[notavalleyman]

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting.

1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad?

2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that

[tristor]

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.

[notavalleyman]

Thanks for the context - I didn't really understand you though - why do you say the actual specifics were mostly false, while also saying the Congress investigation verified some parts and couldn't verify others?

[AnimalMuppet]

There were a large number of allegations in the dossier. So, pulling numbers out of the air, but... say it was something like 70% of the allegations were false, 10% were verified true, and 20% could not be verified as either true or false.

As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown.

But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.

[ch4s3]

According to Bellingcat[1], Igor Danchenko who was Steeler’s primary source was probably being fed information by the GRU.

[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spo...

[lazyier]

It is hard to take unverifiable claims seriously when the verifiable ones turn out to be false.

[jjoonathan]

> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations

This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.

[omnicognate]

This has been downvoted at the time of writing, but it's quite right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins...

[tristor]

I wasn't in the room when the decision was made, but my understanding from reading both the Steele Dossier and the published Mueller report is that Mueller drew considerably from the Steele Dossier as a way to understand where to consider targeting the investigation early on, and then expanded elsewhere after they had identified that most of it was not actionable intelligence. Mueller's investigation ultimately resulted in several convictions, so where there is smoke there is fire, but in this case the fire was burning oak wood and the smoke smelled like mesquite.

[benmmurphy]

The whole thing was completely fucking wild. Papa was ‘caught’ bragging to an Australian diplomat that was politically connected. The diplomat could have just been making the whole thing up because he either received instruction from Australian security services or because the diplomat in question has a bunch of strong incentives to ingratiate himself to the US permanent government. Have a read of Papa’s book to get an alternative view of what happened. In most realities he is going to deny the encounter so we should be suspicious of his narrative but there was a lot of suspect stuff going on.

After seeing how the US intelligence people acted with the Hunter Biden story I have zero faith they wouldn’t monkey around. To be fair I think a lot of the shade that was thrown on the story was from ex-intelligence people and not current US government employees. However, this whole thing looks like a vast conspiracy. You have ex-intelligence people, some who have plum media jobs signing up to this statement that seems to claim that Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. But if you carefully review the statement it doesn’t actually make this claim. And if someone produced irrefutable proof that the laptop was genuine then all these people who signed up to this claim could claim they were still right. The actually claim was the laptop had the hallmarks of Russian misinformation. But that is not a very useful claim if you as a voter are trying to assess the probability that the laptop is genuine or not. For example it could have the hallmarks but it could still be like a 95% probability that it is genuine. Of course this claim about hallmarks is not strong enough so when it was reported in the press it was often reported as X ex-intelligence people have confirmed it is Russian disinformation. So what the hell is going on here?

[colpabar]

According to the new york times:

> Was the dossier a reliable source of information?

> No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

https://archive.ph/2fHH5

This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.

[pdabbadabba]

I think it's worth noting, though, that saying its "sourcing was thin and sketchy" is not the same thing as saying it was "a bunch of nonsense." Many of the allegations in it could, of course, still be true even if poorly sourced.

[Trumpi]

Regarding point 2:

There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier.

Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl...

I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.

[Trumpi]

This lawsuit could also bring up evidence against the Steele dossier: https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-laws...

[StanislavPetrov]

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.

Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.

https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...

[aww_dang]

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

There are at least two ways to interpret this:

1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.

2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.

In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.

[notavalleyman]

> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin

You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin.

Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices

[aww_dang]

I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications.

The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer.

From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases.

You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold:

1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated

2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power

Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?

[notavalleyman]

Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.

[aww_dang]

That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further.

Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR.

Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?

[notavalleyman]

I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act

[Terry_Roll]

> 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.

Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career

Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.

Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605

I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.

Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!

So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?

[fallingknife]

The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."

[Sporktacular]

Yeah, I'm getting bad vibes about this piece too. I can't dismiss it but there are some pretty serious claims deserving solid sources.

Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.

Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.

[pyuser583]

I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.”

I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.

[_dain_]

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

[notavalleyman]

Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it.

Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual.

https://archive.ph/2fHH5

[stephen_g]

The dossier was real (as in it was written by who it said it was written by), it’s just that most of the content in it was sourced from people who were either lying or fed false information.

[colpabar]

How can a document be "real" if it's full of "not necessarily factual" claims?

[db48x]

It’s a real dossier full of hearsay, lies, calumny, etc. Steele was paid to assemble it, by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton no less, for the express purpose of smearing Trump in the hopes that something would stick.

[KennyBlanken]

https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134

> Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax." But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.

> The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

> Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.

> Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.

> Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

[bena]

It's real, it exists.

But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out."

It's a lot like the VAERS database. It doesn't prove anything on its own, but it can indicate things we should look into more closely.

And that's how a lot of people treated it: These are things we should probably check out.

[xienze]

> But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out."

“Hey, I heard a few things about Biden raping babies, you should check it out.”

See how it might be important to use more than “raw intelligence” about “stuff you should probably check out” as the basis for an investigation and media witch hunt?

[bena]

You check into things in accordance to the credibility of the person making the claims.

It would not take long to see that Biden doesn't rape babies. Hell, a lot of what was in the Dossier was not looked into because they just dismissed it out of hand.

This kind of casual dismissal and reductio ad absurdum you're engaging in is an attempt to distract from the very real crimes very real people were very really arrested for doing regarding things described in the document.

[sofixa]

Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.

[dijit]

I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time.

Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information:

https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden...

That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny".

D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.

[sofixa]

The claim is

> It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice

The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

[dijit]

> > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice

> The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

a few things;

1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks.

2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage.

3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets.

4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.

[Sporktacular]

So you agree that saying the UK media largely ignored the Snowden story is incorrect? As mentioned The Guardian was one of the principle outlets of the disclosures led by Ewen MacAskill.

The Guardian ignored the D-Notices and survives to this day - both facts undermine the point of the article that the system breaks independent British journalism.

This article stinks, is there any way to downvote it any further?

[DeWilde]

Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.