John Solomon's Latest Blockbuster: Brits Disowned Steele Dossier In Writing Before Inauguration
John Solomon keeps breaking big stories. His latest is huge: Did Brits warn about Steele's credibility, before Mueller's probe? Congress has evidence .
Here's the opening, which pretty much tells it all:
One of the deepest, darkest secrets of Russiagate soon may be unmasked. Even President Trump may be surprised.
Multiple witnesses have told Congress that, a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, Britain’s top national security official sent a private communique to the incoming administration, addressing his country’s participation in the counterintelligence probe into the now-debunked Trump-Russia election collusion.
Most significantly, then-British national security adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant claimed in the memo , hand-delivered to incoming U.S. national security adviser Mike Flynn’s team, that the British government lacked confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence, according to congressional investigators who interviewed witnesses familiar with the memo.
Obviously this was a bit of Brit CYA. They knew their own actual "meddling" in the US election was about to be discovered, and they were trying to distance themselves from Steele. But here's where the story attains real blockbuster proportions:
Congressional investigators have interviewed two U.S. officials who handled the memo, confirmed with the British government that a communique was sent, and alerted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the information. One witness confirmed to Congress that he was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller about the memo.
Now the race is on to locate the document in U.S. intelligence archives, to see if the witnesses’ recollections are correct. And Trump is headed to Britain this weekend, where he might just get a chance to ask his own questions.
Oh! Wouldn't that mean that someone very high up at DoJ--Sally Yates or Dana Boente (now Chris Wray's top lawyer at the FBI) knew about this? Wouldn't they have immediately informed James Comey? And Andrew McCabe? And if Mueller knew about it--as claimed--shouldn't we assume that Rod Rosenstein knew about it, too?
If I'm Bill Barr, I want someone among those named above to explain to me how a major investigation of the POTUS was opened up and pursued for nearly three years based on the word of an ex (?) MI6 spook whose own national security apparatus had disowned him to the top US justice officials? That's exactly what Mark Meadows is asking Bill Barr to find out. Meadows adds:
“There now is overwhelming evidence to suggest that on multiple occasions the FBI was warned that Christopher Steele and the dossier had severe credibility issues.”
Solomon explains:
“The message was clear: the Brits were saying they may have done some stuff to assist the investigation that they now regretted after learning the whole thing was based on information from Steele,” the former U.S. official told me. “They wanted Trump’s team to know they did not think Steele’s information was credible or reliable.
“They also wanted Trump to know whatever they had done, they did only at the Americans’ request and didn’t want it to get in the way of cooperating with the U.S.”
Read it all. Is it time for "Bob" Mueller to make another statement? This time to a Grand Jury? I think so.