Dossier fails the test of time; Trump-Russia collusion claims now called 'likely false'

You should take your own advice.

Even if the Russians wanted to screw Hillary because of the Uranium One deal, you know the Russian may own 20% of our Uranium reserves they can't remove it from our country. The question is did they know that before donating $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation? I doubt it. It appears that they found out before the election. So where's the connection to Trump other than he was the benefactor of their Hillary hate?

 

^^^ Typically confused. The Canadian company owned the uranium, not the U.S. The U.S. owned none of it. Nine U.S. agencies had to sign off. Nine U.S. agencies signed off. Clinton had nothing to do, nothing to review, nothing to approve.

 

The "Moonie Times". They give it away in every hotel in the DC metro area, which is about half their total circulation.

 

Well DUH. It was made up Russian dirt the DNC and Clinton campaign colluded with a foreign agent to produce so they could use it to get the FBI to seek a FISA warrant so they could listen in on their political opponent and enable high level FBI and DOJ officials work to sway the election to her.

Dossier fails the test of time; Trump-Russia collusion claims now called 'likely false'

Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff, an early public conduit for Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, now says the former British spy’s sensational Russia collusion charges lack apparent evidence and are “likely false.”

As Election Day loomed in September 2016, Mr. Isikoff was the first Washington journalist to write about Mr. Steele’s memos. He focused on Mr. Steele’s contention that Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page met with nefarious operatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin during a publicly announced trip to Moscow in July 2016.

As reported by the Daily Caller, Mr. Isikoff this month told Mediaite columnist John Ziegler: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”

more here....https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/30/michael-steeles-russia-dossier-donald-trump-fails-/

So Mueller has put two people behind bars, one for what a week and the other for two? Over things having nothing to do with Russian collusion. His key witness and the person who was the pinnacle of the Russian collusion myth will likely walk with no time but his family finances ruined.

 

Prove it.

 

You've got to be kidding!

The Moonie Times has always been rabid right wing!

The Washington Post may not be some people's favorite paper, but is is a real newspaper.

And it would not recycle a story that is two weeks old and deliberately reference an unreliable right wing trash blog as source material. Google the story, and you'll very quickly find that Daily Caller very selectively editied Isakoff in order to twist his words. That was shared around the rest of the right wing blogs.

And then the Moonies decided to recycle it.

You see a lot of this kind of stuff in right wing media. Some of the fake stories about non existant Iraqi WMD's were recycled severral times in right wing blogs, and they all crib one another's material. No one ever checks any of it.

 

And that is what is seen in leftist media, such as The New York Times and Washington Post.

 

Provide examples or sit down.

 

The State Dept has the lead on such things.

 

Dupe thread. Identical one posted this morning. The search function is your friend.

 

Once you see it’s in the Washington Times you know it’s not legitimate or at least questionable. It’s a rag

 

It is in multiple other rags as well.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...lusion-claims-now-called-likely-false.548282/

 

WoW! are the same as the NY Times?

 

You mean it isn’t the New York Slime or Washington Compost.

 

Only a right wing lying rag like Washington Times would find the dossier to be false.

 

You made an assertion, I kicked its ass, so you prove it. LOL!!!

 

The Trump Russbots are making assertions and then demanding their weak comments be refuted with evidence.

 

^^^ Typically confused. The Canadian company owned the uranium, not the U.S. The U.S. owned none of it. Nine U.S. agencies had to sign off. Nine U.S. agencies signed off. Clinton had nothing to do, nothing to review, nothing to approve.

Prove it.

 

Really, the WT must be desperate to wish for this. See below, the dossier has yet to be wrong on anything AKA nothing has been debunked PERIOD.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective
"Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting."

"As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops."

 

See below, the dossier has yet to be wrong on anything AKA nothing has been debunked PERIOD.

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective
"Rather, we returned to the document because we wondered whether information made public as a result of the Mueller investigation—and the passage of two years—has tended to buttress or diminish the crux of Steele’s original reporting."

"As we noted, our interest is in assessing the Steele dossier as a raw intelligence document, not a finished piece of analysis. The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.

However, there is also a good deal in the dossier that has not been corroborated in the official record and perhaps never will be—whether because it’s untrue, unimportant or too sensitive. As a raw intelligence document, the Steele dossier, we believe, holds up well so far. But surely there is more to come from Mueller’s team. We will return to it as the public record develops."

 

and yet no one has yet posted a dam thing in that Dossier that was proven correct

 

Indeed. The Times is just the Moonie propaganda source. The real mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda and the official republican lapdog is faux news, assisted by the diarrhea of right-wing radio extremists.

 

Yawn......... We've all been over and over it.

He's right. Clinton has nothing to do with it. Even were she to have any involvement, several other very senior people would have to sign off.

 

So a personal attack in the clear. Who is being petulant?