You know those people who lied to you about the Trump colluded with the Russians, well they laughed when they kept this from you.
That’s exatly what you’ve been doing the last dozen and half post. 
You cant even admit the truth.
To bad for the Deepstate traitors it’s still under investigation unlike Mueller and his dossier. 
You should be asking why they haven’t ended the investigation yet.
Educate your self on Admiral Roger’s investigation into the fisa abuse by the FBI, seriously people this is old news!
Could you of used a more biased source? That place makes Drudge look credible in comparison
The pee pee video is real?
1 Like
You called the dossier fake with less.
So? The article off of which this thread is based does nothing to support that Barr’s DOJ finds Christopher Steele “credible”. I will wait for the reports.
As I did with the Mueller report and the DOJ conclusions on obstruction.
This pretty much verifies that the DOJ found Christopher Steele credible. 
Fat donald is so damn predictable.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1148796604037652480?s=21
1 Like
Pfffft…you did exactly what you accused me of doing. You have “was not far off” in quotes and attribute that to the investigators. It was actually attributed to “Steele’s defenders”, not the investigators. You took a quote about someone else from way down in the article and gave it to the investigators which created a completely different light on how it was really used.
You have “was not far off” in quotes, meaning that is exactly as found in the article. How many places does “was not far off” appear in that article? Show me those exact words used in relation to the investigators and I will concede the point.
This has been extensively covered in the discussion of the politico article adn the Reuters article. There is no point in rehashing the matter. Its a serious enough matter that Trump was tweeting about it in the middle of the night.
“Credible?” Could this mean that Christopher Steele decided to tell the truth? Wow!
1 Like
Isn’t it funny how whenever the “mainstream media” uses anonymous sources, the story is immediately not to be believed, but when the CEC uses unnamed sources, that’s fine- it’s completely credible.
For example, Donald Trump retweeted this story about the Trump Tower meeting only days after he blasted the NY Times for the use of anonymous sources.
The key phrase for this story?
During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News. That follows a recent report from The Washington Post alleging that Kushner wanted to develop a secure, private line with Russia.
Our own host has used stories whose sources are anonymous on this very website.
Anonymous sources are the lifeblood of journalism…many highly connected individuals will not speak unless their anonymity is guaranteed.
So can we stop with this utter falsehood that anonymous sources are never to be trusted?
Such stories don’t always pan out, and sometimes they are over-relied upon in journalism- that doesn’t mean they are NEVER to be trusted.
Here’s a nice Fivethirtyeight article that offers some guidelines about when one might trust a story with anonymous sources. I’ll put it to work with this story and see how it stacks up in a later post, but for now, I have to “go drive the economy”. 
2 Likes
The op used politico and you’re complaining about sources?
I looked to see what other organizations were reporting this. And
Politico is not mainstream media. Neither is Daily Kos, thinkprogress or mediates.
Seriously? Anyone who has been following my conversation can clearly see that you don’t know what you are talking about.
That’s what you chose to focus on?
The dossier itself exists, thus it isn’t fake. The accuracy of the content is what is being questioned.
Yes. Sources matter. Goes to credibility.
