in ,

UK court TRASHES Steele, says former spy clearly worked for Hillary Clinton (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 587.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss a long awaited British court ruling made against disgraced former spy Christopher Steele, ordering the fake dossier creator to pay damages to businessmen he smeared in the now infamous Russiagate document.


Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.


Via Just the News…

British judge ruled Wednesday that Christopher Steele violated a data privacy law by failing to check the accuracy of information in his infamous dossier, ordering the former spy’s firm to pay damages to two businessmen he wrongly accused of making illicit payments in Russia.

Justice Mark Warby of the High Court of England and Wales ordered Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, to pay a modest 18,000 English pounds – about $22,596 in American currency – each to Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman as compensation for a violation of Britain’s Data Protection Act 1998 .

Warby ruled that while Steele had a national security interest to share his intelligence with U.S. and British authorities, several of the allegations in Memo 112 of the Steele dossier were “inaccurate or misleading as a matter of fact.”

The judge ruled Steele violated the law by failing to aggressively check the accuracy of one claim accusing Aven and Fridman of making illicit payments to Russia President Vladimir Putin before distributing it to various U.S. and British figures, including the FBI.

“That is an allegation of serial criminal wrongdoing, over a prolonged period. Even in the limited and specific context of reporting intelligence for the purposes I have mentioned, and despite all the other factors I have listed, the steps taken to verify that proposition fell short of what would have been reasonable,” Warby ruled.

“The allegation clearly called for closer attention, a more enquiring approach, and more energetic checking,” the judge added.

The ruling involves a long-discredited claim in Steele’s dossier – repeatedly used by U.S. news media – that Russia’s Alfa Bank, connected to Aven and Fridman, was transmitting secret messages between Moscow and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

The FBI concluded the computer pings were not nefarious messages but rather routine behavior most likely connected to email spam. Special Counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year he did not believe the allegations.

Fridman hailed the ruling in a statement.

“We are delighted with the outcome of this case and that Mr Justice Warby has determined what we have always known to be the case – that the contents of Memorandum 112 are inaccurate and misleading,” he said. “Ever since these odious allegations were first made public in January 2017, my partners and I have been resolute and unwavering in our determination to prove that they are untrue, and through this case, we have finally succeeded in doing so.”

Though a matter of British law, the ruling is likely to have impact as well in the United States, where the Justice Department continues to investigate the actions of the FBI in the Russia collusion probe, including its interactions with Steele and agents’ honesty with the FISA court.

The judge ruled that in Memo 112, one of several that made up Steele’s dossier, there were six factually inaccurate or unproven claims that Steele provided from his alleged intelligence sources including that:

  • the businessmen did not do favors for or receive favors from Putin as the memo claimed;
  • Fridman and Aven did not provide informal foreign policy advice to the Russian leader as Steele alleged;
  • Fridman did not meet with Putin in September 2016 as claimed by Steele’s source;
  • the businessman did not bribe Putin when he was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg;
  • And Fridman and Aven did not do Putin’s political bidding as the dossier alleged.

The ruling further accentuates that much of the Steele dossier contained unproven Internet rumor or false information, some possible from Russian intelligence, as the Justice Department inspector general concluded last December. Nonetheless, the FBI used evidence from Steele’s dossier to support a warrant targeting Trump campaign figures in four occasions, claiming to the court that agents had verified the information.

The judge also concluded that Steele’s notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton’s campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court.

The supposition that the Clinton campaign was the ultimate client “is in line with the FBI Note of 5 July 2016, which records Mr. Steele telling the FBI that Orbis had been instructed by Mr. [Glenn] Simpson of Fusion and ‘Democratic Party Associates’ but that ‘the ultimate client were (sic) the leadership of the Clinton presidential campaign.’ The FBI Note also indicates that Mr Steele had been told by that stage that Mrs Clinton herself was aware of what Orbis had been commissioned to do,” Warby concluded.

“I have little reliable evidence as to who exactly was the Ultimate Client, but I have enough to find that Perkins Coie were instructed by one or more people or organizations within the upper echelons of the Democratic Party, concerned to ensure Hillary Clinton’s election as President.” the judge added.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.

What do you think?

12 points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
We Lie, we Cheat, we Steele
We Lie, we Cheat, we Steele
July 9, 2020

$22,000??? Their attorney costs alone probably amounted to at least 10 times that.

UK justice, what a phenomenal joke.

ManintheMoon
ManintheMoon
Reply to  We Lie, we Cheat, we Steele
July 9, 2020

The money wasn’t the point of the case, as the Alexes pointed out. This was not a slander action (which was apparently not allowed, but brought under a technical data protection law. The judgement by Mr Justice Warby at least showed that at least the whole British judiciary has not been corrupted like the wretched Lady Arbuthnot of Assange notoriety. Credit where cedit’s due. One just hope the Appeal Court will follow suit in Assange’s case.

mlopez
mlopez
Reply to  We Lie, we Cheat, we Steele
July 10, 2020

Of course it’s a joke, but at least he saw a British courtroom. So far Fat ass Barr has done nothing, but run the clock, which appears to suit Trump just fine.

D3F1ANT
D3F1ANT
Reply to  mlopez
July 10, 2020

I wish the Merry Bagpiper liked prosecuting bad guys as much as he likes being on TV.

Regula
Regula
Reply to  We Lie, we Cheat, we Steele
July 11, 2020

They may still be able to petition for attorney costs since they win the case. It may be automatic; in some European countries the losing party has to pay all legal fees of both parties.

ManintheMoon
ManintheMoon
July 9, 2020

Good to see you both again. I don’t think anyone who has tuned regularly into your talks can be in any doubt about the Steele nonsense and every other aspect of the Russiagate farce. (As for Steele, just the look of the guy’s haircut makes one think conman). To say this judgement is another nail in its coffin would be an understatement, more like another barrowload of soil on the grave. However, there’s no indication yet that anything will happen. Do you two still have any faith in Barr? Even Trump seems to despair – re his recent tweets about… Read more »

Last edited 30 days ago by ManintheMoon
mlopez
mlopez
July 10, 2020

Maybe someone can tell Barr?

D3F1ANT
D3F1ANT
July 10, 2020

Duh.

Gyre07
Gyre07
July 10, 2020

Super interesting. Only surprise is that a British court actually got something allegedly concerning Russia, correct. Albeit grudgingly, per the piddly damages awards.

John Ellis
July 10, 2020

In both UK and USA, the rich keep the lower-half of society living in poverty, a 50% working poor actually, the 50% of voters who refuse to vote truly. Which causes the 25% most wealthy to be the voting majority and to win all elections.

Now what do you think would happen, if the rich stopped funding election campaigns, political parties, political ads and did nothing in politics but vote their politicians into office?

And so, from start to finish this Steele dossier has been pure brainwash for gullible public consumption.

Europe Is Ready For Its Own Army

UK commits ‘highway robbery’ of Venezuelan gold, says academic