undefined | Better HN

0 pointshuitzitziltzin4y ago0 comments

> Here's a guy, Steele, who hadn't worked at an intelligence agency for a half decade, who somehow was still in touch with "valuable" clandestine MI6 intelligence contacts

I have friends from a job I haven't worked in for years. Intelligence is a little different, obviously, but it's not completely crazy.

> who supposedly didn't care about MI6 anonymity protections and were willing to share their secrets with dudes in the private sector in exchange for money.

Most sources share their information with the CIA or MI6 for money - why not share them with this guy for money? Especially if he's a former spy and someone you personally know.

I disagree that the setup makes no sense.

> being a hired project designed to only seek politically incriminating information was doomed to be biased from the start, especially in light of the foregoing

This point makes sense, but this information was attached to articles about this dossier from the very beginning, if I recall correctly. You can look up the original buzzfeed article and see if they listed the source. Maybe they didn't. But it was widely known and reported for a long time.

0 comments

AlanYx4y ago

"Intelligence is a little different" is an understatement. MBAs take their rollodexes with them when they leave jobs. It beggars belief that (i) spies do too, as the information would likely have a secret or higher classification, and (ii) also retain the unfettered ability to just reach out to those intelligence contacts whenever without violating commitments they made during their employment.

Your second point is false. The source of the funding for the dossier (Clinton/DNC) was first reported in the media by the Washington Post on October 24, 2017, ten months after the January 2017 release of the dossier.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse