Conservative nails why Trump fears the Russia dossier — and why it’s ‘ultimately irrelevant’ who paid for it
New York Times editor Bret Stephens (Photo: RealTime/Twitter)

Conservative New York Times columnist Bret Stephens on Wednesday poured cold water on the White House talking point that the origin of the now-infamous Christopher Steele dossier alleging collusion between Donald Trump and Russia somehow invalidates the allegations made within the document.


On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Fusion GPS—which funded the dossier—was originally commissioned by an unknown Republican operative, and later by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. Although it had previously been reported that Democrats bankrolled the opposition research, the Post report was the first linking the Steele dossier to the Clinton campaign. Marc E. Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and DNC, had fervently denied retaining Fusion GPS on behalf of the campaign.

“We have known for 25 years—since Bill Clinton told us he ‘didn't inhale’—that every statement out of the mouth of the Clintons is a calculation,” Stephens said. “The issue here isn’t who paid for opposition research. The question is: Is it true?”

Stephens noted Fusion GPS, which is currently cooperating with Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign, is “a serious organization.”

“They fear that at least parts of this dossier contain truth,” Stephens later added. “Christopher Steele was a well-regarded British spy, they idea that it’s all fake is classic Trump disassembly,”

“Who paid for this is ultimately irrelevant,” the Times columnist opined.

Watch below, via MSNBC: