NEW YORK — Jonathan M. Winer, the Obama State Department official who acknowledged regularly interfacing with the author of the controversial, largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier, served as senior vice president of a firm that did lobbying work for Tenex, the U.S. subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian state corporation headquartered in Moscow. In 2010, Rosatom infamously purchased a controlling stake in Uranium One, the Canadian uranium mining company with operations in the U.S. The purchase was approved by the Obama administration in a decision that is currently being probed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In a statement to Breitbart News, APCO Worldwide, where Winer served as senior vice president from 2008 to 2013, denied that the firm’s work for Rosatom’s subsidiary Tenex was related to the purchase of Uranium One or to the acquisition of uranium in general. Instead, APCO said its work for Tenex, which took place in 2010 and 2011, focused on sales of fuel to the U.S. energy market. APCO also denied that Winer did any work related to Tenex. After his name surfaced in news media reports related to probes by House Republicans into the dossier, Winer authored a Washington Post oped in which he conceded that while working at the State Department he exchanged documents and information with dossier author and former British spy Christopher Steele. Winer further acknowledged that while he was working at the State Department, he shared with Steele anti-Trump material passed to him by longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, whom Winer described as an “old friend.” Winer wrote that the material from Blumenthal – which Winer in turn gave to Steele — originated with Cody Shearer, who is a controversial figure long tied to various Clinton scandals. While writing in the Washington Post of his concerns about Russian influence in the U.S., Winer failed to disclose that he worked for a firm that did lobby work for a nuclear company whose parent is owned by the Russian government. Steele was commissioned to produce the dossier by the Fusion GPS opposition research firm, which was in turn paid for its anti-Trump work by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Steele dossier was reportedly utilized by the FBI as part of its probe into Trump and unsubstantiated claims of Russia collusion. According to House Intelligence Committee documents, the questionable dossier was also used by Obama-era federal agencies to obtain a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Carter Page, who briefly served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser to Trump’s campaign. The political origins of the dossier and issues relating to Steele’s credibility as a source were kept from the FISA court, a House Intelligence Committee memo documents. From 2008 to 2013, Winer worked at APCO Worldwide, where he served as senior vice president. A contract previously obtained by Circa shows that from 2010 to 2011, APCO was paid roughly $3 million by Tenex, the U.S. subsidiary of Rosatom. Circa reported that it saw the contract between Tenex and APCO, which agreed that the “total fee is comprised of the fixed quarterly fee which shall be $750,000 per each of the four three-month periods of rendering Services here under during the validity period of this contract, including the 18 percent Russian VAT payable in the territory of the Russian Federation.” Asked to clarify its work for Tenex, APCO sent Breitbart News a statement that “as clearly reported in APCO’s public filings from 2010 and 2011, available to anyone online, APCO’s work for Tenex focused entirely on the company’s interest in continuing sales of fuel to the U.S. energy market.” “At the time, Tenex provided half of the fuel used by U.S. nuclear energy producers under a Bush administration program,” the APCO statement continued. “Any claim that APCO was involved in the Uranium One transaction or any related CIFIUS matter is completely false.” As Breitbart News reported, in addition to its work for Tenex, APCO did extensive pro bono work for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) from 2007 until 2016. APCO Worldwide recently faced controversy when The Hill reported that paid FBI informant Douglas Campbell, who infiltrated the Russian nuclear business world, claimed to three separate congressional committees in a written statement that Russia hired APCO to influence the Obama administration, singling out Hillary Clinton. Campbell claimed he was told by Russian nuclear executives that there was a connection between APCO’s CGI volunteer efforts and work that APCO did for Tenex. In a statement to Breitbart News, APCO Worldwide strongly denied that its work for CGI was in any way related to work the firm did for Tenex. The statement added that “Winer had no involvement on any matters related to Tenex or the Clinton Global Initiative. In fact, the four senior staff on the Tenex project included two former Bush administration officials and a former staff member for a Republican member of the Senate.” “APCO’s pro bono work for the Clinton Global Initiative is a matter of public record as part of our giving commitment reported to the UN Global Compact,” the statement added. “This volunteer work began in 2007, three years before any discussion with Tenex, and continued until 2016, five years after the Tenex engagement ended. These engagements were unrelated and any suggestion that they were connected is a deliberate falsehood. APCO’s work on each of these projects was transparent, publicly documented and entirely proper.” Campbell, the FBI informant, however, claimed that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative. “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.” In a separate statement on the matter to Circa last October, APCO Worldwide Inc. stated, “APCO was not involved in any aspect of Uranium One.” Winer, meanwhile, served under Bill Clinton’s administration as the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement. He wrote in his recent Washington Post oped that he rejoined the State Department in 2013 at the insistence of John Kerry. “In 2013, I returned to the State Department at the request of Secretary of State John F. Kerry, whom I had previously served as Senate counsel,” he said. In the Post piece, Winer related that while he was at the State Department, he repeatedly passed documents from Steele related to Russia to State officials, including to Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who worked under the Clintons and served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs under Kerry. “Over the next two years, I shared more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to find them useful,” he wrote. Winer wrote that in the summer of 2016, Steele “told me that he had learned of disturbing information regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials.” Winer says that he met with Steele in September 2016 to discuss details that would later become known as the anti-Trump dossier. Winer wrote that he prepared a two-page summary of Steele’s information and “shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material.” Besides bringing Steele’s dossier information to the State Department, Winer conceded that he also passed information from Blumenthal to Steele, specifically charges about Trump that originated with Shearer. Winer described what he claimed was the evolution of his contacts with Blumenthal regarding Shearer’s information: In late September, I spoke with an old friend, Sidney Blumenthal, whom I met 30 years ago when I was investigating the Iran-Contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry and Blumenthal was a reporter at the Post. At the time, Russian hacking was at the front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign. The emails of Blumenthal, who had a long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been hacked in 2013 through a Russian server. While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele’s reports. He showed me notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature. What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources. Shearer has numerous close personal and family connections to the Clintons and has reportedly been involved in numerous antics tied to them. National Review previously dubbed Shearer a “Creepy Clinton Confidante” and “The Strangest Character in Hillary’s Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.” In his Washington Post oped, Winer does not say whether he knew at the time that he interfaced with Steele that the ex-British spy was working for Fusion GPS, or that Fusion was being paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign via the Perkins Coie law firm. In the Post piece, Winer also failed to mention his work for APCO as well as the firm’s ties to the Clinton Global Initiative and to the company whose parent purchased Uranium One. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...ec-lobbying-firm-russians-bought-uranium-one/
Must be a record for Breitbart, a lie in the first line "largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier,' Name on thing that has been discredited? LOL And more lies, there is no relation to Clinton or Uranium One, the very article acknowledges that. But Tenex was not the buyer. As a subsidiary of Rosatom, its role was to export Russian uranium, a very different business activity. The Rosatom subsidiary that bought the stake in Uranium One was Atomredmetzoloto. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...nium-one-investigation-has-not-led-indictmen/ So the guy was not even invovled in anyway lobbying Atomredmetzoloto that bought the stake. In conclusion, his crime is that he shared info of treason and corruption with Steele, we can't have that in the Trump world. Right wingers are in fake news overdrive today, that Gates flip is triggering them hard.
Don't deny Jem of his commission , after all the guy has to eat also, it's towards the end of the month and he has to meet the quota.
you have no credibility. even vox shows the dossier has been discredited... so far. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/5/16845704/steele-dossier-russia-trump The Steele dossier makes six major collusion claims, none proven One core claim of the Steele dossier, contentious during the course of the 2016 campaign but widely agreed upon now: There was, in fact, a multifaceted Kremlin-directed influence campaign aimed at boosting Trump’s electoral fortunes. An official US intelligence community assessment released in January says that was the case, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigations have reached the same conclusion, and even though Trump personally continues to dispute this, people he has appointed to top intelligence jobs agree that it’s true. The dossier of course goes well beyond that, to make six major claims about Trump’s ties to Russia that really haven’t been borne out by any subsequent reporting or investigation that we know of. 1) Trump had cooperated with Russian authorities for years. A core claim of the dossier is that Russia “had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Clinton, for “several years” before 2016, and that in exchange, Trump’s team fed the Kremlin intelligence on Russian oligarchs and their families “for at least eight years.” The premise of this theory, that many Russian nationals have bought Trump-branded properties and thus he might be in a position to offer useful information to Russian authorities, is clearly correct, but nothing like it has been shown to be true. 2) Trump is vulnerable to Russian blackmail on sexual matters. The dossier states that during a trip to the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, Trump hired prostitutes to “perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show in front of him”, “defiling” the presidential suite bed in which the Obamas had previously slept, with the implication being that Russian intelligence taped this and that it was one of several forms of “kompromat” the Russians have on Trump. Nothing like this has been proven. 3) There was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and Russia. Steele describes a Trump-Russia “conspiracy,” managed by Paul Manafort, with Carter Page serving as intermediary until Manafort’s firing in August 2016, after which point Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen played an increasingly large role in managing the “Kremlin relationship.” This is broadly similar to some things that have been demonstrated later, but totally different in the details. 4) Trump’s team knew and approved of Russian plans to deliver emails to WikiLeaks, and offered them policy concessions in exchange. The dossier claims that Trump and his campaign team had “full knowledge and support” of Russia’s leak of the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and that in return, Trump’s team “had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue.” This is obviously a subject of ongoing investigation, but none of the conversations about Russian dirt on Clinton that have come to light so far demonstrate what the dossier claims. 5) Carter Page played a key role in the conspiracy. The dossier says that according to an “ethnic Russian associate” of Trump’s, Carter Page had “conceived and promoted” the idea that the DNC emails to WikiLeaks should be leaked during the Democratic convention, “to swing supporters of Bernie Sanders away from Hilary Clinton and across from Trump.” It also says Page met senior Russian official Igor Diveykin to talk kompromat on Clinton, and met with Igor Sechin to discussion financial payoffs to Page and others via the privatization of the Russian company Rosneft. Page has denied under oath having met either Diveykin or Sechin, and there’s no indication he had anything to do with the timing of the WikiLeaks release. 6) Michael Cohen played a key role in the conspiracy. The dossier says that after Paul Manafort was fired, Cohen traveled to a European Union country (later reports claim it was the Czech Republic) in late August or early September to meet with Russian officials, and that the meeting took place under the cover of a Russian NGO, Rossotrudnichestvo. One topic of this meeting was “coverup and damage limitation” around Manafort’s Ukrainian work and efforts to “prevent the full details of Trump’s relationship with Russia being exposed.” According to the dossier, after August, Cohen continued to manage Trump’s relations with Russia, but after this point, contacts were made to Russia’s “trusted agents of influence” instead of officials. Cohen also supposedly discussed how to make “deniable cash payments” to hackers working under Kremlin direction, and how to cover up those operations. Cohen’s purported proof that he’s never been to Prague — showing a passport that lacks a Czech Republic stamp — is unconvincing because he could have traveled to Prague via another Schengen area country and might have multiple passports. But none of this has been proven. The claims in the Steele dossier might be true A number of articles have been published in recent months that, on their surface, feature journalists claiming that the core contentions of the Steele dossier have been proven. Jonathan Chait, “The Steele Dossier on Trump and Russia Is Looking More and More Real” Julian Borger, “The Trump-Russia Dossier: Why Its Findings Grow More Significant by the Day” Natasha Bertrand, “Carter Page’s testimony is filled with bombshells — and supports key portions of the Steele dossier” Much of this is questionable framing. Bertrand’s article, for example, cites Page testifying to Congress that he met with Rosneft’s head of investor relations and briefly with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich as supporting key portions of the Steele dossier. What the dossier actually says, however, is that Page met with Igor Diveykin (a Russian intelligence official) and Igor Sechin (the CEO of Rosneft). In some sense, this confirms Steele’s reporting, in that the broad strokes of Page’s testimony are similar to some of the things Steele said. But in another sense, Page is testifying that Steele got key facts wrong. The most one can really say has been confirmed about the Steele dossier is that a) there was in fact a Russian effort to help Trump, and b) the Trump camp clearly knew more about it than they said publicly. Given those conclusions, it’s certainly possible that the other stuff Steele alleges is also true, but virtually none of the particulars have been verified. Conversely, one striking thing about what’s been reported over the past year is how much actual Trump-Russia contact Steele didn’t find out about. The dossier doesn’t mention Natalia Veselnitskaya, for example, a Russian lawyer with very real Kremlin links who really did hold a meeting at Trump Tower with key Trump campaign officials to discuss a deal involving dirt on Hillary Clinton being swapped for concessions on sanctions. Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone, who helped set the meeting up, aren’t mentioned either. George Papadopolous, a former Trump campaign staffer who has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and appears to be a key figure in the Mueller investigation, doesn’t come up in the dossier. Nor are Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner important figures in it. These revelations certainly can be seen as bolstering the dossier’s overall thesis of a Trump-Russia conspiracy, but they can also be seen as undermining Steele’s credibility, as he appears to have missed some genuine significant events. Last but by no means least, the Mueller inquiry has been conducted thus far with a remarkably high degree of secrecy. Nobody had any idea Manafort was about to be indicted until he was indicted, and nobody knows what kind of cooperation Michael Flynn is offering. It certainly might be the case that Mueller could eventually reveal charges along the lines of what’s in the dossier — we wouldn’t know one way or the other — but so far, nothing we’ve seen from the investigation really either confirms or debunks its main arguments. The dossier became the centerpiece of a conservative counternarrative On January 3, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — a key House conservative — rolled out a tweetstorm asking 18 questions about the FBI and Russia, many of them centering on the dossier. 3 Jan Rep. Jim Jordan ✔@Jim_Jordan 18 questions in 2018 about Russia and the FBI. The American people deserve answers... Rep. Jim Jordan ✔@Jim_Jordan 1) Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele, author of the dossier? 6:50 AM - Jan 3, 2018 6,047 3,893 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy Jordan, joined by another leading House conservative, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-SC), has also called for Trump to fire Jeff Sessions so he can put a new attorney general in place who would oversee (and presumably quash) the Russia investigation. This is part of a broader conservative effort to discredit the Mueller investigation, which in turn is part of a broader conservative counternarrative on the whole Russia scandal. The dossier plays a key role in this theory. It’s long been known that Steele shared many of his findings with the FBI before the election. There were also reports that the FBI planned to pay Steele to do more work, and that the dossier’s allegations helped justify the FISA warrant to wiretap former Trump adviser Carter Page. Given the fact that the Clinton campaign and DNC were behind the dossier, some conservatives wondered if in fact the entirety of the Trump/Russia investigation that has embroiled the White House in fact stemmed from Steele’s (bogus, they believe) allegations, used as a pretext by anti-Trump elements of the “deep state” to surveil and entrap people close to him. Back in November, the theory made it to the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal, courtesy of columnist Kim Strassel, who wrote: It is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative—which has played a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special counsel issuing unrelated indictments—is based on nothing more than a political smear document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn’t come in some form from the dossier? Strassel, however, turned out to be wrong. The New York Times reported in December, and the Nunes memo confirmed in February, that the FBI began investigating Trump associates’ ties to Russia for a reason having nothing to do with the dossier. Specifically, they opened the investigation after receiving a tip from the Australian government that George Papadopoulos, after a night of drinking heavily, told Australia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom that he knew Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton. (Papadopoulos has since admitted in a guilty plea that, a few weeks before this, a Russian-connected source had told him that the Kremlin had incriminating emails about Clinton.) The Nunes memo did confirm that the Justice Department partly relied on the Steele Dossier’s information to get a FISA warrant targeting Page in October 2016. But at that point Page had been gone from the Trump campaign for nearly a month. And so far, none of the charges or filings in Mueller’s investigation appear to have anything to do with Page, or from information learned while surveilling him. The dossier doesn’t actually seem that important In the end, the dossier was a major media story a year ago, but should have faded in significance over time as both journalistic and law enforcement inquiries have shed light on a much more solid — but substantially different in detail — version of the Trump-Russia saga. Instead, it’s come to have a second life as Republicans have changed their minds about Trump. Initially, many in Congress viewed the president-elect somewhat warily and, in particular, were concerned on the merits that he might abandon the GOP’s traditionally hawkish posture toward Russia. After a year in office, it’s now clear that whatever did or didn’t happen over the course of the campaign, Trump is not, in fact, going to implement the kind of pro-Russian foreign policy he campaigned on. Consequently, congressional Republicans who once supported the idea of investigating the Trump-Russia nexus have basically flipped around and are now primarily investigating the investigators — with the dossier now serving as an exhibit for the defense rather than the prosecution.
Not proven doesn't mean discredited discredited : to make people think that something is not true Mueller's case against Manafort, Gates and Flynn haven't been proven, does that mean the indictments are discredited? Words have meaning you philistine, someone posting Breitbart doesn't get to lecture others on credibility.
Try reading it once instead of spreading propaganda like you did with the 4 billion claim Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft. Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign. Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116
More than a year out and the dossier still looks like a piece of op research detritus paid for by clinton... you brought up peripheral unimportant claims. even vox told you the important claims have not be shown to be true... even the claims you just made are only partially true. for instance... I just read on a lefty site that the dossier alleged Page met with a higher up official whose name began with S... (I think it was like Sergich) The article stated he only met with S"s assistant. edit your article confirmed it was Sechin's assistant and not Sechin. and... look at the not proven claims on your article that match up with some of the ones Vox pointed out. No collusion... shown. Dossier... not credibile Exgopper ... credible only by random coincidence.
So you admit that the dossier hasn't been 'largely discredited' as Breitbart said. Thanks for being honest once.
You do realize that Newsweek is little more than a click-bait farm for Russian trollers since it was purchased by IBT -- a mere shell of the former publication. Read an in-depth article about the failing Newweek entity and its issues: https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...according-to-current-and-former-staffers.html