Count the errors in this tweet... Oh, never mind. It's Mark Meadows. No one considers it legit anyway.https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1034622819060076549 …
-
-
They should have been able to verify or debunk it by November. What do they use their budget for? How hard is it to find out if Michael Cohen went to Prague? ... oh, and wasn't the case really all about Joseph Mifsud? Why weren't they tracking him down?
-
Q: Is it your opinion that the USG should refuse information from someone who has been credible for years, if they get it for free?
-
His info wasn't credible
-
Actually, that's not what the record of his reporting to FBI said. Do you know how FBI does these things? Or just happy to make it up?
-
Well, take Peter Schweizer's allegations in Clinton Cash. All from public source records, I believe. Supposedly, the FBI did investigate those claims in their investigation of the Clinton Foundation. That's the kind of info I can see the FBI taking. But Steele's info was...
-
third hand hearsay. He never even talked to his supposed sources. He had "collectors" in between. So Steele's history and credibility with the FBI was really irrelevant. The FBI needed to verify the info. To my knowledge they haven't. And then when Comey briefed Trump...
-
he acted like it was tabloid gossip. When Buzzfeed published it, James Clapper issued the following public statement.pic.twitter.com/omn7JjWR5i
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Credibility of source has fkall to do with vetting/corroborating info. That’s not how it works, dum dum.
-
Steele wasn't the source, he never even met the sources, he claims he had other people who talked to them. Third person hearsay. How is Steele's credibility even relevant?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.