[AlanYx]

The thing about the Steele Dossier though is that it wasn't just "unproven allegations"; that understates the level of lack of credibility associated with the dossier that should have been obvious to the media from the start.

The basic story didn't even make sense. Here's a guy, Steele, who hadn't worked at an intelligence agency for a half decade, who somehow was still in touch with "valuable" clandestine MI6 intelligence contacts who supposedly didn't care about MI6 anonymity protections and were willing to share their secrets with dudes in the private sector in exchange for money. It was never a context likely to reveal true statements.

And the genesis of the dossier itself, being a hired project designed to only seek politically incriminating information was doomed to be biased from the start, especially in light of the foregoing. At a minimum, the media should have been more willing to couch their statements about the dossier by indicating that Steele was paid by Fusion GPS, who had been hired by the Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That would have at least prompted a lot of people to consider whether the dossier might be an honest attempt at finding real facts or might be closer to a fishy paid political hit job.

[huitzitziltzin]

> Here's a guy, Steele, who hadn't worked at an intelligence agency for a half decade, who somehow was still in touch with "valuable" clandestine MI6 intelligence contacts

I have friends from a job I haven't worked in for years. Intelligence is a little different, obviously, but it's not completely crazy.

> who supposedly didn't care about MI6 anonymity protections and were willing to share their secrets with dudes in the private sector in exchange for money.

Most sources share their information with the CIA or MI6 for money - why not share them with this guy for money? Especially if he's a former spy and someone you personally know.

I disagree that the setup makes no sense.

> being a hired project designed to only seek politically incriminating information was doomed to be biased from the start, especially in light of the foregoing

This point makes sense, but this information was attached to articles about this dossier from the very beginning, if I recall correctly. You can look up the original buzzfeed article and see if they listed the source. Maybe they didn't. But it was widely known and reported for a long time.

[AlanYx]

"Intelligence is a little different" is an understatement. MBAs take their rollodexes with them when they leave jobs. It beggars belief that (i) spies do too, as the information would likely have a secret or higher classification, and (ii) also retain the unfettered ability to just reach out to those intelligence contacts whenever without violating commitments they made during their employment.

Your second point is false. The source of the funding for the dossier (Clinton/DNC) was first reported in the media by the Washington Post on October 24, 2017, ten months after the January 2017 release of the dossier.