It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the UK the claims are automatically assumed to be false, the onus is onus is on the defendant to prove their statement to be true.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, if anyone is keeping score here ...
Strzok and another FBI agent went on a mission to London to receive information from the Australian ambassador about Trump Campaign members that had been turned or were cooperating with Russian agents.
Also, the reason this was kept secret was to insure that no leaks about the inquiries got out to the public to damage Trump's campaign as the leaks, and Comey crap had done to Clinton's.
Wow, isn't that ironic.
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
a reply to: Gryphon66
Sorry for taking so long. Had a A/C job pull in last minute that I couldn't pass up.
The way you joked around and took jabs at other posters with Silly was embarrassing. At least it should have been, coming from a poster who's posts I have starred many of.
I also noticed after she ran off you went back to your normal posting self. We all know how Silly is.
Seeing another member enabling her in her tactics just hit me wrong I guess.
Notice she hasn't been back with the evidence for her dossier verification claims?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Simon_Boudreaux
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
You really should take your own advice.
Really? Because I can admit that I made a mistake? Some of you should try it sometime.
Here's the thing: Shooterbrody's article [sic] stated that an English Court had determined that the contents of the Peegate Dossier were false and based that on a quote from the court procedings.
The article, and Shooterbrody (and myself, it turns out) misunderstood that statement because of one fact, helpfully pointed out by Bastion ... in the UK, libel requires that the Defendant prove their defamatory statements to be true.
The phrase "assumed to be false" speaks to a point of British law, not to the summation of the Crown on the accuracy of the entire Steele Dossier.
There, is that better for ya?
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen
“Based upon our review of the visitor logs at the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department, briefing officials on the dossier in October 2016,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said during a hearing held to review the U.S. government’s response to Russian meddling in the 2016 election
Do the visitors logs say why a person was there or just have the name and date?
And this links back to the daily caller.
Is this another of your famous hit a pieces foxy?
All outrage (WTF was he doing there of all places!!!) & no substance?
I bet this turns out that he was never even in the states.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gryphon66
Does the visitors log say why he was there and what they discussed because that just seems a bit extra for a visitors log.
Silly, I don't know. Your point is well-taken that the Daily Wire is media and media is usually questionable in terms of the facts.
My point is that Chris Steele is a well-known government contractor with years of expertise in Russia/Ukraine.
Anything related to Peegate just sends the zealots all cross-eyed... LOL