With your construction, you're trying to use Steele's lack of credibility to disprove everything he says.
With the same construction, you might as well prove the sun doesn't rise in the east!
Sorry, bub, Steele is almost certainly not credible--that's correct--but as any liar knows, to be believable at the crucial moment, it has the best chance of working if you're perceived as credible as possible leading up to any big lie.
Both Steele and his "source E" parlayed off their supposed high levels of credibility.
Just because the lacking-in-credibility Steele said something doesn't make it wrong any more than it makes it right.
Your "logic" is breathtakingly "inadequate!" With your construction, you're trying to use Steele's lack of credibility to disprove everything he says.
The Russians, and clearly their paid or unpaid trolls, as I know you know, are very good at this sort of trickery. The KGB/FSB were/are notorious for their mass deception and disinformation campaigns. They must laugh their butts off at how easily (many) Americans can be deceived and manipulated.
However, I don't believe that the Russians actually liked Obama or Hillary either. Instead, they merely used them as the willing dupes that they are to achieve an outcome that would be vastly better for them, knowing full well that if they had remained in power, via Hillary, that US policy toward them and their puppet states like Iran and North Korea, etc, would continue on its pathetically weak, accommodating, disastrous (for us) course.
Nope, I don’t think Steele’s allegation has been disproven.
It should be investigated, despite serious credibility problems. But no one should go around assuming it is true, or even likely to be true.
Here is the actual logic of my post.
The author here presents 3 sources of information, and pretending they are independent and corroborating.
But they aren’t at all.
All 3 actually come from the same source, Steele.
* The word of Christopher Steele
* A government employee who reported what Christopher Steele said
* A government document that transcribed an interview with Steele.
The author’s “bombshell” is nothing of the sort.
The author presents astonishment that the same name keeps coming up as the source for the dossier, without noting that each time it comes up, it came from Steele and no one else...
He acts as if there is significant corroboration but there isn’t.
Absolutely! It's the very definition of a con man. Someone who first gains your trust, preferably over a period of time, then sticks it to you at an opportune moment. It's basically what these FR Putinistas do here on a daily basis, posting all sorts of other unrelated stories that most people here would appreciate. It's a way for them to gain credibility, at least in the eyes of the unsuspecting.