The guy wrote three books on the subject, all of them extensively sourced.

Mad?

Twitter post has no reference. Also nyt says:
He’s wrong



Mad?

Let's take a look at a few of his claims and see if we can figure out why people unironically using "Trumpist" and who accuse the NYT of right-wing bias might not be serious sources worthy of our time / consideration.



Mainstream outlets, talking heads, and anchors were very fond of mentioning that various dossier claims had been substantiated. There are half a dozen examples from CNN alone of anchors and presenters bolstering the credibility of the Steele Dossier on air. That it was publicly available knowledge was besides the point, they repeatedly used the presence of that information to bolster the legitimacy of the dossier on the whole.

But this is beside the point. It would not be sufficient even if his original claim were true. When you publish and broadcast claims, you are, at least partly, responsible for them. You don't get to add an addendum in the fine print that "none of this has been corroborated / confirmed", and certainly not in an instance where you devote significant airtime and resources to coverage.



Mainstream outlets were also fond of mentioning that, if the Steele dossier hadn't been substantiated, at least it hadn't been disproven. But you can't have it both ways. The Hunter Biden story, which we know now is largely factual, was deemed unworthy of mainstream coverage because it "hadn't been verified" sufficiently by whoever mainstream sources deemed as credible gatekeepers. They had to ignore mountains of evidence to draw that conclusion, but at least the underlying logic, that one should refrain from publishing accusations without at least some evidence of their truth, was correct. I could say that it's neither proven or disproven that Seth Abramson is a pedophile, but it would be grossly irresponsible for me to make that claim without at least some evidence of his possible guilt.



Seth is ignoring the point here. Danchenko is the primary sub-source for the dossier, and when interviewed by the FBI largely downplayed Steele's conclusions. He is being charged for lying about his own sources for the dossier, which apparently don't exist, and for obscuring his actual connection to a democrat-linked executive.



In order to draw this conclusion Seth has to ignore that Kevin Clinesmith has already pleaded guilty to rewriting an email in order to hide Carter Page's CIA ties. To say that the FBI "believed" Carter Page was a Russian asset, while they were illegally covering up information that he wasn't a Russian asset, is rich.

On Clinesmith:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1295472710269702144

A tiny potato has a reference between a turkey and yourself.

That dimwitted look is exactly how I picture you.

Perfection

He's talking past the issue again. Whether Clinesmith was engaged in a conspiracy is important, sure, but whether there was a conspiracy has very little to do with what happened. Clinesmith doctored an email so that it would appear that Page was not a CIA source, when the CIA explicitly acknowledged that he was.

His subsequent diatribe against Page doesn't make any sense, because he hasn't reconciled why his narrative, that Page is a shady Russian agent, flies completely in the face of what the CIA claims to know, and which Clinesmith and the FBI were aware of, because it was subsequently altered in order to continue monitoring him.

Let's keep in mind that this surveillance resulted in no charges, convictions, or allegations of wrong doing. Seth's analysis isn't even consistent with the FBI's ultimate analysis of the situation. If this were so clear, we should expect that the monitoring of Page would have yielded fruit, or perhaps Seth thinks that Mueller was also a Trumpist asset, it isn't really clear.

His defense of Clinesmith is a non-defense. Clinesmith plead guilty to what was clearly and obviously true, that he doctored an email so that it appeared that Page was not a CIA asset. While there's plenty of circumstantial motive to suggest why he might want to do that, namely to further an investigation into Page and the Trump campaign, proving motive, or a conspiracy, if there ever was one, is a close to impossible task. As Seth notes consistently when he thinks it benefits him, that isn't proof of innocent intentions, but merely recognition that guilt can't be proven in a court of law.