Who suggested this had anything to do with whether you supported Trump, or not? Brand didn't and nor did I!

What I am saying is this is a side show and not the main event, much though those on the right will try to present it as such.

Your assertion that Clinton's campaign denied funding the dossier is untrue. It was always accepted that they took over the funding once the original sponsors (who were "never-Trump" Republicans), pulled out. Nor is it "proved" it contained lies. It has been alleged. We await the proof, and the reasoning. That some operatives are alleged of falsifying evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

From Trump's perspective, this was a witch hunt. From mine, and from those who like me despise Trump and all he represents, it was a public service determined to find out if the rumours surrounding him were true. A service performed not just by Steele but by the security services of the USA, who had plenty of evidence of their own, but just not admissible evidence. The man with the "trump" cards is James Coney. It will be instructive if and when he decides to play them.

Your idea that the claims are false is what is nuts. That they remain unproven doesn't make them false. It just makes them unproven. Yet.

You lie again when you suggest I have been "spreading misinformation". I have done nothing of the sort. Most of what I have said is on the record. Other things come from sources I trust, whose insights have always been subsequently proved accurate. Much of it I believe originates from within the US security forces, who leak in a targetted way. Many times they have known well in advance when a Trump associated was about to be arrested and charged.

This isn't over. Not by a very long way. There is a big difference between something not being supported by evidence, and there not being any evidence to support it.

We will have to wait until after the fat lady has sung before deciding who needs to hang their head in shame, but I wouldn't put any money on it having to be me. It could be many years away, so I just hope I live long enough to witness it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If anyone is actually interested in this topic....and trust me I understand if you aren't....but if you read WE's take on this and think that's a reasonable summary just watch Jimmy Dore's video that I linked in my previous post. I think all the claims WE makes are covered in that.

I don't really care if it's republican or democrat, when these guys lie and waste tens of millions of public dollars there needs to be some accountability.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Nov 2021 4.03pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

"It just makes them unproven. Yet."

It's only fair, Wisbech, if you apply the same logic (your words, not mine) to election fraud.

I am perfectly happy for everyone to watch that video and to reach their own conclusions. The guy who Dore is interviewing spends all his time attempting to show "Russiagate" is a hoax. So this week's news is a gift for him, which he is gladly exploiting.

If you carefully analyse what he says, he doesn't actually deal with ANY of the points I made. All he does is repeat what is in the public domain and then make assertions. All it does is provide some red meat for hungry Trump supporters.

Dore himself enjoys satirising politicians, particularly the Democrats. For him this is just comedy material and not serious analysis.

Of course, if someone has lied under oath they need to be held accountable. No-one argues about that, but this is a tiny part of a much bigger story. We don't even know why he did it, if indeed it is proved that he did. Steele himself was very conscious of protecting his sources, so there may well be a "false flag" in play here. I don't know, but nor, yet, does anyone else.

What you can though be very sure about is the integrity of Christopher Steele. He is ex MI6 with an impeccable record. He ran the Russia desk and retains strong connections. People like him don't mess with things just because a political party is paying them lots of money. If he says it happened, it happened. Proving it to the satisfaction of those who believe every conspiracy theory under the sun is another matter, especially when sources need protection.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

There are more important things than a credit rating!

It's a sad situation when people are supportive of someone like this man. His position on dealing with the pandemic has put many lives at risk, and that's one thing that's much more important.

On the basis that anyone would be a better potential President than another 4 years of Trump, I hope he runs and beats him. It's marginal though. He seems almost as nutty.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Completely to be expected. People unfortunately have short memories and a tendency these days to believe the unedited social media rather than the edited msm. Biden inherited a poor situation, especially over the pandemic. He isn't alone. Johnson's reputation is taking a battering.

It really doesn't matter in Presidential terms, for I feel pretty sure he won't stand again, especially if it looks likely that Trump will. He will have done his job, which was always to get Trump out of the WH.

It matters much more about what will happen at the mid-terms. Any new Democratic President won't want both houses held by a Trump supporting GOP. That would be a disaster for everyone, as a legislative hiatus could ensue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.