You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The great Jane Mayer joins the long line of people who ignore the Guccifer 2.0 release to make Steele look better (and repeats other errors we've seen over and over).https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier …
I mean, how does this get by a fact check? Michael Isikoff has confirmed he wrote a story, and that story has been subject of a month-long debate.pic.twitter.com/Vq4y0svN7A
And Susan Rice is going to get another letter. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-c538-d933-a3e9-d7b99b660002 …pic.twitter.com/kHpTPzSFGm
And this part is interesting (tho as Mayer notes, Romney was never a likely choice), but raises real questions why this report wasn't included in the dossier to McCain or the one that got released.pic.twitter.com/75MziUSdCW
1) Steele got the kind of dirt wrong. 2) Steele didn't catch on to the hack-and-leak until long after everyone else had (thus the import of the G2.0 mention).pic.twitter.com/30QHhHVRHG
You should direct these questions to Jane! I would be interested in her response.
Great, I hope @JaneMayerNYer answers them.
And also how she neglected to include Guccifer 2.0 in the piece.
And a bunch of other questions, but those two are a good start.
A lot of doubt has been cast as to whether Steele was the source for Isikoff's article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/02/the-memos-description-of-a-supposedly-key-news-report-is-wrong/?utm_term=.2c146022181a …pic.twitter.com/Ab8eea0FfN
You're suggesting we should discount Isikoff's link confirming it or his on the record confirmation of it?
Do you have Isikoff's link or reference to his statement that he relied on the Steele dossier? I haven't seen it. You could be right but there seems to be doubt...the only point I was making.
Isikoff says point blank early in the podcast "I should point out that if you take a look at our story, which is dated September 23rd…that did not rely on what Christopher Steele told me." Says he relied on an earlier letter by Harry Reid and a law enforcement official, more.
Huh. By early in the podcast you mean AFTER describing doing this reporting in the wake of the briefing? Anyway, here's his other link saying he relied on it. Is two enough for you to believe it?https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier-was-former-british-spy-004221154.html …
Could depend on the meaning of late summer. Isikoff wrote in late September, right? Or is there an earlier Isikoff piece? If the Tabard meetings are in August, then arguably "no one wrote about it at the time" is correct.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
