seems perfectly appropriate, but perhaps it’s the scientist in me...trying to look at the narrative that most evidence is converging onDCHawk1 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:42 pmThat's not the appropriate question.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:25 pm honest question, has any of the dossier been proven false?
The appropriate question is has any of it been proven true.
And on that, I'll defer to the guy who broke the Lewinsky story and who played a huge role in breaking the dossier story as well, Michael Isikoff:
Michael Isikoff, the chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, said Saturday during an interview on conservative commentator John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" podcast that "Steele was clearly onto something" in his probe into the campaign's Russian connection but evidence has not surfaced to support some of his specific assertions.
Steele was correct to suspect "that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there were multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in the Trump campaign," Isikoff said.
But he said when "you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
"It's a mixed record at best," he said. "Things could change. Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes this calculation but based on the public record at this point, I'd have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been borne out."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 347833002/
if some has proven out to be true, and nothing has been falsified, it doesn’t seem illogical to assume that more will be shown to be true
but, if this was truly all politically motivated (which i doubt), then logic obviously goes out the window
