Ex-Spy Comes In From the Cold

Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele is back home in London, and returning to work.

"I'm really pleased to be back here working again at the Orbis's offices in London today," said Steele.

"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here. I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages and support over the last few weeks.

About the unsubstantiated Trump dossier he worked on:

"I won't be making any further statements or comments at this time."

< Bird Flu Found At Tennessee Chicken Farm | Where Will ISIS Fighters Go If the Caliphate Fails? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He is supposed to be (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    testifying about before the intelligence committee. It seems some of the dossier has been confirmed.

    ... Senate will need to extend an invitation to him in that respect. As a foreign national, Mr. Steele can't logically be subpoenaed and compelled to testify by Congress.

    At this point, we really ought to press for an independent commission to investigate this increasingly urgent matter. Personally, given prior statements offered in public by House Intelligence Chair David Nunes and his Senate counterpart Richard Burr, neither man can or should be trusted to handle an investigation with any real degree of impartiality and / or integrity. Both of them have long ago put party before country.



    That would be the Devin Nunes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    who, when asked today as head of the House Intel Committee about Trump's claim of treasonous behavior by Obama, replied that we are taking Trump too "literally."

    What a tool.


    Mahalo for the correction. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    These a$$holes are heartbreaking to watch.

    Bitte! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    But I hadn't even noticed his first name in your post.  I just wanted to add to the record on Nunes.

    And now, on Trump's horrifying charge of treason by Obama, Spicer tells us to take Trump at "face value."  Uh, that is a simile for "literally."

    This gang would be funny, if they weren't terrifying.


    the members of the (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by linea on Wed Mar 08, 2017 at 08:33:10 PM EST
    House Intel Committee
    are a$$holes?

    somebody needs to give me a list of "insult freely" vs "will induce faux outrage."


    This is odd (none / 0) (#4)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:25:19 PM EST
    Why would our premier criminal investigative arm need to pay ????


    The FBI reached a deal in October to pay a former British spy who had compiled a dossier on Donald Trump's alleged ties with Russia, an indication of how seriously the bureau was taking the allegations, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    The deal for the former operative, Christopher Steele, to continue his work on behalf of the FBI fell apart when Steele pulled out, said the source, who has direct knowledge of the situation.

    The FBI (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:27:46 PM EST
    routinely pays for this kind of stuff.

    No they don't (none / 0) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 06:33:40 PM EST
    They pay criminal informants, not private investigators to do the job that they are supposed to do

    Uhhhmmm, yes- they do (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:27:55 PM EST
    Steele was familiar to the FBI, in part because the bureau had previously hired him to help a U.S. inquiry into alleged corruption in the world soccer organization FIFA. The FBI sometimes pays informants, sources and outside investigators to assist in its work. Steele was known for the quality of his past work and for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on Russia-related issues for British intelligence.


    This stuff is really quite easy to find, rather than just making $hit up.


    Yes they do ! (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    Mr. Steele himself has previously worked with the FBI(presumably as a paid consultant)
    By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation with American and British intelligence colleagues and had done work for the F.B.I. on the investigation of bribery at FIFA, soccer's global governing body.  

    Psssttttt ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 07, 2017 at 07:38:07 PM EST
    My response was to your false claim:

    They pay criminal informants, not private investigators to do the job that they are supposed to do.

    ... and since you claimed they didn't do it, you haven't the slightest clue how often they do it.

    CNN (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 09, 2017 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    reporting Senate Intel committee seeking to question Manafort, Page and Flynn, subpoenas on the table.  

    And every source (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 05:21:52 PM EST
    says that nothing criminal has been found.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    crimes of hacking and data theft absolutely did take place. That undeniable fact is what is driving the investigations. There appears to be unanimous agreement that the Russians were behind it and there is, IMO, tons of circumstantial evidence linking several of Trump's associates to the people who allegedly ran or orchestrated this.

    Taibbi (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    Would prefer to tread carefully, I think he is on to something


    This is the former Director of National Intelligence telling all of us that as of 12:01 a.m. on January 20th, when he left government, the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

    But it could also be true that both the Democratic Party and many leading media outlets are making a dangerous gamble, betting their professional and political capital on the promise of future disclosures that may not come.

    http://tinyurl.com/zk4q326   Buzzfeed

    A month into its sweeping investigation into the Kremlin's efforts to undermine the US election, the Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to answer all those questions -- publicly, coherently, and fast. As the days tick by, they're less and less sure they'll be able to.
    Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don't expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee's rank and file, there's a tangible frustration over what one official called "wildly inflated" expectations surrounding the panel's fledgling investigation.

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    worried about "over charging" myself, it seems like a high bar to prove collusion. Like I said the evidence is all circumstantial and any hard evidence is probably "spooked up" to some degree.

    That being said, everyday there is a new revelation that screams complicity and cover up. Previously undisclosed meetings, unverified facts becoming verified Flynn caught lying again, Farange meeting with Assange who is off and on BFF with Roger Stone not to mention odd internet communications fro a Trump server, and that's just two days and I probably missed something.

    Members of the  Senate Intel have seen the raw intel this past week and the gang of eight was briefed by Comey and none of them came out of it trying to walk back on the collusion aspect, some of the Democrats intimated that they saw enough to keep the questions open in their mind.

    I have been watching this whole Russian saga play out for 15 months and it has always ebbed and flowed, but the tide of more and more Russian connections and "coincidental" contacts always seems to be rising higher and higher.


    Case (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    in point, I forgot this one.
    Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump's and a former consultant on his 2016 campaign, told the Washington Times on Friday that his conversation with Guccifer 2.0, the person or persons believed to be responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee, was "completely innocuous."

    U.S. government officials have concluded that Guccifer 2.0 is likely an alias for hackers directed by the Russian government, and that their hacks were carried out with the intent of interfering with the 2016 election.

    Roger Stone just admitted communicating with the prime suspect in the DNC, verifying what previous leaks have said. Just another "innocuous" coincidence in a never ending flood of them.



    i 5-star'd you... (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 07:51:34 PM EST
    dont use tiny url's please. when authoring a post click the [ link ] button.

    Wrong advice. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 10:30:42 PM EST
    See Jeralyn's guidelines:

    URL's within the body of the comment must be in html format or they will be deleted as they skew the site. Use the link button at the top of the comment box to paste in the url. You can also find a shorter link via tinyurl.com and post that.


    "crimes of hacking and data theft (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    absolutely did take place."


    the intelligence agencies had no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin's Russia

    Whatever (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 09:18:28 PM EST
    but I am sure you will agree that we need to proceed with  vigorous investigations into the Russian hacking and let the chips fall where they may.

    Get Manafort, Flynn, Page, Stone  and others to testify under oath about their proven communications with the Russians, if they have nothing to hide why not. Same with tRumps tax returns.

    You will agree that Americans need straight answers now or will you insist that it all be swept under the rug?


    don't worry so much (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 10, 2017 at 05:58:13 PM EST
    you're getting yourself in a tizzy.

    Jim (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    wants to sweep the entire Russian hacking and electoral ratfkng under the rug. Once again he and the rest of the quislings line up to Pucker up for Putin.

    jim's comment was deleted (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 12, 2017 at 03:02:41 AM EST
    for veering off topic.

    Well, when the answers are (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    always, no crime was committed...

    All you are trying to do is smear by asking things like......

    "Do you still beat your wife?"

    And making a lot of smoke and then intoning such things as....

    "Where there's smoke there's fire."

    Now. if you want to investigate the people who actually committed a crime and should go to jail...the leakers...that works for me.


    Crimes (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    were committed, certain tRump associates communicated with people who are prime suspects in those crimes, those are facts. It's time to put it all out on the table. What are you afraid of?

    The only crimes that I am aware of (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    1. Hacking the DNC computer by ??? and giving the info to Assange.

    2. Leaking surveillance information to the media.

    3. Establishing a non secure email system and transmitting classified information.

    The people you keep referring to have already been interviewed and no crimes were found.

    Let's arrest the leakers and find out what Obama knew and when did he know it.


    Those "leakers" really have you upset (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 06:03:46 PM EST

    May those leaks become a torrents.


    I bet (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 12, 2017 at 07:23:31 AM EST
    you sign all your love letters to Putin with ???, sealed with a kiss.

    What you're "aware of" (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 13, 2017 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    ... is irrelevant.  Not too mention the fact that it wouldn't fill a tinfoil-lined thimble.

    Some of those leakers (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    are probably holding a few wild cards close to their vests..

    And if they're connected to the intelligence community, Planet Wingnut may live to regret declaring all-out war.

    But then, you folks never did get high marks for brains.


    jondee, what you are saying is this (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    The leakers can do what they want.

    Funny, in all the movies it is the Right Wingers that are supposed to have gone rogue.

    But this looks like it us the Left.

    I am not surprised. But if they win, who is going to protect the Left?


    Not all leakers are created equal (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 05:58:34 PM EST
    just as your mad dog right wing confederates should all be liquidated, in a manner of speaking, but endangered species shouldn't be..

    And btw, someone who thinks ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS are "the Left" should maybe leave the identifying of political affiliations to those who are a little more in touch with Reality.


    All the movies.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 11, 2017 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    I wonder what movies he's referring to?

    The collected works of the Orson Welles of low budget reactionary schlock, Dinesh D'Souza?