Crime in Progress

Crime in Progress Plot Summary

Introduction

In the summer of 2016, as the American presidential campaign heated up, a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele was quietly compiling a series of memos that would eventually shake the foundations of American democracy. Working from London, Steele tapped into his network of Russian sources to investigate Donald Trump's connections to Russia. What he uncovered was extraordinary: allegations that the Russian government was actively working to help elect Trump as president and might have compromising material to influence him. These explosive claims would eventually become known as the "Steele dossier" – a document that would play a central role in one of the most contentious political controversies in modern American history. The story of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the subsequent investigations represents a watershed moment where traditional boundaries between intelligence, journalism, politics, and law enforcement became blurred in unprecedented ways. It raises profound questions about foreign influence in democratic elections, the vulnerability of political campaigns to outside manipulation, and the complex interplay between private research, government investigations, and media coverage. Whether you're interested in political intrigue, intelligence operations, or simply trying to understand a pivotal moment in recent history, this saga offers a fascinating window into the shadowy world where politics, espionage, and information warfare converge in the digital age.

Chapter 1: Origins: From Business Research to Intelligence Operation (2015-2016)

In late 2015, as Donald Trump's unexpected rise in the Republican primaries captured America's attention, a small Washington DC research firm called Fusion GPS began examining his business background. Initially hired by a conservative publication concerned about Trump's viability as a Republican candidate, Fusion GPS was tasked with conducting standard opposition research – investigating Trump's business history, financial dealings, and potential vulnerabilities. The project, code-named "Bangor," was led by Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, former Wall Street Journal reporters who had built careers uncovering financial crimes and international corruption. What began as routine political research quickly evolved into something more concerning. As Fusion's investigators dug into Trump's business empire, they discovered an unusual pattern of connections to Russia and individuals from the former Soviet Union. Trump had made numerous trips to Moscow since the 1980s, seeking business opportunities. After his casino bankruptcies in the early 1990s, when American banks largely stopped lending to him, Trump's businesses had become increasingly dependent on Russian investment. His son Donald Jr. had even stated publicly in 2008 that "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." The Fusion team uncovered troubling partnerships with figures like Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with a criminal past who had worked closely with Trump on projects like Trump SoHo. By spring 2016, as Trump secured the Republican nomination, the research project gained new sponsors – lawyers representing Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The investigation's focus sharpened when Paul Manafort, known for his work with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine, joined the Trump campaign as chairman. Fusion GPS knew from their previous journalistic work that Manafort had deep ties to Russian oligarchs, particularly Oleg Deripaska, to whom he reportedly owed millions. This connection raised a disturbing question: Why would someone with such problematic Russian entanglements be brought into a presidential campaign? Recognizing the need for specialized expertise, Fusion made a pivotal decision in June 2016. They hired Christopher Steele, a former MI6 officer who had run the agency's Russia desk and was considered one of Britain's foremost experts on Russian intelligence operations. Steele's task was to use his network of sources to explore Trump's connections to Russia. Neither Fusion nor Steele anticipated what would come next – a series of intelligence reports alleging a coordinated Russian operation to support Trump's candidacy, with the possible knowledge and cooperation of Trump associates. What had begun as conventional political research had transformed into something resembling an intelligence operation, one that would eventually trigger multiple government investigations and years of political conflict. As Steele's sources began reporting back, the allegations became increasingly alarming. His first memo, dated June 20, 2016, contained the explosive claim that the Russian government had been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" Trump for years and possessed compromising material on him. More concerning was the suggestion that there was an "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership. These extraordinary claims would soon propel Steele to alert American authorities, believing he had uncovered a genuine national security threat to the United States.

Chapter 2: The Dossier Emerges: Explosive Allegations and Initial Reactions

In late summer 2016, as Christopher Steele continued receiving information from his sources, the contents of his memos grew increasingly alarming. The reports alleged specific meetings between Trump associates and Russian officials, detailed financial arrangements, and claimed the existence of compromising material or "kompromat" on Trump, including the now-infamous allegation about inappropriate behavior in a Moscow hotel room in 2013. Steele, a seasoned intelligence professional, became so concerned by what he was learning that he decided to alert American authorities, arranging a meeting with an FBI contact in Rome in July 2016. The FBI's reaction was complicated by the politically charged environment of the 2016 election. While they took Steele's information seriously given his reputation and previous cooperation on other matters, they moved cautiously to avoid appearing to interfere in the presidential campaign. Unknown to Steele, the Bureau had already opened a counterintelligence investigation called "Crossfire Hurricane" in late July, prompted by separate information about Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos allegedly discussing Russian offers of assistance. Steele's reports became one stream of intelligence feeding into this broader investigation, though the extent of the FBI's reliance on his information would later become a major point of controversy. As election day approached, Steele grew increasingly frustrated with what he perceived as the FBI's insufficient response to his warnings. Concerned that a potential Russian asset might win the presidency, he authorized Fusion GPS to brief select journalists on his findings. On October 31, just days before the election, Mother Jones magazine published the first public reference to Steele's work, describing a "former Western intelligence officer" who had provided information to the FBI about Russian operations to cultivate Trump. However, most major news organizations, unable to independently verify the explosive allegations, declined to publish detailed accounts of the dossier's contents before the election. The dossier burst into public view on January 10, 2017, when BuzzFeed News published all 17 of Steele's memos online in their raw form. This unprecedented decision came hours after CNN had reported that intelligence officials had briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump about allegations that Russia had compromising information on Trump. The publication ignited immediate controversy. Media organizations that had possessed the dossier for months but declined to publish its unverified claims criticized BuzzFeed's decision. The Trump team vehemently denied all allegations, with Trump himself calling the dossier "fake news" and a "political witch hunt." The public emergence of the dossier created an immediate firestorm that would shape American politics for years to come. For Trump supporters, it represented a partisan smear campaign designed to delegitimize his election victory. For Trump critics, it raised serious questions about potential compromise by a foreign power. Intelligence professionals noted that the memos represented raw intelligence – information from sources that required verification – rather than finished analytical products. This distinction was often lost in the heated political debate, as partisans on both sides either embraced or rejected the dossier in its entirety rather than evaluating its claims individually. Within days of the dossier's publication, both Steele and Fusion GPS were identified in the media. Steele and his family went into hiding as reporters staked out his home in the London suburbs. Fusion's office became the target of both media scrutiny and, eventually, congressional investigators. What had begun as a confidential intelligence operation was now at the center of a public political battle that would define the early Trump presidency and raise fundamental questions about foreign interference in American democracy.

Chapter 3: Political Warfare: Republican Countermeasures and Media Battles

As the Russia investigation gained momentum in early 2017, Republicans quickly developed a comprehensive strategy to discredit both the Steele dossier and the broader investigation. Rather than addressing the substance of the allegations about Russian interference, they focused on attacking the origins and funding of the dossier. Republican lawmakers and conservative media emphasized that the research had been funded by Democrats, characterizing it as a partisan hit job rather than legitimate intelligence. This framing allowed them to dismiss the entire Russia investigation as politically motivated, regardless of what evidence might emerge from independent sources. Key Republican figures in Congress led the counteroffensive. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes emerged as perhaps the most aggressive defender of Trump, taking extraordinary steps that blurred the line between congressional oversight and political advocacy. In March 2017, Nunes made headlines with a secretive late-night visit to the White House to review classified information, which he claimed showed improper surveillance of Trump associates. He then held a press conference to announce his findings without sharing them with Democratic committee members. This unusual behavior led to an ethics investigation and Nunes' temporary recusal from the Russia probe, though he continued to shape the committee's work behind the scenes. The Republican defense strategy relied heavily on friendly media outlets to amplify their narrative. Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson regularly described the Russia investigation as a "hoax" and a "witch hunt." The Wall Street Journal's editorial page published dozens of pieces attacking Fusion GPS, Steele, and the FBI officials involved in the investigation. This media ecosystem allowed Republicans to maintain a parallel narrative about the investigation that resonated with their base, even as mainstream news organizations continued reporting on developments in the Russia probe and the growing evidence of Russian interference in the election. By mid-2017, the Republican countermeasures had evolved into a comprehensive effort to undermine not just the dossier but the entire foundation of the Russia investigation. This included attacks on key Justice Department and FBI officials involved in the probe. Republicans in Congress demanded documents about the FBI's use of the dossier in obtaining Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. They focused particularly on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and FBI officials like Peter Strzok, whose text messages critical of Trump were portrayed as evidence of institutional bias. President Trump himself led many of these attacks, using his Twitter account and public statements to denounce the investigation as a "witch hunt" and pressure law enforcement officials to demonstrate loyalty. He publicly berated Attorney General Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and repeatedly threatened to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been appointed to lead the investigation after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. This pressure campaign created an unprecedented situation where the subject of an investigation was actively working to undermine it while holding the power to potentially end it. The political warfare surrounding the Russia investigation revealed how difficult it had become to establish shared facts in American political discourse, especially on issues involving national security and foreign interference. What should have been a moment of national unity against foreign meddling instead became another front in the partisan culture war, with each side operating from fundamentally different understandings of reality. This division would ultimately undermine the effectiveness of the investigation and prevent the development of a coherent national response to the Russian threat.

Chapter 4: Multiple Investigations: FBI, Congress, and the Special Counsel

By spring 2017, multiple overlapping investigations into Russian election interference and possible Trump campaign connections were underway. The FBI's counterintelligence investigation, which had begun in July 2016, continued to examine links between Trump associates and Russia. Congressional committees in both the House and Senate had launched their own inquiries. And after Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey in May 2017 – a decision Trump himself linked to "this Russia thing" in a television interview – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to ensure an independent investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Mark Warner, established itself as the most serious and bipartisan effort. The committee interviewed hundreds of witnesses and reviewed thousands of documents in what both leaders described as a fact-finding mission rather than a political exercise. Their investigation would eventually produce five volumes of reports confirming the intelligence community's assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump and documenting numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians, though it did not establish a criminal conspiracy. Other congressional investigations quickly devolved into partisan warfare. The House Intelligence Committee's probe, under Chairman Devin Nunes, became particularly contentious. After Nunes was forced to temporarily recuse himself due to ethics concerns, he continued to shape the investigation from behind the scenes. The committee issued subpoenas to Fusion GPS and its bank, seeking the firm's financial records in what Fusion described as an attempt to expose its clients and sources. This battle played out in federal court, with Fusion fighting to protect confidential information while Republicans sought to portray the firm's work as politically tainted. Meanwhile, Special Counsel Mueller assembled a team of experienced prosecutors and FBI agents to conduct a thorough investigation. Unlike the congressional probes, Mueller's team operated largely in silence, with few leaks and no public commentary on their progress. This professional approach produced tangible results. By the end of 2017, Mueller had secured guilty pleas from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and campaign adviser George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI about their Russian contacts. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian individuals and three Russian entities for interference operations targeting the 2016 election. The investigations faced constant political pressure. Trump repeatedly called the probe a "witch hunt" and reportedly considered firing Mueller multiple times. Congressional Republicans increasingly attacked the legitimacy of the investigation, focusing particularly on the Steele dossier's role. In January 2018, Nunes released a controversial memo claiming the FBI had improperly relied on the dossier to obtain FISA surveillance warrants on Carter Page without adequately disclosing its political origins. Democrats countered with their own memo arguing that the Page surveillance was properly predicated and that the dossier was only one source among many. As the investigations progressed, they uncovered significant evidence of Russian interference and concerning contacts between Trump associates and Russians, though the full picture of coordination remained elusive. Paul Manafort was indicted for financial crimes related to his work in Ukraine. Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, admitted to pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow project well into the 2016 campaign while Trump publicly denied any business dealings with Russia. Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer promising "dirt" on Hillary Clinton was exposed. Each revelation added pieces to a complex puzzle, but the partisan environment made it increasingly difficult to establish a shared understanding of the facts, let alone their implications.

Chapter 5: Vindication and Controversy: Key Allegations Proven Over Time

As years passed and investigations unfolded, many of the Steele dossier's core assertions about Russian interference and connections to Trump associates were substantiated, though specific details often differed from Steele's reporting. The U.S. intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia had conducted a sophisticated influence campaign aimed at helping Trump win the 2016 election – confirming one of the dossier's central claims. Mueller's investigation documented extensive Russian efforts to interfere in the election through social media operations, hacking, and strategic release of stolen materials. The dossier alleged numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians, which investigations later confirmed. Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser named in the dossier, had indeed traveled to Moscow in July 2016, where he met with Russian officials, though some specific meetings alleged in the dossier were not verified. Paul Manafort's extensive ties to pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska were documented in court filings. Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, initially denied having contact with Russians but later admitted to pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow project well into the 2016 campaign – a significant business interest Trump had concealed from voters. Mueller's final report, released in April 2019, documented over 100 contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russians, though it did not establish a criminal conspiracy. The report outlined multiple episodes of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump in his efforts to curtail the investigation. While some of the dossier's most sensational claims remained unverified, its central thesis about Russian interference and concerning connections between Trump associates and Russian figures was largely validated. Perhaps the most significant vindication came in August 2020, when the Senate Intelligence Committee released its final report on Russian interference. The bipartisan report went further than Mueller in documenting connections between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It described how Manafort shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, whom it identified as a Russian intelligence officer, and outlined a web of connections that constituted a "grave counterintelligence threat." The report also confirmed that Russian intelligence had targeted the 2016 Democratic Convention, as Steele had claimed. However, the dossier also contained significant inaccuracies and unverified claims. A December 2019 report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz identified numerous errors in the FBI's FISA applications for Carter Page, including overreliance on the dossier without adequate verification. The report criticized the FBI for failing to more thoroughly assess Steele's sources and for not disclosing potential problems with his reporting to the FISA court. Some specific allegations, particularly regarding Michael Cohen's supposed trip to Prague to meet with Russian officials, were never substantiated despite extensive investigation. The mixed record of the dossier's accuracy reflects its nature as raw intelligence rather than finished analysis. Intelligence professionals understand that human source reporting always contains a mix of accurate information, misunderstandings, and occasionally deliberate disinformation. The proper approach is to treat such reports as leads requiring verification rather than as established facts. Unfortunately, in the highly charged political environment surrounding the Russia investigation, this nuanced understanding was often lost as partisans either embraced the dossier uncritically or dismissed it entirely. Despite the controversy surrounding specific allegations, the broader concerns that prompted Steele's work proved well-founded. Russia did interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump. Multiple Trump associates did have concerning contacts with Russians and then lie about them. The Trump campaign did welcome Russian assistance rather than reporting it to authorities. These core findings, confirmed by multiple investigations, vindicate the fundamental premise behind the dossier, even as debates continue about particular details and the proper weight it should have been given in the FBI's investigation.

Chapter 6: Democratic Vulnerabilities: Intelligence Failures and Political Divisions

The Russia investigation revealed profound vulnerabilities in America's democratic institutions and highlighted how unprepared the country was to confront foreign interference in its elections. Intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Congress, the media, and the public all struggled to respond effectively to Russia's unprecedented attack on American democracy, exposing weaknesses that persist to this day. The intelligence community, despite its sophisticated capabilities, was slow to recognize and respond to the Russian threat. Years of focusing on counterterrorism had diminished expertise on Russia, and traditional intelligence methods were not well-adapted to monitoring social media manipulation and influence operations targeting the American public. Even after identifying Russian activities, intelligence agencies faced difficult questions about how to respond without appearing to intervene in a presidential election. The Obama administration's cautious approach, motivated partly by concerns about appearing to help Clinton, ultimately allowed Russian operations to continue with limited pushback. Law enforcement agencies faced similar challenges. The FBI's counterintelligence investigation, codenamed "Crossfire Hurricane," began only in late July 2016, after considerable evidence of Russian activities had already accumulated. The Bureau made fateful decisions about which investigations to publicize – announcing the reopening of the Clinton email investigation while keeping the Trump-Russia investigation confidential – that had significant electoral implications. Later, the Justice Department Inspector General would identify serious errors in the FBI's handling of FISA applications related to the investigation, providing ammunition for those seeking to discredit the entire probe. Perhaps the most concerning vulnerability exposed by the Russia investigation was America's deep political polarization, which Russia expertly exploited and which ultimately prevented a unified national response to foreign interference. What should have been a moment of national unity against foreign meddling instead became another front in the partisan culture war. Republicans successfully reframed the investigation as an attack on Trump rather than a defense of American democracy. This partisan lens distorted public understanding of the evidence and undermined the legitimacy of the investigations. The media ecosystem also demonstrated significant vulnerabilities. Mainstream outlets struggled with how to cover unverified but potentially significant allegations, while partisan media on both sides often prioritized preferred narratives over nuanced reporting. Social media platforms, designed to maximize engagement rather than promote factual information, became vectors for both Russian disinformation and domestic conspiracy theories. The public, increasingly sorted into separate information bubbles, found it nearly impossible to develop a shared understanding of the facts surrounding Russian interference. The investigation also revealed how vulnerable democratic institutions are to a president willing to attack their legitimacy. Trump's relentless campaign against the "deep state," his demands for loyalty from law enforcement officials, and his attacks on the free press as "enemies of the people" eroded public trust in the very institutions responsible for safeguarding democracy. This erosion of trust may prove more damaging in the long run than the Russian interference itself. Despite these troubling outcomes, the investigation did produce some positive results. It documented Russian interference techniques in unprecedented detail, providing a roadmap for protecting future elections. It demonstrated that the American justice system could investigate a sitting president despite intense political pressure. And it revealed the extent of Russia's efforts to manipulate American politics, making it harder for such operations to succeed undetected in the future. The question remains whether these lessons will be applied to strengthen democratic institutions against both foreign interference and domestic polarization in the years to come.

Summary

The saga of the Steele dossier and Russia's electoral interference represents a watershed moment in American politics where the boundaries between intelligence, journalism, politics, and law enforcement became dangerously blurred. At its core, this story reveals how vulnerable democratic systems can be to foreign manipulation when domestic political divisions create openings for outside influence. The Russian government recognized and exploited these divisions, while American political actors, media organizations, and institutions struggled to respond effectively. What should have been a unified national response to foreign interference instead became another battleground in America's partisan culture war, with truth itself becoming a casualty in the process. The lessons from this episode are profound and cautionary. First, democratic societies must develop better defenses against foreign information operations that exploit partisan divisions. This requires not just technical cybersecurity measures but also greater media literacy and institutional resilience. Second, the politicization of intelligence and law enforcement investigations threatens the very foundation of democratic governance. When facts become partisan footballs, accountability becomes impossible. Finally, the saga demonstrates the critical importance of transparency in political funding, campaign operations, and foreign contacts. Without such transparency, the public cannot make informed judgments about potential conflicts of interest or foreign influence. As information warfare techniques continue to evolve, democracies must find ways to protect electoral integrity while maintaining the open exchange of ideas that is essential to democratic governance.

About Author

Loading...

Glenn Simpson

Read more