And Then There Were TWO Trump Dossiers

two Trump dossiers; #KevinJackson

And Then There Were TWO Trump Dossiers

Apparently, former “journalist” Cody Shearer authored a second report. This one was same as the first.

As school children might say, a little bit louder and a little bit worse. 

Oddly enough, Cody Shearer was a political activist in the 1980’s. Additionally, he was close to the Clinton Administration in the 90s. That fact alone should immediately discredit the second dossier. Surprise, some FBI agents actually believe this information is worth pursuing.

As the Guardian UK reports:

The Shearer memo was provided to the FBI in October 2016.

It was handed to them by Christopher Steele – who had been given it by an American contact –after the FBI requested the former MI6 agent provide any documents or evidence that could be useful in its investigation, according to multiple sources.

Trending: James Comey on the Run: Won’t Attend Senate Hearing

Shearer is a controversial figure in Washington. Conservative outlets have accused him of being part of a “hatchet man” and member of a “secret spy ring” and within Clinton’s orbit.

Dossier #1

As we reported earlier this year, the initial dossier was put together by Fusion GPS. Later, we learned the Clintons and the DNC were behind it.

As Kevin Jackson pointed out,

“Democrats had no idea how the Russia farce would play out. They figured they could exert enough influence on public opinion that the truth wouldn’t matter.”

But the truth came out, and it did matter.

Further, the plot thickened when Fusion GPS founder, Glen Simpson, admitted the dossier was part of a personal vendetta.

We previously quoted Simpson as saying:

I think it’s safe to say that, you know, at some point probably early in 2016 I had reached a conclusion about Donald Trump as a businessman and his character and I was opposed to Donald Trump. I’m not going to pretend that that wouldn’t have entered into my thinking.

You know, again, I was a journalist my whole life. So we were, you know, trained not to take sides and practiced in not taking sides. So most of what I do as a research person is we try to avoid getting into situations where one’s etiology or political views would cloud your work because it’s a known hazard, but, you know, I reached an opinion about Donald Trump and his suitability to be president of the United States and I was concerned about whether he was the best person for the job.

Therefore, all this nonsense exists because one man wasn’t sure he liked the new president. Of course, President Trump recently filed a lawsuit against BuzzFeed for their publication of Dossier #1.

As TBS commented a while back,

BuzzFeed has two choices: (1) pay Trump, or (2) defend the lawsuit and bring in the other cast of characters who propagated this lie.

What a strategy! Genius, in fact.

Because what President Trump signals to the press and other Leftists is he will fight to the death…of them.

But now we know, there’s not just one dossier. In fact, there are two.

What about Dossier #2?

First of all, Shearer has absolutely no experience with intelligence. So why in the world is he writing memos that mimic intelligence reports?

Secondly, why did this second document go through Christopher Steele, a British spy? Surely, if Shearer drew the same conclusions contained in the first dossier, he could present his findings to the FBI independently. Even Steele admits he can’t vouch for the information in the second dossier.

How many other fake dossiers will the Democrats create?

The only thing we can count on is the Left’s criminal activities. The Democrats paid Fusion GPS and Steele for the first dossier. These people colluded with Russian operatives and Russian nationals. A web of lies and they knew it.

The second dossier is no better for Democrats’ credibility. In fact, it’s far worse.

 

 

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.