The Steele dossier, which the FBI used as justification to spy on onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page, is almost certainly a work of fiction.
In fact, the dossier that also served as the foundation for the media’s manic coverage of supposed Russian collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign may itself be a Russian counterintelligence propaganda product.
Amazingly, rather than strike a conciliatory note and apologize for uncritically promoting a document whose primary source has since been indicted on five counts of lying to federal investigators, certain journalists who faithfully endorsed the dossier have fallen back on a defense that amounts to saying, “Close enough!”
“Even if every single word in the Steele dossier was wrong,” the Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum mused this week, “that would not change the fact that the Russians sought to manipulate the U.S. election using hacked material and a disinformation campaign.”
She added, “Nor would it change the fact that the Trump family welcomed this intervention.”
The brazenness of it all — to ignore entirely that the FBI used this fake document to spy on an actual presidential campaign. That alone poses a far greater danger to the republic than all the Russian bots that littered Twitter in 2016 combined.
Applebaum’s argument is even more ridiculous when one recalls her effort to promote and legitimize the dossier.
In 2017, she promoted a New York Times story titled “How a sensational, unverified dossier became a crisis for Donald Trump.” Applebaum then alleged, “The political origins of the dossier have long been known. Problem was that so many European intelligence agencies had similar information.”
But now she is arguing, “Sure, the dossier may be a lie. This doesn’t change that Russia and Trump are bad!”
Also, Applebaum’s casual dismissal of the grave implications of the dossier incident ignores that nearly everyone involved in creating it worked for Russia.
“Steele was working for Deripaska,” Bloomberg Opinion’s Eli Lake notes. “Fusion GPS was working with Veselnitskaya to advance Russian interests and discredit the Magnitsky Act. Charles Dolan was an unregistered lobbyist for Gazprom.”
Ignore all that, Applebaum says. What was reported and what was promised regarding the dossier is basically “close enough.”
“Given the fact that the Russians sought to manipulate the U.S. election campaign using hacked material and a disinformation campaign,” she said this week, “it was not stupid for the FBI to take the Steele dossier seriously. Was a mistake to publish it, but that wasn’t the FBI’s fault.”
She added, “Some of the confused responses to this very uncomplicated and uncontroversial statement reflect just how much damage Trump’s lies have done to the American psyche. Tragic that so many of you fell for them,” wrote this person who fell for the Steele dossier.
If you can believe it, Applebaum is not the only former dossier enthusiast to retreat to the “close enough” position.
“Steele’s overall thrust was that Russia was trying to interfere in the 2016 election,” said New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer, who did more to legitimize the dossier than just about anyone. “And about that he was absolutely right, correct?”
No, the overall thrust of the dossier was not that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Russia has been interfering for years. Just ask former President Barack Obama and former Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
The overall thrust of the dossier was that there was an explicit and coordinated “conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump 2016 campaign and senior officials in Moscow. This is an explosive claim — one that suggests criminal activity on Trump’s part.
Too bad for the people who bought the dossier hook, line, and sinker that it appears to have been a complete fraud. But even now, when proven wrong, they lack the humility and good judgment to admit they fell for something that reinforced their own prejudices.
