Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
kaggle-ho-025549House Oversight

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell says intermediaries paid Russian sources for Steele dossier, implying FSB curation and a Dec. 1, 2016 Kislyak‑Kushner meeting over a ‘secure line’ exchange

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell says intermediaries paid Russian sources for Steele dossier, implying FSB curation and a Dec. 1, 2016 Kislyak‑Kushner meeting over a ‘secure line’ exchange The passage offers concrete leads – a senior intelligence official’s claim that intermediaries paid sources (potentially ex‑FSB officers) for the Steele dossier, and a specific 2016 meeting where Russian ambassador Kislyak allegedly offered military intel in exchange for a secure communications line. These points point to financial flows, possible quid‑pro‑quo with high‑level officials (Kushner, Flynn) and foreign intelligence involvement, making them actionable. However, the claims are not new in the public discourse and lack corroborating details, limiting novelty. The controversy is high given the actors involved, but the overall investigative value is moderate‑high. Key insights: Michael Morell alleges Christopher Steele used intermediaries who paid Russian sources for dossier information.; He suggests the sources were ex‑FSB officers, implying direct Russian intelligence curation of the dossier.; Obama’s public statement linked the Kremlin to the DNC email theft posted on DC Leaks.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-025549
Pages
1
Persons
5
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell says intermediaries paid Russian sources for Steele dossier, implying FSB curation and a Dec. 1, 2016 Kislyak‑Kushner meeting over a ‘secure line’ exchange The passage offers concrete leads – a senior intelligence official’s claim that intermediaries paid sources (potentially ex‑FSB officers) for the Steele dossier, and a specific 2016 meeting where Russian ambassador Kislyak allegedly offered military intel in exchange for a secure communications line. These points point to financial flows, possible quid‑pro‑quo with high‑level officials (Kushner, Flynn) and foreign intelligence involvement, making them actionable. However, the claims are not new in the public discourse and lack corroborating details, limiting novelty. The controversy is high given the actors involved, but the overall investigative value is moderate‑high. Key insights: Michael Morell alleges Christopher Steele used intermediaries who paid Russian sources for dossier information.; He suggests the sources were ex‑FSB officers, implying direct Russian intelligence curation of the dossier.; Obama’s public statement linked the Kremlin to the DNC email theft posted on DC Leaks.

Tags

kagglehouse-oversighthigh-importanceintelligencesteele-dossierrussiafsbmichael-morell

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director, casts light on the sourcing of the dirt in the Steele dossier. “I had two questions when I first read [the dossier],” Morell said in an NBC interview. “One was, how did Chris [Steele] talk to these sources? I have subsequently learned that he used intermediaries. I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris.” Paying ex-FSB officers for sensitive information? As Steele is no doubt aware, there is no such thing as an ex-FSB officer. All Russian intelligence officers, whether currently or formerly employed, if in Russia, operate under the same tough security regime. The selling of secret information by them is espionage, pure and simple. Selling it to someone connected to an adversary intelligence service greatly compounds the crime. Sources A and B (through their intermediaries) knew that they were dealing with an ex-MI-6 man who could use their betrayal of secrets against them. The only safe way for A and B to provide the requested dirt would be to clear it with the security regime at the FSB. This precaution, a required step in such exchanges, would mean that the dirt in the dossier, whether true or false, was curated by the FSB and spoon-fed to Steele. If so, the FSB was the surreptitious provider of this part of the Steele dossier. The third disclosure operation involved stolen emails from the DNC bearing on the unfair treatment by Democratic Party officials of Bernie Sanders, which were posted on the DC Leaks website. President Obama identified the Kremlin as the author of this operation, saying “These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government.” If so, as in the previous cases, the FSB would have curated the dirt. To be sure, oppo- research operatives, because of their singular focus on getting usable slime, are highly vulnerable to shady offers, but why would Russia so blatantly feed the slime to all sides in a campaign? The United States has a wide array of tools for monitoring Russian intelligence, including the world’s most sophisticated sensors for intercepting signals, but discovering the Kremlin’s motives remains an elusive enterprise because, unlike in a scientific inquiry, one cannot fully trust the observable data. While a scientist can safely assume that the microbes he observes through the lens of a microscope are not employing guile to mislead him, an intelligence analyst cannot make similar assumptions about the content of intercepted communications from Russia. If one assumes that the Russians do not know that the channel is being monitored—an assumption which, following the defection of Edward Snowden to Russia, is hard to make prudently—then the intelligence gleaned from that channel can reveal the Kremlin’s activities and motive. If, however, it is understood that the Russians know that a channel is being monitored, the information conveyed over it can be considered a disclosure operation. If, for example, a Mafia family finds out that the FBI is tapping its telephone lines, it can use those lines to burn its rivals. The Kremlin can also use a knowntapped phone line to its advantage. Consider, for example, the tapped phone of Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On December 1, 2016, Kislyak went to Trump Tower to meet Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn. According to Kushner’s version of that meeting, Kislyak suggested that Russian generals could supply information about Russian military operations in Syria on the condition that the Trump transition team provide a “secure line in the transition office.” Of course, as Kislyak likely knew, transition teams don’t have secure lines to Moscow. Kushner responded by asking if the Russian embassy

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Document alleges Russian FSB coordinated multiple 2016 U.S. election disclosure operations affecting both Trump and Clinton camps

Document alleges Russian FSB coordinated multiple 2016 U.S. election disclosure operations affecting both Trump and Clinton camps The passage links high‑level Russian intelligence (FSB) and the Kremlin to three separate ‘oppo‑research’ operations that supplied dirt to both campaigns, cites specific intermediaries (Natalya Veselnitskaya, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, Michael Morell) and a concrete incident involving Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn. It provides enough detail (names, dates, alleged payments) to merit investigative follow‑up, though many claims are speculative and lack direct documentary proof, keeping the score below blockbuster level. Key insights: Claims that the same Russian source (FSB) supplied disinformation to both Trump and Clinton operatives.; Alleges Christopher Steele received paid Russian sources via intermediaries, possibly coordinated by the FSB.; Mentions Michael Morell (former acting CIA director) discussing Steele’s payment chain.

1p
House OversightJan 5, 2018

Document titled “INSIDE THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE” with minimal content

Document titled “INSIDE THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE” with minimal content The file contains only a title and file identifier with no substantive information, names, dates, transactions, or allegations. It provides no actionable leads or novel insights into any controversial actions or actors. Key insights: File appears to be a placeholder or index page; No mention of individuals, agencies, or financial details

1p
House OversightMay 28, 2019

Manuscript excerpts alleging internal chaos, legal pressure, and possible financial improprieties in the Trump White House

Manuscript excerpts alleging internal chaos, legal pressure, and possible financial improprieties in the Trump White House The passage provides a narrative of alleged internal conflicts, lawyer‑client dynamics, and speculative financial schemes (e.g., the Trump‑Epstein Palm Beach house deal, Kushner‑Apollo financing) that could point to undisclosed money flows or legal exposure. However, it lacks concrete documents, dates, or transaction details that would enable immediate investigative action, and many of the claims repeat already‑publicly reported controversies. The lead is therefore of moderate investigative value, moderately sensitive, not wholly novel, and ties several high‑profile actors (Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, John Dowd, Hope Hicks, FBI/DOJ) together. Key insights: Alleged $55 million profit for Trump on a Palm Beach house purchased via Deutsche Bank financing and later sold to Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev.; Kushner’s $184 million financing from Apollo Global Management and the suggestion that the Southern District of New York could pursue RICO actions against the Trump Organization.; Repeated references to the Mueller grand jury subpoenaing Trump Organization records and the possibility of the investigation expanding beyond Russia to other federal districts.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Manuscript excerpts alleging internal chaos, legal pressure, and possible financial improprieties in the Trump White House

The passage provides a narrative of alleged internal conflicts, lawyer‑client dynamics, and speculative financial schemes (e.g., the Trump‑Epstein Palm Beach house deal, Kushner‑Apollo financing) that Alleged $55 million profit for Trump on a Palm Beach house purchased via Deutsche Bank financing and Kushner’s $184 million financing from Apollo Global Management and the suggestion that the Souther

47p
House OversightUnknown

Kushner reportedly received counsel from Henry Kissinger about ‘deep state’ threats to the Trump administration

Kushner reportedly received counsel from Henry Kissinger about ‘deep state’ threats to the Trump administration The passage offers a vague narrative about Kushner hearing warnings from Kissinger regarding intelligence agencies, but provides no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable evidence. It repeats publicly known political rhetoric without new factual leads, limiting investigative usefulness. Key insights: Kushner allegedly consulted Henry Kissinger on potential ‘deep state’ opposition.; Names of intelligence officials (Brennan, Clapper, Rice, Ben Rhodes) are listed as perceived adversaries.; The text frames a narrative of intelligence agencies conspiring against Trump, but lacks specifics.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Kislyak’s alleged use of monitored embassy phone line to expose Kushner and influence Trump administration dismissals

Kislyak’s alleged use of monitored embassy phone line to expose Kushner and influence Trump administration dismissals The passage suggests a possible conduit through which Russian diplomat Anatoly Kislyak transmitted information that may have contributed to the firing of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. While it names high‑profile officials and outlines a mechanism (an open, FBI‑monitored line), it lacks concrete evidence, dates, or transaction details, limiting immediate investigative action but still offering a moderate lead worth probing. Key insights: Kislyak allegedly relayed Kushner’s response via an open embassy phone line known to be tapped by the FBI.; The disclosed conversation is claimed to have triggered the firing of Michael Flynn.; Kislyak’s interactions with Jeff Sessions are said to have led to Sessions’ recusal from the Russia probe.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.