Another report -- the most dubious one!! -- ignored thus far in TRMS entire hour story on this.
Show this thread
All this Real Stuff Rachel is talking about? Not in the dossier. (She's not yet up to the June 9 Trump Tower meeting, the biggest gap.)
-
-
Rachel's not going to point out the contradictions in Steele's sworn court declarations, is she?
Show this thread -
"Some have been verified." Name one. And yes, the cyber one has been publicly disproven. It's hackishly bad.
Show this thread -
50 minutes in. Rachel has yet to point to something that has been proven true. But our 7th commercial break, I think.
Show this thread -
"it began as a hunch." No. It began when they found they'd been hacking the Dems for almost a year.
Show this thread -
Rachel here obfuscating. Listing a BUNCH of stuff that was not predicted in the dossier. NOT telling readers the dossier said he met with OTHER officials.
Show this thread -
Remember, Rinat Akhmetshin was doing work for Fusion at this time, may have been paid by Fusion. Not in the dossier. This is actually the BIGGEST discrediting data point. But ... she's no telling viewers that.
Show this thread -
NOOOOO. Russia was feeding other info. And until after the WL leak, Steele still said the dirt was old intercepted data.
Show this thread -
This is shoddy. Not A=A. This is what we accuse Trump followers of. WE KNEW THIS BEFORE THE FIRST DOSSIER REPORT
Show this thread -
"we now know" a federal GJ indicted him for entirely different shit!! God this is shoddy.
Show this thread -
"Then another person mentioned in the Steele dossier" plead guilty ... for something else. Christopher Steele had NONE of this story, Rachel!!
Show this thread -
"Americans need the truth." Sadly they won't get it at TRMS.
Show this thread -
Ending by re-upping: Cognitive Rot and the Steele Dossier https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/12/07/cognitive-rot-and-the-steele-dossier/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
June 20th memo, Source D. What are your thoughts on the allegation about the intelligence on Hillary that was "very helpful"? What's your take on it? Not related to the June 9th meeting? Or just too vague to assume honest account by the source and/or the intermediaries?
-
1) By context that is a reference NEITHER to stolen emails NOR campaign donation dirt, which is why it's not a reference to the June 9 meeting 2) If it WERE a reference to the June 9 meeting, it would have said dirt had been shared
-
3) The kompromat on Hillary had already been coming out for 5 days by then and yet the report makes no mention of it In short, a great example of how the dossier doesn't even report publicly known details.
-
I see, thanks. Regarding (2) in your tweet above, it seems like A and D were saying intel on HRC *was* shared already, and was helpful... 1/
-
Source B and Source G allude to "rumors of a dossier being circulated" that had "not yet been made available abroad" I had assumed they were talking about a separate item from Source A and Source D... rather than contradicting them. 2/
-
Certainly possible D is Agalarov people via Akhmetshin. If so, consider the implications of that.
-
Woah. That would be interesting. Although, Source D has two other claims, the most famous of which was "confirmed" by a certain redacted person referred to as Source E, and a certain Source F.
-
So in the hypothetical where Akhmetshin was an intermediary, these other sources with non-Akhmetshin intermediaries would have to lie, or their intermediary would. Or Akhmetshin would have to be passing on good info.
- 17 more replies
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.