Talk:Steele dossier

Is the legality of the dossier slightly overstated?

In view of the FEC statement from 2022, I'm somewhat worried about the present wording of following paragraph in the section Steele dossier#Legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting:

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if the aid is performed by foreigners.

I do not doubt that the Bump statement from 2018 should be considered as a reliable source, stating the full legality of the dossier, as in the quoted paragraph. I also note that as regards the main point, the question of the legality in employing and contacting non-US citizens for an investigation about possible illegal actions of a political opponent on one hand, vz. receiving aid and/or money from a foreign government in order to facilitate a certain (federal) election result on the other, there seems to be no difference between Bump's opinion 2018 and FEC's finding after more than 3 years of processing. Indeed, as you can see from FEC's letter, there were accusations that the HRC campaign or their agents had violated 52 U.S. Code § 30121; these accusations vere duly investigated by FEC; and they were dismissed.

However, the claim that "Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense" and "FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures" according to the opinion expressed by FEC "probably" does not mean that declaring this expense as for "legal service" was legal. Neither the HRC campaign and nor DNC accepted that declaring this particular part of the expenses as violations of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and (b)(6)(B)(v) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i); but both agreed to pay the fines demanded by FEC, and not to contest this legally. Therefore, IMHO, we cannot reasonably retain the paragraph exactly as it is.

@Valjean and Soni: I see in your earlier discussion that you both think that one should avoid unnecessary duplications in the article (and in general). I concur. However, this leaves me with a problem. It would be simple to enlarge the offending paragraph with a notice that indeed the FEC has found probable cause for the HRC campaign and the DNC to have wrongly booked payments for an in itself perfectly legal investigation; but this more or less should duplicate the text about this in the section Steele dossier#Hiring and initial reports. Another possibility would be to remove just both occurrences of the word "declared" from the paragraph; but it then probably would not quite be in accordance with the given source (Bump). Do you have any suggestions for resolving this?

One possibility I thought of is to insert an {{anchor}} at the earlier paragraph treating FEC's findings and the fines, and then change the paragraph to something like the following:

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, campaign expense and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such campaign expenditures, even if the aid is performed by foreigners, if they are properly declared (which however may not have been the case here; see [the anchor]).

What do you think? JoergenB (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I really like your thinking! That's a good catch. When that was written, there was no March 2022 FEC decision on the matter, and when it happened, it was added to a different section. I have now moved it to the right place, so now we have this:

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if the aid is performed by foreigners.

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.

In March 2022, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".

I think your wording is closer to what we should have, so, taking into account our current wording, would you please take another shot at it? Feel free to rework it into something that includes your finding. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Moving the FEC fine sentence to the Legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting was a rather good and appropriate idea, I think.

If you wish, I'll try to tweak this a little. The text will become a little bit longer, since I'll add a few sentences about the original complaint and the extent to which is was denied or sustained. This may be adequate. (Actually, the Trump side has not just compared hiring an investigator of foreign nationality with receiving aid from a foreign government. Some months ago, the monetary punishment of the Clinton campaign without any accompanying NY criminal process against Clinton was cited as an example of why the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York should be dismissed as 'selective prosecution'; also see Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Requests for dismissal of the indictment, if you wish. This was how I found out about the Steele dossier case; and is a reason I think we should be at least as careful as usual.)

I do trust you'll check my contribution, re-tweak it as you find needed, or even just revert it and instead adding your own tweaks, as you see fit. JoergenB (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. I have enough experience here to know that I am not always the best formulator of content. That's why the collaborative nature of this project is so important. We can all help to refine and improve content. It doesn't have to be absolutely perfect from the start. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Jörgen, tusind tak for dine forbedringer til artiklen. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Ingen orsak. JoergenB (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the source is unreliable and should not be used at all. I was able to see an archived copy of it, Philip Bump's Why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law — and the Steele dossier likely didn’t as of August 2018. Some of the article's false or misleading statements: Natalia Veselnitskaya has "connections to the Russian government" (she was once employed in the Moscow prosecutor's office and knows Yuri Chaika if that's what this vagueness means), that she "apparently proceeded to outline how a businessman facing questionable criminal charges in Russia allegedly made donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign" (what we actually know is that her focus was the Magnitsky Act though she may have known about a company that donated to the DNC), "Steele’s research involved talking to Russian government officials" (in fact major sources were people like Danchenko i.e. not even in Russia), "members of the Trump team might face legal consequences" (it's six years later and they didn't), the so-called offer from Ms Veselnitskaya was "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump" (which leaves out that those words are not from her but from non-Russian Rob Goldstone who later said he had no idea what he was talking about), and of course the main menu item "There is no reason to think that Clinton’s campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele" (yet the FEC fined her and the DNC due to probable cause to believe there was misreporting). It's no wonder to me that Jonathan Turley, who is a real lawyer, included this article in a selection of Mr Bump's errors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Turley

Really? I've learned to stay away from Jonathan Turley as a source, as he has a tendency to lean into pro-Trump conspiracy theories, even the conspiracy theory (totally debunked) that there was vote switching that favored Biden over Trump.[1] He's a "Russiagate" truther and favorite of Fox News and unreliable sources. When unreliable sources like Fox News and Daily Wire like someone, you KNOW they are not on the level. Red flags.

The Washington Post is a RS, and, like all sources, we use it on a case-by-case basis. Does the way it's used here create some problem? I suspect that your argument is with many RS we use in our articles about the dossier, Trump Tower meeting, Russian interference, etc. Using Turley as a source for these issues is a red flag. Just be careful. If he contradicts what we say in our articles here, then don't believe him. Our RS are more reliable than he is on these topics.

Natalia Veselnitskaya has "connections to the Russian government"

Yes, she has lots of connections with the Russian government. They wouldn't send just anybody to bring the official offer of help to the Trump campaign. Goldstone even confirmed that Natalia Veselnitskaya was a "Russian government attorney". You don't seriously believe his attempt to minimize his role, do you? Read more about him here.

"Steele’s research involved talking to Russian government officials" (in fact major sources were people like Danchenko i.e. not even in Russia)

Danchenko, Galkina, and Dolan all had contacts in the Kremlin, and Steele had other contacts besides them. Danchenko did visit Russia as part of his research. He is unusually well-connected in Russia, and the FBI heaped high praise on him as a confidential human source.

"members of the Trump team might face legal consequences" (it's six years later and they didn't)

"Trump team"....how many were convicted and then pardoned by Trump? How many had proven secretive contacts with Russia and WikiLeaks, but were not tried? Trump pardoned five people convicted as a result of investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone, whose 40-month sentence for lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction he had already commuted in July, and Paul Manafort.

the so-called offer from Ms Veselnitskaya was "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump" (which leaves out that those words are not from her but from non-Russian Rob Goldstone who later said he had no idea what he was talking about)

Goldstone wrote to Trump Jr.:

"The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with [Emin's] father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.[2]

The "Crown Prosecutor", Chaika, is known as the king of kompromat.[3] Trump's mere association with Agalarov and Goldstone (already from 2013) made him susceptible to kompromat and blackmail, due to the system of sistema under which the Russians operate.

This source will really bring you up to speed on all things related to Trump collusion with Russia.

Rob Goldstone may be a resident of Russia, or at least spend a lot of time there. I don't recall if he's considered a Russian agent or asset, but he's certainly a useful idiot for them. He is Emin's publicist. He is allied (that usually means compromised) with Russian oligarchs, primarily Aras Agalarov, whose Crocus Group allegedly controlled the pee tape. He was with Trump on several occasions when kompromat was allegedly collected on Trump, sometimes where Goldstone was involved in the planning of Trump's activities. He was a prime mover, together with Emin Agalarov, of the Trump Tower meeting, itself an occasion that provided kompromat on Donald Trump (because he lied about the meeting) and those who were there. On 7 June 2016, on behalf of Emin Agalarov, Goldstone e-mailed Donald Trump's son Donald Trump Jr., to request a meeting between the younger Trump and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya (referred to in Goldstone's e-mail as a "Russian government attorney"). According to Goldstone's email, Agalarov wanted to "provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information" that would help Donald Trump's campaign and damage the campaign of his rival, Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump, Jr., replied immediately: "If it's what you say[,] I love it[,] especially later in the summer."

and of course the main menu item "There is no reason to think that Clinton’s campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele" (yet the FEC fined her and the DNC due to probable cause to believe there was misreporting)

"Misreporting"? How? Unlike the eager acceptance of the Russian offer of help to Trump's campaign, the act of employing Steele was not illegal. The problem was with the expense declaration, and they were fined for that. Case closed. We cover this in this article.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Turley, who is a real lawyer

yes, he has a law license. tenure, too. and he's on Fox News primetime a lot. soibangla (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Fox News a RS for American politics and science. NO.

Do mainstream, sensible, people usually appear on that unreliable source? NO.

Has Turley pushed pro-Trump, pro-Russian, conspiracy theories? YES.

Turley strikes out. Using a bit of common sense really helps. This has to do with loyalty to our WP:RS policy and applying it to the real world of possible sources. It has to do with the ability to vet sources for reliability. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"the FBI heaped high praise on him as a confidential human source." Can the FBI be trusted for information relating to American politics? Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL! Good one. Of course, they have their axes to grind, but that doesn't mean nothing they say is worthwhile. Russian intelligence certainly isn't trustworthy for American politics, yet Trump/GOP/MAGA/Turley trusts them and repeats their lies. In this type of case, yes, the FBI is certainly more trustworthy than Turley. It's still a fact that the FBI did praise Danchenko. (See Igor Danchenko#Value as FBI source.) Danchenko's value as a source for Steele should not be underestimated, and he was far from the only well-connected source used by Steele. There is even the court case against Danchenko where Judge Trenga kept swatting down Durham's dubious claims and acknowledged that Steele had other sources for the dossier than Danchenko. Trenga countered Durham's contention "that Danchenko was Steele's primary source of information for the Steele Reports writ large" by noting that Steele might have used other sources even more than Danchenko: "Nor is there any evidence that... Steele only, or almost entirely, used Danchenko as his source for the Reports." Durham's case was so faulty that Trenga acquitted Danchenko.

Durham had insinuated that Dolan was the source for the salacious claims in the dossier, but Durham had no solid evidence for that insinuation. Yet, Dolan was the source for the claims about Manafort in the dossier, and they were true. Danchenko's sources were the ones who told him about the old pee tape rumor, an old rumor that was "common knowledge around the Kremlin". The rumor started right after the 2013 Miss Universe contest, and Trump and Cohen have always known about it, yet Trump lies that it was a rumor created by Steele. That's nonsense, and Cohen testified as much. Ever since then he has been trying to locate the tapes and hush that rumor.

In my myriad Google Alerts, I just got more about Turley's association with unreliable sources, this time The Daily Caller. Anyone who is favorably associated with unreliable sources so much is a dubious source. It's just one more red flag. All these right-wing sources (many used to be center-right, but after Trump and MAGA they have gone whole hog off the deep end into pushing lies and conspiracy theories) are good indicators for who is reliable and who isn't. I keep an eye on those sources and recognize when editors are getting their (mis-/dis-)information from such sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

My post was a response in the previous thread, Valjean split it off and added a "WaPo ..." heading. In case that confused anyone: it's about the use of Mr Bump's article in the section "Legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh crap! Sorry about that. I have removed that heading. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I think we have strayed into NOTFORUM territory, and I'm certainly guilty in that regard. This is not the place to carry on a meta-discussion about Turley, Russian interference, and many other related matters. We need to stick to the point of the "Legal status and comparison to Trump Tower meeting" section, so I'll try to do better.

Bump is not the only RS who accurately makes the point that the DNC/Clinton oppo research was legal, including the hiring of Steele, something the leaders of the Clinton campaign were not involved in and did not know about for some time. Also, other RS than Bump contrast the legal Steele/Fusion GPS oppo research with the illegal/unpatriotic and eager acceptance of many forms of Russian help by the Trump campaign. See: "The truth about Russia, Trump and the 2016 election", by Glenn Kessler.

Legitimate questions were raised by JoergenB when he started this thread, and I think he did an admirable job of fixing the problems. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Fisa court

Wiki knows the following to be true since it writes: While the dossier played a central and essential role in the seeking of FISA warrants on Carter Page, it did not play any role in the intelligence community's assessment about Russian actions in the 2016 election, and it was not the trigger for the opening of the Russia investigation into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election.

sources please. 2600:6C64:7D7F:8C6F:8C6D:A338:CA69:1DBE (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

They are found in the body of the article, especially this section:

• Steele dossier#Conspiracy theory it was trigger for start of investigation

There are plenty of references and links to whole articles with even more explanations and sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently apocryphal

User:Valjean, regarding this revert of yours, what subsequent reliable source contradicts the reliable source cited? Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of that is one journalist's opinions, so anything would have to be attributed if we use it at all. We already have a lot of similar trash talk claims about the dossier in this article, even though they contradict the fact that little, if anything, has been proven untrue, and most is just uncorroborated. Unfortunately, after the Mueller investigation started, the FBI turned everything over to him and they stopped all attempts to verify the allegations and just left it hanging. Nothing has been done about that since then, so many of those allegations are still in limbo. They hang there as unproven, but likely true. Nothing indicates they are apocryphal or untrue, even if some sources use such words.

Unproven does not mean false or apocryphal. That is unproven trash talk. Some claims are unprovable, unless one can interview the source, and those sources are scared to talk. They said things that explain events that happened, but such background info has to be confirmed with the source to prove the source said them, and those sources won't talk. Even Danchenko was so scared, after he was doxed by William Barr, that he minimized his role, but that didn't mean he wasn't basically honest or providing good info.

See this paragraph about Danchenko's alleged lies:

Right-wing columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy reacted to what he described as the "if not irrational, then exaggerated" reactions by Trump supporters to these reports of arrests. He urged them to be cautious as John Durham's "indictments narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."

Sources still gave Danchenko plenty of good info for many claims that are proven true. The FBI later found their own sources agreed with Steele's sources. Those claims are confirmed. He was hired by the FBI for a nearly four-year period, from March 2017 to October 2020, and got the highest praise as a confidential human source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You say, without citation, that “The FBI later found their own sources agreed with Steele's sources. Those claims are confirmed.” But you just deleted an October 2022 Politico article which said the opposite: “Many of the stories in the so-called Steele Dossier appear to be apocryphal and FBI personnel who testified at the trial said they were unable to corroborate any of it.” Nevertheless, I would be willing to soften the well-sourced “apocryphal” to “unreliable” if doing so is necessary. See the NYT:

Was the dossier a reliable source of information? No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy. No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false. When the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017, he told the bureau that he thought the tenor of the dossier was more conclusive than was justified; for example, Mr. Danchenko portrayed the blackmail tape story as rumors and speculation that he was not able to confirm. He also said a key source had called him without identifying himself, and that he had guessed at the source’s identity.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead has to summarize the body. And at least skimming the body, we seem to cite a wide range of opinions on the dosser, which don't all say the same thing (see the "Dossier's veracity and Steele's reputation" section.) The lead could possibly summarize this better but it has to be a summary of the entire thing - dropping a single source into the first sentence of the lead and treating it as the last word in a situation where there is clearly conflict between sources is giving it WP:UNDUE weight, even for a source as high-quality as the NYT. If you want the lead to just flatly say (even with attribution) that it's generally unreliable, and nothing else about its reliability, then you'd also need to rewrite the entire massive "Dossier's veracity" section so that that's a reasonable summary of it, which it certainly isn't at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ll take a closer look at the pertinent section of the article body. My initial impression is that it needs to be edited to clarify how views of the dossier have evolved. For example, the Durham Report had a big effect on that. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. In fact, I'd warn not to touch the lead with any changes the slight bit controversial. Like the leads in many controversial articles, especially large and complicated ones like this, every word has been discussed, sometimes for months for changing a single word(!), and there is a balance to be maintained. Due weight considerations weigh heavily, and one must remember that single journalists (especially Cohen and Savage) sometimes are not careful with their words. Some aren't fully informed about all the issues, not nearly as well as many Wikipedia editors who edit these various Trump Russia election interference topics.

That many consider it disappointing and unreliable is largely attributable to their initial mistaken impression that "This is going to be a wonderful source of proven, incriminating, information." Well, they were disappointed, and instead of blaming themselves, they blame the dossier. It is an unfinished draft, a collection of unvetted information not designed to ever see the light of day! It was intended to be vetted thoroughly before anyone else saw it. In that sense, it is of course not a "reliable source". We can't check most of the sources, but they exist. Unproven does not mean untrue. Even the mistaken claim that the Prague allegation is proven "false" is itself a false claim, even though made by some RS. Look at all the evidence and every government investigation that mentions it, and you won't find any evidence it's false, just unproven. So some idiot made the mistake of writing in an official document it was "false". So even RS can be misleading. Many RS find confirmation for many of the allegations, contrary to what Savage says, especially in the intelligence community. It's most important allegations are proven very true, and are described as "prescient".

The dossier's infamous and unproven pee tape allegation can be analyzed to some degree without even mentioning the dossier, as there is conclusive proof, independent of and years before the dossier, that the rumor existed long before the dossier was a twinkle in Steele's eye. Cohen testified that he knew of it, and other similar salacious allegations about Trump in Russia, long before the dossier, and that he told Trump about those allegations. Cohen was Trump's "fixer", and that knowledge started Cohen on a hunt to protect Trump's reputation, a hunt that enlisted the aid of others who also knew about the rumor, until the alleged tapes were found and "stopped" in late October 2016. It's all in court records.

You mention the Durham report, and I have already mentioned that to you. It's a pile of shit. You'd be better off forgetting it ever existed and not read it. It's very misleading, which is one of the reasons that political hit job failed so miserably. Durham lost everything and slunk off with his tail between his legs like a dog who discovered his mother was a bitch. (Yes, I played on that word. ) It's very unreliable. He said things in his trials that he didn't dare repeat in the final report. His political agenda just didn't stand up to the facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you think "apocryphal" means, in this connection? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's the normal definition, and one that would be used by those skeptical of the claim. The problem with using that word is that it implies that "unproven" is likely "untrue", which is not a logical conclusion. We don't know. That's our ignorance, and the ignorance of sources and investigators. It puts too much weight on the "untrue" possibility, when a neutral treatment would not put weight on either "true" or "untrue". Neutral words, in this case, are "unproven" or "uncorroborated". That's why I'm cautious about using "apocryphal", and definitely not in wikivoice, or even as a thought allowed in my head. That would be self-deception.

I don't trust a RS that uses that word about any dossier allegations that are still "unproven", and possibly can never be proven. The author's personal bias is showing too much, especially in the face of a lack of evidence. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". It's their attributed opinion, not even the opinion of the RS (like The New York Times, so your appeal to authority there is wrong.). Those journalists are shoddy researchers, at least on this topic. NPOV warns us that we must not confuse opinions for facts, and editors should not take sides by asserting opinions as facts. These are misleading opinions that should be attributed solely to the author, not the source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers that are reputable and reliable label opinion as opinion, and label news as news. When one of their reporters is the author of a news article, the newspaper does not allow the reporter to express personal opinion. Sometimes opinion does creep into RS news reports, but we must presume otherwise lest Wikipedia editors label every news report they don’t like as “opinion”. Anyway, when I get some free time, I will look at what RS say about the dossier AFTER the Durham Report was released in 2023. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

After they are poisoned by the misleading Durham report? Be cautious. You would need to know about all the debunking and criticism of that report, and then recognize when those bad parts of the report have poisoned some careless journalist's writings. Those who think the Durham report is good and have championed it are dubious sources. Andrew C. McCarthy, Matt Taibbi, and John Solomon are a few that come to mind who likely defended Durham. Apologists for Russia and MAGA tout it, so right there you've got a way to recognize if they are fringe or not. Basically any source that defends Trump and/or pushes conspiracy theories and ignores facts can't be trusted. Wikipedia does not consider them to be RS because they reveal that they don't know how to vet sources and information for reliability.

In defense of McCarthy, who was previously a good researcher, he did warn Trump supporters about part of the Durham report:

Right-wing columnist and attorney Andrew C. McCarthy reacted to what he described as the "if not irrational, then exaggerated" reactions by Trump supporters to these reports of arrests. He urged them to be cautious as John Durham's "indictments narrowly allege that the defendants lied to the FBI only about the identity or status of people from whom they were getting information, not about the information itself."

So that was good of him. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Durham indictments had much narrower scope than the Durham Report. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

One of the problems with the whole mess was that Durham, as a prosecutor, went into the court cases as a typical lawyer, where one can carry out personal vendettas, and use ones personal political agendas. In this case he was carrying out Trump's and Barr's job for him to find fault with Clinton and Ukraine, and clear Trump and Russia. (Assange was also offered a pardon by Trump if he would clear Russia and blame Ukraine.) Objectivity and full honesty are not part of a lawyer's methods. The result was a disaster, and he lost everything.

Then he made a huge mistake, and reading it is painful. It's filled with obvious mistakes. He took all those losing ideas and losing conspiracy theories behind his losing trials and made a report out of that. He should have left out all the losing stuff. There are some things from the trials that were so obviously bad that he did leave them out, and the stuff about Dolan is part of it. He had no solid evidence that Dolan was behind the salacious allegation in the dossier, so that was not part of the report, IIRC. Dolan denied that very strongly, but he did admit he was behind some of the stuff about Manafort. Danchenko had other sources for the salacious stuff, and Steele had other sources than Danchenko, which explains why Danchenko didn't recognize some things. He wasn't the only source for some of the same topics. Anyway, the point is that one cannot trust anything remotely related to Durham. We have an article dealing with some of it: Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion may be correct, maybe not, but we should try to follow what reliable sources say about the Durham Report and its analysis of the Steele Dossier. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References