Barr's DOJ Finds Christopher Steele "credible"

[WuWei]

@peek-a-boo

I provided the Reuters link. It mentions nothing about the credibility claims mentioned in the politico story.

Reuters is still kind of a newsy organization.

[Tilly_jow]

@WuWei

So let’s say ■■■■ head Steele is “credible” - what does that mean in real terms?

That nobody from the FBI is going to jail? Ok, knew that.

That Trump is a liar? Ok, knew that.

What else?

That the pee pee tape is real.

[kingarthur65]

@peek-a-boo

I don’t dispute the credibility of the sources accurately describing the lawyers’ travel plans. I dispute the follow on comments attributed to them about the content of the interviews implying that the lawyers’ found Steele to be credible.

Here is what Reuters has to say:

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

If you scroll up about 100 posts you’ll probably see the post where I quoted that last paragraph.

You have gone from saying that you didn’t believe anything those two “sources” provided as information. Then you found the Reuters article, which is the original story on this btw, and now you believe the sources knew about the travel plans but nothing else.

Sound like you are evolving. It’s a good sign

[Plasmaball]

I dont think so…since what they did isnt about if they broke a law…

I mean they can try but they will look stupid on the 17th

[peek-a-boo]

Sometimes my comments get mangled. I never doubted the named sources have some information. The real question is how much of it is hearsay and how much of it is speculation. You then have a reporter who takes that information and adds their own spin. Other media outlets pick the story up and add even more spin.

So when I talk about a lack of credibility, it might have looked like I was talking about the start of the food chain, when I was really talking about the sequence of events leading to the start of this thread, even though I didn’t come across that way.

I’m a doubting Thomas by nature and was curious why the major outlets hadn’t yet picked up on this, so I did some nosing around and found several articles referencing the Politico article. I also found an interesting one from Reuters and another from the Washington Examiner. Neither of those was making the Steele credibility claims found in the Politico article.

[Tilly_jow]

@peek-a-boo

Sometimes my comments get mangled. I never doubted the named sources have some information. The real question is how much of it is hearsay and how much of it is speculation.

But non embellished the pee pee tape. That story is becoming more and more real.

[peek-a-boo]

Only in your dreams.

[conan]

They to the left of center IMO…but far better source then associated press. I have Reuters on tap.

[WuWei]

@conan

They to the left of center IMO…but far better source then associated press. I have Reuters on tap.

Yeah, but I think it’s just european, so it seems that way to us.

[kingarthur65]

@peek-a-boo

Sometimes my comments get mangled. I never doubted the named sources have some information. The real question is how much of it is hearsay and how much of it is speculation. You then have a reporter who takes that information and adds their own spin. Other media outlets pick the story up and add even more spin.

So when I talk about a lack of credibility, it might have looked like I was talking about the start of the food chain, when I was really talking about the sequence of events leading to the start of this thread, even though I didn’t come across that way.

I’m a doubting Thomas by nature and was curious why the major outlets hadn’t yet picked up on this, so I did some nosing around and found several articles referencing the Politico article. I also found an interesting one from Reuters and another from the Washington Examiner. Neither of those was making the Steele credibility claims found in the Politico article

If I’m understanding this correctly, you relied on the link in the OP instead of finding other sources of information (the Reuters story) and could have saved us all a lot of time. Lesson learned. Happens all the time.

[dubarry20833]

I’m wrong. I confused you with someone else. Apologies.

[tnt]

how do you know the two sources weren’t 2 of the 3 lawyers?

Or, more plausible, the article doesn’t say the three lawyers were ALONE with steele.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

So how exactly would the knowledge of the lawyers’ travel plans qualify the 2 sources to discuss what was said behind closed doors?

Does it say they met alone with steele?

[peek-a-boo]

There is nothing plausible about your wild speculation.

[Jezcoe]

@Tilly_jow

@peek-a-boo

Sometimes my comments get mangled. I never doubted the named sources have some information. The real question is how much of it is hearsay and how much of it is speculation.

But non embellished the pee pee tape. That story is becoming more and more real.

It was even in the Mueller Report that Cohen reached out to Russian contacts to suppress “tapes”

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

There is nothing plausible about your wild speculation.

did it say they met alone with steele?

[Tilly_jow]

@peek-a-boo

Only in your dreams.

There was a time when you believed everything in the Steele file was wrong.

Now, you admit some of it is true is true.

Soon, you’ll realize it’s all true.

You’re orange god is leading you to ruin.

[peek-a-boo]

Do you seriously believe I will engage you in your wild speculation? Zero chance that will happen. Move along.

[peek-a-boo]

@Tilly_jow

Now, you admit some of it is true is true.

I admit no such thing.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

Do you seriously believe I will engage you in your wild speculation? Zero chance that will happen. Move along.

I take it that’s a no. So it is you who are speculating that the sources weren’t in the room.