Christopher steele orbis7/30/2023 There’s room for an in-depth review, and indeed Craig Murray has done a fine job deconstructing the series. It’s one of the hallmarks of propaganda, that no story which supports the propaganda – however ridiculous – can ever be questioned, criticised or disputed. Because when you’re dealing with government-backed narrative everything that reinforces it must be described as having value. Poorly researched, badly written and woefully factually inaccurate. A three-part story “based on actual events”, claiming to tell the story of the alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in 2018. “The BBC’s new drama “The Salisbury Poisonings” concluded over the weekend. Ī dossier of evidence purporting to demonstrate that Donald Trump and his transition team members have a history of improper contact with the Russian government and that Russian Intelligence collected substantial compromising information on Trump during his Russian business trips. On 23 April 2015 Steele founded Walsingham Partners with Christopher Parker Burrows. Walsingham Partners Full article: Walsingham Partners The 17 memos that make up the dossier, compiled by Steele when he was subcontracted by the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS in 2016, detail interviews with various sources claiming that the three businessmen with links to the Russian banking group Alfa, had a close relationship with Vladimir Putin.In 2022(or 2021?), after years of unquestioning reporting, the commercially-controlled media began exposing the Steele dossier as fraudulent.įormer FBI Director James Comey described the Steele dossier as “salacious and unverified” in a Senate hearing. We respectfully disagree with Judge Epstein on a number of points and are confident that the appellate court will reinstate the Plaintiffs' claims," Lewis said. Steele's negligence in making unsupported accusations that our clients had something to do with alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election - which they did not. "We are, however, pleased that the Court agreed that we have adequately proved Mr. "We strongly disagree with the Court's decision which we will almost certainly appeal," Alan S. constitutional defenses where they have "substantial connections with the country," which the judge said Steele had.Ī lawyer representing the Russian plaintiffs said the judge was mistaken. The judge pointed out the dossier was of interest to, and contributed to, American public debate and noted that even non-citizens were entitled to U.S. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Steele was not protected by the First Amendment because he was not a U.S. And we will continue to defend against baseless attacks on Chris and his company Orbis and hope the result of this case will be a lesson to those who seek to intimidate Chris and his company," Eikhoff said. "This dismissal is an example of constitutional principles at work. Speaking to ABC News, Christy Hull Eikhoff at Alston and Bird, attorneys for Steele and Orbis - the private intelligence agency he co-founded, praised the judge's decision. Superior Court Judge Anthony Epstein cited the plaintiffs' failure to provide any evidence that the information in the dossier was knowingly falsified, that Steele knew anything was false or that he had any reason to doubt the sources. German Khan, Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, all Russian billionaires with stakes in the Russian Alfa Banking Group, claimed that allegations in Steele's dossier, published by media outlets in early 2017, were libelous.ĭ.C. A judge in Washington, D.C., has thrown out a lawsuit against former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who had been sued by Russian oligarchs claiming he defamed them in his dossier about the Trump campaign's alleged links with Russia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |