In his research into President Trump’s supposed links to Russia, Christopher Steele valued rumor and speculation more than basic intelligence methodology. That’s a key takeaway from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the FBI’s investigation into Trump campaign officials.
Horowitz makes clear that Steele ignored many of the lessons he learned in his 22 years as a member of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), including a tenure heading up MI6’s prestigious Russia desk.
But it wasn’t always this way. Horowitz notes how Steele’s FBI handler “cited several examples of information from Steele that the FBI had been able to corroborate prior to the spring of 2016, such as corruption in FIFA’s bid selection process, information regarding — Russian oligarchs, and corruption involving Yanukovych,” and on Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. This is further emphasized by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates’s testimony that Steele was well-regarded for his previous work with the FBI while in an “official capacity” at a redacted organization. The redacted organization here is MI6.
So far, so good.
Sadly, the Steele dossier — offering salacious claims on Trump’s links to Russia — is another matter.
Horowitz finds that “Steele relied on a Primary Sub-source for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele; Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting.”
Sound the alarm bell.
Separated from the intelligence network he claimed to supervise, Steele was not in a position to do that which any MI6 “production” officer must do. Namely, assess sources ongoing motive and veracity. Instead, Steele distantly relied on his primary sub-source to make those determinations. This is a prima facie breach of MI6 training on agent handling.
It gets worse.
Horowitz notes that FBI “interviews of the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele election reporting … he/she made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated the Primary Sub-source’s statements in multiple sections of the reporting.” For one example, while Steele claimed Trump’s supposed sexual activities at the Moscow Ritz Carlton had been “confirmed by a senior, western staff member at the hotel, the Primary Sub-source explained that he/she reported to Steele that Trump’s alleged unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz Carlton hotel was ‘rumor and speculation.'”
There is a big difference between rumor and confirmation.
We also hear how Steele claimed that “Sechin offered ‘PAGE/TRUMP’s associates the brokerage of up to a 19% (privatized) stake in Rosneft’ in return for the lifting of sanctions against the company. The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that one of his/ her sub-sources furnished information for that part of [Steele’s dossier] through a text message, but said that the sub-source never stated that Sechin had offered a brokerage interest to Page. [Horowitz] reviewed the texts and did not find any discussion of a bribe, whether as an interest in Rosneft itself or a “brokerage.'”
Here’s the key takeaway: The Primary Sub-source told the FBI that they “felt that the tenor of Steele’s reports was far more ‘conclusive’ than was justified. The Primary Sub-source also stated that he/she never expected Steele to put the Primary Sub-source’s statements in reports or present them as facts. According to [FBI, Washington Field Office] Agent 1, the Primary Sub-source said he/ she made it clear to Steele that he/she had no proof to support the statements from his/her sub-sources and that ‘it was just talk.’ [FBI, Washington Field Office] Agent 1 said that the Primary Sub-source explained that his/her information came from ‘word of mouth and hearsay; conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers;’ and that some of the information, such as allegations about Trump’s sexual activities, were statements he/she heard made in ‘jest.'”
From conclusion to jest.
Then comes this gem. The Primary Sub-source said the Steele report might have relied on “multiple layers of hearsay upon hearsay. For example, the Primary Sub-source stated to [FBI, Washington Field Office] Agent 1 that, in contrast to the impression left from the election reports, his/her sub-sources did not have direct access to the persons they were reporting on. Instead, the Primary Sub-source told WFO Agent 1 that their information was ‘from someone else who may have had access.'”
So now we have seen not simply that Steele or his primary sub-source were doing the intelligence collection, but that their sub-sources were distant from those they were supposed to be reporting on. This distance between the controlling officer (Steele), the field officer (Primary Sub-source), the other sub-sources, and their targets is a recipe not simply for valueless intelligence material, but self-destructive material. After all, folks were telling Steele’s primary sub-source things that they might have overheard, who then provided that reporting to Steele, who then buffered up the reporting as credible.
Put simply, Christopher Steele does not come across very well in this report. No wonder the CIA had such disdain for his dossier.
