Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Mueller Suffers Sudden Strzok

 

Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok
I hear Tubular Bells playing.
Sharyl Attkisson writing at Just in the News shares information on two documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham about government surveillance of now President Donald Trump in 2016.

First, there is a summary of the 57-page, three-day interview transcript with Steele’s primary source for his notorious dossier originally assembled for hire for the Clinton campaign.

According to the analysis by Sen. Graham’s office:

  • The document reveals that the primary “source” of Steele’s election reporting was not some well-connected current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian-based contract employee of Christopher Steele’s firm. Moreover, it demonstrates that the information that Steele’s primary source provided him was second and third hand information and rumor at best.
  • Critically, the document shows that Steele’s “primary sub-source” disagreed with and was surprised by how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the Steele dossier.

Schmidt on Pres. Trump
Schmidt got it wrong.
Then there is a memo from then FBI Agent Peter Strzok on the accuracy of a New York Times article “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence” from Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti, and Matt Apuzzo published Valentine’s Day 2017 (behind the paywall). Strzok’s points include the following:

Claim in NYT article: “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.”

Note by Strzok: “This statement is misleading and inaccurate as written. We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)” and “There is no known intel affiliation, and little if any [government of Russia] affiliation[.] FBI investigation has shown past contact between [Trump campaign volunteer Carter] Page and the SVR [Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation], but not during his association with the Trump campaign.”

Claim in NYT article: “Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, and how many of Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians.”

Note by Strzok: “Again, we are unaware of ANY Trump advisers engaging in conversations with Russian intel officials” and “Our coverage has not revealed contact between Russian intelligence officers and the Trump team.”

Claim in NYT article: “The FBI asked the NSA to collect as much information as possible about the Russian operatives on the phone calls …”

Note by Strzok: “If they did we are not aware of those communications.”

Claim by NYT: “Senior FBI officials believe … Christopher Steele … has a credible track record.”

Note by Strzok: “Recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal Steele may not be in a position to judge the reliability of subsource network.”

Attkisson concludes: There is as yet no explanation in the documents or from the New York Times as to the identities of the four “American officials” who apparently provided the misleading and false information; or what their motivation was.

Do Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet have the journalistic integrity to reveal who was pumping Schmidt false and misleading information to impugn the President of the United States?

Published in Journalism
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 21 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Old Buckeye Member

    In a word, no.

    • #1
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:17 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  2. Old Bathos Moderator

    In their version of journalistic integrity publishing utter and complete BS in order to cripple and destroy the President of the United States is the highest good.

    • #2
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:26 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  3. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    With some justification, journalists are loathe to burn their sources. But what do you do with sources who burned you first? 

    Come on, Dean. Noogie isn’t bright enough to handle this, but you are. Supposedly.

    • #3
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:34 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Barfly Member

    Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing): Do Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet have the journalistic integrity to reveal who was pumping Schmidt false and misleading information to impugn the President of the United States?

    The question seems to assume Sulzberger and Baquet (sounds like something you’d get from a Paris street vendor if you got hungry in the wrong arrondissement) weren’t in on it with Schmidt and his “source” from the start.

    • #4
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:39 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  5. Sisyphus Coolidge
    SisyphusJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing): Do Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger and Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet have the journalistic integrity to reveal who was pumping Schmidt false and misleading information to impugn the President of the United States?

    The question seems to assume Sulzberger and Baquet (sounds like something you’d get from a Paris street vendor if you got hungry in the wrong arrondissement) weren’t in on it with Schmidt and his “source” from the start.

    Or assumes that, whatever their prior involvement, it is still the right thing to do.

    • #5
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:41 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… Thatcher

    Just more confirmation that Strozk was right when he texted Lisa Page in May 2017 that “there’s no big there there” regarding Russian collusion. They knew this by the time Mueller was appointed. The whole purpose of the Mueller mafia was to create a continuous stream of unfavorable media narratives regarding Trump, hamper the administration’s ability to operate, try to lure the President into an obstruction of justice case, and lay the groundwork for Democratic success in the 2018 mid-terms. Because of that election tampering I view the Democrats seizure of the House and Pelosi’s speakership as illegitimate and refuse to “normalize” their conduct.

    • #6
    • July 18, 2020, at 8:42 AM PDT
    • 15 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  7. philo Member

    Somewhere there is a 12,000 word summary of the first four chapters of the Mueller Report that surely disputes everything you posted. I will be happy to cut-n-paste it here in its entirety as soon as I find it.

    Hold my beer…

    • #7
    • July 18, 2020, at 10:19 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. kedavis Member

    Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing): Sharyl Attkinnson writing at Just in the News shares information on two documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham about government surveillance of now President Donald Trump in 2016.

    First note: There are almost no n’s in Sharyl Attkisson. Certainly not two of them in the middle of Attkisson.

    • #8
    • July 18, 2020, at 10:27 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  9. philo Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing): Sharyl Attkinnson writing at Just in the News shares information on two documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham about government surveillance of now President Donald Trump in 2016.

    First note: There are almost no n’s in Sharyl Attkisson. Certainly not two of them in the middle of Attkisson.

    Which is funny because a FOIA request including the top 5 misspellings of her first and last names during the Obama years would probably fuel a dozen prosecutions of very familiar names.

    • #9
    • July 18, 2020, at 10:36 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Sisyphus Coolidge
    SisyphusJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (hears Xi laughing): Sharyl Attkinnson writing at Just in the News shares information on two documents released by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham about government surveillance of now President Donald Trump in 2016.

    First note: There are almost no n’s in Sharyl Attkisson. Certainly not two of them in the middle of Attkisson.

    Quite right. Fixed. Thank you. 

    • #10
    • July 18, 2020, at 10:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge

    We know for a fact that NYT is not concerned with truth, but only pushing a narrative. 

    • #11
    • July 18, 2020, at 10:48 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. Goldgeller Member

    The Russia stuff is looking more and more outrageous. There were people in government who didn’t like Trump and could engineer investigations and intelligence leaks to make him and his circle suffer, and they did. Because many people in the news didn’t like Trump, they were just profoundly uncritical of the leaks they received, and perhaps they even believed he was a Russian asset. As a consequence, you could sense some frustration, rather than relief, from the mainstream media crowd every time something came out suggesting that Trump didn’t collude and wasn’t an agent of Putin. I don’t think it was a willingness to believe the worst about Trump– perhaps one feels he will do and say anything to win. I don’t think that. Underlying the Russia investigations was the fantasy that the election could literally be undone.

    • #12
    • July 18, 2020, at 1:56 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  13. Flicker Coolidge

    Goldgeller (View Comment):

    The Russia stuff is looking more and more outrageous. There were people in government who didn’t like Trump and could engineer investigations and intelligence leaks to make him and his circle suffer, and they did. Because many people in the news didn’t like Trump, they were just profoundly uncritical of the leaks they received, and perhaps they even believed he was a Russian asset. As a consequence, you could sense some frustration, rather than relief, from the mainstream media crowd every time something came out suggesting that Trump didn’t collude and wasn’t an agent of Putin. I don’t think it was a willingness to believe the worst about Trump– perhaps one feels he will do and say anything to win. I don’t think that. Underlying the Russia investigations was the fantasy that the election could literally be undone.

    If Clinton or 0bama were rumored to be Russian “assets” I would be very skeptical of the fact of it, and if true, of the the depth of it. In fact 0bama did “collude” with Medvedev and Putin over missile defence during a hot-mic moment. But I never thought that that would show that 0bama was a Russian asset, only that he was a slimy politician.

    Any reporter with an IQ above 95 must have known that Trump’s “collusion” with Russia wasn’t a conspiracy, or else 0bama’s DOJ and FBI would have called it that; and that Trump was at worst no more in Russia’s pocket than hillary, with her reset and Uranium One sale; and that there was never any allegations that Trump was a Russian asset before he started running for president, and that there was no allegation of any recruitment in prior years after the collusion charge was made. All of this must have occurred to most if not all of the Press.

    In other words, the Press was not duped, it was actively colluding with the intelligence community.

    • #13
    • July 18, 2020, at 2:51 PM PDT
    • 11 likes
  14. philo Member

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Goldgeller (View Comment):

    The Russia stuff is looking more and more outrageous. There were people in government who didn’t like Trump and could engineer investigations and intelligence leaks to make him and his circle suffer, and they did. Because many people in the news didn’t like Trump, they were just profoundly uncritical of the leaks they received, and perhaps they even believed he was a Russian asset. As a consequence, you could sense some frustration, rather than relief, from the mainstream media crowd every time something came out suggesting that Trump didn’t collude and wasn’t an agent of Putin. I don’t think it was a willingness to believe the worst about Trump– perhaps one feels he will do and say anything to win. I don’t think that. Underlying the Russia investigations was the fantasy that the election could literally be undone.

    If Clinton or 0bama were rumored to be Russian “assets” I would be very skeptical of the fact of it, and if true, of the the depth of it. In fact 0bama did “collude” with Medvedev and Putin over missile defence during a hot-mic moment. But I never thought that that would show that 0bama was a Russian asset, only that he was a slimy politician.

    Any reporter with an IQ above 95 must have known that Trump’s “collusion” with Russia wasn’t a conspiracy, or else 0bama’s DOJ and FBI would have called it that; and that Trump was at worst no more in Russia’s pocket than hillary, with her reset and Uranium One sale; and that there was never any allegations that Trump was a Russian asset before he started running for president, and that there was no allegation of any recruitment in prior years after the collusion charge was made. All of this must have occurred to most if not all of the Press.

    In other words, the Press was not duped, it was actively colluding with the intelligence community.

    It was all Kabuki and they were all in on it. An early exit from office (impeachment or resignation) would have been a pleasant surprise but the intent all along was to distract, frustrate, and weaken the President so that everything he did took longer and used more political capital than it should. Just wait, about a month after he leaves office, several of them will be openly bragging about how they stalled away his entire first term. 

    • #14
    • July 18, 2020, at 3:35 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  15. Flicker Coolidge

    philo (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Goldgeller (View Comment):

    The Russia stuff is looking more and more outrageous. There were people in government who didn’t like Trump and could engineer investigations and intelligence leaks to make him and his circle suffer, and they did. Because many people in the news didn’t like Trump, they were just profoundly uncritical of the leaks they received, and perhaps they even believed he was a Russian asset. As a consequence, you could sense some frustration, rather than relief, from the mainstream media crowd every time something came out suggesting that Trump didn’t collude and wasn’t an agent of Putin. I don’t think it was a willingness to believe the worst about Trump– perhaps one feels he will do and say anything to win. I don’t think that. Underlying the Russia investigations was the fantasy that the election could literally be undone.

    If Clinton or 0bama were rumored to be Russian “assets” I would be very skeptical of the fact of it, and if true, of the the depth of it. In fact 0bama did “collude” with Medvedev and Putin over missile defence during a hot-mic moment. But I never thought that that would show that 0bama was a Russian asset, only that he was a slimy politician.

    Any reporter with an IQ above 95 must have known that Trump’s “collusion” with Russia wasn’t a conspiracy, or else 0bama’s DOJ and FBI would have called it that; and that Trump was at worst no more in Russia’s pocket than hillary, with her reset and Uranium One sale; and that there was never any allegations that Trump was a Russian asset before he started running for president, and that there was no allegation of any recruitment in prior years after the collusion charge was made. All of this must have occurred to most if not all of the Press.

    In other words, the Press was not duped, it was actively colluding with the intelligence community.

    It was all Kabuki and they were all in on it. An early exit from office (impeachment or resignation) would have been a pleasant surprise but the intent all along was to distract, frustrate, and weaken the President so that everything he did took longer and used more political capital than it should. Just wait, about a month after he leaves office, several of them will be openly bragging about how they stalled away his entire first term.

    So you dismiss those who generously credit reporters with “really believing” that Trump colluded with Russia and that CNN anchors were likely snookered?

    • #15
    • July 18, 2020, at 4:10 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  16. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKSJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    The (D)/Left MSM bares no consequence for consistently providing the public with deliberate lies inaccurate information.

    Giving the NYT/MSM the benefit of the doubt, when their reporting is publicly documented to have been wrong, the least they could do is acknowledge their gullibility, perfidity, inaccuracies.

    • #16
    • July 18, 2020, at 5:20 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. Goldgeller Member

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    The (D)/Left MSM bares no consequence for consistently providing the public with deliberate lies inaccurate information.

    Giving the NYT/MSM the benefit of the doubt, when their reporting is publicly documented to have been wrong, the least they could do is acknowledge their gullibility, perfidity, inaccuracies.

    They won’t because the next question becomes: Why didn’t they see it when people who they demonized as “Trumpkins” and “Magats” did? It would be great if someone showed that level of recognition and asked Schiff to explain why his “I’ve seen classified evidence that I can’t tell you about…” statements didn’t pan out. I’d probably forgive that journo. We all make mistakes. But it probably won’t happen at any serious level because the logical followup is scary: “How come you fell for it Mr./Ms. Fancy Talking Head?”

    I try to remind myself to consider this: “What else did the talking heads fall for that was false but they presented with utter certainty and disdain for those that would question their conclusions?”

    • #17
    • July 18, 2020, at 6:02 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  18. Clare Day Member
    Clare DayJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    To my mind anyone who doesn’t work like hell for President Trump’s re-election, or first fair term, ratifies by omission an essentially treasonous conspiracy. Easy for me to say, I think Trump does many good and necessary things with his hands tied behind his back, and I’d love to see what he could do in a second term. But I am even more concerned about what it will mean if this vile swamp conspiracy is rewarded with the Presidency it set out to destroy and then steal, from Trump and those who elected him, by any means necessary. 

    • #18
    • July 18, 2020, at 6:31 PM PDT
    • 11 likes
  19. ctlaw Coolidge

    Direct links

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/February%209,%202017%20Electronic%20Communication.pdf

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Annotated%20New%20York%20Times%20Article.pdf

    via Politico

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/17/lindsey-graham-russia-probe-documents-368045

    • #19
    • July 19, 2020, at 3:36 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. Cliff Hadley Thatcher

    Goldgeller (View Comment):

    EDISONPARKS (View Comment):

    The (D)/Left MSM bares no consequence for consistently providing the public with deliberate lies inaccurate information.

    Giving the NYT/MSM the benefit of the doubt, when their reporting is publicly documented to have been wrong, the least they could do is acknowledge their gullibility, perfidity, inaccuracies.

    They won’t because the next question becomes: Why didn’t they see it when people who they demonized as “Trumpkins” and “Magats” did? It would be great if someone showed that level of recognition and asked Schiff to explain why his “I’ve seen classified evidence that I can’t tell you about…” statements didn’t pan out. I’d probably forgive that journo. We all make mistakes. But it probably won’t happen at any serious level because the logical followup is scary: “How come you fell for it Mr./Ms. Fancy Talking Head?”

    I try to remind myself to consider this: “What else did the talking heads fall for that was false but they presented with utter certainty and disdain for those that would question their conclusions?”

    Duranty couldn’t see 6 million dead Ukrainians. His journalistic heirs can’t possibly see modern lies re Russian collusion.

    • #20
    • July 19, 2020, at 6:20 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. Barfly Member

    Flicker (View Comment):
    So you dismiss those who generously credit reporters with “really believing” that Trump colluded with Russia and that CNN anchors were likely snookered?

    That’s an interesting question, whether a person of the left believes the things they say. I think they superficially do believe, but it’s different. A person of the left invariably has a strong belief mechanism; they can’t hold a thought without either believing it or believing that it’s false and rejecting it. Their whole mind, their way of addressing the world, that is their true philosophy, is oriented around the mechanism of belief.

    So, yeah, the dumber ones probably do believe that Trump colluded with Russia. I saw a clip the other day, taken sometime after the Mueller collapse, of some prog newsreader letting a comment slip and biting it off. I think that fool, and millions like him, really did believe in the truth of his remark at the moment when he made it. But realize that their beliefs are very fluid, and they are at all times ready and eager to believe whatever elevates their image of their self. So it’s really not saying much, to say that the more witless lefties do believe. They believe Chelsea Manning is a woman, and will continue to believe that unless and until Mr. Manning becomes more of an irritant than a support for their synthetic cosmology.

    • #21
    • July 19, 2020, at 11:09 AM PDT
    • 4 likes