From the moment Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal in 2007, I’ve have been quite critical of the articles written by its staff.
The topics of real concern: Israel and Saudi Arabia cooperation with Islamic extremists fighting with the opposition in Syria, the Ghouta gas attack of August 2013, Saudi and Israel sharing intelligence on Sinai terrorists.
Furthermore any credence given to Murdoch’s star fiction writer Louise Mensh, a former British MP, with obvious inputs from the British and US intelligence communities on Trump and Russia.
A nice work of journalism on the internal battle at WSJ published in Vanity Fair…
A series of virulent anti-Mueller editorials has reporters worried about their paper’s credibility.
Rest of diary posted @EuroTrib 🙂
Just as importantly, it appears that after it became publicly clear, with David Corn’s Steele story, that the dossier was oppo research, the FBI not only backed out of a plan to pay for its continuation, but leaked to the NYT that FBI had found nothing to substantiate any ties with Russia.
Note, this detail also provides a much better explanation for why the FBI backed out of its planned relationship with Steele in October, one that matches my supposition. As soon as it became clear Elias was leaking the dossier all over as oppo research, the FBI realized how inappropriate it was to use the information themselves, no matter how credible Steele is. This also likely explains why FBI seeded a story with NYT, one Democrats have complained about incessantly since, reporting “none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.” Ham-handed? Sure. But in the wake of Harry Reid and David Corn’s attempts to force FBI to reveal what Democratic oppo research had handed to FBI, the FBI needed to distance themselves from the oppo research, and make sure they didn’t become part of it. Particularly if Steele was not fully forthcoming about who was paying him, the FBI was fucked.
Whatever the facts about when it discovered the Democrats were funding the dossier, ultimately FBI went way out of its way to ensure the allegations in the dossier didn’t influence the election.
- ○ The Carter Page Surveillance [FISA warrant] Doesn’t Prove Anyone’s Conspiracy Theory | Wired – April 2017 |
○ The Steele Dossier Looks More Credible Than Ever | Washington Monthly – Oct. 25, 2017 |
…
Many, many diaries on topic in recent months …
- ○ Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor
○ Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate – Forbes
○ Bret Stephens, WSJ/Murdoch Are Inseparable
○ J’Accuse Rupert Murdoch On Stalinism and Sheeple – His WSJ
Further reading …
○ Reasons Why Dems Have Been Fucking Stupid on the Steele Dossier, a Long Essay | Emptywheel |
[Update-2] See new diary entry – Papadopoulos and Australian Spy Chief in a London Bar
○ NYT Does Not Have the Smoking Gun on Trump Campaign Email Knowledge (Dec. 30, 2017)
○ On the Lawfare over the Steele Dossier (Sept. 3, 2017)
○ The Democrats Newfound Love for Russian Intelligence Product (Jan. 11, 2017)
Marcy Wheeler’s take on the release by BuzzFeed …
- As you know, Buzzfeed published a dossier laying out Donald Trump’s ties to Russia last night. The dossier is described as oppo research done by a former MI6 agent first for a GOP rival (which doesn’t make a ton of sense as the dossier starts in June 2016) and then picked up by Hillary.
For what it’s worth, I find some of it very credible. Some of it accords with stuff I know. Others of it conflicts in material ways with well-sourced information I know. I find other claims transparently silly (such as the report that anyone believed Trump didn’t have serious business ties to Russia). That may simply speak to the credibility of the individual underlying sources, or it may speak to the dossier generally. I don’t yet have an opinion on that.
