Two of the nation’s top investigative journalists teamed up for a book talk that effectively untangled some of the mystery surrounding opposition research and the role of dark money in undermining democratic principles.
In a talk sponsored by the Hotchkiss Library of Sharon, Conn., award-winning investigative journalist Brian Ross engaged with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Barry Meier, both well-suited for this conversation. The program was offered on Zoom because of inclement weather on Thursday, June 3.
Ross moderated the program, speaking with Meier about his new book, “Spooked: The Trump Dossier, Black Cube and the Rise of Private Spies.” The book shines light on a dark industry set on influencing the minds of the unsuspecting, shaping opinions, garnering votes.
“Private spying” means that operatives can be hired. And hired they are by large corporations, political parties and powerful individuals to “dig up dirt” on their adversaries or competitors. The aim is to influence and dominate and win. The source of the money is deep in the shadows and not traceable.
According to Meier, there has been an explosion of private intelligence agencies whose operatives gather all sorts of intelligence data, including using the services of hackers to gain telephone or computer data. Often these agencies provide intelligence in cases of litigation to smear opposition witnesses or principals.
Ross asked about the Trump dossier from the 2016 election, the idea of planting plausible, shocking stories in the print and broadcast media.
“Political opposition research is as old as the hills,” Meier explained. Candidates for office would sling mud as a matter of course.
But during the lead-up to the 2016 campaign, the concept took a giant leap forward with Fusion GPS and the Republicans who contracted with them to oppose the early candidacy of Donald Trump.
Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, whose career is detailed in Meier’s book, offered research on the one hand and, because of his experience as a journalist, touted his ability to flow the opposition research directly into the media.
Ross asked why people are swayed by it, why they bite. Meier replied that there had been evidence of Russian intent to interfere. Simpson invited reporters to meet operative Christopher Steele, a reputable-appearing former MI6 agent, a member of the British Intelligence Service. The press was clearly misled.
It was BuzzFeed who rushed to be the first to post Steele’s dossier on Trump. “It was now out there,” Meier said. The major news outlets were in a “footrace” to promote the dossier.
The media’s defense to the largely unsubstantiated material was, “Well, it hasn’t yet been disproven.”
“This is anathema to how we operate and should operate as journalists,” Meier said. In an era of extreme media polarization, Meier added, “many media fall prey.”
To Ross’ question about how good Steele’s information was, Meier said, “Very little was true. The more salacious items were proven to be untrue.” But it was the salacious things that gave the dossier life, Meier said.
“My motivation is not to elevate Donald Trump,” Meier explained to Ross. “My concern is for my/our profession.”
Meier said that Trump used the dossier as a cudgel against journalists, as he is capable of using anything as a politically purposeful weapon.
“The real firepower of the media was diverted by the Trump dossier sideshow,” Meier said.
Feeling that cable news is too politically charged to be a good source, Meier said that he reads three major newspapers daily: the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
“We have to choose where our information is coming from,” he advised.
Meier sees no basis for Fusion GPS to be protected by whistleblower status, a matter currently being pursued.
“There is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the curtains that no one ever knows about,” he added.
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.