Why the Steele Dossier Lacks Credibility as an Accusatory Tool Against Trump
The Steele Dossier, a series of field intelligence reports compiled by Christopher Steele, has long been a source of debate and scrutiny in the context of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This document, paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign, was intended to gather intelligence on Donald Trump's team from foreign sources. However, despite its initial prominence, the dossier has since been discredited and is no longer considered a reliable source for mounting an attack on Trump. This article will explore the key reasons why the Steele Dossier lacks credibility and why it has not been widely used to prosecute accusations against the former president.
The Construction and Validation of the Steele Dossier
The Steele Dossier consists of reports compiled by Christopher Steele, an ex-intelligence operative, and later published by Sky News. These reports were allegedly sourced from a coalition of Russian intelligence sources, the UK's MI6, and the Ukrainian government. However, the dossier has not been validated by independent sources and is widely regarded as unverified information.
On August 5, 2020, Sally Yates testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that one of the main reasons the FBI initiated surveillance on the Trump campaign was the Steele Dossier. However, during her testimony, she noted that she did not know who provided the intel and that the information contained within the dossier was mere hearsay. She also stated that if she had known the truth, the FISA warrant would not have been issued.
The Lack of Evidence and Relevance
Despite the initial sensationalism, the Steele Dossier has ultimately proven to be a collection of unverified information. While the dossier did mention some potential interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian entities, none of the specific claims have been verified by credible sources. This lack of substantive evidence has made it nearly impossible to use the dossier as a tool to launch an attack on Trump.
For example, the dossier reported that Carter Page met with Russians before the election. While this claim is not entirely false, it has been substantiated by factual evidence, such as Page's own admissions. Similarly, the dossier suggested that Paul Manafort and others communicated with Russians to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton's campaign. However, these claims have not been confirmed by independent sources.
The Process and Influence of the Dossier
The Steele Dossier was initially presented to the FBI in June and July 2016. The FBI showed a high level of interest in the dossier, but the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign did not incorporate the information into their campaign strategies. The dossier was also shared with John McCain and several members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who vouched for its credibility, but still, there was no substantial action taken.
Michael Cohen, a longtime advisor to Donald Trump, testified that the 'p-tape' (a claimed taped conversation with Trump) does not exist. This further demonstrates the lack of concrete evidence in the dossier. Additionally, the claims about Russian interference through the Putin administration's actions have been largely corroborated through subsequent investigations and public disclosures, not the Steele Dossier itself.
Conclusion and Future Implications
In summary, the Steele Dossier, while initially viewed as a powerful and credible source, has ultimately failed to provide the smoking gun that many were hoping for. The dossier is composed of a mix of rumour, unverified information, and hearsay, making it an unreliable source for mounting a substantial and credible case against President Trump.
It is crucial to note that while the Steele Dossier did inspire further investigations into Russian interference during the 2016 election, the bulk of the evidence uncovered has come from legitimate sources and investigations, not from the unverified claims of the Steele Dossier. This case underscores the importance of rigorous verification in the world of intelligence and politics, and why the Steele Dossier has ultimately not occupied a central place in the narrative of the 2016 election.