Wait, what? That Treehouse article claims that information collected through unauthorized surveillance was passed outside the government, organized into what is now called the Steele dossier, which was then used as the basis to secure legal FISA warrants. Does the author of this piece not comprehend the implications of this claim? Because if someone is going through the trouble to launder illegally gathered evidence then it would mean that the evidence wasn’t fabricated. If you are fabricating a narrative, why expend the effort and assume the additional risk necessary to make “evidence” admissible? Fabricators would hardly welcome the additional scrutiny of legal proceedings, they just want to advance a certain narrative at the most advantageous time. If your goal is electioneering then a trial years after the election is meaningless, and yet we are asked to believe that individuals accepted this additional risk with no reward?
The enthusiasm with which some of us are diving into this rabbit hole is alarming. If the Treehouse is correct, then the Steele dossier is not a work of fiction but rather laundered evidence, illegally obtained but accurate. Does anyone believe that to be the case?