Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 16, 2017

Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who compiled an explosive dossier of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, believes it to 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election. The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports -- based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work -- will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow. "I've been dealing with this country for thirty years. Why would I invent this stuff?" Steele is quoted as saying.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steele's reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Harding's book.

Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Steele left Moscow in 1993 and was later posted to Paris before taking a senior post on MI6's Russia desk in London in 2006. Because his name had been on a list of MI6 officers leaked and published in 1999, he was unable to return to Moscow. But he was chosen to lead the MI6 investigation of the assassination of former FSB officer, Alexander Litvinenko, by radioactive poisoning in 2006.

Steele left MI6 in 2009, to start up a commercial intelligence firm, Orbis, with a former colleague, Christopher Burrows. Soon after its founding, Orbis began working with Fusion GPS, a Washington-based company doing political and business research, which commissioned the investigation of Trump in 2016.

Steele delivered a total of 16 reports to Fusion between June and early November 2016, but his sources started to go quiet from July, when Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. According to Harding's account, he was shocked by the extent of collusion his sources were reporting.

"For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience," Steele told friends."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 11:58 AM | Reply

The date in the heading and page numbers are completely accurate.

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-15 12:04 PM | Reply

Foreign intelligence agent works to undermine US election. Buy the book!

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 12:08 PM | Reply

lmao.... the Panic! is strong in these ones.

A well-respected M-16 officer decides to throw away his new career with a fake dossier? Tell me another one.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL, 70% to 90% accurate? That's ridiculously low, especially with how explosive some of the revelations were.

The CIA and the US military grade HumInt on two scales, a source reliability scale (A-F) and an information reliability scale (1-5). A and 1 are 100%, anything lower than that starts at B or 2.

Source Reliability:

A Reliable No doubt about the source's authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency. History of 100% complete reliability.
B Usually reliable Minor doubts. History of mostly valid information.
C Fairly reliable Doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
D Not usually reliable Significant doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
E Unreliable Lacks authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency. History of invalid information.
F Cannot be judged Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.

Information Reliability:

1 Confirmed Logical, consistent with other relevant information, 100% confirmed by independent sources.
2 Probably true Logical, consistent with other relevant information, not confirmed.
3 Possibly true Reasonably logical, agrees with some relevant information, not confirmed.
4 Doubtfully true Not logical but possible, no other information on the subject, not confirmed.
5 Improbable Not logical, contradicted by other relevant information.
6 Can't be judged The validity of the information can not be determined.

So what Steele is saying is that at best, there are minor doubts and logical, consistent information that is not confirmed in the report and at worst there are significant doubts and doubtfully true information, not logical but possible that is not confirmed.

Not sure how this helps his or the report's credibility in the slightest.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience," Steele told friends."

Obviously Steele's previous werk was well-accepted by US Intel... and there's no reason to believe this werk was any different.

Regardless of the breathless obfuscations in Trump's defence.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:20 PM | Reply

A well-respected M-16 officer decides to throw away his new career with a fake dossier? Tell me another one.
#4 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2017-11-15 12:10 PM | REPLY

Well, that's not what's happening so I don't know why somebody would tell you that. A former, foreign intelligence officer released a dossier paid for by political opponents of the person that won the presidency. Now he's got a book to sell you about it.

Might be real, might be not, Steele is definitely cashing in. If Brazile can, he should to, this is America.. even though he's not one.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 12:25 PM | Reply

I obviously haven't read the book, but based on what he says in the article (he knows the sources, who were fairly reliable) the Source is probably a C and the information (possible, no other relevant information, not confirmed) as a 4.

C-4 evaluations are generally not trusted as actionable intelligence and Steele knows it...he is merely trying to salvage his reputation. Put this in the Donna Brazile category of after the fact CYA.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Mystery surrounds death of former KGB chief linked to lurid Trump report

Read more here: www.kansascity.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:31 PM | Reply

= Now he's got a book to sell you about it.

Steele didn't write the book, Guardian journalist Luke Harding did. And even so, what you posted is in no way retortive of what I posted about him not risking his well-established Intel creds.

#8

"An avg 80 percent accuracy is meaningless!!!"

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:35 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Missed the point, not surprised.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-15 12:38 PM | Reply

#9

According to CNN in August, 2017:

"Self-proclaimed online sleuths and conspiracy theorists have filled the information void with speculation that Erovinkin's death was somehow related to Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. No evidence has surfaced to make such a connection."

Maybe he was Seth Rich's conduit to Wikileaks....

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:38 PM | Reply

#11

Pointless, not surprised.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:39 PM | Reply

#12

www.telegraph.co.uk

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:41 PM | Reply

"The CIA and the US military grade HumInt on two scales, a source reliability scale (A-F) and an information reliability scale (1-5). A and 1 are 100%, anything lower than that starts at B or 2."

Yeah, there's a standard of reliability you can depend on. Riiiight!!

#15 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-15 12:42 PM | Reply

"An avg 80 percent accuracy is meaningless!!!"

That would make it a low C-3, high D-4 assessment, most HumInt officers wouldn't touch that information with a ten foot pole.

The problem, Corky, is that you don't know what the 20% inaccuracy is.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:42 PM | Reply

"Russian media suggest that one or more of the trio either leaked details of Russia's role directly to American intelligence, or to Christopher Steele, the former British spy believed to have compiled the so-called Trump dossier. The dossier is a 35-page memo that suggested various links between Trump and Russia, involving information that allegedly made him vulnerable to extortion.

Which leads to the Dec. 26 death of a former KGB general named Oleg Erovinkin. An initial news account at the Russian website Life.ru said Erovinkin had been killed, shot twice in the head. That version quickly morphed into vaguer accounts of a death-under-investigation."

qz.com

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:44 PM | Reply

#16

Your problem seems to be reading comprehension... OK, that's just one of your problems.

"One of the reasons his dossier was taken seriously in Washington in 2016 was Steele's reputation in the US for producing reliable reports on Russia, according to Harding's book.

Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour."

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:46 PM | Reply

Congrats Corky, you linked to two articles written on within two days of each other in January, 2017. The CNN link that says "No evidence has surfaced to make such a connection" was written on August 24, 2017 and was about 9 Russians who all have died since the election, including Erovinkin.

Nine months, nine prominent Russians dead

"Former intelligence official found dead in his car

Oleg Erovinkin, who had close ties to Russian intelligence, was found dead on December 26 sitting in his car on the streets of Moscow. Russian news outlets reported that he was 61 years old. Russian government agencies have not released an official cause of death.

He was a former general in the Russian law enforcement and intelligence agency known as the FSB. He also served as chief of staff to Igor Sechin, the president of state-owned oil giant Rosneft. Sechin enjoys a close relationship with Putin that dates back to the 1990s.

Because of Erovinkin's background, conspiracy theorists and Russia watchers have speculated that he might have been a source of information in the 35-page dossier that detailed alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia. No evidence has emerged to firmly substantiate those claims."

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:47 PM | Reply

Cork n' Paste, I already read that passage twice, it doesn't get better the third time.

Each report is graded independently. Just because he has written other reports doesn't improve his grade for the next report.

#20 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:50 PM | Reply

"No evidence has emerged to firmly substantiate those claims."

Yeah, cause see Putin usually lets that kind of evidence emerge.

But let's stick to the main story. The former M-16 agent who is well-respected for his intel by both British and American agencies says his dossier is mostly accurate... and he has no reason to risk his career by doing so, especailly as the people who hired him to do the report are currently testifying before Congress.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Each report is graded independently.

So of 16 reports, most could be rated A or B... you have no way of knowing that. You are just blowing smoke for Trump as per usual.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:53 PM | Reply

is mostly accurate

Close doesn't cut it here.

he has no reason to risk his career by doing so

He and Fusion has several million reasons to write that report. And now he gets book royalties on top of it.

especailly as the people who hired him to do the report are currently testifying before Congress.

Medusa and Podesta both denied knowledge of hiring Fusion, Elias has claimed Attorney Client privilege and refuses to testify and the Fusion founders are taking the Fifth. Sounds like someone has something to hide.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-He and Fusion has several million reasons to write that report. And now he gets book royalties on top of it.

Steele's firm was paid 168K of the million Fusion received, and the book is by a Guardian journalist.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#22

There are two grades, but you are right, neither of us know. Based on what we do know from Steele's own admissions in this article, the Trump Dossier at best was a B-2, at worst a D-4. If it was at 80% as you averaged it out, then it is a C-3, dip into the 70% range on both source and information and you have a D-4.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:00 PM | Reply

- you averaged it out,

Each report is graded separate you said.... so most could be A and B for all you know.

Based on his history of having his reports used by US and British intel, there is every chance they were.

But hey, Trump appreciates your smokescreens.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:02 PM | Reply

Based on his history of having his reports used by US and British intel, there is every chance they were.

I am not doubting that he has made accurate reports on other matters in the past.

But based on his own admissions for the Trump Dossier ("70 to 90% accurate"), that excludes A-1 and could go as low as D-4 based on the HumInt scale.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:07 PM | Reply

#27

No, you are "Pettifogging for Trump!"

As per usual. Besides which, you have no indication whatsoever that Steele had the HumInt scale in mind when he quoted those numbers.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The biggest problem with the Steele Dossier is not on the Source side but on the Information side, since when you read the dossier Steele admits that there is no other information on the subject and it is not confirmed. That makes it "possible" and gives it a value of 4 no matter how you slice it. That doesn't make it untrue, so the Source value becomes paramount. However, since Steele admits to paying for his sources, without other verification of reliability that usually reduces the grade from a B to a C, or "fairly reliable, Doubts" since money was exchanged for the information.

#29 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:14 PM | Reply

No, you are "Pettifogging for Trump!"

Hardly, just evaluating the information that Steele himself has provided.

Besides which, you have no indication whatsoever that Steele had the HumInt scale in mind when he quoted those numbers.

Other than his professed 30 years of experience as an Intelligence Agent, I do not. However, I'm pretty sure that he grades every piece of information that he receives that way, so his chosen profession and experience would support my position.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:17 PM | Reply

#29

Maybe a fourth reading will help....

"Between 2014 and 2016, he authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine, which were commissioned by private clients but shared widely within the state department and passed across the desks of the secretary of state, John Kerry, and the assistant secretary Victoria Nuland, who led the US response to the annexation of Crimea and the covert invasion of eastern Ukraine.

The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump, which included allegations that the Kremlin had personally compromising material on the US president including sex tapes recorded during a trip to Moscow in 2013, and that Trump and his associates actively colluded with Russian intelligence to influence the election in his favour."

"The sources for those reports were the same as those quoted in the dossier on Trump..."

There's no reason to discount the sources... well, unless one is fluffing Trump.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:17 PM | Reply

- I'm pretty sure that he grades every piece of information that he receives that way,

I'm pretty sure his quote about their accuracy reflects:

"I've been dealing with this country for thirty years. Why would I invent this stuff?"

and

"For anyone who reads it, this is a life-changing experience,"

But hey, pettifoggers gotta pettifog.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:20 PM | Reply

So by his own admissions, the sources get a B, but the information is still a 4. I don't believe he is making anything up and that his sources gave him the information, but he is the one who put the low end on accuracy at 70%, not me. Therein lies the problem.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:36 PM | Reply

Maybe a fourth reading will help....

Maybe you should repost that segment for Steele one more time so that he upgrades his accuracy assessment to fit your narrative.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 01:39 PM | Reply

- Therein lies the problem.

The problem is your assumptions about information that the Brits and US intel thought were good enough.

And you assumption that "70-80" percent means the info in all reports, not that most reports had excellent info, but some few maybe not so much.

But you know what happens when people ASSume things, right?

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 01:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Christopher Steele (the author) believes it (his work) to 70% to 90% accurate (aka 10% to 30% --------).

That, ladies and germs, is what you call a rousing endorsement.

"How did you do on the test today, Sterling?" "Okay, I guess."

#36 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-15 02:13 PM | Reply

If even 70 percent is accurate, Mike Pence will be President.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 02:15 PM | Reply

Steele's (aka Austin Powers) letters to Penthouse forum were also determined to be 70 to 90% accurate.

#38 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-15 02:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And you assumption that "70-80" percent means the info in all reports

I never made that ASSumption, your lack of reading comprehension or desperation created that stat.

Steele says, specifically about the Steele Dossier"that he "believes it to 70% to 90% accurate".

That's it, not the other reports, nothing else.

And 70% accuracy means 30% inaccuracy.

The question is, what is that 30%?

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 02:28 PM | Reply

If even 70 percent is accurate, Mike Pence will be President.

That should terrify you even more than Trump does TBH.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 02:31 PM | Reply

#37 That depends on which 30% is fabricated, doesn't it? Keep in mind that the interpreted statement in #36 is "The author thinks his work is 30 percent wrong." If the AUTHOR only gives it that much credit, how would it stand up to independent scrutiny? Is it half wrong? Which half? Are all the sentences correct except for the names and places? Is he counting words and giving himself credit for spelling and grammar?

#41 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-15 02:31 PM | Reply

If even 70 percent is accurate, Mike Pence will be President.

That should terrify you even more than Trump does TBH.

It does.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-15 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well. Not terrify.

More like. Depress.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-15 02:43 PM | Reply

#43

Given Pence's not so hidden Fundy leanings, I think both terms are accurate.

"Be careful of what you wish for..."

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 02:51 PM | Reply

What's really depressing is between Pence, Ryan, and McConnell.

There's not a single one of them I'd want presiding over our nation.

None of them have our nation's best interests at heart.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-15 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And 70% accuracy means 30% inaccuracy.

The question is, what is that 30%?

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter

No dummy.

The question is what is the 70% that's accurate.

Have you seen what is in it? If any one thing was accurate that would have been bad enough. But 70%?

Holy crap.

DOCNJ's head is gonna explode (and by the looks of it a few other wing-nuts heads have already exploded).

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the AUTHOR only gives it that much credit, how would it stand up to independent scrutiny?

This author was being honest. This was not an investigation like Mueller is doing where every detail has to be correct before you bring a case to a prosecutor.

It is an intelligence assessment by an intelligence officer. They are almost never 100% correct.

It is the basis for an actual investigation. Some will be proved and verified some of it will not pan out.

As you have seen.

But, 70% accuracy for a FAKE DOCUMENT and HOAXBURGER is pretty damn accurate.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-15 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Pence is a known quantity who, however abysmal, is not likely to turn a tweet war into a nuclear war.

And if the Steele dossier were only half right, he's likely become President.

"And so, on a warm day last June, Christopher Steele, ex-Cambridge Union president, ex-M.I.6 Moscow field agent, ex-head of M.I.6's Russia desk, ex-adviser to British Special Forces on capture-or-kill ops in Afghanistan, and a 52-year-old father with four children, a new wife, three cats, and a sprawling brick-and-wood suburban palace in Surrey, received in his second-floor office at Orbis a transatlantic call from an old client.

"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," Steele would recall in an anonymous interview with Mother Jones, his identity at the time still a carefully guarded secret. But over the next seven incredible months, as the retired spy hunted about in an old adversary's territory, he found himself following a trail marked by, as he then put it, "hair-raising" concerns.

The allegations of financial, cyber, and sexual shenanigans would lead to a chilling destination: the Kremlin had not only, he'd boldly assert in his report, "been cultivating, supporting, and assisting" Donald Trump for years but also had compromised the tycoon "sufficiently to be able to blackmail him."

www.vanityfair.com

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well if Trump voters don't think it's wrong for the DA to groom an underage girl, they surely won't see anything nefarious in the Kremlin grooming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-15 03:52 PM | Reply

"How good were these sources?

Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure."

Source B was "a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin." And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a trusted compatriot," would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

Source E was "an ethnic Russian" and "close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump."

This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information. "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot," the talkative Source E "admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."

Then this: "The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform."

And finally: "In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine."

Then there was Source D, "a close associate of Trump who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow," and Source F, "a female staffer" at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel, who was co-opted into the network by an Orbis "ethnic Russian operative" working hand in hand with the loquacious Trump insider, Source E.

These two sources told quite a lurid story, the now infamous "golden showers" allegation, which, according to the dossier, was corroborated by others in his alphabet list of assets.

It was an evening's entertainment, Steele, the old Russian hand, must have suspected, that had to have been produced by the ever helpful F.S.B. And since it was typical of Moscow Center's handwriting to have the suite wired up for sound and video (the hotel's Web site, with unintentional irony, boasts of its "cutting edge technological amenities"), Steele apparently began to suspect that locked in a Kremlin safe was a hell of a video, as well as photographs."

more

www.vanityfair.com

By now Mueller knows who each of theses sources is, and is apparently compiling a case. We'll see how good the original intel is then.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 03:54 PM | Reply

A Second Look at the Steele Dossier -- Knowing What We Know Now

By John Sipher
Wednesday, September 6, 2017

[Editor's Note: In this special Just Security article, highly respected former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service, John Sipher examines the Steele dossier using methods that an intelligence officer would to try to validate such information.

Sipher concludes that the dossier's information on campaign collusion is generally credible when measured against standard Russian intelligence practices, events subsequent to Steele's reporting, and information that has become available in the nine months since Steele's final report.

The dossier, in Sipher's view, is not without fault, including factual inaccuracies. Those errors, however, do not detract from an overarching framework that has proven to be ever more reliable as new revelations about potential Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin and its affiliates has come to light in the nine months since Steele submitted his final report.]

www.justsecurity.org

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here's where the 70/30% split probably comes in:

On the other hand, there is also information in the Steele reports that appears wrong or questionable. For example, the notion that Steele and his team could develop so many quality sources with direct access to discussions inside the Kremlin is worth serious skepticism. The CIA and other professional intelligence services rarely developed this kind of access despite expending significant resources over decades, according to published accounts. It is also hard to believe that Orbis could have four separate sources reporting on the incident at the Moscow hotel. The reputation of the elite hotel in the center of Moscow depends on the discretion of its staff, and crossing the FSB is not something taken lightly in Russian society. A source that could be so easily identified would be putting themselves at significant risk. Further, additional information in the reports cannot be checked without the tools of a professional investigative service.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-15 06:45 PM | Reply

#52

Distinctions without differences, caveats to the 80, maybe 90 percent.

Pettifogging while ignoring overall conclusions....

"Those errors, however, do not detract from an overarching framework that has proven to be ever more reliable as new revelations about potential Trump campaign collusion with the Kremlin and its affiliates has come to light in the nine months since Steele submitted his final report."

One might think after all the making of excuses for traitors and feebs like Nixon, Reagan, GW... and now Trump, that rwingers might be tired.

But no....

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-15 07:32 PM | Reply

This thread is absolutely classic. It's tribal beyond belief and I say that in the most base sense possible.

Lefties should be running away from the Steele dossiere as fast as possible.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-15 10:00 PM | Reply

#49 Yah but Moore only wanted to screw the girl, not everyone except the rich.

#55 | Posted by bored at 2017-11-15 10:10 PM | Reply

#54

I want to see how much of the dossier is true. Up to and including the pee tapes.

#56 | Posted by Zed at 2017-11-15 10:26 PM | Reply

70% to 90% accurate? That's ridiculously low, especially with how explosive some of the revelations were.

He didn't prepare the dossier for public consumption. It was written as opposition research for two clients. The point wasn't to wait until every fact was 100% verified. It was to round up the available intelligence believed to be credible by a former British MI6 intelligence officer with a reputation for knowing his ----.

If even 70% of the major allegations are true it's spectacularly damning to Trump and he's probably bound for removal from office, disgrace and even prison.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-16 08:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

It is blatantly obvious that Trump's sons and son in law solicited Hillary dirt from Russia and Wikileaks. What dirt did they get that the Republican Party didn't already know? To put the question another way, how do we measure the effect of Russian BS in the sea of BS we live in? Keep in mind that to the extent the source is known to be Russian it is, on average, likely to have the opposite of the desired effect. This makes it extremely risky and has everything to do with deliberately blowing the impact completely out of proportion.

The US should condemn any such interference and publicly promise to cease and desist from interfering in free and fair elections around the world, as it has done frequently with reckless hubris.

Trump lost the popular vote and won the electoral college by hair thin margins in States controlled by Republican administrations with a history of cheating and getting away with it. 25% of all US voting machines have no paper trail. Most of the computerized systems are hack-able, by experts, in a matter of seconds. Voter registration rolls have been purged to favor Republicans, ballots have been destroyed after elections are held. Bernie diluted Hillary's support, as is his and every other American's right.

We need to clean up our own voting systems which can take a month to even finalize tallies, in spite of all the expensive equipment we utilize. Then we should focus on preventing external enemies from exercising undue influence. But this is a tall order so long as we remain properly committed to free speech. Its actually more important to educate our own population to be better able to think intelligently. Let's face it we have an insane clown President because so many Americans are poorly educated. That problem is something we should really do something about, admitting it takes time to accomplish and recognizing that right wing (1%) forces like DeVos, are dead set against that sort of national progress.

#58 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 08:41 AM | Reply

Lefties should be running away from the Steele dossiere as fast as possible.

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why? Because you are drinking the Fox News koolaid on it?

#59 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-17 03:41 PM | Reply

Why? Because you are drinking the Fox News koolaid on it?

What would you do without the Fox News deflection if you had 100% pro-Democrat broadcast and cable tv, rather than the current 90%?

#60 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-17 04:17 PM | Reply

What would you do without the Fox News deflection if you had 100% pro-Democrat broadcast and cable tv, rather than the current 90%?

#60 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2017-11-17 04:17 PM | REPLY

Only if by pro-democrat you mean not repeating right wing lies and conspiracy theories.

90% of the news is just facts. Who what where when why. When the facts don't support your -------- right wing ideology that doesn't mean the news is biased, it means your -------- isn't supported by reality and facts.

Instead of inventing alternate facts and conspiracy theories maybe you should go where the evidence leads and realize that the right wing has nothing going for it except faith in disproven myths.

Trickle down doesn't work
tax breaks never pay for themselves
cutting social programs never saves us money
taxes are irrelevant in hiring decisions
immigrants are not a problem
black people are not inherently more violent or lazy
government is not a problem
regulation is not a bad thing
deregulation is not a good thing
the first half of the 2nd amendment is not irrelevant
taxes are not high
taxes are not evil
poverty is not caused by the poor
climate change is real
ISIS and Al Queda are RIGHT WING extremists
Christian extremists kill more Americans than muslim extremists
Police are not under attack. They are safer than ever
Crime is not at an all time high
Vaccines do not cause autism
politics did not kill coal and cannot save it
The Clinton Foundation is not a slush fund for the Clintons
Trump is not Trying to help you
There are no fine people standing with the Nazis
Both sides are not the same
The 2nd amendment is not about fighting the government (Insurrections). In fact article 1 section 8 allows congress to call up the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment to " execute the Laws of the Union, SUPRESS Insurrections and repel Invasions"

#61 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-17 05:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#61

A zillion times yes! Thank you.

#62 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-17 05:26 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-11-17 05:18 PM |

A lot of text that begs the question. Who would blame if you didn't have Fox News to trash for the inconvenient fact that a lot of people don' t agree with you and vote with you?

#63 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-17 06:09 PM | Reply

A lot of text that begs the question. Who would blame if you didn't have Fox News to trash for the inconvenient fact that a lot of people don' t agree with you and vote with you?

#63 | Posted by AndreaMackris

If fox news didn't exist, most of those fallacies wouldnt be widely accepted enough to affect policy.

#64 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-17 06:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#61

About 90% of that list is opinion not fact.

#65 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-17 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#65 | POSTED BY ET_AL

2/25 = 8%, not 90%. The other 23 are irrefutable facts.

#66 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 06:34 PM | Reply

the inconvenient fact that a lot of people don' t agree with you and vote with you?
#63 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

The problem isn't that they disagree with us, the problem is they disagree with objective reality.

#67 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 06:36 PM | Reply

#66

Your opinion.

Include statements of mixed fact/opinion and my opinion of about 90% is closer to "objective reality."

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-17 06:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#68; These are the only two that I can't confirm as facts:

-tax breaks never pay for themselves
-taxes are irrelevant in hiring decisions

They aren't necessarily opinions, but I am not certain of their being facts.

Which ones are giving you trouble, Et al?

#69 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 07:11 PM | Reply

The problem isn't that they disagree with us, the problem is they disagree with objective reality.

Why is your grasp on "objective reality" any more credible than your next door neighbor's or my plumber?

#70 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-17 07:13 PM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

It shouldn't be unless your plumber and neighbor are drinking the same right-wing koolaid as you.

#71 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-11-17 07:25 PM | Reply

Why is your grasp on "objective reality" any more credible than your next door neighbor's or my plumber?

#70 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Because a moron who doesn't beleive in climate change because donald trump told him it's a chinese hoax, doesn't have the same authority to talk about climate change as someone who has studied it their entire career.

This is the right's idea of "fair and balanced." The opinions of morons who know nothing should be given equal consideration and power as educated experts and intellectuals.

That's why they always attack education and praise "going with your gut."

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-17 07:29 PM | Reply

It shouldn't be unless your plumber and neighbor are drinking the same right-wing koolaid as you.

So you're back to blaming Fox News for anyone that disagrees with you.

#73 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-17 08:03 PM | Reply

So you're back to blaming Fox News for anyone that disagrees with you.

#73 | Posted by AndreaMackris

The amount of misinformation that fox news has shoved into americans heads is staggering. They wrap themselves in the american flag and hire a bunch of game show hosts and blonde bimbos to tell lies to gullible suckers.

They are not the root of all evil, but they are the mouthpiece of evil.

They also have the power to shape national policy now, since the president is a moron who believes anything he sees on fox news.

#74 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-17 08:06 PM | Reply

So the new meme is that all of the dossier is 70-90% accurate rather than the actual meaning that 70-90% is 100% accurate

#75 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-17 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

After an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all.

Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof.

These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Russia-gate is not about ‘meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But, Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.

In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. Brennan is even worse than Clapper.

Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks) and advocated immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia?

Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA. Brennan's CIA. (Mike Whitney)

#76 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 10:11 PM | Reply

I'm going to take a shot in the dark (admittedly after 3 IPAs) that #76 Was posted by Russian plant. And no, I'm not referring to the fauna.

#77 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-17 10:15 PM | Reply

#74 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

From what I've read and HEARD from the folks behind the scenes at fox news, this is entirely correct. The only reason Fox News has an operation is that they're crew is offered employment. Apparently, the crew would rather work elsewhere and use Fox News as a stepping stone. Fox necessitates this model because they'd be unable to operate otherwise.

#78 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-11-17 10:20 PM | Reply

#77, can't you just counter the arguments?

A retired beach bum with a love of actual facts

#79 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 10:26 PM | Reply

I'm going to take a shot in the dark (admittedly after 3 IPAs) that #76 Was posted by Russian plant. And no, I'm not referring to the fauna.

It's just another Counterpunch cut & past from Nutcase.

#80 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-17 10:28 PM | Reply

Actually, I think there is a reasonable chance the Trumps are headed into big trouble in two ways: some for lying under oath, but more seriously for laundering Russian money... not for election collusion.

#81 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 10:34 PM | Reply

Indeed Mike Whitney @ Counterpunch is credited.

#82 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 10:37 PM | Reply

I'm beginning to think Nutcase was born in Russia. He spent so much space here defending Putin's Great Ukrainian Adventure that the Retort gerbil had to have triple-by-pass surgery. And Rogers didn't have insurance.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-17 10:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Notice that #77 makes a series of factual assertions and nobody even tries to refute them. Instead its just a bunch of lame character attacks, pitifully lame. Its not even my words.

#84 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-17 10:51 PM | Reply

61 | POSTED BY HATTER5183 AT 2017-11-17 05:18 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 5

Is 90 percent fact. At least.

#85 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-17 11:35 PM | Reply

People here want to believe according to their political leaning, no matter how editorial if it fits their leaning it must be deemed true or close to it.

Even though nothing will ever come of it, the hard left will keep hammering it home, it was kind of like the righties kept pushing Obama's birth to create the doubt.

#86 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-11-17 11:42 PM | Reply

"it was kind of like the righties kept pushing Obama's birth to create the doubt."

And then you voted for the guy that built his political career on the birth certificate lie.

#87 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2017-11-18 12:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is 90 percent fact. At least.

Not according to the guy who wrote it.

#88 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-18 12:30 AM | Reply

#88

Pettifogger

1 :a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable :shyster
2 :one given to quibbling over trifles

Pettifogger

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-18 12:41 AM | Reply

#61 and #77 are both factual.

#90 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-18 06:39 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort