I’d avoid this. They are likely to just collect as much BS as was in the dossier. They have enough without this to nail the appropriate folks to the cross. Adding Ukranian disinformation to the mix will only reduce the credibility of the Barr investigation.
Hopefully, Giuliani, as I've done here, is going to connect the dots and collect the evidence that this whole entire mess revolves around **Democrat-Russia** collusion, including what happened in the Ukraine.
As for the dossier,...
On Wednesday, [May 1, 2019] Attorney General William Barr testified that he is “concerned” about the Trump-Russia dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked Barr whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) could confirm that the Steele dossier was not part of the disinformation campaign Russia used to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
“How do we know that the Steele dossier is not itself evidence of the Russian disinformation campaign, knowing what we know now that basically the allegations made therein were second-hand, hearsay, or unverified,” Cornyn stated, referring to key claims in the dossier that the report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller disproved, such as the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague.
“Can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?” Cornyn asked.
“No, I can’t state that with confidence and that is one of the areas that I’m reviewing,” Barr replied. “I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”
If Russia had a hand in the Steele dossier, that would imply that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC either worked with Russians or were duped by the Russians in their disinformation campaigns.
It would mean that the real “collusion” with Russia may have been on the Clinton side, rather than the Trump side.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
__________________________________________________________________________
July 2017...
While the mainstream news media hunts for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the public record shows that Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump and attack his administration.
The disinformation came in the form of a Russian-fed dossier written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It contains a series of unverified criminal charges against Mr. Trump’s campaign aides, such as coordinating Moscow’s hacking of Democratic Party computers.
Some Democrats have widely circulated the discredited information.
Mr. Steele was paid by the Democrat-funded opposition research firm Fusion GPS with money from a Hillary Clinton backer.
Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists. The information fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it in part to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign aides.
Mr. Steele makes clear that his unproven charges came almost exclusively from sources linked to the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He identified his sources as “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure,” a former “top level Russian intelligence officer active inside the Kremlin,” a “senior Kremlin official” and a “senior Russian government official.”
The same Democrats who have condemned Russia’s election interference via plying fake news and hacking email servers have quoted freely from the Steele anti-Trump memos derived from creatures of the Kremlin.
In other words, there is public evidence of significant, indirect collusion between Democrats and Russian disinformation...”
Continued at source...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/
Or,
I’d avoid this. They are likely to just collect as much BS as was in the dossier. They have enough without this to nail the appropriate folks to the cross. Adding Ukranian disinformation to the mix will only reduce the credibility of the Barr investigation.
—
Interesting take on this