It needs to be confirmed by @Weedhopper before we can trust that date.
3 Likes
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1079395894594887682
Uh oh. Giuliani has challenged Mueller. Watch out. When a pillar of probity as respected and credible as Rudy makes this sort of challenge, you know things are getting serious. I imagine Mueller and his crew will think long and hard about whether to continue . . . .
9 Likes
Here’s it is again, since your non-answer reply didn’t even come close to anything resembling an answer:
A central question hangs over Trump & Co., and is never answered by his apologists: if Trump wasn’t attempting deals in secret while running for President, then why was everyone always lying about their activities, their meetings, etc.?
2 Likes
Mueller should answer that with another indictment
“Mueller knows everything.”
Can’t stop laughing at Raging Rudy and his desperate attempts to stave off Mueller.
One of my favorite podcasts, Mueller She Wrote (which I highly recommend … it’s done totally by women, fyi) calls Rudy’s act “lubing the truth.” A very apt description, I’d say.
2 Likes
Why the heck do you think I know why they lied? I assure you I am not in with that group and they didn’t tell me. As far as Trump lying about dealing over the Moscow tower, he probably thought it sounded better politically to say he had no dealings with Moscow.
That doesn’t make it illegal.
And any disclosures coming from Mueller on this are more government paid for opposition research for political purposes than legitimate investigation. Let them do similar research on the Democrats if that is the game.
As far as the other lies…I don’t know. Neither do I make things up to fill in the gap.
BTW, I am not here to answer your questions.
I think it ofd you don’t mind being lied too
*Odd
Typo
No edit function
Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff, an early public conduit for Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, now says the former British spy’s sensational Russia collusion charges lack apparent evidence and are “likely false.”
As Election Day loomed in September 2016, Mr. Isikoff was the first Washington journalist to write about Mr. Steele’s memos. He focused on Mr. Steele’s contention that Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page met with nefarious operatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin during a publicly announced trip to Moscow in July 2016.
As reported by the Daily Caller, Mr. Isikoff this month told Mediaite columnist John Ziegler: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”
Well ■■■■■
Good thing it’s NYE. Gives people cover for getting stinking drunk.
1 Like
Sometimes I use the android memo app then copy over to here
Not surprising, but the WashTimes story is inaccurate. USA Today’s is better.
The Steele dossier was intelligence info collected together. It was not actual charges. And though not all the info has been corroborated, none of it has yet been debunked. And Isikoff did say there were ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Which makes the WashTimes headline completely wrong and puts the rest of the story in question.
But he was just expressing an opinion here. I doubt it’s all true either. But I wouldn’t put the collusion part away just yet.
1 Like
There we go, attack the source. 
‘Don’t listen to those guys, listen to my source only.’ 
What exactly did Isikoff say to warrant the Washington Times headline?
"… there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”
“More sensational allegations…are likely false” does not equal “Trump-Russia collusion claims ‘likely false.’”
So, yeah, your source sucks.
2 Likes
Why? It has the exact same quotes with links.
IF you want to bitch about the headline go ahead. It saves having to address the content.
1 Like
Which is what I did. And all you could do was complain.
No, you said my source, which contained the same quotes as your source was not a good source and yours was better. The only reason for that is it follows your narrative a little closer than mine does.
The other post bitched about the headline. Like no other outlet on this God given Earth EVER wrote a headline for the sensationalism and to get attention. That’s what outlets do.
All these years and the dossier isn’t giving you the slam dunk y’all wanted and it’s starting to wear.
1 Like
Isikoff didn’t say what your source said he did. It’s as simple as that.
And NOTHING in that dossier has debunked. Not ONE DAMN thing. Chew on that.
2 Likes
