Streetwise Professor

December 3, 2017

Please Reconcile This: The Kremlin Is Hermetically Sealed to Outsiders, But They Told All to Christopher Steele

Filed under: Politics,Russia,Uncategorized — The Professor @ 7:45 pm

This article caught my eye last week: “At the epicenter of the Russian election manipulation story, reporters can’t report.”

As tensions rise, Ferris-Rotman finds reaching sources inside the government all but impossible. She says foreign correspondents based in Moscow can’t just pick up their phone and text or call an official.

“Russia is a very closed place,” she says. “It’s not like the U.S. where, you know, over years or over some time you can develop a source in the White House — someone who you can trust and that you trade information with. Basically (the Kremlin) is a sealed up institution and there’s no way for us to get into it. “

The Kremlin is a “sealed up institution,” but we are supposed to believe that Christopher Steele was able to get multiple sources within the Kremlin to repeat highly sensitive conversations involving the highest personages in the Kremlin, including Putin himself.

The dossier itself is bad enough, but its handling in the US–specifically by the FBI and the intelligence community–is downright sinister. This is even more evident after it was revealed that the FBI agent who was responsible for handling the dossier was a pro-Hillary/anti-Trump partisan who was fired by Mueller for exchanging anti-Trump texts with his lover, also an FBI agent. (Not that Mueller told us that this was why he was fired when it happened months ago. I guess he didn’t have time because he was so busy leaking.) Moreover, this same individual allegedly has been interfering with the House Intelligence Committee’s attempts to get to the bottom of the story of the dossier.

But there’s more: the same FBI official led the investigation of Hillary’s emails.

As the expression goes: the fix is in! Although here, it is necessary to use the plural: the fixes are in!

Boy, if only there was a Republican attorney general who could get control of a rogue FBI and get some answers about the dossier–how it was obtained, and how it was used by the FBI.



Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Prof,
    For the dossier author I believe you meant to say Christopher Steele, formerly of MI-6, rather than Michael Steele, formerly GOP party boss.

    Comment by Mudak — December 3, 2017 @ 8:19 pm

  2. Christopher?

    Comment by Sam — December 3, 2017 @ 8:23 pm

  3. Good catch. I’ll change.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — December 3, 2017 @ 8:26 pm

  4. The dossier doesn’t include a single instance of predatory female teachers molesting poor defenseless teenage boys, no one is alleged to have smoked pot, and no allegations of adultery or sodomy so why would Jeff Sessions be interested. I don’t understand.

    Comment by pahoben — December 4, 2017 @ 3:47 am

  5. For the dossier author I believe you meant to say Christopher Steele

    I assumed he meant Lexington…

    Comment by Tim Newman — December 4, 2017 @ 6:36 am

  6. Oh, I’ve used that joke already. I’ll call that “being efficient”.

    Comment by Tim Newman — December 4, 2017 @ 7:19 am

  7. @Tim
    I had to look it up-funny.

    Comment by pahoben — December 4, 2017 @ 8:01 am

  8. One thing I find mildly amusing is President Trump repeatedly tweeting messages about this Clinton Server-Russia-FBI stuff, followed by a complaint along the lines of ‘Why won’t somebody do something??’

    I’m one of those damned furriners, so I may be missing something, but … doesn’t he realise that he’s the President now, and that the ‘somebody’ is actually him?

    Comment by Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — December 4, 2017 @ 8:08 am

  9. Maybe it is Michael, could be a great makeup job. Or Remington for that matter.

    Comment by urbanleftbehind — December 4, 2017 @ 8:51 am

  10. I suspect that if Trump were actually bothered by his AG’s lack of action against all these spurious accusations of collusion, etc., he’d not hesitate to fire him. Is it not more likely that he and Sessions have discussed, and are completely in accord with, a plan to let the FBI and Mueller, et al., investigations spin their little gerbil-like wheels until they have 100% revealed themselves for the empty and pointless exercises that they are? Much as the Democrats/Leftists/BigMedia insist on pursuing stupid anti-Trump crusades until they become moronic parodies of themselves worthy of little more than SNL skits?

    Were Trump to shut them down now before that point, the opposition would levy virtually un-rebuttable accusations of hiding some crime: as we know, it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. Is it not better to let them exhaust themselves chasing phantoms? Especially if Trump KNOWS that there’s no “there” there. It’s a sorry waste of taxpayer funding, but perhaps worth it in the long run?

    Comment by ColoComment — December 4, 2017 @ 11:59 am

  11. Since the inauguration, the Trump White House has howled gigantic curses at the alleged “deep state,” another figment of the fervent imagination of the InfoWars and Fox News set, and they’ve now taken direct aim at the FBI. The Bureau will survive this unpleasant episode, but its reputation is being damaged by allies of their boss, our president, who are acting in concert with the FBI’s old enemies in Moscow. Why the Russians seek to dismantle American counterintelligence, their main enemy in the SpyWar, is no mystery. Why our president does, however, is a deeply troubling question that gets at the heart of the rot in Washington right now.

    John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst and counterintelligence officer. A specialist in espionage and terrorism, he’s also been a Navy officer and a War College professor. He’s published four books and is on Twitter at @20committee. Dahl

    Comment by Anders Dahl — December 15, 2017 @ 1:05 pm

  12. @Dahl–Your appeal to authority–in the form of John Schindler–is beyond hilarious. Schindler is a blowhard loser who hypes his experience and expertise. If he was oh-so impressive as a CI officer, (a) why isn’t he still at NSA? and (b) indeed, why doesn’t he even have a job at all? Hint: he was fired from his last one, as a prof at the Naval War College, because of his texting unsolicited pictures of his junk to a woman other than his wife. He has spent his resulting years of leisure waging Twitter warfare, making outlandish claims which never pan out. Ironically, he makes InfoWars seem like a paragon of level-headed analysis.

    As for the FBI, what is alleged now is of a piece with its well-documented history of misadventures in the past. Further, its stonewalling of any and all attempts to get answers to the most basic questions–e.g., its involvement with Steele and Fusion GPS, whether the dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump campaign personnel (and hence the entire Trump campaign)–provides ample grounds for suspicion that it has something to hide. The most recent examples of this are Director Wray’s absurd assertion that he can’t disclose information to Congress because of an ongoing IG investigation, and Deputy Director McCabe’s canceling of his scheduled appearance before a Congressional committee after it was revealed that FBI counterintelligence officer Strzok (who played central roles in both the exoneration of Hillary and the Javert-like pursuit of Trump) was involved in conversations with him involving an anti-Trump “insurance policy.”

    The biggest threat to the FBI’s ability to perform its CI and criminal investigative functions is its politicization–exactly as was the case during the J. Edgar Hoover years. And its politicization–at least at its upper echelons–is beyond obvious.

    Every law enforcement and intelligence body in the government must be subject to accountability and oversight. If not, it is inevitable that they will run amok. Said bodies always–always–appeal to their vital role in protecting national security to deflect such attempts at oversight. Don’t be a useful idiot by parroting their line.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — December 17, 2017 @ 5:48 am

  13. ‘Dirty dossier’ on Donald Trump is probably credible, says former MI6 boss –

    A dossier of embarrassing allegations about Donald Trump produced by a former British spy “probably” has “some credibility”, the ex-head of MI6 has said.

    Christopher Steele, himself a former MI6 officer, compiled the dossier in which he claimed Russia held compromising information on the US president which left him vulnerable to blackmail.

    At the time, Mr Trump denounced the document as fake news, and its veracity has widely been questioned.

    But Sir Richard Dearlove, who ran MI6 between 1999 and 2004, told BBC’s Newsnight programme: “I think that there is probably some credibility to the content.. I wouldn’t put it any more forcefully than that.”

    Among the more lurid allegations was a claim that the Russians held evidence of Mr Trump hiring prostitutes during a visit to Moscow to urinate on a hotel bed which he believed Barack and Michelle Obama had previously slept in.

    The file also claimed that the Trump campaign team had multiple contacts with Russian officials during the presidential election race.

    Comment by Anders Dahl — December 17, 2017 @ 8:44 am

  14. @Anders Dahl–LOL “Probably some credibility.” Russia is a country. Putin is president. Peskov is the Kremlin Press Secretary. Sechin is CEO of Rosneft. That’s about as much credible content as there is in it. As for the rest. . . .

    And this is another appeal to authority. A guy who was head of MI6 13+ years ago has what information or sources to render any judgment? None. His former position means nothing, and giving him any credence on that basis is farcical.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — December 18, 2017 @ 3:28 am

  15. Lol – Everything about this “Putin thanks Trump for CIA warning” story stinks. Nearly every terror event in Russia for 20 years was created or abetted by the KGB. Feels like an excuse to feign cooperation, flatter Trump, weaken rationale for investigation.

    Comment by Anders Dahl — December 18, 2017 @ 4:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress