A word that meant the same thing wouldn't be a bad start. But you don't have one. And, as others have pointed out to you, Steele actually believes most of it IS verified. Back to the Gubarev report. Who paid for it?
-
-
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.”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @emptywheel and
Stop quoting the National Review article that provides no sourcing or fullmcontext for their claims about what Steele has said. It makes you look foolish.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Tweettstr @emptywheel and
Nonsense. The FBI officially stopped using Steele as a source because he he lied about leaking information to the press. That's what the FBI thought of Steele's reliability. But why would Steele leak to the press if he thought those claims "warranted further investigation?"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @Tweettstr and
And why would Bruce Ohr continue to feed information from Steel's dossier after the FBI officially stopped using him as a source? Why wouldnt't Bruce Ohr not realize his own conflict of interest with his wife working and being paid by Fusion GPS to get info from steele?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @Tweettstr and
Why would the FBI include false information in the dossier and omit material facts in their FISA application? If they weren't intentionally misleading the court, then what were they doing?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @Tweettstr and
No empty, you're just stuck on what was unverified, what was unverifiable, and what was simply untrue in the Russian dossier. And which one Steele admitted to when.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @Tweettstr and
And of course, you resort to personal insults about linguistic ability and grammar. And you're calling me a boy? I mean I don't really care, but that's not how you win arguments. That's what you do when you're losing arguments.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sonic_alexa @Tweettstr and
I won the argument bc you can't read, can't even quote propaganda accurately. This, from a guy who was waggling mightily about owning him some libs. I'll call you boy until you learn to read.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Tweettstr and
You deflected from main points by focusing on grammar and detailed nuances like whether Steele implied we couldn't verify something, or whether it was unverifiable. You answered no question on point, resorted to personal insults and declared yourself the winner. What joke.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Dood. You made a claim. You have since admitted, several times, you could not substantiate the claim. You misquoted propaganda you didn't understand. I've moved on to showing why your other claims are false but you won't say who paid for Gubarev report. That's the next step.
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.