What’s not to love about anonymous sources who know things, and then pass them onto Christopher Steele, the former British agent turned dossier author for the anti-Trump forces. According to an expose on him in The New Yorker (hey, there’s a trustworthy publication/s) Russia is taking credit for supplying information to the nefarious former spy to keep Mitt Romney out of the Secretary of State office.
One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney. (During Romney’s run for the White House in 2012, he was notably hawkish on Russia, calling it the single greatest threat to the U.S.) The memo said that the Kremlin, through unspecified channels, had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions, and who would coöperate on security issues of interest to Russia, such as the conflict in Syria. If what the source heard was true, then a foreign power was exercising pivotal influence over U.S. foreign policy—and an incoming President.
If true, that would be stunning. However, at this point, no proof of that has surfaced, and according to all reports, this is not what actually happened. Neither side has commented on any of Trump’s lengthy conversations with Mitt Romney during the transition, and Trump has denied considering him for the Secretary of State spot. Not only that, if there was any collusion of this sort with Russia, someone of the investigations into Trump’s dealings with the nation would have turned up communications.
So far, there is nothing.So, why is it that publications like The New Yorker and The Hill are running with these salacious headlines without named sources? Because there literally is nothing concretely negative to report against Donald Trump. The opposition is left with nothing but dung. And they are spreading it around.