I'm including a link to the article by Jane Mayer in
The New Yorker:
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
I think Finn's blanket condemnation of the article is telling.
Finn wrote:The New Yorker just published an article by Jane Mayer that contends that Trump chose Rex Tillerson over Mitt Romney for his Secretary of State at the direction of the Kremlin, because all of the dirt in the salacious Steele Dossier is true and the evidence of this is being held over Trump's head.
There is enough material available to seriously question Trump's ties to Russia even if the "salacious" parts of the "dirty dossier" are ignored. Putin is smart enough to realize that his guy in the White House is under
some constraints and will occasionally be forced to take steps which might antagonize relations between the two countries but Trump's willingness to jettison Romney could have been done freely as there was no real love between the two. You have no proof that it was the result of blackmail; I have no proof that it was.
Finn wrote:Of course, the Ukraine related sanctions have not been lifted and the Trump Administration has increased military aid to the country, well beyond the pouch-o-meals provided by the Obama Administration.
But this past January:
Fox News wrote: The Trump administration has decided not to punish anybody for now under new sanctions retaliating for Russia's election-meddling, the State Department said Monday, in a surprising move that fueled further questions about whether President Donald Trump is too soft on Moscow.
FOX
Moving on:
Finn wrote:No matter how stupid anyone believes Trump is, he's certainly not so dumb as to think that the Kremlin would interpret the firing of cruise missiles against a Syrian airbase shortly after he was inaugurated as cooperating on the conflict in Syria.
I believe that was one salvo in response to the use of poison gas. It hardly represents significant and persistent US military activity in defiance of Russia.
Finn wrote:The article is a blatant piece of propaganda intended to help rehabilitate the image of Richard Steele, and Mayer not only casts him in a sympathetic light, she attempts to lionize him.
It's odd that the Mayer article is categorically denounced this way, especially since
The New Yorker, while liberal, has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity. Yet Finn was quick to defend
The Nation, a truly left-wing publication, and uncritically accept editor Stephen Cohen's ridiculous attempt to cast doubt on Russian culpability in the hacking of the DNC. (I don't remember if Finn was pushing the Seth Rich story as well.)
Finn wrote:The article is a blatant piece of propaganda intended to help rehabilitate the image of Richard [sic] Steele, and Mayer not only casts him in a sympathetic light, she attempts to lionize him.
Steele's image doesn't need "rehabilitation" (the attempted Republican hatchet job notwithstanding) nor has he been "lionized" to any degree that would appear outmatched to his importance in this whole stinking affair.
I hope people will read the Mayer piece carefully and critically. When you're finished, look back at
Finn's criticism and see if you think it to be pertinent. I don't doubt that he found the conclusions objectionable but the article hardly warrants giving the Trump organization a "home free" card with respect to their dealings with Russia.
The New Yorker wrote:John Sipher, the former C.I.A. officer, predicts that Mueller’s probe will render the final verdict on Steele’s dossier. “People who say it’s all garbage, or all true, are being politically biased,” Sipher said. “There’s enough there to be worthy of further study. Professionals need to look at travel records, phone records, bank records, foreign police-service cameras, and check it all out. It will take professional investigators to run it to ground.” He believes that Mueller, whose F.B.I. he worked with, “is a hundred per cent doing that.”