FBI Accused Of Blocking Key Details On "Trump Dossier" Author

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and "Trump dossier" author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public.

Bloomberg reported Monday that Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley criticized the FBI for blocking the release of key portions of a memo he wrote calling for a criminal investigation of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled a dossier of unverified allegations on Donald Trump.

Grassley also released the memo in its redacted form to the press.

"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department last month. "The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn’t secret."

Grassley has been pursuing questions about the FBI’s reliance on Steele separately from House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, the author of the four-page "FISA memo" that was released last week and inspired President Trump to declare that he has been "vindicated" by its findings.

Conservative lawmakers have demanded that President Trump fire Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, the official responsible for supervising the Mueller probe - and some have even called for Mueller's firing. But others, including outgoing Congressman and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, have said the revelations packaged in the memo wouldn't justify ending the Russia probe.

Grassley's push is emblematic of the intense rivalry that has sprung up between the various Congressional committees pursuing their own independent investigations of Trump and Hillary Clinton's relationships with Russian entities or officials.

Democrats have dismissed the memo as inaccurate and misleading and are pushing for release of their own document challenging the Republican account. The Intel Committee is set to meet Monday at 5 pm to decide on whether to release the memo. Washington time to vote on the possible release of the Democratic response.

As the rivalry between the White House and Republicans on one side, and the FBI and DOJ, on the other, accelerates, Grassley and Graham asked the DOJ to investigate whether Steele made false statements to federal investigators.

In the newly released memo, the pair wrote that they had sent the criminal referral because there’s evidence that Steele, whose opposition research was funded largely by Trump rival Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, either lied to the FBI or to a British court, or that classified documents reviewed by the committee are false.

As Bloomberg also notes, Grassley asked the FBI to approve a declassified version of his Steele referral by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Politico reports that  Grassley and Graham on Monday also asked the Department of Justice and FBI to declassify more information related to their Steele referral, including an application to conduct surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

That surveillance application, Republicans have said, improperly involved research conducted by Steele that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. Republicans on Friday released a declassified memo they wrote on the subject.

Suspiciously, the redacted letter includes a blacked-out section led by the sentence "there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."

Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with “a friend of the Clintons.”

"It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility," Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral.

Full memo below


Dilluminati Twox2 Mon, 02/05/2018 - 14:37 Permalink

Maybe they should investigate the cocksuckers who tell you that you get bonus cash online for bovada.  So I signup and the cocksuckers say: we'll match your start amount by 50%.  So I bet $25.00 and spread the bet.. 10 on eagles, 10 on steelers, 17.50 on the eagles NFC champs... so you know what the cocksuckers did?

When I went to get me money they said well if you want your money you can get "shitcoin" or had to "wave the bonus amount" so effectively the cocksuckers lied through their fucking teeth and then when you want to walk from the casino a winner.. winner winner chicken dinner they are like fucking assholes gouging back.. Indian fucking giver cocksuckers.

So I ended up with only 161 winnings and the cocksuckers said we'll be later than usual on getting you your fucking check.. the cocksuckers

what complete fucking ripoffs.. I hope they lose all types of money fucking with shitcoin and just fucking lying to the public about the bets.. cocksuckers.. and this is why I don't fucking do vegas or atlantic city.. what complete assholes.. and they would have wanted a fee to send a check less than $100.  I hope the Eagles odds ass raped those clowns.


These fucking people are fucking criminals so stop wasting the FBI's time and take a real bite out of crime.



In reply to by Twox2

Dilluminati GeezerGeek Mon, 02/05/2018 - 18:10 Permalink

See what they did was reduce my payout in proportion to the cash bonus.  Which was like by 1/3 and their money was spent on the Steelers winning the SB at 4:1 and the cocksuckers stole it out of my winnings with the eagles.. 

I lost their money not mine and they wanted mine back the cocksuckers

Look I walk into a casino I don't want no stinking phony coins I want a roll of real quarters for showing up.

I was down in Virginia, PA area 


Stopped by here, we were driving through scenic drive and the cocksuckers wanted 10 dollars to visit the casino!

I looked at my spouse and said, wtf?  these people never been in a casino and laughed and went back to the car and drove off.

It's outright fucking theft.. FBI nothing to do and these cocksuckers highway robbery.

Those were some of the most miserable looking folk I had ever laid eyes on.. smelled bad.. just downer.. laughed and rode away

In reply to by GeezerGeek

Dilluminati PhilofOz Mon, 02/05/2018 - 15:33 Permalink

That's the 1st time.. I'd of not bet but I was like wtf?  Redskins nearly beat new orleans.. I mean the NFC was tough.. and outside and at home I was like those odds?  I'll take some.

But that is the tackiest bull shit ever.  What a ripoff.. and wanted a fee to get your money if you didn't have greater than 100.  I mean google them.. if that is the state of online gambling I'll stick to buying lottery tickets.. that's the professional way to gamble and lose.

But how tacky is that?  

Fine print my ass.. the FBI ought to be shutting those thieves down.

You get shitcoin payout for free.. wonder why the shitcoin is down????????

In reply to by PhilofOz

janus Four chan Mon, 02/05/2018 - 15:14 Permalink

With all due respect, Rep. Gowdy, janus has a problem with your premise.  You are the prosecutor, and this is all therefore your bailiwick; that being said, i still refer you to my original remark, to wit "the entire investigation is predicated on what has now proven to be a false premise."

This investigation could be likened to a 'trumped'-up murder charge.  Let's say a detective is given a lead from a dubious source (that he knows is dubious); the detective then takes the lead to a judge but doesn't share the source of this lead (nor for that matter his knowledge that the info is tainted); in spite of the ambiguity, and because the detective has a stellar reputation, the judge issues a warrant to search the accused's home; the detective scowers the house, finds no evidence to link him to the murder, but does find the roach of a marijuana joint.

Evidence later emerges to demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the source for this lead lied to advance their own interest (and to cover their own complicity in the murder).  Embarrassed but brazen, the detective unilaterally decides to aggressively pursue charges for the marijuana and issue indictments of interstate drug trafficking based on a single half-smoked roach. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, Rep. Gowdy, but wouldn't any judge in the land throw out the dope charge and further censure the detective for abusing his office and for fraudulent solicitation of a warrant?  In point of fact, wouldn't the detective potentially lose his job for knowingly submitting falsified evidence to the judge?

Again, janus is no prosecutor; but I have heard rumors that judges seethe with rage when they're embarrassed by feckless and corrupted detectives.  I've also heard rumors that a Supreme Court Justice oversees the FISC.  

I wonder how famously furious a certain Supreme Court Judge is right about now...I wonder if they're presently deciding what actions should be taken to retaliate against a feckless and corrupted prosecutor.  I've also heard rumors that, ideologies aside, judges don't like to see their fellow jurists murdered for political gain.  Killing a judge is something you just don't do -- particularly Supreme Court Justices.



In reply to by Four chan

Miss Expectations janus Mon, 02/05/2018 - 18:07 Permalink

I'm sure Trey Gowdy doesn't deserve your due respect.
Even Darrell Issa knows:

Rep. Issa: Leadership trusted him (Gowdy) to do the Russian investigation, trusted him to do just what they wanted on the Benghazi investigation, and trusted him to be chairman of Oversight ahead of others who could have been.

Sharyl: What do you mean leadership "trusted him to do just what they wanted on the Benghazi investigation?"

Rep. Issa: Well, they took the Benghazi investigation away from me exactly at a time in which there was plenty more to say and do. And so, when they put it to a select committee, they took six months off before they called a single witness. It was a cooling off period that shouldn't have happened. Speaker Boehner made a decision to pull the plug, and then have nothing happened for six months, and then we spent millions of dollars really to reach a lesser conclusion than we would have if we just continued.
Congressman Gowdy's office told us: "At no point did Speaker Boehner, Speaker Ryan, or anyone in leadership ever suggest a committee action or outcome. All decisions made were made by the committee." But Issa saw the move to hand the Benghazi probe to a special committee as part of a Republican effort to control the investigation, and keep it from going too far.

Sharyl: A lot of people out there listening might say, why would the Republicans go easy on the Benghazi investigation that doesn't make any sense. Can you explain that?

Rep. Issa: The chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers at the time and the chairman of Armed Services Buck McKeon, they were covering up for those failures. They were feeling institutionally that that they had to protect them. And, by the way, both of them were going on to other careers shortly afterwards.


The intelligence community is awfully concerned about revealing their "sources and methods" while every day we learn more about their "sources and methods" and it's rather chilling.

In reply to by janus

janus Miss Expectations Mon, 02/05/2018 - 19:28 Permalink

Hey Miss E,

You bring up an important point.  Darrell Issa is distinguishing himself as one of this country's very best representatives -- wish he would reconsider retiring.  

My sense on Gowdy is that he's 1) either gaming the bad guys, tempting them to believe that he's still willing to carry water for them (I do believe Gowdy was, until recently, under the grip of blackmail -- probably a fairly innocent affair.  Gowdy was one of those 'set free' in the run-up to SOTU). 2) he is playing both sides, hedging his bets against Trump and the deep-state -- waiting to see who emerges victorious.

I certainly hope it's the former (#1).  For not only are we going to win, but we're going to secure total and complete victory.  It will be a political/social/cultural immolation with no analogy in all history's annals.  

I wonder where the bushes are in all of this?  sure haven't heard anything from that wing of the republicunts in ages.  not a peep from mccain either (sorry hanoi johnny, looks like Lindsey Graham has abandon you).

I wonder also if these doyennes of the establishment still think they're immune to prosecution 'cause it might cause a loss of faith in American institutions'?  Little do they realize that THEY are the cause of diminished respect or this country's institutions; and that the only way to restore said faith is, interestingly enough, through their prosecution.

These people are going to jail.  No one is getting any deals (they already made deals with the devil...let's see if that serpent of olde can save them now).  


In reply to by Miss Expectations

Miss Expectations janus Mon, 02/05/2018 - 19:59 Permalink

Trey is trying to claw his way back into the Judicial system, problem is he aided and abetted covering up Benghazi by not calling witnesses (FBI), not finding out who issued the stand-down order, not using evidence submitted to the committee and not blowing Hillary and her minions sky-high. As a former prosecutor he was straight out of central casting. Someone gave him a stand down order, too. You probably noticed he was never considered for any of the new administrations' positions in Justice or the FBI. Neither side trusts him.

Here's your Bush update:

In reply to by janus

No Time for Fishing Luc X. Ifer Mon, 02/05/2018 - 16:26 Permalink

Time for Congress to call Mueller in and explain to him that it's Congress that appropriates the tax payer money he is wasting by the truck load and the People want an explanation. Time for Mueller to show cause for his "investigation" to continue, to show what we have received for our money so far. If all he has is the potential to get someone on a process crime if given enough time he needs to be shut down. I am no in favor of giving the Dims any amo in the argument that Mueller found nothing because he was stopped but an endless hunt for a process crime cannot be accepted. 

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

Thought Processor 847328_3527 Mon, 02/05/2018 - 14:21 Permalink


FusionGPS = CIA (+ 5 eyes)


FBI was effectively being controlled by the Deep State intel complex which is essentially an international crime syndicate. 

I would think we will now begin to see an increase in coincidental suspect deaths, ie; heart attacks / suicides / arkancides for those involved.  

It's about to get interesting as the heat is turned up.

In reply to by 847328_3527

StychoKiller crossroaddemon Mon, 02/05/2018 - 21:02 Permalink

Simply by signing any Govt form, you're implicitly agreeing to terms of a contract that you're NOT aware of!  For example, registering to vote also commits you to placing your name on the list of potential Jury members, etc.

I always sign every Govt. form with "Without Prejudice, U.C.C. 1-308" underneath my signature.  Do your own research on the U.C.C.

In reply to by crossroaddemon

NoDebt JoseyWalesTheOutlaw Mon, 02/05/2018 - 13:54 Permalink

"Steele says he received information from the State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with “a friend of the Clintons.”"

Is this new information?  I don't remember hearing this one before.  So, the Steele dossier was built from information not just from "Russians" but through our own State Department?

I'm just glad nobody on Hillary's campaign had anything to do with the State Department or this could be ugly.


In reply to by JoseyWalesTheOutlaw

Kayman NoDebt Mon, 02/05/2018 - 14:11 Permalink

Steele was paid $160,000 to transcribe onto his own letterhead, all the lies the Obama White House, the DNC, the DoJ, the FBI and the State Department fed him. Period.

The FBI and DOJ aren't stalling without some damn good (bad) reason.

The rest of the $12 million was paid to make everyone else look the other way, including our corrupt Media.

In reply to by NoDebt

Give Me Some Truth Kayman Mon, 02/05/2018 - 14:49 Permalink

If we're viewing this through the lens of "threats" what was the real threat to the Status Quo ... and to Team Hillary? It was that server story blowing up.

IMO the big effort, most of the corruption, was to make sure that this potential and explosive story was contained. 

The dossier and FISA warrants were a later side-order of corruption. Somehow the "Russian collusion" story became a cover story or a good distraction to feed the compliant press.

The danger for The Powers that Be is if one politico (unblackmailable) sees all of these investigations as a way to make a real name for himself and keeps digging. However, I think any "rogue" Congressperson could be reeled in by peers with more power.

My sense is that the bet now is that all of this can still be contained with no real harm done (another three-day story or whatever). I mean is there a Woodward and Bernstein, or Wash Post, digging and likely to find new revelations and keep the story in front of the public? I don't see these people or this paper. With Watergate, you did have this dynamic. Then the press was out "to get" the people doing the covering up. Now the press is helping with the cover-up.

It's probably a lot bigger story than Watergate - journalists COULD get rich and famous. But they won't. The corruption has so many extra levels -and branches off into so many directions - that the accomplices are probably safe. Everyone could be brought down, which is probably why no one will be brought down.

In reply to by Kayman