,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
State Dept notes of Christopher Steele meeting are the 1st gov't documents to identify some of Steele's dossier sources. A thread: dailycaller.com/2019/05/16/ste…
Steele told Kathleen Kavalec on Oct. 11, 2016 that Vyacheslav TRUBNIKOV (ex-SVR chief) and Vladislav SURKOV (top Putin adviser) were "involved" in the Trump kompromat situation. Kavalec also wrote "sources" next to their names.
Steele's June 20, 2016 memo has the claim about the Trump kompromat. "Source B" is described as "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin." *Could* be Trubnikov.
As former CIA station chief @danielhoffmanDC, this is all very tricky. "It's a hall of mirrors."
If Trubnikov/Surkov are sources, question is, were they witting or unwitting. And if the pee tape claim is false, what were Trubnikov/Surkov's motives in discussing false claims?
If Trubnikov/Surkov are sources, question is, were they witting or unwitting. And if the pee tape claim is false, what were Trubnikov/Surkov's motives in discussing false claims?
Hoffman and a few other people who know about these things have claimed the dossier is Russian disinformation. Bill Barr testified he is "concerned" by that possibility.
Trubnikov also has links to Stefan Halper. Halper tapped Trubnikov to contribute to a 2015 Pentagon study on China-Russia issues. Halper was a contractor for Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. He used the offer to write policy papers to get close to Papadopoulos
Halper also hosted and arranged for Trubnikov to speak at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar in 2012 and 2015. Trubnikov had visa problems prior to the 2015 visit, but those got cleared up.
Halper's role in hosting Trubnikov is significant for a couple of reasons. Halper resigned from Cambridge Intelligence Seminar in Dec. 2016 over what he claimed was undue Russian influence. He reportedly was concerned that Russian operatives were given too much a platform.
But that doesn't gel with Halper giving Trubnikov, an extremely high-level Russian intel operative, a perch at Cambridge.
Then there is Halper's reported concern about Michael Flynn's visit to the seminar in 2014. Halper reportedly raised a red flag about Flynn's interactions with Russian-British academic Svetlana Lokhova.
Except there's literally zero evidence to suggest anything improper occurred between Flynn and Lokhova. But how could Halper be concerned about them but not Trubnikov?
Fast forward to January 2016, and Halper's Cambridge associate, Christopher Andrew, invites Lokhova to a small dinner at Halper's home. If Halper thought Lokhova was some sort of Russian agent, why the invitation to his home? Months later, he was informing on the Trump campaign.
