Exactly 10 days before the FBI submitted the infamous Steele dossier to a FISA court as evidence of why it needed a surveillance warrant on then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign adviser Carter Page, a State Department official raised concerns about the dossier’s legitimacy.
“The concerns were flagged in a typed memo and in handwritten notes taken by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec on Oct. 11, 2016,” investigative reporter John Solomon, who’s obtained a copy of the memo, reported in a piece for The Hill on Thursday.
In that memo, Kavalec pointed to at least one of disgraced former British spy Christopher Steele’s lies. She noted, for instance, that Steele had claimed in the dossier that the Russians had pieced together a “technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the  election” that reportedly recruited emigres in the U.S. to “do hacking and recruiting.”
She further noted that according to Steele, those emigres were paid for their efforts through the Russian Consulate in Miami. The problem, as the then-assistant secretary of state, noted in the memo below, is that “there is no Russian consulate in Miami,” meaning Steele had presumably lied.
This bombshell memo was subsequently shared with other government officials. Speaking Thursday evening on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Solomon confirmed that the officials at then-FBI Director James Comey’s FBI were among those who were made aware of Kavalec’s concerns.
“[House Freedom Caucus chair] Mark Meadows, who has been one of the key Republicans unraveling the false Russia collusion narrative, confirmed with U.S. government officials tonight that the State Department notes … were transmitted to the FBI prior to the issuance of the FISA,” he said.
Her concerns were reportedly forwarded to the FBI on Oct. 13, 2016, two days after she penned her memo and eight days before the FBI submitted the dossier to a FISA court.
“Why is that significant? It means the FBI would’ve been in possession of four pieces of derogatory information about Christopher Steele. One, that he broke his FBI agreement and went to the State Department. Two, that he gave the State Department false information. … Three, that he had a political deadline, meaning his goal wasn’t to end the intelligence community but to get it out before election day. And four, that he was in contact with and transmitting information to The Washington Post and The New York Times.”
The latter two examples of “derogatory information about Christopher Steele” were based on Solomon’s previous reports. Published Tuesday, his second-most recent report revealed that in Kavalec’s memo, she’d written of meeting Steele and discovering that he was under pressure to disseminate the dossier before the 2016 election commenced.
Steele’s stunning pre-FISA confession: Informant needed to air Trump dirt before election | TheHill https://t.co/TdN5LkkxgX
— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 7, 2019
None of this information was ever revealed to the FISA court. Moreover, according to Solomon the FBI has spent the last two to three years essentially stonewalling, trying its hardest to block congressional Republicans from access to all this information, including the memo.
“A State Department official who spent 45 minutes with Christopher Steele detected false information from him immediately, got out of him that he was talking to the media and leaking, got out of him that he had an election deadline, and the FBI has pretended for the last two and a half years that they cannot figure out all this information with all of its tools,” he said on “Hannity.”
Listen to him below:
The implications of these findings could be huge.
“This is now concrete evidence the FBI was told everything about Christopher Steele, who paid for the Russian dirt dossier lies, and they then used it anyway to spy,” Fox News host Sean Hannity argued later in the program Thursday night.
His guest, investigative reporter Sara Carter, agreed.
“[W]hat John broke here is so significant and so important. It’s going to unleash the avalanche, because now they’re going to have to explain why they did this, and it is absolutely spying,” she said.
Former Obama administration officials and their allies among congressional Democrats and the demonstrably left-wing media spent years denying that former President Barack Hussein Obama’s administration had spied on Trump’s election campaign in 2016.
This denial finally fell by the wayside last week when The New York Times admitted that yes, the FBI had indeed spied on Trump’s campaign. What has remained unknown is whether the Obama administration’s spying efforts were “adequately predicated.”
“[T]he question is whether it was predicated — adequately predicated,” Attorney General Bill Barr testified to Congress last month. “I’m not suggesting it wasn’t adequately predicated, but I need to explore that. I think it’s my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane.”
Barr has since launched a formal investigation into #SpyGate, as it’s been dubbed. The same former Obama officials, congressional Democrats and media pundits who spent years denying that spying ever occurred are now accusing the AG of running a partisan investigation.
However, each week new scandalous details about the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s campaign are released. Combined, these details all seem to point toward corruption, as noted by social media users:
John Solomon confirming on Hannity that the State Department transmitted the notes took during Steele interview 10 days before the FISA-this proves that the FBI overtly mislead the FISA court because Steels disinformation was known by both the State adept and now we know, the FBI
— Tracybeanz (@tracybeanz) May 10, 2019
Very clear this was a cover-up operation, the illegal spying had already happening…..they needed to try and “legalise” it after the event – a FISA Title 1 warrant can do that. Rogers catching them in the act abusing the NSA database sent the whole operation upside down #Hannity
— ClockUponTheWall (@ClockUponWall) May 10, 2019
This I am sure is one of the reasons Nunes said we would be shocked by what he saw. If a state prosecutor had exculpatory evidence handed to him and charged, and withheld the evidence, they would have hell to pay and even a guilty defendant would walk. This is insane.
— Not Evan (@BasedTacoSlayer) May 10, 2019
Check into this because somebody should get a bill for 35 million dollars for the false Mueller investigation. If it was set up I think Obama on down should get the bill for this and split it evenly why should we pay for their mistakes and errors of omission
— brickwall (@AntolinoPhilip) May 10, 2019
Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)
- Harvard law prof slams Dems for ‘stupidly threatening’ SCOTUS in gun case, ‘really bad move’ - August 20, 2019
- America’s top CEOs pledge to prioritize societal improvements over profits in new mission - August 20, 2019
- Bret Baier says ‘Fox has not changed,’ implores Trump to come back - August 20, 2019