In a classic instance of an end-of-the-week news dump, The Washington Post last Friday afternoon published an article acknowledging that it had issued corrections to two of its investigative articles on the bogus Christopher Steele dossier, one from March 2017 and the other from February 2019. The Post stated that the two articles in question “had identified a Belarusian American businessman as a key source of the ‘Steele dossier,’” but now it “could no longer stand by the accuracy of those elements of the story.” It could no longer stand because the Post got caught pushing fake news.

As John Durham’s investigation has slowly but steadily identified and honed in on the conspirators involved in creating and orchestrating the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, the latest being an indictment of Russian-American analyst Igor Danchenko on five counts of lying to the FBI, the Post is now engaged in damage control.

The Post and its fellow Leftmedia outlet The New York Times were two of the biggest pushers of the Democrats’ Russia-collusion hoax, and for this intrepid “journalism” they were awarded Pulitzer Prizes. A Pulitzer for the best purveyors of fake news, evidently, and the awards should be returned! But we digress…

The Post sought to uphold the Steele dossier’s legitimacy, as it was the primary “evidence” underpinning the FBI’s justification for targeting Donald Trump.

Democrat lawmakers led by Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly touted Steele and his dossier. Schiff insisted that he had personally seen evidence of Trump’s having colluded with Russia. Evidence that Schiff was never able to produce, and “evidence” that even a Democrat-heavy legal team led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to uncover after a nearly two-year investigation.

So not only is there no “there” there, but as far as any Trump/Russia collusion plot, what is in fact there is so damning that the Post is running a stunning correction piece in a desperate bid to regain some semblance of journalistic credibility.

However, one who has no regrets is Schiff. When asked recently if he regretted giving credibility to the Steele dossier, Schiff answered, “I don’t regret saying that we should investigate claims of someone who, frankly, was a well-respected British intelligence officer.” But he added a lame excuse: “We couldn’t have known, of course, years ago, that we would learn years later that someone who was a primary source lied to him.” However, Schiff made it clear that anything to smear Trump was worth it. “Steele did reveal that the Russians were trying to help elect Donald Trump,” he argued. “That turned out to be all too true.” No, what turned out to be true was Trump’s repeated claim that the collusion allegations were fake news.

As Durham pulls back the curtain on the Hillary Clinton campaign’s plot to tar Trump as a Russian stooge, it appears the primary source for some of the most salacious claims in the infamous dossier is the longtime Democrat operative Charles Dolan. Even the Post is now acknowledging this, the egg on its Pulitzer notwithstanding.