A New York Times report about the Steele dossier has torpedoed many of the talking points that were used as reasons to launch a special counsel investigation, and many claims made in the past couple of years are aging badly, as Brit Hume noted:

Byron York shared the New York Times story that comes on the heels of the Mueller report, and it provides a picture of the last bit of Resistance narrative sinking below the surface:

No way! York passed along many examples of how the media and Dems pushed the dossier in attempt to keep the Russia collusion narrative propped up:

The common allegation from Dems was that the Steele dossier proved that Trump was either colluding with, or being used by, Russia, but those who passed along the dossier as fact didn’t seem to consider that the opposite could be true:

Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.
Last year, in a deposition in a lawsuit filed against Buzzfeed, Mr. Steele emphasized that his reports consisted of unverified intelligence. Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, he replied, “Yes.”

F.B.I. agents considered whether Russia had polluted the stream of intelligence, but did not give it much credence, according to the former official.

But that is an issue to which multiple inquiries are likely to return. There has been much chatter among intelligence experts that Mr. Steele’s Russian informants could have been pressured to feed him disinformation.

Well look at that.

Stay tuned!