Most interesting question about the bogus claims in the Steele dossier, post-Mueller: were they fed to his sources by Russian intelligence? My story with and
NYT: "Ha ha, funny story, you'll never believe it. That dossier we spent years defending as legitimate and a worthy basis for FISA wiretaps on citizens is so unfounded it might actually be Russian disinformation, just like the collusion skeptics warned."
You are not going to believe this, but the New York Times says the Steele dossier is not true.
This is rich. Nearly 3 years later, the New York Times admits the dossier --paid for by Hillary and the DNC and the FBI -- was full of "Russian disinformation" and "fabrications" "How much damage has it already caused?” They ask that NOW?
Convenient. Only now that Mueller report is out are we getting stories that inform us the dossier was "loaded with dubious or exaggerated details," and that FBI knew this early on.
Note from to readers: we won a Pulitzer for our Trump-Russia collusion reporting but now we think the document that the whole story based on, the Steele dossier, might be problematic.
There appears to be a growing consensus that the Steele Dossier was an outright disinformation op. So you can thank for shepherding this fraud into the American media consciousness
“Another possibility...could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.”
“Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public...in early 2017.”
The DOJ inspector general wants to know what the F.B.I. learned about Mr. Steele’s sources and whether it disclosed any doubts about their veracity to the court.
The Steele dossier provided some of the fuel for two years of Trump-Russia debate. Here's a look at what it appears to have gotten wrong and what it means. With the estimable and
Truth: the has added reporters steadily over last 3 yrs. Truth: the NYT readership has been fascinated with Steele allegations. Truth: FBI doubted them all along. Truth: NYT is only NOW reporting that it was garbage. So much for that ethos.
"Daniel Hoffman, a former C.I.A. officer who served in Moscow, said he had long suspected the dossier was contaminated by Russian fabrications. The goal, he said, would be to deepen American divisions and blur the line between truth and falsehood."
Giuliani: "There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians". Weird. I did not expect to see Rudy riding to Hillary's defense.
Don’t miss the last two paragraphs of this story, which leaves the dossier in ruins.
Did Clinton collude with Putin? -- Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier
2018: How the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump’s ties to Russia 2019: Mueller Report Likely To Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier.
"Another possibility. . . could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well."
One possible explanation for the dubious or exaggerated details in the Steele dossier: Russian disinformation. Deep dive from this amazing team:
"How the dossier ended up loaded with dubious or exaggerated details remains uncertain."
This is good on how the Steele dossier turned out to be unreliable.