(10-26-2017 09:33 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 09:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s called phrasing. Quit saying it’s been discredited when you show absolutely zero evidence of it being discredited. It hasn’t been.

We can go about this all day. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of Western law.

The dossier has no credit until there is evidence provided of the dossier being credible.

Just a thought...this might carry a little more weight if you would apply this same standard a little more to your friends on the right around here. Just sayin...

And several things in the Steele dossier have been corroborated.
How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.
Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'
US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

HuffPost
10/05/2017 07:59 pm ET
By Mollie Reilly

Robert Mueller’s Russia Probe Reportedly Looking Into The ‘Pee Tape’ Dossier

Quote:The Senate Intelligence Committee has also attempted to contact Steele about the dossier, committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said Wednesday.

“Unfortunately, the committee has hit a wall,” Burr said. “The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding who paid for it, who are your sources and subsources.”

Now it seems we're getting the information as to who paid for the dossier.

(10-26-2017 11:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 09:33 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-26-2017 09:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s called phrasing. Quit saying it’s been discredited when you show absolutely zero evidence of it being discredited. It hasn’t been.

We can go about this all day. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of Western law.

The dossier has no credit until there is evidence provided of the dossier being credible.

Just a thought...this might carry a little more weight if you would apply this same standard a little more to your friends on the right around here. Just sayin...

And several things in the Steele dossier have been corroborated.
How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.
Source: Slate
Date: Sep 2017

Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified'
Source: BBC
Date: Mar 2017

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier
Source: CNN
Date: Feb 2017

Given that the Slate article is the most recent, here's an important quote from that article:

Quote:As a result, they offer an overarching framework for what might have happened based on information from individuals on the Russian side who claimed to have insight into Moscow’s goals and operational tactics. Until we have another more credible narrative, we should do all we can to examine closely and confirm or dispute the reports.

I read the BBC article linked by red wing. It talked mainly about how the dossier said Russia spied on the US and how a Russian diplomat named Mikhail Kalugin was a key part of the process and was withdrawn to Russia in fears that he might be found out.

It wouldn't surprise me at all that Russia would try and spy on us nor would it surprise me if they covertly tried to create political and cultural discord for us.

However nothing in any of the articles linked any assistance, collaboration, or cooperation by or from the president or any off his staff. So, what about the dossier in relation to Trump has been proven accurate??

I see these articles linked and I have read a handful of them, but I have yet to see anything that corroborates Trump collusion.

Yes, such and such is believed to be a Russian spy, but what about Trump working with said suspected spy?

Did Russia meddle in the election, why yes they did. Was Trump involved in the election, why yes he was (he actually won the electoral college). Did Trump collude with Russia to win the election?....meh, I don't know.

Even the Chicago Tribune is now criticizing Hillary, the DNC, Obama and MSM.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...story.html