The Steele Dossier Mentions ‘DNC Moles’ Collaborating With Trump And Russia

The Steele Dossier is unreadable trash, it’s not just “salacious and unverified” as Jim Comey described it at the time he threw it on Trump’s desk in what appears to be a pathetic blackmail attempt.

It’s likely that almost none of the central allegations contained within the dossier are true, while the things that are verifiable could easily be found in public news reports. Literally, every name, place or happening could have been made up by reading the news and turning it into fan fiction.

For example, we still don’t have those recordings of Trump paying Russian hookers to pee on a bed that Barack and Michelle Obama once slept upon at the Moscow Ritz Carlton. We also don’t have independent verification that Trump rented out an entire Moscow movie theater to watch Japanese “Hentai” pornography – once again with a gaggle of hookers – or that he couldn’t make any Russian business deals and had to settle for indulging his “perversions” instead.

It gets a little more interesting when you consider that Steele’s “sources” seem to have a seat in the most intimate of Russian and American intelligence settings (such as somehow knowing that Putin “personally supervised” Trump’s dossier). If that’s true, why wouldn’t American intelligence have the same information first? Steele left the “Russia Desk” of British intelligence eight years before writing the dossier, for which Hillary Clinton paid him $168,000.

Steele’s July 16, 2016, dossier entry claims that Trump ran an intelligence network inside the United States, which included “DNC moles,” yet Comey’s FBI (quite tellingly) had absolutely no interest in confirming whether any of this was true.

Adding to the intrigue, this report was written just six days after DNC Staffer Seth Rich was gunned down in the street, during a “botched robbery.” If we believe everything else in the dossier, can we be sure that Trump’s “team” didn’t take him out?

Why wouldn’t the FBI want to know whether the DNC hack was an inside job?

Steele said “DNC moles” were inside the organization–working with Russian hackers inside the US–in a team led by Donald Trump. Isn’t that a threat to national security?

When FBI agents met with Steele in Rome on July 31, 2016, wasn’t anything from the report two weeks earlier discussed? And after they started the “Russia probe,” the investigators seemed to target everyone, except anyone would have had any real proof supporting Steele’s “DNC moles” intel lead.

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray said he met with a “disgusted” DNC employee in a wooded area near American University, where he took a data drive containing the DNC emails. He then delivered them to Wikileaks. There is no indication Comey or Mueller have ever tried to interview him.

On August 9, 2016, just days after the FBI opened its “Russia” investigation, Julian Assange did an interview with a Dutch TV station and brought up Seth Rich, specifically, while refusing to “comment on who [Wikileaks] sources are.”

Wikileaks also issued a $20,000 reward for leads about Seth Rich’s killer. Why would they do that?

It’s telling that neither Comey nor Mueller have ever tried to interview Julian Assange. Comey actively tried to block an immunity deal for Julian Assange, under which he would have testified about how Russia was not the source of the DNC leaks. Why wouldn’t he want to properly identify America’s biggest electoral threat?

Former Congressman Dana Rohrbacher went to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, visited Assange, and viewed Assange’s evidence proving Russia wasn’t the source of the DNC leak. He tried to brief President Trump on his findings, but was reportedly blocked by Chief of Staff John Kelly. Rohrbacher was similarly ignored by Comey and Mueller.

The dumbest part of the Russia investigation coverage is how we’re supposed to believe serial liars like Michael Cohen, yet anyone who even wonders if someone like Seth Rich was involved in delivering the DNC emails is a “conspiracy theorist.” Was Steele a conspiracy theorist for saying “DNC moles” participated in the hack? If so, why do we believe anything else he says?

While it’s impossible to know the truth, it’s pretty clear that certain people involved in this investigation are a lot more interested in laying stupid perjury traps and conducting ceremonial prosecutions to cover for Steele and their own friends than they are in identifying the real participants.

Big Daddy Unlimited Big Daddy Unlimited
Show More

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
Notify of

Related Articles

Back to top button