Continuing previous discussion from this thread
Re: McCabe-why did he say he couldnít verify it? Because, the FBI hasnít verified it. The Congressional enquiries have. Along with Muellerís investigation.... Why do people actually think thereís a conspiracy afoot vs the most likely scenarios? We are talking about, not only lifelong law enforcement individuals, but registered Republicans (Mueller, Comey) conducting a witch hunt?!? The president has played fast and loose with laws and rules his entire life, but the second he runs for president HEíS the choir boy?
turn off Fox/ Breitbart
Try pulling yourself away from CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NBC/HUFFPO/GeorgeSoros funded sites/ et al . Try some real news and facts for a change as opposed to the propaganda you so eagerly consume.
80% of the dossier has been verified? By whom?
! posted by Foodie on Dec 28, 2017 at 10:44:29 am # +
Different pieces have been verified by different organizations and agencies. The general consensus within the Intelligence Community is that about 80% of the claims have been believed to have been verified and are accurate. So far, no official has gone on the record to the public and verified it. The major pieces that are believed to be true are a) Flynn & Manafort were compromised b) Kalugin was acting as a spy. c)There was a coordinated cyber attack on the DNC (It sounds like McClatchy is about to publish a piece about this). Steele, who assembled the Dossier, had been utilized to provide background intel on Russia repeatedly for about 5 years, leading up to 2016. Internally, he was noted as "credible", or the highest trust label issued to a person within another country's intelligence agency.
The U.S probably dropped the ball in October of 2016-The FBI debriefed Steele over the course of a week, The CIA did not. This would have been the CIA-s role, to interact and debrief. So why would McCabe say it hasn't been verified? Because, it hasn't been as a matter of course-verification may happen throughout the investigation, but you have at least 4 open investigations at the moment-FBI-Mueller, House and Senate, all running concurrently.
If you came back and argued that only 40% is accurate, I would say, fine. What I would not say, is that this has, in any way, been dismissed. I have read the critiques. The detail that everyone is forgetting- this was initially a privately funded intelligence piece, but NOT state sponsored intelligence. It's purpose was to point the opposition TOWARDS facts that would need to be further detailed/ investigated. It should not be considered a replacement for state sponsored, unbiased investigation. As such, there is no chance it is 100% accurate. There are likely, many dead ends. while it suggest collusion and mixed business interests, you're really getting into the weeds, ethically. I defend it as a starting point, not a conclusion. This is why we have an investigation. If the investigation shows no crimes and no collusion, so be it-I'll be satisfied. I'm not even saying "he totally did it (whatever IT, is)". My accusation is simply this-supporters of Trump are perfectly comfortable repeating the talking points and critiques. If there's nothing to hide, why not allow the investigation to proceed without disparaging honest, hard working Americans, trying to find the truth. Do you really think there is a left wing media bias within the justice department? Do you really think Mueller, Comey, McCabe are all aligned to take down Trump?
Finally, Many of those sources are things I read, along with The Atlantic, Vox, NY Times, WaPo, Wall St Journal, New Republic, BBC, The Guardian and even Fox News. I believe great journalism will help us get through these crazy times. Pundits and editorial boards only affirm our opinions.