No, the truth doesn’t matter to some. They know when I say the fake dossier I mean the salacious and collusion aspects are fake, not the parts like Trump was once in Moscow and Moscow is in Russia. Are you going to have to bring this up every time? I don’t intend to switch over to saying “…the dossier which contains some background truth but has totally fake charges of salacious and collusion activity”. Most people don’t pretend to not know what I mean.
I get what you’re saying about trying to simplify the conversation/description for convenience. That’s fair.
With that said, have you read the compilation of memorandums that make up the dossier? Assuming you have, how much of it do you now know has been corroborated? One quarter? Half? More than half? Three quarters?
What percent has to have been confirmed and corroborated, in your opinion, to equate to no longer being majority “salacious and collusion activity?” Or, no longer an accurate summation of being “fake?”
Maybe we could have a multi million dollar two year investigation to determine if any of the alleged acts of collusion could be verified.
Oh, we just did. And they found that the collusion parts were, well, fake.
I"m not here to answer your questions. Nor will I rehash old questions of alleged collusion that have been around for over two years, been investigated by the FBI and by the Mueller team. If you believe you can document instances of collusion that were listed in the dossier, you need to contact Mueller right now for a Comey type reopening.
For over a year you have been challenging people to say they will accept the conclusions of the Mueller team. Ok. I do.
What a huge cop-out and goalpost move. You may want to read the dossier if you’re going to continue to talk as if you understand it and know what’s in it. Just saying. Or don’t and continue to be uninformed. It’s your choice.