![]() The most famous is the alleged pee tape, the potential existence of which I speculated about quite a bit, citing factors like Russia’s demonstrated use of honey-trap tactics against visiting dignitaries and the shakiness of Trump’s denials. What some analysts and opinion journalists (like me) did was speculate that Steele’s claims may well be true, using verified facts to assess the possibility of Steele’s unverified claims. ![]() Not even opinion journalists claimed his allegations should be considered factually true. The mainstream media did not treat Steele’s allegations as facts. Steele himself estimated the tips were only around 70 to 90 percent accurate, and almost nobody would put the percentage anywhere near that high many of the allegations he compiled came through interested parties or second- and thirdhand gossip. The tip sheet was always seen as unproven, even by those of us who gave it some credence. ![]() The pretext for this chorus of new complaints that Trump has been treated very unfairly is new revelations about the Steele dossier. National Review, which in the past has wandered from the pro-Trump line on some matters, now alleges the FBI “relied on the shoddy document to surveil an American citizen in an investigation that produced the Mueller probe and a two-year-long obsession with Trump and Russian built on a preposterous foundation.” You can find the same line in organs like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and the Washington Examiner, not to mention the ordinary houses of Trump worship like the Federalist. The novel development is that the entire conservative movement apparatus is now singing from the same hymnal. Trump’s lawsuit threat is a publicity vehicle to advance the message he has never stopped making: that the entire Russia scandal is a “hoax,” ginned up by Democrats and the Deep State, of which he and his allies are innocent, and the crimes are all on the other side. If he did, he would certainly lose, because the Times and the Post in fact uncovered enormous amounts of damning evidence against Trump and did not, contra Trump, rely on the Steele dossier, the report compiled by the British spy Christopher Steele. Trump, of course, will probably never actually file this suit. The source, however, explained that it might be possible to reconcile Mr Steele’s apparent reputation for solid thoroughness with all the scepticism about the contents of the dossier.Donald Trump’s attorney has written a letter threatening to sue the Pulitzer Committee unless it revokes the awards given to the Washington Post and the New York Times for their coverage of Trump’s secretive ties to Russia. The source added: “I know there is a danger if you are doing a very big case and you are a small company, and you get something that seems really great, that you develop patterns of group think, and you start to believe your stuff – as happened for example with the Niger yellowcake story. And on a big case you should test the information more than you do on a small case.” Then we have to test the information they supply to us. “I would imagine he worked through Russian subcontractors,” the source said. Instead, the source said, Mr Steele may have had to work through Russian subcontractors – who might have a financial incentive to please their paymasters with impressive-looking information, or who may have gossiped with other Russians keen to exaggerate the extent of their knowledge. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |