The memo and the dossier

First, the Nunes memo claims that [the author of the so-called dossier, Christopher] Steele was “a longtime FBI source.” Based on my experience, that’s unlikely. The word “source” has a very specific meaning in the intelligence community. In general, an intelligence source is someone under some level of U.S. government control, who is met and managed in a secret or clandestine manner according to rules set by the director of national intelligence. Steele does not fit the criteria.

More importantly, the U.S. does not run British citizens as sources. The British are our closest intelligence allies, with whom we regularly share information and intelligence. We do not need to steal from them. In fact, risking the theft of information from a source like Steele would jeopardize far more fruitful cooperation on a wide range of interests. Indeed, if Steele were truly being handled as an FBI source, the British government would have every right to protest loudly to the White House.

I suspect (hope), however, that Nunes knows that Steele was not an intelligence source. If he thought otherwise, it is despicable that the chairman of the bureau’s oversight committee would so cavalierly divulge a source. Why would anyone be willing to put themselves into harm’s way to work with the U.S. government again?

  Politico

Knowing how lame the memo is, and how unwise and Trump-tainted Nunes is, I'd guess he used the term "source" in the normal, civilian sense, and not in the CI sense. In other words, source as in the point from which something is obtained. But, if that's correct, it just lands another charge of sloppiness on Nunes' part. Or on the part of Nunes' hatchet man assistant who actually wrote the memo.  But then the charges land on Nunes for vetting it. After all, nobody's calling this the Patel Memo. It's Nunes' baby all the way.

BTW, Steele might not have been a "long time FBI source", but he was well known to the FBI, had provided them with investigative reporting in the past, and was considered reliable.

Nunes bases the bulk of his argument against Steele’s reporting on the fact that Steele commented in September 2016 to then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This is the only line in the Nunes memo that is in bold font. The clear implication is that Steele’s personal views should have invalidated any of his work on behalf of the FBI.

[...]

Steele was a former intelligence partner, who willingly shared information he believed was of interest to the U.S.

[...]

Further, despite the implications in Nunes’ memo, Steele had every right to speak to the press. Likewise, the FBI could sever its relationship at any time.

[...]

A professional intelligence service understands that all sources have individual biases. Being biased is hardly a disqualifier. If it were, we would have a tough time finding sources in most countries around the world. It is the job of a handling service to understand a source’s bias, perspective, access, motivations and reliability. It is standard stuff.

If he really believes that Steele’s personal views negate his reporting, it suggests Nunes failed to read Steele’s reports or worse, misunderstands the nature of intelligence collection. Steele’s “dossier” was not a summary or analytical product but was a series of raw intelligence reports. An intelligence officer does not report personal opinions or produce finished analysis but is seeking to accurately record what his sources and sub-sources report. The professional intelligence officer’s personal opinions matter little.

It's important to note that Steele's personal opinion in this case was a result of his investigation. What he learned convinced him to go to the FBI with his report. He'd been hired by Fusion GPS and was turning his reports in to that company's head, Glenn Simpson, who was in turn hired by and reporting to the Clinton team (and before the GOP nominating convention, to the Republicans).

If the FBI were approached by a former allied professional intelligence officer with whom they had a previous productive relationship and he provided extremely serious information alleging possible espionage at the highest levels, it would be professionally irresponsible of the bureau to not take the allegations seriously and investigate at least until they had a sense of whether there was any validity to them. If the information fit an existing espionage investigation, it is a no-brainer. They can psychoanalyze their source later.

[...]

On the other side of the coin, aside from labeling it “garbage” and “fake,” Trump’s supporters have been unable or unwilling to disprove any significant fact in the dossier.

[...]

Whether or not Steele was an FBI source, the memo gives the impression that the U.S. Congress and White House were willing to smear those who take risks to give us information for political gain. I guarantee the British and others have raised the bar when it comes to passing intelligence to the U.S. And that is bad for all of us.

I'm currently reading Luke Harding's book, "Collusion" (h/t to Laura Rozen for the recommendation), and learning more about Christopher Steele. When this business broke into the public sphere, I had my doubts about Russian collusion to win Trump the election, but eventually came to believe it. Now I'm beginning to get the idea that what I believe is only a fraction of what actually happened. I may blog some bits on the book later, but if you get the chance to read it yourself, I recommend it.

Book review by Oliver Bullough