In an piece published by the New York Times, Fusion GPS co-founders, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, finally issued a public statement on the discredited ‘Trump dosser.’
Daily Caller reports:
But, writing at The New York Times, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, two partners at Fusion GPS, provide little in the way of evidence to support the core allegations made in their salacious report: that the Kremlin has blackmail material on Trump and that the campaign colluded directly with the Kremlin to influence the election. […]
The Fusion co-founders say that during the congressional interviews they suggested that investigators explore Trump’s bank records with Deutsche Bank. They claim that they found “widespread evidence” that Trump and his real estate company “had worked with a wide array of dubious Russians in arrangements that often raised questions about money laundering.” […]
They say that Steele, a former MI6 officer, did not know that he was working indirectly for the Clinton campaign and DNC. They also say that they did not tell their clients that Steele was sharing his findings with the FBI. The ex-spy began briefing the FBI about some of his findings in early July 2016.
“We’re extremely proud of our work to highlight Mr. Trump’s Russia ties. To have done so is our right under the First Amendment,” write Simpson and Fritsch in their New York Times‘ piece.
“We don’t believe the Steele dossier was the trigger for the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling,” write Simpson and Fritsch.
The New York Times piece follows reports that Steele believes the discredited document contains “limited intelligence.”
Washington Times reports:
While Mr. Steele stated matter-of-factly in his dossier that collusion between Mr. Trump and the Russian government took place, he called it only “possible” months later in court filings. While he confidently referred to “trusted” sources inside the Kremlin, in court he referred to the dossier’s “limited intelligence.”
Steele also admitted part of “his final December memo,” was unvetted.
“The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications,” Steele wrote.
“Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received.”
