It became a club used to hobble (and abort if possible) a legally elected presidency. The dossier was clearly a part of partisan efforts to influence an election and elections thereafter. Adam Schiff.Įven the most ardent detractors of former President Trump (FWIW, I declared him unfit for office long before the Steele Dossier), must realize the profound indictment this shameful incident lays at the feet of the Clinton campaign, the journalists and media outlets, and the Justice Department and Congressional leaders that embraced it. The dossier is still defended by partisan political functionaries like Rep. It certainly had an influence on those pushing for the first Trump impeachment. Even if the dossier itself was ultimately disregarded by the Mueller investigation, the dossier’s allegations were at the core of what drove the Mueller and other inquiries.
It was a basis for FISA warrants and the Mueller investigation that dominated the news for nearly two years. It become entwined - and in some cases integral - to stories of Trump campaign collusion with Russia in their efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. To anyone familiar with intelligence gathering or investigative journalism, the Steele Dossier, a product customized for and financed by the 2016 Clinton campaign, had a stink about it from the start.ĭespite the fact that it was a fabulation discredited early on, it was relentlessly pushed by media outlets like MSNBC (especially Rachel Maddow)) and CNN for more than two years. Both practices should be anathematic to the ethical practice of journalism. It hauntingly smacks of a publish-then-verify attitude that pumps ratings, or worse, a willingness to publish unverified and potentially unverifiable allegations because they support a preconceived partisan narrative. The who, what, when, where, and why regarding the media and political use the now discredited Steele Dossier is an story import for journalistic integrity. My concern is the subsequent scrutiny laid on those claims as well the subsequent use of unsubstantial claims to enhance ratings or advance partisan interests. If you have not read the Steele Dossier, a copy of it is posted at ….Īgain, the question is not the ultimate truth or falsity of those assertions is not the subject of my comments herein.
Just three days before Trump was inaugurated in January 2017, BuzzFeed News published what it aid were the “specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations” of the Steele Dossier. In essence, the Steele Dossier - built by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent contracted by a private investigation outfit working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign - contained allegation of a long-running connection and well-developed, “conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence that not only alleged that Donald Trump was, via his campaign, formally colluding with Russian election interference but that also that Trump was compromised by Russian intelligence. Often this determination takes the form of an assessment of a level of confidence in the sources/information rather than a declaration of absolute truth or falsity. That construction, not coincidently I would argue, make it similar to a DEA 6 or FBI 302 form that record raw intelligence (e.g., what sources and witnesses say) used by agents who then synthesize and evaluate the material in light of other evidence and intelligence to make a determination as to the veracity of the sources and information gathered.
Compiled in 2016 and consisting of 16 reports totaling 35 pages, the Steele Dossier made no evaluation regarding confidence in the ultimate truth or falsity of its contents. The Steele Dossier itself was a form of raw intelligence not a finished intelligence report. As Jeff Stein writes on his excellent SpyTalk site, the so-called Steele Dossier “is in tatters.”įor clarity, the following comments about the Steele Dossier reflect my personal assessments and opinions.
0 kommentar(er)
