4 ms·
The Washington Post actually ran with this redaction analysis, in "What we learned from the Democratic response to the Nunes memo — and what we didn’t" posted a
by cypherpunks01 9y ago
The Washington Post actually ran with this redaction analysis, in "What we learned from the Democratic response to the Nunes memo — and what we didn’t" posted a couple hours ago:
Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/25/what-we-learned-from-the-democratic-response-to-the-nunes-memo-and-what-we-didnt/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/25/w...
Handy GIF: https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/02/Redact.gif&op=noop https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=https://www.wash...
"By September 2016, the FBI had opened investigations into four members of Trump’s campaign team. The Democratic memo says the information compiled by Steele into his infamous “dossier” of 17 raw intelligence reports didn’t get to the FBI’s counterintelligence team until the middle of September. By that point, we can conclude thanks to a sloppy redaction (noted by former intelligence officer Matt Tait) and an unredacted footnote that Page, Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, who would go on to be Trump’s national security adviser, were all already under investigation."
Matt Tait links to: https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/967523196181336064 https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/96752319618133606...
- zaroth 9y agoThe FBI actually first interviewed Steele in July 2016 about 25 days before they opened the investigation. “Simpson said Steele first shared his concerns with the FBI during the first week of July 2016 and in a subsequent meeting with the Rome official two months later when Steele provided the official ‘a full briefing’ of his findings” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/dossier-author-told-fbi-had-source-inside-trump-organization/1017938001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/09/doss...
- flatline 9y agoThis would appear to have been refuted by the latest release: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/democratic-memo-gop-fbi-trump-campaign-423446 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/democratic-memo-go...
- zaroth 9y ago"The dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, wasn't provided to the FBI's counterintelligence team until mid-September 2016, according to the memo." This statement could be perfectly true, while it's also perfectly true Steele met with the FBI in July, and had multiple other channels to provide information to various other FBI departments. It doesn't particularly matter exactly how the investigation started. If you've read the dossier and now knowing what we know about how it came to be, it's pretty disgusting. "FBI officials indicated that Steele himself was not advised that the work he was doing was on behalf of the Clinton campaign." Now this is something I hadn't heard before! That is absolutely shocking that we're supposed to believe this ex-Spy was in the dark about who was paying him?
- flatline 9y agoIIRC the genesis of the dossier was opposition research by other Republicans. We’re talking about intelligence operatives, they probably never actually know where the money is coming from, and it often flows from different and sometimes competing sources. These organizations run on secrecy and distrust.
- neotek 9y agoHe knew exactly who was paying him, he just may not have known who was paying those people.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago> we can conclude thanks to a sloppy redaction So the reasonable question that follows is: was the sloppiness intentional, or a leak?