In this article and video by the American Center for Law and Justice about Steele and his interview with George Stephanopoulis, Ric Grenell makes a critical point: Gatherers of raw intelligence understand that the consumers of such Intel try to make educated guesses as to what
facts and conclusions should be drawn. In making those assessments, it is critical that all raw intelligence be considered, including whatever may point in the opposite direction. aclj.org/government-cor…
Grenell makes the point that what Steele did doesn’t fit this pattern. Rather, his work wasn’t designed to produce standard raw intelligence, but was political. He made no effort to describe facts tending to discredit his theories. This aspect of Steele’s work and his
presentations to the FBI have criminal law implications. We think of prosecutions of so-called false statements made to the FBI, but Section 1001 is broader. Subsection (a)(1) makes it a crime if someone “knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals or covers up by any
trick, scheme or device a material fact” in connection with any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Steele’s “raw intelligence” was utterly one-sided, concealing from the FBI, DOJ and State Dept material facts, including the following: Steele was tasked by his
real client to report his conclusions to the press as fact; his primary sub source was not in Russia, had no genuine access to anyone inside the Kremlin, but came from a Beltway left-leaning think tank; many of the open source- based findings were generated by Fusion GPS, which
engaged in political oppo research; and he had done nothing to verify any of the findings. Those omissions, among many other, could very well form the basis of charges against Steele by Durham under 18 USC Section 1001 (a)(1).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
