,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
That the Mueller Report vindicated the Steele dossier at approximately the percentage Steele adjudged his own raw pre-processed intel to be accurate—about 70%—isn't something one can have an opinion on. It's fact. Don't know what the hell Greenwald and Woodward are talking about.
Steele's intel was *so* good he knew the topic of talks between a top Russian minister and Carter Page; his intel was *so* good he knew the content of talks between Page and Putin lieutenant Sechin; his intel was *so* good he knew of Trump kompromat tapes when only oligarchs did.
Steele *correctly* pegged the roles Manafort, Page, Cohen, Sechin, Lavrov, and others were playing in Trump-Russia contacts. Certain things he wrote—that Russians were *talking* about Cohen being in Prague—were miscast ("Steele says Cohen was in Prague") to falsely discredit him.
Now we have people like Woodward going on FNC to say Mueller "said" Steele's dossier was "garbage." Man, I'm going to need a page cite on that, because I'm reasonably certain Mueller said no such thing and that Bob is just trying to stay relevant to *someone*—here, conservatives.
Meanwhile, people like Greenwald are citing *their own bad reporting* for what the allegations against Trump ever were, as they have *zero* evidence that any notable percentage of the mainstream media said Trump had an *agreement with the IRA or GRU*. That's a *crazy* allegation.
The Mueller Report could've made a call on obstruction, but everyone I know sees the strategy in Mueller passing the issue to Congress. *No one* is upset about the conspiracy finding because no one alleged *that* type of collusion. The *only* upset is Jr. being let off the hook.
But when you see the basis for Jr. being let off—Mueller wasn't sure how to put a value on Veselnitskaya's oppo and couldn't (once Jr. *refused to be interviewed*) determine if Jr. *knew* he was breaking the law (which Mueller implies he did)—it seems much less like a Trump win.
The idea Trump Jr.'s consciousness-of-guilt evidence—like issuing a false statement to the public he knew (once he *refused to be interviewed*) would also be used by law enforcement—wasn't enough to establish mens rea should rile every U.S. citizen. You'd *never* get that break.
And that's the best part: you have some BS men-of-the-people like Taibbi or Greenwald—or journalists like Woodward—*endorsing* a double-standard for how offenses are charged that favors trust-fund criminals who don't get charged because the feds know it'd be too much of a hassle.
Mueller even said as much, noting that part of his consideration in not charging Jr. was a tactical consideration of what the benefit of such a prosecution would be—meaning, it'd throw the country into turmoil, in the view of some cast a partisan light on the whole SCO, and more.
If you or I or a neighbor of yours told known Russian government agents "I love it" in response to an offer of illegal campaign donations, then took such an in-kind donation, then set sanctions policy to pay Russia back, then lied about it in a public statement—you'd get charged.
And I suspect Jr. would've been charged, too, if he'd ever subjected himself to Mueller's questioning—which is (a) why he didn't, and (b) why Trump had to go on Twitter and lie about all his people agreeing to talk to Mueller, because Jr. refusing to made him look *super* guilty.
But none of that involves Steele. Steele's a highly respected former MI6 agent—with Russian sources so good he was assigned to *train other spies*—who tried to give America good (raw) intel to protect its national security and *only* went to the press once the FBI started lying.
