Barr's DOJ Finds Christopher Steele "credible"

The hearsay from two people familiar with the matter. We know nothing about them. We don’t even know if they had anything to do with the interview.

I did and I find the sources credible.

There was no Russia collusion. That is a fact.

What evidence do you have to counter their hearsay? Anything besides emotion?

Well good for you.

Seriously?? :roll_eyes:

I believe these sources more than what comes out of fat donald’s mouth on a daily basis.

2 Likes

No he didn’t.

Also, you realize invitations don’t START with having everything verified, don’t you?

If everything was verified, you wouldn’t need an investigation. You would just charge, or not.

And you know this how?

Is there an instance of when hearsay is accurate, or is it always wrong? Are there any other biases that you have that are leading you to your conclusion that it isn’t credible?

No, that is not at all what hearsay is.

These are unnamed sources. Not at all the same thing as hearsay.

1 Like

Well no surprise there.

Ten second Tom is back again. There were no charges of Russian collusion. That is the phrase you are looking for.

It means you are excluded…

2 Likes

No Russia collusion!

Based on the detail of information provided to the reporter. Seems plausible based on the timeline, and the questions that would be asked of Steele by investigators.

No, that’s not hearsay.

In the trump era people just use words that they think will advance their cause regardless of their meaning.

I find it to be funny that LIBs wouldn’t accept Barr’s sworn testimony about a conversation he had with Mueller, calling it hearsay. And yet they have no problem accepting the claims made by people familiar with the matter.

Down right laughable. :rofl:

The dossier had two elements.

The portions dealing with Russian support for the Trump campaign and Trump campaign acceptance of that support have almost all been confirmed by the Mueller Report, with one clear exception – Steele got the name of the Russian executive in one meeting at Rural wrong.

The portions alleging Trump was open to Russian blackmail because of his carrying on with prostitutes in Moscow during the Miss Universe pageant has neither been confirmed nor disconfirmed, but the underlying allegation, that Trump’s infidelities open him up to blackmail has been confirmed by his being known to have paid blackmail to Stormy Daniels and Karen MacDougal.

I appreciate all the people shouting “hearsay”. They have a point. But then how can they argue that the Steele Dossier was the basis of the FISA warrant or that Comey lied to the FISA court – when they have less than hearsay to support those allegations?

But sworn testimony from Barr should be considered hearsay. Is that how it works in the LIB bizarro world?