• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY Times: Say, this Steele dossier appears to be false (and maybe was a Russian disinformation effor

Athanasius68 said:
Why would it be inconceivable that Russia would send false information about Trump to the Clinton campaign?

I mean, the entire theory for the past couple years had been based upon how rotten, devious Putin is.
Click to expand...
based on your news sorces perhaps, but if you expand your mind you’ll see it wasn’t about Putin at all, it was about how corrupt the Democratic Party (just ask Brunie, he had a taste) and biased top officials within security agency’s and left leaning main stream media were/is...that’s the real story. Truth!
 
Airyaman said:
I do not make any claims as to the authenticity of the contents of the Steele dossier. I am simply commenting on the false headline of the HotAir article and this thread.



Of course it came from Russian sources. It was about Trump's potential contacts/communications/ties with Russians. Where else would Steele have gotten such information?
Click to expand...

Well gee whiz. The dossier is the document which establishes the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia with their efforts to fix the 2016 election. Remove it from the equation and all we are left with is a couples of examples of Russia reaching out to the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign being ambivalent about it, and nothing happening.
 
trouble13 said:
Well then, what is your issie with the headline?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That the dossier appears to be false. If only a couple of the claims in the dossier appear to be false, does that mean the rest of it is false? That is what the headline suggests.
 
apdst said:
The headline literally paraphrased the article. :lamo

Check it:

some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

You know what the word "some" means, correct? Even Steele said he believed that 70-80% of the dossier was accurate, and that was his assessment just a short time after the release.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Well gee whiz. The dossier is the document which establishes the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia with their efforts to fix the 2016 election. Remove it from the equation and all we are left with is a couples of examples of Russia reaching out to the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign being ambivalent about it, and nothing happening.
Click to expand...

You haven't a clue what classified information that the IC has. Our partners in Europe were sharing information on Trump and Russia in 2015.
 
Airyaman said:
You haven't a clue what classified information that the IC has. Our partners in Europe were sharing information on Trump and Russia in 2015.
Click to expand...

At this point, Congress needs to change the grand jury laws to allow themselves access to an unredacted Mueller report.
And the Trump Admin should release all that mysterious non-dossier intelligence that caused the Obama Admin to think the Trump campaign was conspiring with Russia.
 
apdst said:
You mean, you already knew the dossier was bull****?
Click to expand...

Not al all. Neither article has anything new. Just a bunch of maybes and what ifs.
 
azgreg said:
Not al[sic] all. Neither article has anything new. Just a bunch of maybes and what ifs.
Click to expand...

Ain't no denying your way out of this one.
 
Cardinal said:
False thread title. Source is Hot Air.
Click to expand...

It's a NY TIMES article. The headline accurately describes the story.
Why so quick to accept the 'legitimacy' of the anonymously sourced from Russia dossier?
 
Airyaman said:
You know what the word "some" means, correct? Even Steele said he believed that 70-80% of the dossier was accurate, and that was his assessment just a short time after the release.
Click to expand...

You noticed they didn't list the accurate parts of the dossier, right?

Steele testified under oath that the dossier was unverifiable. What he believes is irrelevant.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Well gee whiz. The dossier is the document which establishes the theory that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia with their efforts to fix the 2016 election. Remove it from the equation and all we are left with is a couples of examples of Russia reaching out to the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign being ambivalent about it, and nothing happening.
Click to expand...

A couple? Couple of hundred maybe. Both ways. Erik Prince up and took a 2 day holiday to the Seychelles Islands, 3000miles/9hours flight time away, and accidentally bumped into Putin's bagman at dinner! Would you believe it?
 
apdst said:
You noticed they didn't list the accurate parts of the dossier, right?

Steele testified under oath that the dossier was unverifiable. What he believes is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

OK...this has what to do with the false headline?

(nothing)
 
Airyaman said:
OK...this has what to do with the false headline?

(nothing)
Click to expand...

1. I was responding to your comments.

2. The headline is accurate.

3. Stop lying.
 
apdst said:
Al I can say is, :lamo

NY Times: Say, this Steele dossier appears to be false (and maybe was a Russian disinformation effort)
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Al I can say is, :lamo

NY Times: Say, this Steele dossier appears to be false (and maybe was a Russian disinformation effort)
Click to expand...

Keep hope alive my delusional right-wing brethren :)

What to Make of the Carter Page FISA Applications - Lawfare

Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.”
Click to expand...

Looks like our right-wing nuts are on another Benghazi style witch hunt. This time there will be no Manafort asset forfeiture to offset the wasted cost, as is the case with all Benghazi style witch hunts.

That criminal toad, Nunes can no longer save you!
 
Manc Skipper said:
A couple? Couple of hundred maybe. Both ways. Erik Prince up and took a 2 day holiday to the Seychelles Islands, 3000miles/9hours flight time away, and accidentally bumped into Putin's bagman at dinner! Would you believe it?
Click to expand...

Erik Prince? LOL!! He joins the long list of 'key people' ( like Manafort, Stone, PapaD,) who are the linchpin to the discredited and refuted theory that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election
 
Cardinal said:
Answer my question: who's paying you to spread disinformation here?
Click to expand...

What disinformation? That the dossier came from Russian sources? No. That is true.
That a job of the president is to enforce the laws? No. That is standard stuff learned in grade school.
 
apdst said:
Looks like we're being bombarded with whataboutism.
Click to expand...

How many millions do you think you're willing to waste on investigating the investigators? Like Benghazi, the right-wing investigation will end right after the 2020 election.

You guys are so predictable.
 
lurchadams said:
How many millions do you think you're willing to waste on investigating the investigators? Like Benghazi, the right-wing investigation will end right after the 2020 election.

You guys are so predictable.
Click to expand...

The thread isn't anout Nunes, nor Benghazi. :lamo
 
apdst said:
1. I was responding to your comments.

2. The headline is accurate.

3. Stop lying.
Click to expand...

If you have a document and it has several claims in it, if you can show 2-3 to be false, does that make the rest of it false?
 
Airyaman said:
If you have a document and it has several claims in it, if you can show 2-3 to be false, does that make the rest of it false?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that isn't quite the point. The point is, the dossier can't be verified. When the FBI used unverified evidence, that knew couldn't be verified, to obtain a warrant, they committed perjury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom