So what's your first move? Would you assume CNN must've convinced the Russian translator to talk to them and move on with your story without taking any action, or would you call your source to figure out where that CNN information came from? If your source denied talking to CNN, would you believe him and move on, or would you do whatever you could to determine whether you can trust this source on such an important matter? You'd want to know the answer to that question before proceeding, would you not?
As I asked above, the FBI would want to know, wouldn't they? And if they wanted to know, they'd have the awesome resources of the world's most powerful investigative agency at their disposal to determine whether the "Well-placed Western intelligence" source in the article was their guy, and whether their guy was lying to them about actively leaking sensitive investigative information to the press.
The principle piece of evidence is that Source #1 did provide that information to the reporter, despite the FBI's certification to the court that they did "Not believe that Source #1 provided that information directly to the press."
It is now public knowledge that Christopher Steele was the "Well-placed Western intelligence" source of Michael Isikoff's September 2016 Yahoo News article.
This would present a challenging set of circumstances, in a legal and moral sense, to the FBI. Their source had committed a demonstrable felony-he lied to the FBI-yet a pivotal portion of their FISA application consisted of information provided by a now-felonious liar, upon whose character and credibility the FBI relied as a guarantor of the indeterminable credibility of the second- and third-removed sources who provided information to him.
The facts-according to the FISA application the FBI and DOJ presented-are that Steele lied to the FBI about his leaks to the press prior to the October 2016 FISA proceeding.
The only way to avoid any of the above moral and legal dilemmas would be if the FBI was unable to determine whether the "Well-placed Western intelligence source" in Isikoff's article was Steele or Simpson.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/25/suspicious-fbi-doj-didnt-check-christopher-steeles-leaks-press/
As I asked above, the FBI would want to know, wouldn't they? And if they wanted to know, they'd have the awesome resources of the world's most powerful investigative agency at their disposal to determine whether the "Well-placed Western intelligence" source in the article was their guy, and whether their guy was lying to them about actively leaking sensitive investigative information to the press.
The principle piece of evidence is that Source #1 did provide that information to the reporter, despite the FBI's certification to the court that they did "Not believe that Source #1 provided that information directly to the press."
It is now public knowledge that Christopher Steele was the "Well-placed Western intelligence" source of Michael Isikoff's September 2016 Yahoo News article.
This would present a challenging set of circumstances, in a legal and moral sense, to the FBI. Their source had committed a demonstrable felony-he lied to the FBI-yet a pivotal portion of their FISA application consisted of information provided by a now-felonious liar, upon whose character and credibility the FBI relied as a guarantor of the indeterminable credibility of the second- and third-removed sources who provided information to him.
The facts-according to the FISA application the FBI and DOJ presented-are that Steele lied to the FBI about his leaks to the press prior to the October 2016 FISA proceeding.
The only way to avoid any of the above moral and legal dilemmas would be if the FBI was unable to determine whether the "Well-placed Western intelligence source" in Isikoff's article was Steele or Simpson.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/25/suspicious-fbi-doj-didnt-check-christopher-steeles-leaks-press/
No comments:
Post a Comment