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.

 

Comey or Brennan Certified and Pushed the Fake Anti-Trump Dossier that Hillary Paid For.

page: 3
51
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
At last report, about 80% of the Steele was verified and correct. We also know of a number of those facts from the Mueller report.

Citation please... or you are lying, either out of ignorance, being misled, or intentionally.




posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven
Anyway, the pee tape thing continues to persist, IMHO, because it's believable.

Maybe, if you are a brain dead moron.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

Lol, I saw where it was reported that Comey tried to blackmail Trump and Trump gave him the bird, the next day the bogus investigation started. He was trying to use the bs dossier to blackmail Trump like good old J E Hoover, Trump knew that it was a crock and told Comey to go f himself. I will try to find the sorce but facts are for some reason more and more difficult to find on the politiweb. I think it may have been on youtube or how about you go and find the story that points out your point is pointless poli jargon trying to defend the criminal actions of those committing them. That would make you an accomplice tho.



posted on May, 17 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Rumors going around that Comey and Brennan were active communists in the early 80's.



posted on May, 18 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut



Stellar journalism on show for all to see!


Why don't you leftists have ANY self awareness? Like any at all?


I am not a leftist.

I am a capitalist, I believe in family and uphold the rule of law. I believe that there are clear and unquestionable human rights and that they should never be transgressed. I am a born-again Christian. I believe in small, decentralized and strongly regulated government with checks and balances. I believe in democracy in the terms of one person, one vote. I believe in individualism tempered with the fact that we must love God above everything but we must love others as we love ourselves.

The truth is an absolute, not something that is situational or socially acceptable.

Ideologically, I sit between the left and the right and strenuously oppose extremism of all forms.

I know myself. I'm as self aware as you are.



Oh boy
Post history is a wonderful function here.
Interesting timing as well.


But you assume that only leftists are critical of Trump and because I am critical, that I am a leftist.

The accusations against Trump are that he collaborated with the Russians. That Trump is a Commie. An extreme leftist.



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

And yet, with all of that self aggrandizement, you were still unable to address the point I was inferring. Let me spell it out for you. Your hot takes are far more often, wrong, than the average. So to disparage the work of others (in this case, fox and washignton examiner) as being less than stellar, is ironic. Then you can take it deeper and see you're complaining about them naming their sources and their sources being former xxxxx, meanwhile for the last two years you have run around screaming about every wapo story. Nevermind that 90% of their stories were based on "anonymous sources."

LOL



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Anonymous sources and turned out to be incorrect more often than not.

Then we have CNN, that ran an article, had their source come on CNN to say that he was not their source (when he was), then the source finally came forward and admitted he was the source and the article was wrong. CNN refused to retract the anti-Trump story even then, and kept running it. It was of course proven fake news soon after.
edit on 19-5-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

And yet, with all of that self aggrandizement, you were still unable to address the point I was inferring. Let me spell it out for you. Your hot takes are far more often, wrong, than the average. So to disparage the work of others (in this case, fox and washignton examiner) as being less than stellar, is ironic. Then you can take it deeper and see you're complaining about them naming their sources and their sources being former xxxxx, meanwhile for the last two years you have run around screaming about every wapo story. Nevermind that 90% of their stories were based on "anonymous sources."

LOL


I'm not an American. I don't watch American news. I don't read American newspapers.

When debating with Americans, on American issues, I have used American internet sources but I usually check fairly extensively into the sources they provide.

I do this because I have found that most American news sources (regardless of their political leaning) are 98% opinion and 2% substance.

I don't accept anonymous sources anymore, in the same way, I don't accept a media outlet referencing an opinion piece as if it is supportive evidence. I am critical of it, which is why when I saw the circle jerk article, I called it out.

Apparently, that offends you.



posted on May, 20 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

British news sources are the same, especially the BBC.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
At last report, about 80% of the Steele was verified and correct. We also know of a number of those facts from the Mueller report.

Citation please... or you are lying, either out of ignorance, being misled, or intentionally.


Trump - Russia dossier - Veracity - Wikipedia

Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate and, as linked above, more and more of the dossier is being verified over time.



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Guess you missed that whole brit court transcript?
Lol
Hee Haw



posted on May, 29 2019 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: chr0naut

And yet, with all of that self aggrandizement, you were still unable to address the point I was inferring. Let me spell it out for you. Your hot takes are far more often, wrong, than the average. So to disparage the work of others (in this case, fox and washignton examiner) as being less than stellar, is ironic. Then you can take it deeper and see you're complaining about them naming their sources and their sources being former xxxxx, meanwhile for the last two years you have run around screaming about every wapo story. Nevermind that 90% of their stories were based on "anonymous sources."

LOL


Link to one of these instances of me taking a Washington Post story and not verifying sources, then.

Dare ya!



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Guess you missed that whole brit court transcript?
Lol
Hee Haw


Here are the court transcripts relating to the Steele deposition:

Steele deposition — Exhibit 66

Steele Deposition — Exhibit 16

Steele Deposition — Exhibit 146

Perhaps you could point me to anything where this amounts to the dossier's content being unverified or dubious, because the deposition and the cross examination, don't say anything like that.

Nor have the entire contents been released to the public and the case against both Buzzfeed and Steele was dropped.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 12:36 AM
link   
You don’t try to illegally unseat POTUS and someone not go to jail. The questions are; who? How many?



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

“In the [Queen’s Bench] proceedings the key issue is whether Mr. Steele/Orbis were responsible for the publication of the defamatory statement. Thus, the factual enquiry in the English proceedings will not focus on the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegation which is presumed to be false, and the QB Defendants have not contended otherwise.”

Its phony baloney
Steele himself would not verify it in court

Lol
You hold on to that trash tho



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Christopher Steele refuses to cooperate with U.S. legal authorities.

Story: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

President Trump says he's going to talk to Thresa May about this when he's in the U.K. next month.



posted on May, 30 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
At last report, about 80% of the Steele was verified and correct. We also know of a number of those facts from the Mueller report.

Citation please... or you are lying, either out of ignorance, being misled, or intentionally.


Trump - Russia dossier - Veracity - Wikipedia

What a joke...

You are claiming that Wikipedia, that bastion of questionable info (downright lies when it comes to certain subjects, health and politics being the two main ones), saying that 'the broad assertion that Russia waged a campaign to interfere in the election is now accepted as fact by the US intelligence community' equates to 70-90% of the entire dossier 'is verified and correct'?

Please, give me more, I need more laughter in my life!


Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate and, as linked above, more and more of the dossier is being verified over time.

Who cares what Steele says... why would he say anything else?

But by all means, point to any authoritative source that is tracking each and every claim in the dossier as they are verified.

I won't hold my breath, because there isn't one, because it is all hogwash.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join