| bunchanumbers said: According to other articles the dossier was around for quite a while. |
But it WAS reported... indirectly.
MSM were since October writing stories based on it, without spilling the entire dossier:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
The recent brouhaha over "Intelligence briefings" about Russian compromise/blackmail of Trump were based on the report.
Those were instigated by Senator McCain giving the dossier to FBI and that was what these briefings were about.
.@SenJohnMcCain confirms gave Trump dossier to FBI, was "unable to make a judgment about their accuracy" pic.twitter.com/DpvHP9Yrbg
— Molly O'Toole (@mollymotoole) January 11, 2017
And it's fine and normal for FBI etc to analyze all sources, but MSM coverage of briefings gave it more credibility than justified.
And that was DELIBERATE obfuscation, because MSM was IN POSSESSION of same dossier all along, yet didn't reveal that fact.
So they didn't think it newsworthy, yet were reporting news about briefing based on dossier which is not newsworthy. OK.
They presented FBI briefings as being about some secret government intelligence, when they had the dossier themself.
They could have told public exactly what was happening, but they didn't, they left out relevant info while running stories about
"Donald Trump ignoring the serious briefings of intelligence agencies" when they knew exactly what the BS dossier was.
That is why I wrote the Buzzfeed publication of dossier, which was not secret government document and was widely circulated,
was in almost all likelyhood NOT "part of the plan" because releasing it provided concrete basis for verification,
AS OPPOSED to the MSM reportage of the FBI/CIA "briefings" which were covering the allegations of the dossier.
Maybe a quote from Glen Greenwald's coverage of the story at The_Intercept will make it clearer:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/
One can certainly object to BuzzFeed’s decision and, as the New York Times noted this morning, many journalists are doing so. It’s almost impossible to imagine a scenario where it’s justifiable for a news outlet to publish a totally anonymous, unverified, unvetted document filled with scurrilous and inflammatory allegations about which its own editor-in-chief says there “is serious reason to doubt the allegations,” on the ground that they want to leave it to the public to decide whether to believe it.
But even if one believes there is no such case where that is justified, yesterday’s circumstances presented the most compelling scenario possible for doing this. Once CNN strongly hinted at these allegations, it left it to the public imagination to conjure up the dirt Russia allegedly had to blackmail and control Trump. By publishing these accusations, BuzzFeed ended that speculation. More importantly, it allowed everyone to see how dubious this document is, one the CIA and CNN had elevated into some sort of grave national security threat.
