“Just as Durham can’t use the dossier to deflect from the larger Trump-Russia tableau, however, people such as Maddow and others can’t use the larger Trump-Russia tableau to deflect from their coverage of the dossier. A reckoning is years overdue,” Wemple wrote.
For years, it was known as “RussiaGate”; the vast conspiracy that sought to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin, allegedly endangering the very ethos of our great nation.
But then, as we took a closer look at the mess, the situation transformed into “ObamaGate”; a conspiracy among the Democrats to concoct the idea that Trump was a Russian surrogate, using any number of clandestine and kooky methods – one of which included a bit of opposition gossip called the Steele Dossier.
Now, as the Department of Justice continues to explore the reality of RussiaGate’s origins, it appears as though some high level Democrats will have some explaining to do.
Last week, Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed by the Trump administration to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation, charged Steele sub-source Igor Danchenko over false statements made to the FBI. The indictment shed light on Danchenko’s ties to Democrats, casting doubt in the validity of the media’s past coverage of the dossier.Trending:
“The Danchenko indictment doubles as a critique of several media outlets that covered Steele’s reports in 2016 and after its publication by BuzzFeed in January 2017,” Wemple wrote on Monday. “CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, the McClatchy newspaper chain and various pundits showered credibility upon the dossier without corroboration — and found other topics to cover when a forceful debunking arrived in December 2019 via a report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.”
And, when it comes to the selective reporting of Rachel Maddow and others, Wemple laid down the law: