This is what I don't understand about the attacks on the Steele memo. The things in it have largely turned out to be corroborated. If a campaign had paid to run a title search on Trump's car, that doesn't mean the title is wrong.https://twitter.com/JaneMayerNYer/status/971765034715099136 …
-
Except that 1) it was publicly available and 2) it's still wrong, w/no evidence to back the Rosneft allegation.
I mean, there's a ton I find interesting about the dossier, but that's largely about some timing issues and how it could be so hopelessly wrong on the digital stuff.
-
-
Schiff's memo seemed to imply the FBI had corroborated the Page part of the dossier. You could maybe argue it didn't corroborate SPECIFICALLY the Rosneft deal, but it would have had to at least corroborate the meeting of those specific Russians.
-
Sure. But Schiff's claims of corroboration are, in public form, not A = A. That is, not corroboration. Warner has said nothing has been corroborated (nor refuted), and he's more careful than Schiff is.
-
If we pretend the dossier came out right now and is just a statement on what happened, instead of trying to view it as a predictive-document, it states quite a few things that seem to be correct. If you put out a doc saying Russia wanted to elect Trump. That is corroborated.
-
And then gets almost every detail wrong.
-
I'm not saying the dossier will never get anything wrong. I'm saying its incorrect to claim nothing about it was corroborated. Either way its a tiny piece of the FBI/Mueller investigation and people focus on it too much on both sides.
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.