New York Times mocked for claiming debunked Steele dossier a ‘distraction’ from the real Russia investigation
In a new article, The New York Times attempted to minimize the impact of the Steele dossier on the Russia investigation against President Trump.
On Wednesday, national security reporter Charlie Savage explained in his story, titled “Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation,” that the now-debunked list of memos was not the basis for the main investigation into ties between Trump and Russia.
“Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump,” Savage wrote. “Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.”
He also tweeted out, “New explainer: It’s become clear that the Steele Dossier was unreliable & unworthy of the attention it received. But it was also a largely tangential distraction from the actual Russia investigation, despite misleading attempts to conflate them.” – READ MORE