The State of Russiagate

 

Ross Douthat, in his Op-ed, "the State of Russiagate"  (3/3/19, SR11), analyzes the testimony of Michael Cohen to assess the accuracy of the Steele Dossier and to predict that the impending Mueller Report likely will exonerate Donald Trump from willfully conspiring with the Russians. To the extent that Mr. Douthat's piece relies upon Mr. Cohen's testimony to undercut the Dossier, I submit that Mr. Douthat has chosen the wrong standard of measurement.

Sean Hannity perpetually proclaims that the Steele Dossier was compiled by a foreign spy who hates Donald Trump and was fed Russian lies paid for by Hillary Clinton to damage the Trump campaign. Hannity always adds that Steele himself expressed doubt about the veracity of his report which had been used by a renegade FBI and Department of Justice to defraud FISA court judges. Each of these assertions are either falsehoods or half-truths.

Christopher Steele was a long-time, respected operative of British intelligence with a network of Russian informants who, at great risk , provided information in defiance of the Russian government which, as even Putin has admitted, favored Trump and which has been shown to have been interested in promoting his campaign, not damaging it. Steele was a trusted and valued source for American intelligence and provided useful information in the past. Steele's promulgation of the Dossier was driven not by a hatred of Trump per se but by an abiding apprehension that Trump could be a tool of the Kremlin, thus posing a grave danger to the West.

The claim that he doubted his own report is based on testimony given by him at a deposition in which he reportedly said, in effect, that he could not confirm that the Russians had proof of Trump's sexual shenanigans in Moscow and that the odds of a particular incident (the "Golden Shower") being true was probably 50-50. He did not otherwise express doubt about the substance of the Dossier.

Steele's inquiry into Russian influence on Trump was initiated at the request and expense of a Trump opponent in the Republican primary and was only later taken up by the Clinton campaign. The Dossier's claims, which have been substantially proven, never surfaced during the campaign and, contrary to Hannity's harangue, were never used to damage his possible election. Furthermore, the use of the Dossier, to obtain FISA warrants, was made with full disclosure and did not mislead FISA judges.

So, whether Mueller finds that the Trump campaign was a knowing collaborator with Russia's interference in the election or was just a witless and willing tool in that effort remains to be seen. But I am confident that Mueller's conclusion will not be based upon a refutation of the Steele Dossier or Michael Cohen's alleged ignorance of collusion.