Возня вокруг досье

[tijd]

Печально известный Девин Нунес ведёт партизанскую войну, рассылая письма в Министерство юстиции и ФБР в попытке дискредитировать досье Стила, а вместе с ним все расследование Рашагейта.

It may seem odd that Republicans believe going after the Steele memos, which included salacious allegations about Trump, is a way to help the president. But they appear to have two goals: to suggest the Steele memos were actually cooked up by the Russian government-and thus are proof that Moscow did not favor Trump in 2016-and to undercut the FBI’s Russia investigation by linking its origins to the Steele memos.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/trumps-congressional-allies-are-manipulating-the-steele-dossier-to-undercut-the-russia-investigation/



Нунес не совсем одинок. Помимо упомянутого в процитированной статье Чака Грассли, его поддерживает печально известный Трей Гауди, который сменил внезапно вышедшего в отставку Джейсона Чаффетса на посту председателя House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Гауди пока не выписывает собственные повестки, но поддерживает нападки на Коми, ФБР и Стила.

Click to view

Один из центральных персонажей досье, Майкл Коэн, снова в новостях. Помимо его центральной роли в московском проекте Трампа, Коэн дал неожиданное интервью Vanity Fair. Похоже, что цель интервью была заверить Трампа в своей преданности и в том, что он не будет на него стучать. Примечательно, каким именно образом Коэн отрицает своё участие.

“I’ve never been paid by or colluded with any Russian to hack the D.N.C., to create search-engine optimization tools to cause Trump’s positives up and Hillary’s negatives up, I’ve never been to Prague, I’ve never been to the Czech Republic. This whole thing has been an attack on me for doing my job. That’s all that I did. I did my job.”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/michael-cohen-interview-donald-trump

Вместо того, чтобы отрицать контакты с какими-либо российскими представителями, он перечисляет ненужные специфичные детали, включая обвинения, которые ему никто не предъявлял. Это похоже на то, каким образом Трамп отрицал своё знакомство с Путиным: "Well, I don't know what it means by having a relationship. <...> I haven't spent time with him. I didn't have dinner with him. I didn't go hiking with him."



Достоверность досье в свете новых фактов анализирует бывший сотрудник ЦРУ Джон Сайфер.

As outsiders without the investigative tools available to the FBI, we can only look at the information and determine if it makes sense given subsequent events and the revelation of additional information. Mr. Steele did not have the benefit of knowing Mr. Trump would win the election or how events might play out. In this regard, does any of the information we have learned since June 2016 assign greater or less credibility to the information? Were the people mentioned in the report real? Were their affiliations correct? Did any of the activities reported happen as predicted?
To a large extent, yes.
The most obvious occurrence that could not have been known to Orbis in June 2016, but shines bright in retrospect is the fact that Russia undertook a coordinated and massive effort to disrupt the 2016 U.S. election to help Donald Trump, as the U.S. intelligence community itself later concluded. Well before any public knowledge of these events, the Orbis report identified multiple elements of the Russian operation including a cyber campaign, leaked documents related to Hillary Clinton, and meetings with Paul Manafort and other Trump affiliates to discuss the receipt of stolen documents. Mr. Steele could not have known that the Russians stole information on Hillary Clinton, or that they were considering means to weaponize them in the U.S. election, all of which turned out to be stunningly accurate.
https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/steele-dossier-knowing/