emptywheel

So am I. I, however, have actually looked at how they describe their sources and the other unnamed sources implied by their sourcing statements. You apparently have not.

1 of 2 / I don't purport to have as much info and expertise as you -- in fact I don't have *any* expertise. But there's been enough false reporting to justify consideration of an alternative explanation that the NYT may have been willingly manipulated by

2 of 2 / sources who wanted to protect the dossier against allegations that it was cause of the investigation.

Sure. Except the record suggests something else happened. So to make you're argument you're deliberately ignoring the record.

You haven't shown me what I'm ignoring.

Here, I'll teach you. Go to the article and find where the NYT describes its sources. I'll wait.

1of2: Here are the sources that NYT cites when asserting that Papadopoulos, not dossier was trigger of the investigation: Paras 7-8 No sources Para 35 No sources Paras 36-37 "current and former officials" Para 40 "American officials"

2of2: Tell me why it's unreasonable to surmise that these officials might be one and the same as those officials who sought to prevent the House Intel committee from receiving the documents on the Steele dossier.