Donald Trump has branded a former MI6 officer’s dossier on alleged sex with prostitutes as “phony” and “false” as he launched a legal claim in the High Court in London.
The former US President is attempting to sue Orbis Business Intelligence - founded by Christopher Steele - over two 2016 memos which ended up being published by a news website.
Mr Steele, who previously ran the Secret Intelligence Service’s Russia desk, put into the dossier allegations that Trump had been “compromised” by the Russian security service, the FSB.
The documents, published by BuzzFeed in 2017, included claims Trump had taken part in “perverted sexual acts which have been arranged/monitored by the FSB”, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin “supported and directed” an operation to “cultivate” Trump as a presidential candidate for “at least five years”.
In his statement to the High Court, Trump insists the claims about his conduct are untrue, saying the dossier contains “numerous false, phony or made-up allegations”.
He sets out: “The allegations are wholly untrue. I can confirm that I did not, at any time engage in perverted sexual behaviour including the hiring of prostitutes to engage in ‘golden showers’ in the presidential suite of a hotel in Moscow, provide the Russian authorities with sufficient material to blackmail me, pay bribes to Russian officials in order to further my business interests, take part in ‘sex parties’ when in St Petersburg, (or) arrange for or connive in the silencing of any witnesses by coercion or bribery.
“None of these things ever happened.”
Trump has been accused by Orbis of abusing the British legal system to pursue a “grudge” against Mr Steele, which has played out in public since the dossier was first leaked and the spy’s identity became known.
In the case in London, Trump is arguing his reputation was damaged and he wants a court order stating the claims in the dossier were false.
But he faces the argument from Orbis that he has a vendetta against Mr Steele, and is using the courts to pursue him.
A lawyer for Orbis said Trump “has a history of commencing frivolous litigation, employing abusive litigation techniques and attacking his adversaries and critics through the legal system. The present claim falls squarely within that established pattern of misconduct.”
Orbis’ legal team point to Trump making a deliberately false allegation that the writer E Jean Carroll had accused him of sexual assault in a bid to promote her book, as well as “frivilous motions” in that case which he ultimately lost.
It is said legal claims against the Attorney General of the State of New York, Letitia James, who is currently investigating Trump’s business affairs, have the “telltale signs of being both vexatious and frivolous”, while Trump was also accused of trying to “bully journalists” with a legal case against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board.
Lawyers also point to a failed attempt to sue the author Timothy O’Brien after he wrote about Trump’s wealth. After the case had concluded, Trump was reported as saying he brought the claim “to make [O’Brien’s] life miserable, which I’m happy about”
Orbis’ lawyers said: “The fact the present claim has been brought for an improper purpose is reinforced by the extensive evidence which shows that the Claimant has a long history of repeatedly bringing frivolous, meritless and vexatious claims for the purpose of vexing and harassing perceived enemies and others against whom he bears a grudge.”
Trump has admitted making public statements criticising Mr Steele and Orbis, but insists he “believes that this criticism is entirely justified in the light of the outrageous false allegations made in the memoranda”.
In his statement, he says: “The inaccurate personal data in the dossier has, and continues, to cause me significant damage and distress.”
Trump holds Steele and Orbis responsible for the effects of the dossier leaking, saying: “If the dossier had not been created....the inaccurate personal data would never have entered the public domain.
“I believe that as the creator of the Dossier the Defendant bears, at the very least, moral responsibility for its content and should therefore, correct the inaccurate data it contains. Such a correction would make the true position clear.”
The Republican also laid down a challenge to Orbis to take the case to trial, where Trump is said to be willing to give evidence.
“A judgment of the English Court on this issue will be an immense relief to me as it will completely confirm the true position to the public at large”, he said. “Until there is such a judgment, I continue to suffer damage and distress as a result of people wrongly believing that the data in the dossier is accurate.
“If Mr Steele genuinely believed the allegations about which I complain were true, he would no doubt seek, on behalf of the defendant, to justify them. The defendant could also agree to correct the inaccuracies complained of, and indeed was given the opportunity to do so prior to the claim being served but has chosen not to do so.”
At the hearing in London before Mrs Justice Steyn, Trump is seeking to bring a claim under Data Protection laws. Orbis is asking the judge to throw the case out.
According to Trump’s claim, Mr Steele created a memo entitled “Republican Candidate Donald Trump’s activities in Russia and compromising relationship with the Kremlin” on June 20, 2016.
This included the claim that Trump urinated on prostitutes “in order to defile the bed in which President and Mrs Obama had slept”, and his “unorthodox behaviour” had given Russia “sufficient material to blackmail him”.
A second memo is said to have accused Trump of paying bribes to Russian officials in order to further his business interests, taking part in “sex parties” in St Petersburg, and a plot to “silence” witnesses to his impropriety by coercion or bribery.
“The processing of false, intrusive and damaging allegations about the Claimant’s personal life”, said Trump’s lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson KC, in a written statement of the claim.
“(He) was compelled to explain to his family, friends and colleagues that the embarrassing allegations about his private life were untrue. This was extremely distressing for the Claimant.”
Mr Tomlinson accepted the claim had been made close to the end of the six-year time limit.
But Trump told the court the delay was down to him being busy as President: “Between January 2017 and January 2021, I served as President of the United States. During this period, I was focused on serving the American people and dealing with a number of major national and international issues such as economic growth, domestic and foreign policies, immigration and the Covid-19 pandemic to name but a few.”
He also suggested the allegations against him in the dossier had been “debunked” in other investigations.
Mr Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence were previously sued for libel by Russian national Aleksej Gubarev over the publication of the dossier, claiming they were legally responsible for BuzzFeed publishing the dossier.
However, in a judgment in October 2020, Lord Justice Warby dismissed the claim.
Mr Steele is at the High Court for the preliminary hearing of Trump’s case, which is expected to last two days.
Orbis, in its written argument, said the dossier was “never intended to be made public” and was published without permission by Buzzfeed.
Mr Steele says the news report “came as a terrible shock” and was “a devastating development on a personal and professional level” for him.
Antony White KC, for Orbis, said: “It appears that BuzzFeed had obtained a copy of the Dossier after Senator (John) McCain’s aide, Mr Kramer, permitted a BuzzFeed journalist, Ken Bensinger, to view copies of the Dossier without Orbis’s or Mr Steele’s knowledge.
“Mr Bensinger surreptitiously photographed the Dossier while viewing it, and BuzzFeed then published those photographed copies to the world on its website.”
The company argues it cannot be held responsible for any reputational damage - if proven - to Trump, it says the legal claim has been made too late, and it adds that copies of the memos either have been destroyed or will be deleted in circumstances where they only exist in legal correspondence.
