The newly declassified FBI documents have put a spotlight on how the FBI mishandled its relationship with Christopher Steele, the guy behind the controversial anti-Trump dossier. These documents reveal a double standard in the FBI’s approach to briefing Trump and Hillary Clinton during the investigation into alleged Russian collusion. This whole saga, which many now see as debunked, continues to unfold with these fresh insights.
Stefan Halper, a key informant in the Russia collusion case, was paid nearly $1.2 million over three decades according to information from Just the News. Halper seemed motivated by “monetary compensation,” and continued to provide information even after agents figured out his stories about Mike Flynn were not accurate. This raises questions about the motivations behind the information used in the investigation.
Recently, declassified documents also show that then-NSA director Mike Rogers dismissed a Washington Post article about the Russian collusion investigation as it lacked substance. In a review of these documents, significant redactions still remain, but the new information sheds light on the political nature of the Russiagate scandal. The declassification was part of an executive order from President Donald Trump, and FBI Director Kash Patel sent these documents to Congress.
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. The DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized the FBI’s investigation, highlighting the central role of the dossier in the surveillance of Carter Page. Special counsel John Durham concluded there was no actual evidence of collusion at the start of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Admiral Mike Rogers, who led the NSA, was skeptical of the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. His interview with the FBI revealed his doubts about the Steele dossier, which he saw as largely uncorroborated. Rogers wanted the dossier’s information to be included in an annex, not prominently featured in the intelligence assessment.
In January 2017, Rogers, along with James Clapper and John Brennan, briefed President-elect Trump about their findings on election meddling. After the briefing, Comey stayed behind to inform Trump about the salacious allegations in the dossier. Steele expressed frustration that his dossier was included in the intelligence assessment annex.
The Steele dossier, which was largely discredited, alleged a close relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It also claimed Trump’s campaign knowingly worked with Russian officials to boost his chances against Clinton. These unfounded claims were part of the broader narrative pushed by various intelligence entities.
The 2017 intelligence assessment claimed with “high confidence” that Russia aimed to undermine the U.S. democratic process and preferred Trump over Clinton. However, the NSA expressed only “moderate confidence” that Putin was directly trying to help Trump and harm Clinton. Rogers described this as an honest difference of opinion between intelligence agencies.
A 2018 report from the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee found proper analytic tradecraft was used in most of the assessment’s judgments. However, it did not agree with the judgments about Putin’s strategic intentions. This discrepancy highlights the complexities involved in intelligence assessments.
The declassified FBI records also reveal Rogers tried to distance himself from the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. He was not specifically briefed on the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference and the Trump campaign’s alleged links. Rogers knew the NSA received requests for information but wasn’t clear on the investigation’s specifics.
FBI notes also mention that Rogers was surprised when Comey publicly announced the investigation into Trump campaign links with Russian interference. The announcement caught Rogers off guard as Comey had not informed him beforehand. This lack of communication raised questions about the transparency of the investigation.
In the final weeks of the Obama administration, top officials unmasked information related to retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. This move was part of the broader examination of the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia. The unmasking saga added another layer of complexity to an already convoluted investigation.
The unfolding of these events continues to reveal the political dimensions of the Russiagate saga. With each new piece of information, the narrative becomes clearer, albeit with lingering redactions. As these documents come to light, the debate over the investigation’s integrity and motivations persists.
The ongoing scrutiny of the investigation’s origins and conduct highlights the need for transparency and accountability in such high-stakes matters. These revelations remind us of the importance of truth and fairness in the pursuit of justice. The lessons learned from this saga should guide future actions to prevent similar controversies.
