The Steele Dossier turned out to be untrue?

[Baitball Blogger]

Morning Joe just made that statement. Is that true?

[underpants]

1. Some parts yes some no

I’m curious about other responses here.

Steele started with the same premise held by a lot of people - that Trump could at least be compromised possibly an asset and the hiring of Carter Paige sent up red flags for a lot of intel people.

[Mike 03]

2. It's not right to say that IMO

It's been a long time since I've read it, but the subsequent books about RussiaGate take pains to remind readers that the vast majority of the Steele Dossier was corroborated. When people say it was "a lie" or untrue they are usually referring to the "pee tapes." It's true that the pee tapes were never corroborated, but nor have they ever been discredited. And it's easy to understand why.

Maybe other DUers will have another opinion, but that's how I view the Steele Dossier.

An important thing to keep in mind about the SD is that it never pretended to be "the truth." It was a collection of tips gathered over a period of months from sources Steele believed to be mostly credible, offered for what they were worth rather than as an assertion of fact.

Christopher Steele was no charlatan; he ran the Russia Desk at MI-6 and had a stellar reputation.

[Jarqui]

3. That's not my recollection

A bunch of the document was established to be true.
Another bunch of the document couldn't be proved or disproved.
A smaller portion of the document was disproved.

On the preponderance of the evidence, I'd say much of the document is either true or probably true.

[donkeypoofed]

9. That's my recollection, too!!

[soothsayer]

12. Lawfareblog does a pretty good breakdown of it

They say:

These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically. The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

It gets a pretty good rating

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/

Snip
Although Lawfare is known for their straight factual reporting, they also produce editorial content that frequently discusses President Trump’s legal issues and policy that may not be constitutional. This reporting is always evidence-based. In general, Lawfare is factual and utilizes minimal personal bias and does not takes sides. They clearly report on the law and how it impacts national security.

A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check. In fact, they are used as a resource for IFCN fact-checkers.

Overall, we rate Lawfare Blog Least Biased based on evidence-based balanced reporting. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and for being used as a resource for verified fact-checkers. (5/14/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 5/27/2020)

[uponit7771]

4. No, most of it was ... NOT ... untrue that's a bad assessment and feeds winger narrative.

[SheltieLover]

7. This!👆

[C_U_L8R]

5. The dossier's purpose was not to parse truth

It was a compilation of intelligence - truths, half truths, rumors and lies. That was its purpose.

[OnDoutside]

6. It wasn't a Dossier. It was a collection of raw data memos, that would

then get further scrutiny. I believe most of it is true but we won't know how much until Trump is gone, and a proper inquiry takes place.

[Boxerfan]

18. We have a winner....

Media is so piss poor at explaining this.

[Mike 03]

8. By the way, good catch.

I didn't hear the entire program this morning. I'm pissed that he said that, actually, and glad that you are bringing it to our attention.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I was really surprised how he took an offense position, claiming that they also

said it was untrue.

[abqtommy]

10. I've read that most of the dossier, if not all, has proved true...

[panader0]

14. Yep--the only thing that hasn't been shown are the golden shower tapes.

Putin will release them after he is done with trump.

[soothsayer]

13. Lawfareblog has a good review that says things in the SD are true or haven't been disproven

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

It’s a legit site according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/lawfare-blog/

[NewJeffCT]

16. lawfare is a very good site

lots of very good lawyers

[Sympthsical]

15. It's kind of a mess to be honest

Some of it is true, some blatantly untrue. It was a compilation with a lot of different sources. Some of the sources are trustworthy, others are incredibly problematic. I went down that rabbit hole once, and there are parts I couldn't make heads or tails of.

The real problem is how the dossier was used in various courts. That's the frayed thread Republicans are pulling on.

The thing is, we don't even need the dossier at this point. We have three years of Trump's record with Russia to condemn him. He's clearly friendly and cooperative with Putin and Russia. That's what gives even the most problematic parts of the dossier the ring of truth. Even if some of the sources are iffy, it certainly sounds as if what they're asserting is at least plausible.

At the end of the day, we're going to use our own lenses. I absolutely think there was some kind of money laundering happening. The financials, Deutsch Bank, the whole mess. There's just far too much smoke there to not be a raging fire.

I'm honestly a bit surprised officials haven't gotten to the meat of it yet. But it seems SDNY is really getting into it. We'll see how long Berman lasts.

[Wounded Bear]

19. The dossier was raw intel data, not facts or even opinion...

IIRC it was never used as a basis for any warrants.

[Sympthsical]

21. When you get into the Carter Page stuff

Things get very murky. Some of the sources were pretty problematic, IIRC.

It's been awhile since I dove into the whole thing. But I remember thinking at the time, "Ooh, that's not good," about various sources. Not all. Not even the majority. But there is iffiness in places. Enough for Republicans to take small pieces and try to discredit the whole thing. It's incredibly complicated, and media summaries don't even dent the surface of how it all came about.

But the Russia bell won't be unrung. There's just too much damning Trump in all of it.

[Gothmog]

17. No

[Baked Potato]

20. It's true in my mind. It was tame, IMO. Trump is way worse.

[ScratchCat]

22. Let me say this about the "pee tape"

It has always been my opinion that the "pee tape" rumor is true because the allegation/story is way too specific. If you were going to make something up and feed it as disinformation, you just say "they have a tape of Trump with hookers". The entire scenario of hookers and the bed the Obama's slept in is just way to "out there" for someone to have dreamed it up. You don't have to go that far, and who would have come up with THAT anyway? No, you say "...tape with hookers" or, at worst, "...underage hookers". Urinating on the bed Obama slept in - no way some "iffy source" came up with that.