The NYT published at least two stories about an "unverified" dossier on Trump. Admitting it is unverified, yet they claim:
1. "consequences have been incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day" 2. "By all accounts, Mr. Steele has an excellent reputation"
Is it just me, or do they (subtly) suggest that, while "unverified", there may be something to the dossier?
If it is unverified (and quite damning), why publish it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-...