No, no, no. YOU are moving the goalposts. I appreciate your attempt at being deliberately obtuse, though. All I said was that parts of the dossier have been confirmed, then you tried to move the goalposts by insisting that the most damning parts have not yet been confirmed.
-
-
Replying to @B_Delach @emptywheel and
I didn’t specify which parts had been confirmed, only that some of it had. You can rationalize all you want so long as you’re aware that you are, indeed, rationalizing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @B_Delach @sphericaltime and
I'm asking you for a single one from that article. Again, what it shows is that the CENTRAL ALLEGATIONS against Page are, if he is to be believed, FALSE. Which is the opposite of truth, in case you're catching up.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @sphericaltime and
Ok. Here you go. This goes more in depth in terms of items mentioned in the dossier that later proved true, notably Russia’s hacking efforts to influence the election.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @B_Delach @sphericaltime and
And here's the very lengthy piece where I point out that ESPECIALLY wrt hacking, that piece is a shitshow and ALSO violates key rules about evidence wrt intel analysis. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/09/06/john-siphers-garbage-post-arguing-the-steele-dossier-isnt-garbage/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @sphericaltime and
Sorry, did you just cite yourself as a credible source? Credible citations do not work that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @B_Delach @sphericaltime and
No. I pointed to a piece that laid out a side by side chronology that showed that IN EVERY SINGLE hack-and-leak post the dossier trailed actual events, often by months.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @sphericaltime and
What is the source of your timeline, upon which your entire argument hinges? Hacking wasn’t widely reported until January of 2017, yet you are claiming this was public knowledge much earlier than the 6-months prior timeline of the dossier.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @B_Delach @sphericaltime and
Source of timeline: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html … Source that RU had had success hitting major NATO targets: http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-russian-hackers-target-the-pentagon … https://labsblog.f-secure.com/2015/09/17/the-dukes-7-years-of-russian-cyber-espionage/ … First 2 are links in the post -- you might try that? You should definitely check out the first one. It'll rattle your brain.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @sphericaltime and
This first link is the dossier, itself. I’m asking you where your timeline is coming from, given your allegations that this information was public “months” before the details in the dossier.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
YES!!! My timeline matches the timeline in dossier because IT IS THE DOSSIER. Sipher, on the other hand, hides those key dates. Other "timeline" involves knowing that "November" (which is a month) generally comes earlier in the year than "December" (which is the last month)
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @sphericaltime and
Dude. There’s no source for YOUR timeline. You keep allegeding that all of these things were public knowledge before the dates in the dossier, but how do we know this is true? Based on one article about non-specific hacking from the Daily Beast? Inconclusive.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.