This is so ridiculous, it’s almost unbelievable. Christopher Steele admitted during testimony that he used CNN viewer comments as verification for his dossier claims.
Americans know that the dossier complied and used against President Trump was bogus. Despite that fact, the corrupt and devious Obama administration used the ‘evidence’ to open secret warrants to spy on the campaign with it.
A judge ruled that these transcripts had to be released starting on March 14, and the subsequent information that is rolling out shows the Obama administration’s interference in a presidential election.
The new revelations from Steele’s testimony are simply further confirmation of the set up.
“Jerry Dunleavy reported at The Washington Examiner Friday that according to deposition transcripts released this week, Steele allegedly backed up parts of his dossier not from CNN reports but from posts on CNN’s iReport website, to which anyone could post their views, with CNN noting the user-generated stories were “not edited, fact-checked, or screened.” In other words, Steele used user comments as evidence.
During his deposition, Steele was pressed on the methods he used to verify allegations made about Webzilla, which was thought to be used by Russia to hack into Democratic emails.
When asked if he discovered “anything of relevance concerning Webzilla” during the verification process, Steele replied: “We did. It was an article I have got here which was posted on July 28, 2009, on something called CNN iReport.”
“I do not have any particular knowledge of that,” Steele said when asked what was his understanding of how the iReport website worked.
When asked if he understood that content on the site was not generated by CNN reporters, he said, “I do not.” He was then asked: “Do you understand that they have no connection to any CNN reporters?” Steele replied, “I do not.”
He was pressed on this further: “Do you understand that CNN iReports are or were nothing more than any random individuals’ assertions on the Internet?” Steele replied: “No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it may has some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”
Citing actual CNN reports is risky enough, by user-generated posts? And this guy was a spy?