-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WSJ: GOP Activist Who Sought Clinton Emails Cited Trump Campaign Officials
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Oh I didn't know the dems took over paying Steele for his work.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
If it can be demonstrated that that sentiment or intention was endorsed, directed, shared, supported by folks in the campaign, then it's a problem. Otherwise, this can (and will) be explained away as the unsanctioned and increasingly crazed behavior of a person who, for what it's worth, now happens to be dead.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Dems didn't pay for it. Steele saw the stuff he was getting was very serious and still worked on it after Trump got the nomination. He then alerted the CIA and FBI to his stuff and the FBI considered paying him for the work.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I swear Roger Stone is somewhere in this whole thing.
hendersonhank
Member
Some Democrat stepped up to pay Steele.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain
But, still, who cares. This "double standards" or whatever angle doesn't pass muster. Was anything in Steele's dossier even obtained by doing crimes against American citizens? I actually don't know. The FBI would know. And they worked directly with Steele and also independently to verify details from his dossier. So like. The scrutiny was there.
Alternative innocent
BlackGhost
Banned
Pieces of a puzzle
Byakuya769
Member
Did you guys know that asking Russian officials and intelligence contacts questions is the same thing as trying to receive emails hacked from a state official by a antagonistic foreign power?
He very likely is, but since he left the campaign at a certain point, he may be a third-party instigator and as usual, not be named.
hendersonhank
Member
It's not the same thing, but trying to get damaging info on an opponent from an antagonistic foreign power (without caring about how they obtained said info) is in fact similar in many ways to trying to get damaging info on an opponent from an antagonistic foreign power (without caring about how they obtained said info).
Keep in mind that the emails Smith was interested in verifying were supposed to be from Hillary's private server, and thus should have had zero classified info in them.
KernelPanic
Member
I can see the new spin. It was George Soros all along.
Lots of people "left" the campaign. Manafort and yet his office was one floor below Trump at Trump Tower. They talked all the time, probably not about the weather.
But what is your evidence for "(without caring about how they obtained said info)" on the Steele case? That dude was an intelligence official himself. Again: multiple American intelligence agencies were aware of the Steele work and investigated the claims themselves.
You're abstracting so far to get to "similarity" that the comparison just isn't valuable.
Very true, they left at opportune times when the heat got too much, but then stayed on in spirit, just not publicly.
WordAssassin
Member
When shit like this comes out publicly I can only imagine the mountain of shit they have that's still private.
Good god
Good god
The true meaning of draining the swamp.
BlastProcessing
Member
He just leaves this dangling and doesn't elaborate.
hendersonhank
Member
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. You think Steele asked his FSB and Russian government sources not to tell him anything that they had found out illegally? He was hired to look for dirt on Trump and he got info about recordings of sex acts with prostitutes, clandestine meetings about billion dollar bribes, etc. You think his sources obtained all that information in perfectly above-board ways? And what is the relevance of U.S. intelligence later investigating those claims themselves?
WSJ reports that Smith was approached by some unidentified guys who said "yo, we managed to get our hands on the deleted Hillary emails, you want them?" An opposition researcher being interested in that material, offered to him unsolicited, is hardly some bombshell imo. Or even members of Trump's campaign being interested in it, although there is, so far, little or not evidence that they were. This doesn't seem to me to be "collusion", they didn't solicit the hacks or finance them, or even know who was behind the offer.
She leaves texts and e-mails wide open for when it comes time for hearings.
He just leaves this dangling and doesn't elaborate.
I think he's referring to the stories about Flynn and other insider information he mentioned earlier in the piece.
Funkyhamster
Member
I thought those contacts were only in response to Smith's team digging around? Can't remember where I heard that, though, so maybe I'm wrong.
Chained Prometheus
Member
That's one heck of a read.
This is one hell of a ride. Ominous is the word.
We have both ends now, from the ass to the mouth.
hendersonhank
Member
What point are you making by saying U.S. intelligence investigated the claims made in Steele's dossier? I really don't know what you're getting at.
Okay, now show me where anyone, anywhere, said that the Dems or the Repubs that sought out and paid Steele to write those reports for them should be investigated for collusion with Russia or whatever other crimes might be involved in receiving such information.
The implication is that showing interest in dirt on an opponent, that someone else dug up on their own and offered to you, is not even remotely any kind of bombshell or indicative of collusion, much less treason. The comparison to the Steele dossier is that no one anywhere ever suggested there was any wrongdoing on the part of those who SOUGHT OUT and PAID Steele specifically to dig up such dirt, which he did by getting it from Russian sources who in many cases presumably did so unlawfully.
People are acting like Flynn paid Smith to hire some Russians to hack into Hillary's server and steal her emails. What has been described is absolutely nothing like that.
BlastProcessing
Member
robotzombie
Member
What is the point and/or value of this post?
A lot of his posts seem to be 1-4 words. And a lot of it looks to be baiting type posts.
hendersonhank
Member
Could you explain this behavior?
If you're trying to make an argument, it would be easier if you would just make it. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking.
BlastProcessing
Member
Peter Smith, the person who was personally working with state actors to get hacked materials, repeatedly and publicly pushed the narrative that there was no involvement by state actors.
So, could you explain that behavior? Can you fit this into your narrative?
Vic_Viper
Member
Crazy read but it's becoming clear this all means nothing unless they can prove Smith was working directly with/for the higher ups mentioned in the first article. Asking if anyone has the emails though is basically him asking someone to get them for him if they hadn't already. Really hope this goes further.
hendersonhank
Member
My "narrative" is that an opposition researcher showing interest in damaging material that was brought to him is not collusion, or treasonous, or even a crime. Just as it wasn't any of those things when damaging Trump material was brought to opposition researchers by Christopher Steele -- in fact they (unlike Smith) had specifically hired him to do precisely that.
But to address your question specifically, nothing in either article says anything even vaguely like Smith was "personally working with state actors" to get those emails. Neither Smith nor Wait nor anybody else knew who was making the offer (Wait himself thought it was a fraud). Smith did not in any way "work with" whoever they were, to get those materials. He didn't finance their efforts, encourage their efforts, or even KNOW about their efforts. He assumed, as many did, that being very insecure, Hillary's personal email server was likely hacked at some point, and he thought that in fact multiple hackers had probably done so (including but not limited to Russians); and being an opposition researcher, he wanted those hacks exposed to the public.
Smith never had any more verification of Russia being behind any of the hacks than anyone else in the public did, thus his statement in your tweet is "behavior" consistent with the vast numbers of people who were then (or still are) skeptical of Russia's involvement in the hack.
Autodidact
Banned
Hey, everyone! Bored to tears, I wrote a quick summary of the WSJ and Lawfare articles. Some of you may go, "Who cares?" but it might help someone who wants to be apprised of the situation more quickly:
1. Peter Smith, a veteran Republican operative, assumes that Hillary's deleted emails have been obtained by hackers. Aware that releasing them could damage her campaign, he resolves to find them, assembles a team, and establishes a Delaware LLC called KLS Research (relevant later).
2. He and his team scour the internet, eventually arriving at the Dark Web, where several groups of hackers, some perhaps affiliated with the Russian government, claim to have the emails. Smith's team has no way to prove their veracity.
3. Smith enlists Matt Tait (aka @pwnallthethings), formerly of British GCHQ and a security analyst. Tait has previously commented on the DNC/Podesta hacks and assumes that Smith merely wants a consultation. After all, if Russia can hack the Democrats, they can hack the Republicans!
4. Smith tells Tait about his quest to find the emails, as well as about his questionable sources on the Dark Web. Tait, who never communicates with the source, grows increasingly uneasy, believing that Smith may have gotten involved with a genuine Russian hacking outfit. Smith seems nonchalant about the possibility of being involved with the Russians. Tait nopes the fuck out, for lack of a more elegant term, but before he goes, he sees a few documents and makes few observations...
5. Tait receives and keeps a recruitment document titled ”A Demonstrative Pedagogical Summary to be Developed and Released Prior to November 8, 2016," dated September 7. (Some research indicates that KLS Research, Smith's LLC, was established on September 2.) One section of this document lists members of Trump's campaign - among them Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and Michael Flynn - as being involved with Smith's efforts. The aforementioned claim not to know Smith, not to have spoken with him in years, or just give no comment, respectively. This section bears the heading ”Trump Campaign (in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure)." Tait reasons that Smith might just be a "name-dropper." After all, Tait's own name appears in the document, and he's had almost naught to do with Smith's mission.
6. The June 29 WSJ article, however, contains the following passage:
Though the WSJ cautions that this intermediary's identity has not been uncovered, the late Mr. Smith seems a likely candidate. Indeed, Eric York, who worked with Smith to find the emails, recalls Smith's saying, "I'm talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?" Emails exchanged among Smith's team further suggest an association with Flynn, Flynn's son, and Flynn's consulting company. A LinkedIn page supposedly listing the members of Smith's team also lists Flynn's company. Additionally, Tait, the "unnamed computer expert" in the June 29 article and on record in the June 30 article, recounts conversations in which Smith mentions his association with Flynn. Trump and co. never deny Flynn's involvement but say that Flynn may have worked with Smith as a "private individual," not on behalf of the campaign. If you'll recall, however, Smith's document lists Flynn under the "Trump campaign" section.
7. In his article, Tait draws some chilling conclusions:
A narrative thus starts to take form: the Trump campaign join with Smith to "find" Hillary's deleted emails*, and they designate Flynn as the point of contact for this endeavor. Peter Smith, though intimately linked with the campaign and its members, establishes an "independent" corporation so he can claim distance and avoid campaign reporting laws. However, as we've seen, Smith's teammates and his own documentation contradict this claim. Smith and co. find a supposedly Russian source that claims to have the emails. If investigators can verify the link between Smith and Trump's campaign, we have collusion. (In fact, they may have already have verified as much; the public learns about these matters well after the fact.)
In the above summary, I've tried to include only the facts and the "reasonable inferences" the articles would have a reader draw. (They can't say everything directly, so they often hint heavily and lead us to the conclusions.) If I've made a factual error or ventured too far into conjecture, be a darling and let me know so I can amend the post.
Now, for one of my own theories:
*the Russian source and the quest to get the emails: I think Smith and Trump's campaign knew they'd be getting emails from Russians. They concocted the "search" and the Dark Web story so they could have plausible deniability: "We didn't know they came from Russia!" Of course, this theory requires that the Russians successfully obtained the deleted emails in the first place. But then, they probably would've released them. Now you see why I avoid making my own theories.
Send me to Mensch if too loony; criticize my writing if prose proves too ungainly.
EDIT: Fixed some minor factual flaws.
1. Peter Smith, a veteran Republican operative, assumes that Hillary's deleted emails have been obtained by hackers. Aware that releasing them could damage her campaign, he resolves to find them, assembles a team, and establishes a Delaware LLC called KLS Research (relevant later).
2. He and his team scour the internet, eventually arriving at the Dark Web, where several groups of hackers, some perhaps affiliated with the Russian government, claim to have the emails. Smith's team has no way to prove their veracity.
3. Smith enlists Matt Tait (aka @pwnallthethings), formerly of British GCHQ and a security analyst. Tait has previously commented on the DNC/Podesta hacks and assumes that Smith merely wants a consultation. After all, if Russia can hack the Democrats, they can hack the Republicans!
4. Smith tells Tait about his quest to find the emails, as well as about his questionable sources on the Dark Web. Tait, who never communicates with the source, grows increasingly uneasy, believing that Smith may have gotten involved with a genuine Russian hacking outfit. Smith seems nonchalant about the possibility of being involved with the Russians. Tait nopes the fuck out, for lack of a more elegant term, but before he goes, he sees a few documents and makes few observations...
5. Tait receives and keeps a recruitment document titled ”A Demonstrative Pedagogical Summary to be Developed and Released Prior to November 8, 2016," dated September 7. (Some research indicates that KLS Research, Smith's LLC, was established on September 2.) One section of this document lists members of Trump's campaign - among them Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and Michael Flynn - as being involved with Smith's efforts. The aforementioned claim not to know Smith, not to have spoken with him in years, or just give no comment, respectively. This section bears the heading ”Trump Campaign (in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure)." Tait reasons that Smith might just be a "name-dropper." After all, Tait's own name appears in the document, and he's had almost naught to do with Smith's mission.
6. The June 29 WSJ article, however, contains the following passage:
Though the WSJ cautions that this intermediary's identity has not been uncovered, the late Mr. Smith seems a likely candidate. Indeed, Eric York, who worked with Smith to find the emails, recalls Smith's saying, "I'm talking to Michael Flynn about this—if you find anything, can you let me know?" Emails exchanged among Smith's team further suggest an association with Flynn, Flynn's son, and Flynn's consulting company. A LinkedIn page supposedly listing the members of Smith's team also lists Flynn's company. Additionally, Tait, the "unnamed computer expert" in the June 29 article and on record in the June 30 article, recounts conversations in which Smith mentions his association with Flynn. Trump and co. never deny Flynn's involvement but say that Flynn may have worked with Smith as a "private individual," not on behalf of the campaign. If you'll recall, however, Smith's document lists Flynn under the "Trump campaign" section.
7. In his article, Tait draws some chilling conclusions:
A narrative thus starts to take form: the Trump campaign join with Smith to "find" Hillary's deleted emails*, and they designate Flynn as the point of contact for this endeavor. Peter Smith, though intimately linked with the campaign and its members, establishes an "independent" corporation so he can claim distance and avoid campaign reporting laws. However, as we've seen, Smith's teammates and his own documentation contradict this claim. Smith and co. find a supposedly Russian source that claims to have the emails. If investigators can verify the link between Smith and Trump's campaign, we have collusion. (In fact, they may have already have verified as much; the public learns about these matters well after the fact.)
In the above summary, I've tried to include only the facts and the "reasonable inferences" the articles would have a reader draw. (They can't say everything directly, so they often hint heavily and lead us to the conclusions.) If I've made a factual error or ventured too far into conjecture, be a darling and let me know so I can amend the post.
Now, for one of my own theories:
*the Russian source and the quest to get the emails: I think Smith and Trump's campaign knew they'd be getting emails from Russians. They concocted the "search" and the Dark Web story so they could have plausible deniability: "We didn't know they came from Russia!" Of course, this theory requires that the Russians successfully obtained the deleted emails in the first place. But then, they probably would've released them. Now you see why I avoid making my own theories.
Send me to Mensch if too loony; criticize my writing if prose proves too ungainly.
EDIT: Fixed some minor factual flaws.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I don't think it was ever said that they did get the emails, just that someone claimed they had them and could provide them. Smith was looking for someone to authenticate them, potentially only if he did receive them. I doubt they ever had them, they would have leaked them one way or another. I'm not even sure if it was ever confirmed that Weiner didn't have copies on his PC, I think the FBI just said they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, as in, they might have found copies of deleted emails on his PC and concluded there was no issue.
To me, the most likely scenario is that the "dark web source" was someone who had access to Weiner's PC, and that was where the emails were. They probably had a source in the FBI who could get them the emails, but instead what happened is word got out in the FBI that someone might leak them, they got spooked word would get out that the FBI had the emails already and didn't say anything about it, so that's how the whole "October surprise" happened; the FBI rushed forward to re-open the case, suddenly "found" the emails they knew were already there before, and then closed the case again. The timeline would fit.
If that's the case, there was no Russian source for the emails themselves.
To me, the most likely scenario is that the "dark web source" was someone who had access to Weiner's PC, and that was where the emails were. They probably had a source in the FBI who could get them the emails, but instead what happened is word got out in the FBI that someone might leak them, they got spooked word would get out that the FBI had the emails already and didn't say anything about it, so that's how the whole "October surprise" happened; the FBI rushed forward to re-open the case, suddenly "found" the emails they knew were already there before, and then closed the case again. The timeline would fit.
If that's the case, there was no Russian source for the emails themselves.
Autodidact
Banned
I thought Weiner's PC had duplicates of emails the FBI already had.
Hillary deleted some emails that have never been recovered. Smith allegedly thought the Russians might have them.
EDIT: The FBI recovered some emails, but not all, of the 33,000 that were apparently deleted. Your theory sounds interesting, though.
Version 3.0
Member
Trump probably never understood what Nixon did wrong. He probably thinks Nixon just wasn't tough enough, or didn't ask everyone for loyalty.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Also we know Giuliani and co. were bragging essentially about having sources who would release a bombshell in the following days, right before the FBI reopened the case. Put two and two together; a source in the FBI would have been talking about having Hillary's emails to contacts in the Trump camp, Smith/Giuliani and others were hyped over it, but the FBI got word of that so the source probably backed off and the FBI reopened the case publicly as a preventive measure in case the press found out they had the emails. They probably checked to see if anyone did actually get them out, figured no one did, closed the case, or they had already looked at those emails anyway before and had just never made that public for whatever reason and just closed the case after claiming they went through them again. If you really look at the timeline the pieces fall into place.
While Smith is dead, Flynn could probably give some more info on who the source was, but they might not even have known the source was in the FBI, if it was. It's not impossible that someone had somehow hacked Weiner's PC previously and had those emails, but I would have expected them to be released at some point in that case before Trump won, especially after the FBI closed the case again. So it sounds unlikely those emails were ever out of Weiner's PC.
This is right I think. It's why they were able to go through them so fast.
Autodidact
Banned
Right, but I now understand Ether Snake's theory: Smith never contacted any Russians but had a source in the FBI with access to the 17,000+ emails they actually recovered, perhaps from Weiner's PC.
That theory would explain the Smith branch of the story and wouldn't necessarily involve the Russians, who might factor more heavily into the Steele Dossier/Manafort branch.
hendersonhank
Member
Iirc the source did not claim to be Russian, so there is no evidence that Smith believed they were Russian, much less Russian government. Thus no collusion. Where is the illegal conspiracy? Whoever claimed to have the emails, Russian or otherwise, could have released them any time, anywhere, to anyone. Smith and the Trump campaign were not needed at all.
Autodidact
Banned
Maybe the Russians feared the emails could be traced to them and so wanted to "launder" them by going through Smith.
Muffin1611
Banned
Bannon is in this too? Get fucked you slimy piece of nazi shit.
hendersonhank
Member
Maybe, but what you quoted sounds like a plan by the Russians that gives no indication that their recipients were in on it. In any case, no emails were ever released, which almost certainly means no one who actually had them (Russian or otherwise) ever actually offered them to Smith, which means, again, there seems to be nothing very exciting here.
skullmuffins
Banned
No evidence Smith knew or at least thought they were Russian? Are you even reading the articles?
Former Obama WH counsel Bob Bauer:
https://www.justsecurity.org/41593/...ce-law-trump-campaign-collusion-russia-trump/
Autodidact
Banned
Thank you for giving the response I was just about to give. Had the quotes ready and everything.
