Steele’s dossier written by a former British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele was absurd and contained unconvincing evidence, reported National Review Friday.
According to the report, Steele, the author of the shoddy document, doesn’t stand behind the dossier any more. When asked about the compiled file in the courtroom, when he was sued for libel, Steele said that the information he passed to US officials was “unverified” and raw. The dossier contains a great number of mistakes, such as misspellings and wrongly portraying the basic facts, but that didn’t stop Obama administration from making it a centerpiece of the investigation into alleged collusion between then-president-elect Donald Trump and Russia.
The dossier was compiled before the election and was meant to harm Trump campaign. Steele suggested that Russians had been “cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump” for a long time and provided Trump “and his inner circle with a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”
However, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who conducted the investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 US presidential election, found no conspiracy and no Trump-Russia collusion, which once again proves that Steele’s dossier is a “shoddy piece of work.”
Natalia Veselnitskaya – official website