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
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 …
Well, @isikoff himself can explain himself if he so chooses. Yes, he met with Steele but is *clearly* claiming in the podcast that he relied on a bunch of other sources for his story and did not rely on what Christopher Steele told him.
You're claiming when Isikoff wrote, "Another of Steele’s reports, first reported by Yahoo News last September, involved alleged meetings last July between then-Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page" that wasn't Isikoff explaining himself?
I can't explain the discrepancy but @Isikoff can.
It's not a discrepancy. It's proof that you're wrong.
In the very podcast you sent as proof that Isikoff relied on Steele for his article, he says at 9:02, and I quote, "If you take a look at our story of our September 23rd...that did not rely on what Christopher Steele told me." That's a discrepancy.
And he's not talking about the substance of the Page meeting. He's talking about the FBI investigation (tho he admits he Steele also told him about that, which conflicts with sworn testimony). Again, Isikoff said he relied on Steele as early as Jan 2017. Stop inventing otherwise.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
