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
Show this thread
-
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.
End of conversation
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.