, if that’s possible. Following the IG’s report, FBI director Christopher Wray referred Auten to the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation and possible discipline. Yet, despite being under this inquiry, Auten was tapped by the bureau, in the stretch run of the 2020 election, to provide an intelligence assessment of derogatory information about the lucrative overseas business dealings of Hunter Biden and the Biden family — in the main, information that had been gathered by Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Ron Johnson (Wis.). As I’ve previously recounted, Auten’s assessment was used to dismiss the Biden data as “Russian disinformation” — which it clearly was not.

You may like

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


PJ Media report: SHOCKER! WaPo Update About Mar-A-Lago Raid Doesn’t Fit the Narrative



Screen Shot 2022 08 09 at 6.39.11 AM

PJ Media’s Kevin Downey Jr. has dissected a Washington Post report regarding findings from the raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. “Shocker! WaPo Update About Mar-A-Lag0 Raid Doesn’t Fit the Narrative” Downey Jr.’s report is titled.

“Remember when the FBI raided Trump’s home supposedly looking for “nuclear secrets” a few months back? Guess how that turned out?” the article begins.

I’ll let the quislings at the Washinton Post spell it out:

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.

In other words, Trump was keeping souvenirs, as everyone else does.

Funny how WaPo sat on that story until after the midterms, right?

But wait, there’s more!

That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said. FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead, the former president seemed motivated by a more basic desire not to give up what he believed was his property, these people said.

The WaPo also found no evidence that Trump was looking to “leverage, sell or use the government secrets.”

They threw the idea in near the very end that they still might come up with something juicy:

The people familiar with the matter cautioned that the investigation is ongoing, that no final determinations have been made, and that it is possible additional information could emerge that changes investigators’ understanding of Trump’s motivations. But they said the evidence collected over a period of months indicates the primary explanation for potentially criminal conduct was Trump’s ego and intransigence.

Continue Reading: PJ Media

You may like

Continue Reading

Trending Now



Proudly Made In America | © 2022 M3 Media Management, LLC