emptywheel

Not to mention why Luke Harding said Steele's sources were providing good intel for the first 6 months of the year then dried up in July. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/11/25/how-did-christopher-steele-collect-information-after-sources-dried-up/ …

Luke Harding said for the first half of the year, “Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with ease.” Steele presumably has more clients than Fusion, who Harding reports approached Steele “in early spring.”

Hi: Aside from the fact you're not engaging with Harding's direct quote, I asked you if you'd stop littering my TL if I showed you, all slow like, how Sipher played with time. It's that or blocking, bc you're either not engaging in good faith or struggling. Which do you prefer?

I directly quoted Harding’s book Collusion. The first is from page 29, and the second is from page 27. What’s the deal with your false accusation?

Let's go back to the Sipher stuff. If you can prove you're engaging in good faith there I'll walk you, real slow like, thru Harding next. Do you promise to go do your homework?

I will read your 25 articles thoroughly if you show me where Sipher made that claim. I do not appreciate being accused of misquoting someone though, and your refusal to acknowledge your mistake makes me think you’re not acting in good faith.

I JUST told you. We're going to walk you through one little problem after another, not two at once. But first, say, "I promise." Then I'll walk you through Sipher slowly enough so you can understand.

You could have retracted your accusation. I would have even ignored your condescension and promised to do what I already said I would do. Letting that false accusation stand proves you’re acting in bad faith. It’s a shame; I thought a few of your articles were informative.

That’s how *everyone* defines it, except you apparently. It even has a Wikipedia article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier …

By "everyone" you mean people who didn't pay attention to DiFi's confirmation that it's not the entire dossier, the payment amounts, or the numbering. So, people who don't know what they're talking about. Yes. Everyone.

Citation needed, preferably Congressional testimony.

Let's take a step back. The proper way to ask for a citation to something you're ignorant of, even while you argue in contradiction to it, is, "May I have a citation for that, please." I'm not your research assistant, and won't respond to dickish orders.

I feel no obligation to be polite to someone who refers to another’s work as a “shitshow.”

And thus far I've backed that reference with a bunch of extra links, to things you appeared ignorant of. And you ... still can't explain how a December report can predict October events. So do your own work or wallow in ignorance then, if you refuse to be marginally civil.

Your claim that Sipher used a December report to say it predicted October events is bizarre. He doesn’t do that, and your case that he did is pure assertion with none evidence. It’s barely even coherent.

Oh my. Really? If I show you where he does it, all slow like so you'll understand it, promise you'll go away and do your homework b4 you continue to litter my TL?