Stephen McIntyre Profile picture
Jan 20, 2021 86 tweets 28 min read Read on X
Solomon has published two new documents, only one of which is listed on his Dig Here page justthenews.com/sites/default/…. and is rehash of notes released by Grassley in Dec. See my thread here

Some new info in other doc justthenews.com/sites/default/…
2/ Solomon said that the 302 of the Steele October 2017 is the "first" declassified document. Solomon told Lou Dobbs yesterday that he would be up all night with the releases. Morning has come and thus far. the 302 is the ONLY declassification. Image
3/ most of the content of the 302 was already known from the (redacted) SIA notes on the Steele Oct 2017 interview which were published in December 2020 and slightly, and mostly irrelevantly, less redacted in this version.
4/ the October 2017 Steele 302 is relevant, but mostly shows the uselessness of FBI questioning and their total and incompentent subject matter knowledge. In particular, they didn't challenge - or even ask Steele about inconsistencies between Danchenko interview and dossier.
5/ we still haven't seen ANYTHING on, for example, Steele's original Oct 2016 interview with FBI, Danchenko's two subsequent interviews with FBI, the intel memos on Danchenko interview, attribution of DNC hack to Russia, on and on..
6/ if we don't see anything more, Trump's declassification is as fraudulent as his pardon list. Either he capitulated out of fear of the Senate vote on impeachment or he's the useless fraud that his opponents have portrayed.
7/ '@jsolomonReports Is That All There Is?


Looks like John Solomon's kraken was another fraud.
8/ without ANY enthusiasm, I'm going through the 302 vs the previously released Agent Notes to see if anything new and/or left out in 302. First two paragraphs more or less correspond. Image
9/ Steele wanted to be sure that information from his Oct 2017 interview would go "straight to Mueller", not just FBI. SIA Auten and SSA [Woodbery] (my interpolation - Woodbery was SSA in London who was ALAT, also pal of Strzok, former CoS for Priestap) re-assured them. Image
10/ this is interesting: Steele was concerned about inclusion of their (fraudulent) material in the ICA - an issue that was FAR more important than the Carter Page FISA issue which Gonna Graham promoted as big issue to distract attention and gaslight. Image
11/ Steele (and Burrows) rightly regarded use of Steele dossier in ICA (and immediate illegal leak to media to undermine incoming Trump administration) as an important issue and raised it repeatedly - a big point OMITTED from 302.
12/ statement that Steele and Burrows regarded Trump as their "main opponent" ought to have raised FARA issues, but didn't. This statement in 302 has raised eyebrows, but was already known from Dec 2020 release. Image
13/ next few points in 302 track Auten's notes (slight change in order). Confirms that Danchenko had been source of prior reports (some of which we've seen from State Dept productions. They are porn for intel agencies - fantasies that fulfil intel agency desire.) Image
14/ I'm skipping one paragraph before coming back to it for reasons that will become clear. Steele hadn't heard of Page, Cohen, Papadop; had been working on Manafort. Had heard of Tillerson - redacted in 302, but not in Auten's notes. Image
15/ Auten's redacted notes conspicuously did not contain ANY mention of Sergei Millian, who was framed by Steele and/or Danchenko. But Millian is known to have been mentioned by Steele to FBI and appears (my interpolation below) to be mentioned in 302 paragraph, redacted in Auten Image
16/ a note on this interpolation and Steele's lie to FBI. The redaction in first line in 14 characters with 7-character surname. We KNOW that Danchenko told FBI that he heard Ritz Carlton rumor from Ivan Vorontsov, but couldn't confirm it. Image
17/ Both Ivan Vorontsov and Sergei Millian are 14 characters. But surname (5th line) is 7 characters, excluding Vorontsov. We KNOW that Steele had (falsely) named Millian as source in 2016. W
18/ We also KNOW that Danchenko had not heard of Millian in June 2016, attempted to initiate contact by email on July 21 (while Millian in Asia), that Danchenko NEVER met Millian and told this to FBI.
19/ nonetheless, FBI, a year later, sat like doorknobs while Steele once again (falsely) told them that Millian had been source for Ritz Carlton story which Danchenko attributed as unconfirmed from Vorontsov. This was low-hanging fruit on which FBI ought to have challenged Steele
20/ but the doorknobs let Steele continue unchallenged. As detectives, more like Ace Ventura than Colombo. Without Ace Ventura's acumen.
21/ Steele was then asked about his validation. He claimed to know the "current positions" of PSS' "sub-soubsources". No details here. Galkina, the most important sub-subsource, was then in Cyprus as an unemployed former employee of a webserver company in a bitter custody dispute Image
22/ did FBI doorknobs inquire as to how Galkina in Cyprus was privy to Putin's innermost secrets that had eluded CIA for years? More likely, Steele dangled big names, all real people but not actual sources. As Yuri Shvets pointed out within days of Steele dossier publication.
23/ Steele (falsely) told FBI that he "confirmed" Danchenko's reporting through "other sources". Zero evidence of that for Steele dossier. Who "confirmed" the collusion allegation? Nobody. Who confirmed Sechin-Page meeting. Nobody. Image
24/ next, Steele rambled that Orbis had four discrete networks. New agent assigned to Russia. A source whose description is unaccountably redacted in 302, but who is described in notes as looking at Rybololvev (discussed later in 302.) Prob funded by Dan Jones' Dem oligarchs. Image
25/ this next is outrageous. Steele, trying to coax PSS, said Danchenko "coming along with idea of talking to" Mueller but wasnt there yet. Compare to Mueller intimidation of witnesses in Trump orbit.

Dig-here: looks like Mueller lawyers NEVER interviewed Danchenko (or Steele). Image
26/ next, the publicized story about Fiona Hill having introduced Danchenko to Steele ~2011. I deduced this from the Danchenko interview last summer, so this ought not to be regarded as "news", tho confirmation is welcome. Image
27/ next, a redacted and tantalizing paragraph to do with Ukraine. "someone who was Ukrainian could possibly have the type of access his source has".

What does this mean? Why is it redacted? Looks very suspicious. Image
28/ next some chitchat about Danchenko's travel experience while spying in Russia irrelevant to main Russiagate issues. Image
29/ Steele said that they "destroyed materials for legal reasons". What was legal reason? Looks more like bigger obstruction of justice than any of Mueller's actual charges. Image
30/ Steele also told FBI that he took three trips [to US] in 2016. We KNOW that Steele met Perkins Coie on Jul 29, Yahoo and others on Sep 23 and Kavalec et al on Oct 11. He told FBI that he "talked with his subsource" on these trips.
31/ it seems obvious that Steele met with Danchenko while he was in US as Danchenko lived in northern Virginia, but FBI didn't ask Danchenko about his meetings with Steele in US, even tho it pertained to their purported espionage on Trump in US (not just "Russia").
32/ for example, Steele's explosive and mendacious Report 95 must have been written on or about Jul 27-28, just prior to his Jul 29 meeting with Perkins Coie. How exactly and when did Danchenko convey information from "Millian" to Steele? FBI doorknobs didn't ask.
33/ continuing. Steele told FBI Orbis had obtained audio of conversation between Danchenko & [Olga Galkina] regarding (false) information re Cohen meeting in Prague. Steele said they didn't have original audio "in original form", but had transcription. Galkina maybe "coming in". Image
34/ Horowitz report indicated that Galkina had been interviewed in August 2017 - prior to Steele interview, but we havent seen Galkina interview. FBI doesn't seem to have asked Steele to provide Galkina transcript.
35/ Steele told FBI that Danchenko sub-sources had "serious access to named people REDACTED tight circles". Uh, huh. Vorontsov. Galkina who did PR for webserver in Cyprus. Did either of them really have "serious access"? Pretty questionable. Image
36/ next, an unredacted paragraph discussing Orbis' prior involvement with Manafort. This was litigation against Manafort by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who had helped FBI in Levinson case. Steele's story on start of relationship with Fusion is a bit different than Simpson Image
37/ Steele is known to have gone to Cyprus around July 6-13, 2016 - after meeting Gaeta in London. Steele reported being briefed about Rubolovlev. Redaction can be infilled as "early July". Not related to dossier. Image
38/ this next is important. Almost totally redacted in both Auten notes and 302. But it contains important admission by Steele to FBI that he and Danchenko were carrying out espionage in US ("bit of work in the United States"). As we know, it involved "Millian". Image
39/ beneath the redactions, there appear to be a couple of important lies. Steele says that PSS "was introduced REDACTED", that the PSS "met REDACTED" and PSS "and [Millian] discussed REDACTED". We KNOW that Danchenko and Millian NEVER met. This is all false information.
40/ that Danchenko never met Danchenko was KNOWN to FBI since January 2017 interview in which Auten participated. So FBI KNEW that these statements by Steele were untrue but FBI Ace Venturas didn't confront Steele on falsehoods.
41/ Steele further embellished his false claims about Danchenko meetings with Millian by claiming that he had seen "some documentation" and that REDACTED wasn't "notional". Outrageous that loser Trump failed to unredact this important material.
42/ Steele then drew a diagram of the sub-source network, said to have been attached to the 302. Diagram was withheld by bureaucrats, as petty defiance. Image
43/ Steele's description of sources on Carter Page contained false information. Existence of supposed Sechin meeting came from RBC reporter Lyudmila Podobedova, but on Diveykin came from Galkina. For details, check tweets by FN and myself in late July. FBI didnt challenge "error" Image
44/ also, and this is important: while Danchenko network gave (false) information on existence of meetings, the vivid details in Steele dossier about the "meetings" are wildly embellished from Danchenko's account. E.g implausible 19.5% brokerage fee.
45/ my own surmise is that Steele (or someone in his office) constructed a fantasy on sparse framework of (untrue) information from Danchenko. The embellishments were known to FBI but it did not require an accounting from Steele for embellishments.
46/ continuing this thread: FBI asked about reporting about Oleg Govurun, which Steele ascribed to redacted subsource. Image
47. Govurun was mentioned in Steele #112 as a supposed bagman in St Petersburg between Alfa bank and Putin. Alfa Bank officials Aven and Fridman sued Steele for libel. Image
48/ Danchenko touched on Report #112 only in passing but comment interesting: he said that topic "hearkens back" to his time at Brookings with Clifford Gaddy (and Fiona Hill). In both interviews (Danchenko, Steele), FBI immediately segued to new topic. Image
49/ they segued to brief discussion of reporting about Peskov. In context, that had little to nothing to do with collusion allegations and was little more than background chickenfeed into which the big allegations were dropped. Name redacted in both. Image
50/ in Danchenko interview, source relating to Peskov was SOURCE 3, who we've identified as Olga Galkina, then recently working in PR in Cyprus for a webserver company. Image
51/ character count in Steele 302 doesn't match to Galkina in any way that I can thus far figure out. Steele's practice appears to have been to claim that known and important people were his sub-sources (as opposed to Galkina and Vorontsov.) Image
52/ then some discussion about Steele's decision to talk to Mother Jones. He said that Fusion pressured Steele to do so. Steele's regret was that the fallout disrupted his ability to feed information into FBI. Image
53/ something interesting: Ohr knew abt Steele's Oct 2017 meeting with Steele, who had "reached out" to both Ohr and Simpson about PSS. Up to May 2017, Ohr had immediately notified FBI of his contacts with Steele. These 302s STOP on May 16, 2017. At start of Mueller investigation Image
54/ Ohr and Steele had talk on Aug 7, 2017 and again on Sep 9, 2017, a week before Steele's 2nd interview with FBI. Did Ohr memorialize these two calls for FBI and Mueller? If not, why not? ImageImage
55/ next, they return to question of whether PSS Danchenko will choose to honor the Special Counsel with his presence. Other people were given subpoenas or jackboots at dawn. But Danchenko seems to have had choice. In the end, Mueller doesn't appear to have interviewed PSS. Image
56/ next they discuss PSS' "tradecraft", with Steele emphasizing supposed precautions. However, Danchenko's "tradecraft" included open line cell phone conversation with Galkina in mid-July while he was at a public swimming pool. Probably Volta or Francis pools in Georgetown. ImageImageImage
57/ Seems hard to believe that Danchenko and/or Galkina wouldn't be persons of interest to both western and Russian intelligence. Or that unencrypted international cell phone calls weren't intercepted. GCHQ has huge collection center in Cyprus where Galkina was located.
58/ FBI and Steele then return to Fiona Hill. Steele said that he contacted Hill in Feb 2017 after Danchenko went to ground and surmised that Hill "guesses" that Danchenko was involved in dossier. Then a redacted comment about Danchenko in context of Hill and Brookings. Image
59/ FBI had doubled back to Fiona Hill. Now they doubled back to validation of PSS and possibility that PSS is under "control" of some other agency. Steele says not, though he "cannot guarantee" that subsources "aren't under control". Image
60/ next paragraph almost totally/totally redacted in both 302 and notes. Means that it's prob interesting. What is it? Something about sharing "election-related reports". Involving someone that he "knew from his previous career" who has 11 letters in names (12 with space). Image
61/ There's a very delicious candidate, who fits both on character count and as someone Steele knew from previous career: Pablo Miller, who came into public view at time of Skripal poisoning. Would be very big deal if Miller placed with Steele in 302.
eurotrib.com/story/2018/5/2… Image
62/ next 302 para: Steele says that he is "hesitant" about sharing information with CIA, NSA and a redacted entity, supposedly because of concern over security (while supposedly having no such concern about leaky FBI). Sounds more like flattery. Corresponding Auten note redacted. Image
63/ something else interesting that emerges from this seemingly pedantic cross-comparison of Auten notes and final 302. The next paragraph of Auten notes has NO corresponding entry in 302 - unlike everything or almost everything so far. Take a look and I'll comment more. Image
64/ the information left out by Auten and FBI pertains to a report by Steele's new Psub on SBU's report on Manafort. The new PSS says that information provided by Ukrainian SBU to FBI about Manafort being a Russian agent, being run by FSB, has been "doctored" by Kyiv !! Image
65/ Steele's new agent says that the information was doctored by Kyiv to "justify surveillance" of Manafort. Steele endorsed the new P-sub and anticipated having further information on the Ukrainian fraud in the following week. Image
66/ this replaces a tweet that I sent out a couple of minutes ago. While there is no corresponding entry in this part of the 302, I double checked the balance of 302 (about half way through) and there is an entry that corresponds to some of this material. I'll comment then.
67/ next, FBI asks about Danchenko's "physical security". Discussion is redacted. Why? Danchenko lived in northern Virginia. Why would he be at risk? Or, at least, at any more risk of random murder than Seth Rich or any other Washingtonian? /sarc/ Image
68/ next, they discussed PSS' contact with "Russian establishments". Auten notes are totally redacted; in 302, Steele mentions something "strange, but nothing alarming". Also discusses something to do with Kalugin. Image
69/ Mikhail Kalugin, a Russian diplomat located in Washington in 2016, had cameo appearance in Steele dossier (Report 111, Sept 14, 2016). His (apparently routine) transfer home was portrayed in Steele/Danchenko intel porn as fallout from DNC hack. Image
70/ Danchenko was asked about Kalugin in Jan 2017 interview - Kalugin's name was redacted but is identifiable in section shown below. Image
71/ FBI asked Steele whether Danchenko had been approached by journalists. Steele said yes, and that this had spooked Danchenko, causing him to go to ground. (To my recollection, it's not established that Danchenko told Steele that he'd been interviewed by FBI.) Image
72/ previously, Danchenko told FBI that, as of Jan 25, 2017, he had been approached by two journals, but neither seems to have suspected his secret identity as PSS. (Danchenko frequently made public comments on Russia affairs.) Image
73/ returning to Steele 302 thread: FBI asked Steele whether sub-sources aware that their information used in dossier. To interpret Steele answer, keep in mind that Millian never met or provided info to Danchenko whereas Galkina and Danchenko were long-time friends since Perm and Image
74/ reference to Gubarev is to story in Report 166 about Alexei Gubarev and Webzilla - who had been Galkina's employer in 2016 and with whom Galkina was in bitter dispute. After FN identified Galkina as Source 3, multiple articles: rt.com/usa/504856-ste… wsj.com/articles/russi… Image
75/ Danchenko had also been asked about Gubarev-Webzilla story, a topic on which FBI seem to have examined Danchenko and Steele more thoroughly than the actual collusion allegations. Gubarev-Webzilla story is subject of libel cases in both UK and US. ImageImage
76/ Steele then segued to then recent death of Oleg Erovinkin. This is interesting segment given subsequent intel pornography as Erovinkin was not PSS or sub-source. Steele told FBI that he "does not believe" that Erovinkin was a subsource. Image
77/ Erovinkin, then 61 years old, had died on Dec 26, 2016 of a heart attack in his car. He was a former FSB agent who was then working for Sechin's Rosneft. totpi.com/former-russian… Image
78/ shortly after publication of Steele dossier on Jan 10, 2017, the Telegraph telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/2… archive archive.is/kGcSc published intel porno fantasy purporting to link Erovinkin death to Steele dossier.
79/ they cited an intel pornographer in Bulgaria, who stated that Putin had Steele dossier "on his desk" at the time of Erovinkin's death and implied that Erovinkin had been arkancided on Putin's personal instruction. Image
80/ this fantasy continued to be promulgated by Fusion GPS lawyer in 2018
cbsnews.com/news/fusion-gp… - it was, needless to say, a convenient excuse to avoid answering questions about fabrication of collusion allegations in US and/or UK. Image
81/ story continued to feed intel fantasies by US media. thedailybeast.com/was-this-russi… It was all, of course, untrue.
82/ given importance of this story, one would have expected Mueller to have determined that Erovinkin was not an actual sub-source, but Mueller thugs ignored this important and relevant allegation, while pursuing minute details of Manafort taxes and Skadden Arps report on Ukraine
83/ next FBI discussed info security with Steele, who told them that sensitive documents were kept offline. Steele also told FBI that all documents re dossier had been destroyed "for legal reasons" and inconsistently claimed to have docs on some meetings. FBI didn't pin down Image
84/ as first day wound down, FBI asked Steele about potential "dangles" - which caused Steele to bring up Cody Shearer, which they discussed the next day. (I'll pick this up later on. I personally think that Cody Shearer unimportant to dossier and wildly overstated by proponents) Image
85/ in last item in Auten notes, Steele claims dirt from Kazakhstand and Cyprus within "remit of Special Counsel", but looking for money ("how much support can be expected going forward"). No corresponding entry in 302 here. No Auten notes for Steele's 2nd day, only 302. Image
86/ this ends long thread on first day of Steele Oct 2017 interview. For second day (documented thus far only by the 302) see here

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen McIntyre

Stephen McIntyre Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ClimateAudit

Aug 12
Here's a listing of Minority HPSCI Staff in early 2017. Most of the redactions in yesterday's release can be identified here. Image
In two of the 302s, WHISTLEB described the HPSCI Democrat system for exfiltrating secret information from a secure room in a three letter agency: presumably FBI, from which copies and notes were prohibited.

As a work-around, three HPSCI Democrat staffers would attend the Secure Room and, after each visit, "would immediately compose summaries" on a standalone computer set up in a back room by "committee's network administrator" for exclusive use by "Russian team" members. After the three Russian team members had completed their visit summaries, they briefed certain other staffers.

All of the names underneath the redactions can be plausibly identified from contemporary HPSCI Democrat staff rosters as shown below.Image
Here is a transcription of each of the two descriptions of the Russian team and secondary briefees, showing character counts.

The Russian Team had two 16s (at least one with LN8) and an 11. (number denotes character count of full name.)

The secondary briefees were a 6+5 (12), two 13s (one a 5+7), an 11, and the communications director (a 14). One of the 13s was a new hire.Image
Read 9 tweets
Jul 31
Durham Classified Appendix is almost entirely about "Clinton Plan". Unsurprisingly, nothing about the post-election events during which Russiagate collusion hoax actually metastasized under FBI and CIA into a national flesh-eating disease.
Emails from Lenny Benardo of Soros' Open Society Foundation feature prominently. Note that Benardo was mentioned in a Washington Post article by Demirjan and Devlin Barrett on May 24, 2017 (a few days after Mueller appointment) - archive archive.is/w43O2 reporting that the email had been dismissed by FBI as "unreliable". DWS, Benardo and Renteria said at the time that they had never been interviewed by FBI.Image
Image
Fool_Nelson proposed Julie Smith as Foreign Policy Advisor-2 in Durham report at the time:
Here's a July 27, 2016 email (attributed to Benardo) which contains a detail relevant to the argument against @DNIGabbard's first drop, claiming that Russian interference concern was NEVER about election infrastructure, but always about DNC hack and Buff Bernie memes. Here Benardo talks about how to make Russia "a domestic issue" by raising the spectre of a "critical infrastructure threat for the election". Brennan subsequently did just that: raised concern about "infrastructure threat". ODNI played down that threat in their briefings and ultimately in the proposed post-election PDB of December 8, 2016 which was cancelled by Obama intervention.Image
Read 4 tweets
Jul 22
the ICA version in the recent DNI documents is a different version (dated January 5, 2017) than the released version (dated January 6, 2017). There were many changes overnight - some substantive.

Before editorializing, I'll laboriously go through comparisons - final version on left, previous day version on right. (I apologize for not marking this on each of the following slides.)Image
The Jan 6, 2017 version contained a preface entitled "Background... The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution", not present in the Jan 5 version (as shown). It has two sections.

The first section entitled "The Analytic Process" stated that these assessments "adhere to tradecraft standards".

"On these issues of great importance to US national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decisionmakers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, and that adhere to tradecraft standards."

Now recall the dispute over inclusion of Steele dossier information in the ICA as an appendix and, as we recently learned, as a bullet supporting the assessment that Putin "aspired" to help Trump. Some IC professionals objected to the inclusion of Steele dossier information on the grounds that it did not meet tradecraft standards for inclusion in an ICA. Comey, McCabe and FBI insisted on its inclusion on the grounds that Obama had said to include "everything" - which they interpreted as mandating inclusion of Steele dossier information even though it didn't meet tradecraft standards.

Reasonable people can perhaps disagree on whether this was justified or not. What was not justified was the claim that the inclusion decision complied with "tradecraft standards". It was bad enough to include non-compliant material, but the claim that the included material "adhered to tradecraft standards" was miserably false. The recent Tradecraft Review should have addressed this fault.Image
Image
Image
The preface also included the following assertion:
"The tradecraft standards for analytic products have been refined over the past ten years. These standards include describing sources (including their reliability and access to the information they provide), clearly expressing uncertainty, distinguishing between underlying information and analysts’ judgments and assumptions, exploring alternatives, demonstrating relevance to the customer, using strong and transparent logic, and explaining change or consistency in judgments over time."

The "past ten years" here refers to the period of time since the savage tradecraft review by the WMD Commission, an excellent repot on a previous intelligence failure of similar scale to the Russia collusion hoax as an //intelligence failure// - which it was (even if non-criminal).

They state that "standards include describing sources (including their reliability and access to the information they provide)". Now apply that to the description of the Steele network in the classified appendix (declassified and released in 2020) shown below and transcribed as follows:
"the source is an executive of a private business intelligence firm and a former employee of a friendly foreign intelligence service who has been compensated for previous reporting over the past three years. The source maintains and collects information from a layered network of identified and unidentified subsources, some of which has been corroborated in the past. The source collected this information on behalf of private clients and was not compensated for it by the FBI".

This description does not remotely comply with the warranty in the Preface. We know that Steele (the "source") had told the FBI that his information was funneled through a "Russian-based sub-source" who Steele refused to identify. Steele did however tell the FBI that Sergei Millian was one of the sub-subsources to the "Russian-based sub-source". By mid-December 2016, the FBI had figured out that Steele's "Russian-based sub-source" was Igor Danchenko, an alumnus of U of Louisville, Georgetown and Brookings Institute, who lived in northern Virginia and had an American-born daughter. A fulsome description of sources IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WARRANTY IN THE PREFACE would have included these details and more.

It would have also stated that the FBI planned to interview the Primary Sub-Source as soon as possible. Given the importance of the document, the obvious question from any sane reviewer of the draft ICA would be: "uh, why don't you interview Steele's Primary Sub-Source right now? Today? " "And, by the way, why are you saying that he is 'Russian-based' when he lives in northern Virginia?"

If the reviewers had known that Steele's Primary Sub-Source had lived in northern Virginia and was available for interview, maybe they would have said: "uh, maybe we should hold off this ICA until we talk to Danchenko. This is a big document, maybe we should do some due diligence". But they weren't given that option, because Danchenko's location in northern Virginia was concealed from them. The warranty in the prefatory Background was false.

Subsequently, a few weeks later, when the FBI interviewed Danchenko and he revealed that there wasn't any "layered network" and that the key allegations were based (at best) on an anonymous phone call and that many of the sourcing claims in the dossier were untrue, the intelligence community had an obligation to fess up. To retract their claims about the Steele dossier, which, by the end of January, had emerged in public consciousness as the driving predicate of the Russia collusion investigation. Once the FBI knew that the sourcing claims were fraudulent, they had an obligation to disclose that to the rest of the IC and to publicly disown the Steele dossier, which had become important to the public precisely because of its endorsement in the ICA.Image
Read 9 tweets
Jul 14
Trump's latest tariff venture is a 50% tariff on copper, ostensibly for national security reasons. Copper markets are something that I analysed in the 1970s; so I know the structure of the markets and statistics. I was even been involved as a junior analyst in a trade case about US copper tariffs.

Under the US Defense Production Act, Canada is considered "domestic production" for the purposes of national security, but neither Trump nor the Canadian government seem to have had any interest in this legislation.

I remember the difficulties of trying to make long-term forecasts of copper supply and demand. Copper is also a market with voluminous statistics maintained consistently for a very long period. US Geological Survey for US consumption and primary production of refined copper for 1950-2024 are shown below. As someone who, in the 1970s, actually thought about what this chart would look like, it was interesting to re-visit.

In the 1920s and 1930s, US copper company were industrial behemoths: Anaconda, Kennecott, Phelps Dodge and Asarco, all now forgotten, were among the top 20 or top 50 US stocks back in the day. In the 1970s, they were still major companies. US accounted for about 25% of world production and consumption.

But, as you can see, since 2000, both US primary production and US refined consumption have declined precipitously. US refined consumption is now at lower levels than in the 1970s and US primary production is less than the early 1950s.

What will be the impact of a 50% tariff on copper imports? In the next post, I'll show how the changes in US market compare to world production.Image
although US copper production has declined since the 1970s, world copper production has almost quadrupled. US share of world copper refined production (here primary plus secondary scrap) has decreased from about 25% to 3%.

US copper production and consumption no longer dominate world markets - despite what the Beltway may imagine. An approximate 3% share doesn't get to dictate prices.

That means that the 50% copper tariff will be borne entirely by US copper consumers (i.e. manufacturers using copper). US producers will almost certainly increase their price to match the price of imports. So the tariff will be a bonanza for US domestic producers (e.g. Freeport McMoran) and a burden for US manufacturers.Image
the copper data also shows a vignette into the remarkable change in world economic geography since 9/11. In 2001, US still produced more copper than China. In 2024, China produced more than 13(!) times as much copper as USA. This isn't just production, but also consumption. Chinese manufacturers consume most of their copper production; their copper consumption is accordingly an order of magnitude greater than US copper consumption.

So when Trump puffs about the importance of USA as a market, this is simply not true of a basic commodity like copper. And I'm skeptical that it is true for other basic commodities.Image
Read 4 tweets
Jul 9
on first page: Brennan's lawyer, Robert Litt, was General Counsel at ODNI in 2016 and involved in some key events. Litt published an article in October 2017 lawfaremedia.org/article/irrele… which claimed that "The dossier itself played absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election." The recent Tradecraft Review, abysmal as it was, admitted that the dossier was cited in the classified ICA as a bullet support for the claim that Putin "aspired" to help Trump get elected.Image
Image
@15poundstogo very Clintonian here Image
Brennan refers here to two press releases issued by William Evanina in July and August 2020. The Evanina statements were prompted in large part by the release of Biden-Poroshenko tapes by Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach (who had previously in October 2016 published receipts showing that Hunter Biden was getting paid $1 million per year by Burisma). Shortly after Evanina's statements, "Trump" administration sanctioned Derkach. As a result of these sanctions, Derkach was de-platformed and the Biden-Poroshenko tapes were deleted from nearly all locations. One of the tapes showed that Poroshenko and Biden gloated in August 2016 about the removal of Manafort as Trump campaign chair as a result of Ukrainian interference (Black Ledger announcement.)Image
Read 11 tweets
Apr 13
New thread on new information from redactions.

I just noticed that the information in Binder on Trump briefing in Aug 2016 was previously published by Grassley in July 2020, a few days after identification of Steele Primary Sub-source (and thus we, in this corner, were otherwise preoccupied).
grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…

The new version sheds light on a previous redaction. Katrina, Norm, Ted, John and Amir were mentioned. Just noting this for future reference.Image
something else that I'm noticing in the less redacted documents: Kevin Clinesmith was much more prominent in Crossfire Hurricane operation than we previously realized.

In real time, Hans, myself and others had vehemently and savagely criticized Durham's useless plea agreement with Clinesmith that had failed to use their leverage over Clinesmith to obtain a road map of the Russiagate hoax operation. Compare for example Mueller's use of leverage over Rick Gates to interview him about 20 times, If anything, there was more leverage over Clinesmith.

Durham's failure to lever Clinesmith looks worse and worse as we now see Clinesmith's name in multiple Crossfire documents that had previously been redacted.

For example, here is Clinesmith on August 30, 2016 - early days of Russiagate hoax - approving the reporting of FBI surveillance of Trump and Flynn while they were supposedly providing a counterintelligence briefing.

In this briefing, they failed to give Trump and Flynn the same warning about Turkey that they had previously given Clinton's lawyers.Image
here's an example where the "declassified" Binder contains a redaction not made in the version published by Grassley almost five years ago. the name of Edward (Ted) Gistaro of ODNI Image
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(