1) ALL intelligence is "limited". But Steele considered THIS report to be up to 90% accurate. 2)Steele never said it was all unverifiable. Stop lying.
-
-
I don't know about the "Gubarev report." I was talking about Gubarev's defamation law suit against Steele. Again: If Steele admitted that his sources would deny what he claims them to have said, would that mean Steele's claims were unverifiable?
-
But it's right there in the primary document!! You are reading the primary document, aren't you? You see, some of your other claims are false and the proof is who paid for the report that ENTIRE primary document is about. Do you know what he means by "source"?
-
You're just hung up on this exact word, "unverifiable." I don't know if Steele ever used that exact word. But you're pinning your whole argument on things like: what percent of the dossier is true. Are you including things like, "Russia is a country," in that percent calc?
-
"I don't know if Steele ever used that exact word." I'll take that as a concession you cannot validate the first statement I asked you to. Libs--owning. Want to keep going? Your next step is to tell me who paid for the report discussed in that primary document.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Steele does not believe that most of it IS verified. Here's what the National Review article states that Steele agreed the dossier was based on bits of “raw intelligence” that were “unverified” and that he passed along because they “warranted further investigation.”
-
Actually he does. And can you stop quoting propaganda outlets? You promised primary documents, not tripe.
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.