The so-called “Steele dossier” is a Democrat bought-and-paid-for hit piece on Donald Trump that was largely the basis for Independent Counsel (in name, anyway) Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Trump/Russia collusion.
You’d think that pretty much guaranteed it had credible information, wouldn’t you? But, if so, maybe you shouldn’t be so sure.
From Byron York’s article at washingtonexaminer.com:
FBI and Justice Department officials have told congressional investigators in recent days that they have not been able to verify or corroborate the substantive allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign outlined in the Trump dossier.
The FBI received the first installment of the dossier in July 2016. It received later installments as they were written at the height of the presidential campaign, which means the bureau has had more than a year to investigate the allegations in the document. The dossier was financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
An August 24, 2017 subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee to the FBI and Justice Department asked for information on the bureau’s efforts to validate the dossier… But in face-to-face briefings with congressional staff, according to those sources, FBI and DOJ officials have said they cannot verify the dossier’s charges of a conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
The news appears to contradict recent statements from some top Democrats. “A lot of it has turned out to be true,” Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.
Does this still-unverified document, paid for by the political opposition, in any way look like settled evidence to you? Like anything that should have been a basis for investigating the President of the United States?
Would it ever have gotten to first base – even out of the batter’s box – if the sitting President were a Democrat rather than a Republican?
So far, after a half year and numerous well-timed leaks, all that Mueller & Co. have done is to go after three men – two of them, Manafort and Flynn, who Trump himself fired, and one low level guy who proposed a Russia meeting and whose idea was rejected. Is this supposed to be a smoking gun?
Meanwhile, the minute a Democrat concern with direct ties to Hillary Clinton, The Podesta Group, is found to have fully evidenced connections to Russia, the company dissolves. Poof, gone with the wind. Like it never existed.
Does that have an aroma to you? An acrid one?
Are The Podesta Group’s activities being investigated? If you believe Tom Winter and Julia Ainsley’s article for NBC News, the answer is yes. But – funny thing here – where are the well-timed leaks about this one?
Either the Russian collusion there actually is evidence for – on the Hillary side of the aisle – is not being investigated at all, or the same sources which keep feeding anti-Trump media (a redundancy) leaks are declining to do so when the target is Clinton.
To be continued….
I think what should be even more important, from what I have read from many sources, that even if everything in the dossier were true there is still no crime. None of what is alleged is against the law. If that is true then how can the special council have any validity at all?