The Clinton Campaign and the DNC paid for the FAKE Steele Dossier against Trump. They were CROOKS!!! WE TOLD YOU!!!
The Clinton Campaign, the DNC, and the Steele Dossier: Unpacking the Controversy
The claim that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) funded the “fake” Steele Dossier to undermine Donald Trump during the 2016 election has become a rallying cry for critics of the Russia investigation. Supporters of Trump often frame the dossier as a fabricated smear campaign orchestrated by political opponents, encapsulated in phrases like “CROOKS!!! WE TOLD YOU!!!” This article examines the origins, funding, credibility, and legacy of the Steele Dossier, exploring the factual basis of these claims and their impact on U.S. politics.
1. Origins of the Steele Dossier
The Steele Dossier refers to a series of memos authored by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, between June and December 2016. Steele was hired by the private intelligence firm Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia during the presidential campaign. The dossier gained notoriety for its explosive allegations, including claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, as well as salacious personal details about Trump.
Key points:
- Purpose: Initially funded by a conservative website (The Washington Free Beacon) during the Republican primary, Fusion GPS’s research was later financed by the DNC and Clinton campaign through their law firm, Perkins Coie, after Trump became the GOP nominee.
- Content: The dossier alleged that Russia had compromising material on Trump (“kompromat”) and described a coordinated effort by Russian intelligence to interfere in the election.
Critics argue the dossier was politically motivated opposition research, while defenders claim it was a legitimate attempt to uncover potential national security risks.
2. Funding and Political Context
The Clinton Campaign and DNC’s financial role in the dossier’s creation is well-documented but was initially obscured. Perkins Coie, representing both entities, paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million for research in 2016, with $168,000 allocated to Steele’s work. This arrangement was revealed in late 2017, fueling accusations of hypocrisy: Democrats had condemned Trump’s alleged Russia ties while secretly funding research that relied on foreign sources (Steele).
Controversies:
- Campaign Finance: Conservatives argued the payments violated disclosure laws, as they were labeled as “legal services” rather than opposition research. However, no charges were filed.
- Foreign Involvement: Steele, a foreign national, gathered information from Russian contacts, raising ethical questions about outsourcing political research abroad.
The Clinton campaign defended the effort as standard opposition research, comparable to practices by both parties.
3. Credibility of the Dossier: Fact vs. Fiction
The dossier’s accuracy remains hotly debated. While some claims were corroborated, others were disproven or remain unverified:
Corroborated Elements:
- Russian Interference: The dossier correctly identified that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign, later confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies.
- Contacts Between Trump Associates and Russians: Some individuals named in the dossier, such as Paul Manafort and Carter Page, were indeed scrutinized for their Russia ties.
Unverified or Debunked Claims:
- The infamous “pee tape” allegation remains unproven.
- Specific details about Trump-Russia collusion lacked concrete evidence.
The Mueller Report (2019) concluded that while Russia interfered “sweepingly” in the election, there was insufficient evidence to charge Trump’s campaign with criminal conspiracy. Steele himself admitted the dossier was raw intelligence, not verified facts.
4. Political and Legal Repercussions
The dossier’s release had far-reaching consequences:
For the FBI:
- The dossier was used to secure a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Carter Page, a Trump adviser. A 2019 DOJ inspector general report found the FBI made significant errors in its FISA applications by omitting context about Steele’s credibility and his anti-Trump bias.
For the Clinton Campaign and DNC:
- Republicans accused Democrats of exploiting the dossier to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. The House Intelligence Committee, under GOP control, called the dossier a product of “Clinton-approved disinformation.”
- Legal fallout was minimal. Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe criticized the FBI’s haste but did not charge Clinton allies with crimes related to the dossier.
5. Public Perception and Legacy
The Steele Dossier became a symbol of the hyper-partisan divide in U.S. politics:
Trump’s Base: Viewed the dossier as “fake news” central to a “Deep State” plot to sabotage Trump. The “CROOKS!!!” narrative resonates here, portraying Clinton and the DNC as corrupt actors.
Democrats and Liberals: Argued the dossier, while flawed, highlighted genuine concerns about Russian meddling. They note that Trump’s campaign welcomed Russia’s help (e.g., the 2016 Trump Tower meeting) even if collusion wasn’t criminally proven.
Media’s Role: Outlets faced backlash for overhyping the dossier’s most lurid claims. Retractions and lawsuits (e.g., against BuzzFeed for publishing the full dossier) followed.
6. Conclusion: A Complex Legacy
The Steele Dossier is neither wholly “fake” nor entirely credible. Its creation reflects the cutthroat nature of political opposition research, while its flaws underscore the dangers of relying on uncorroborated intelligence. The Clinton Campaign and DNC’s involvement, though legal, deepened distrust in institutions and amplified conspiracy theories.
For Trump’s supporters, the dossier epitomizes partisan skullduggery. For critics, it’s a cautionary tale about foreign interference. Regardless of perspective, the saga underscores the enduring impact of the 2016 election on America’s political discourse—a legacy of division that continues to shape elections today.
#Trump #Election #Democracy