How does the Steele dossier hold up so far?

[Cardinal]

Lawfare goes into good detail on where we stand with the revelations that have come out to date and how those facts correspond to the raw intelligence collected by British agent Christopher Steele.

Lawfare concludes:

As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops.

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

To date, the various claims in the dossier can be be placed into three categories:

1) Unconfirmed
2) Confirmed
3) The Cohen Prague meeting was refuted by Cohen, though the authors of the Lawfare article are careful to note that this refutation was made by Cohen when he was solidly in Trump's camp, and long before he began cooperating with Mueller and the SDNY. It may or may not come out that such a meeting really did happen. Until then, and two years after the dossier became public, this remains the only point in the dossier to be directly refuted.

Trump supporters will claim that the Steele dossier has been thoroughly "debunked." What they will not do, however, is cite specific claims in the report that have been directly refuted by facts known today (aside from the one Prague meeting claim, of course, a refutation now thrown into doubt by the fact that Cohen was lying in order to undermine any investigation into the Russia/Trump connection).

 

[NeverTrump]

Lawfare goes into good detail on where we stand with the revelations that have come out to date and how those facts correspond to the raw intelligence collected by British agent Christopher Steele.

Lawfare concludes:



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

To date, the various claims in the dossier can be be placed into three categories:

1) Unconfirmed
2) Confirmed
3) The Cohen Prague meeting was refuted by Cohen, though the authors of the Lawfare article are careful to note that this refutation was made by Cohen when he was solidly in Trump's camp, and long before he began cooperating with Mueller and the SDNY. It may or may not come out that such a meeting really did happen. Until then, and two years after the dossier became public, this remains the only point in the dossier to be directly refuted.

Trump supporters will claim that the Steele dossier has been thoroughly "debunked." What they will not do, however, is cite specific claims in the report that have been directly refuted by facts known today (aside from the one Prague meeting claim, of course, a refutation now thrown into doubt by the fact that Cohen was lying in order to undermine any investigation into the Russia/Trump connection).

I've seen pretty significant evidence from a number of my twitter followers who kept an eagle eye on this whole mess that there was an international gang of thieves who traveled the world looking for these emails at the behest of one Donald J. Trump. Cohen was only one of them.

 

[Grokmaster]

Lawfare goes into good detail on where we stand with the revelations that have come out to date and how those facts correspond to the raw intelligence collected by British agent Christopher Steele.

Lawfare concludes:



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

To date, the various claims in the dossier can be be placed into three categories:

1) Unconfirmed
2) Confirmed
3) The Cohen Prague meeting was refuted by Cohen, though the authors of the Lawfare article are careful to note that this refutation was made by Cohen when he was solidly in Trump's camp, and long before he began cooperating with Mueller and the SDNY. It may or may not come out that such a meeting really did happen. Until then, and two years after the dossier became public, this remains the only point in the dossier to be directly refuted.

Trump supporters will claim that the Steele dossier has been thoroughly "debunked." What they will not do, however, is cite specific claims in the report that have been directly refuted by facts known today (aside from the one Prague meeting claim, of course, a refutation now thrown into doubt by the fact that Cohen was lying in order to undermine any investigation into the Russia/Trump connection).

Oh...you've seen it?

By ALL MEANS, please SPECIFY what has been CONFIRMED.


Then explain why the UNCONFIRMED DATA WAS ALSO SWORN UPON AS LEGIT FBI INTEL TO GET A FISA WARRANT, when it was actually UNCONFIRMED , OPPOSITION RESEARCH BOUGHT FROM THE RUSSIANS?


Let us know when Steele return can VERIFY ANY OF IT....the FBI already admitted THEY COULD NOT, and STILL USED IT FOR A FISA WARRANT. (Illegal...on numerous counts.)