The Steele Dossier: How Does it Hold Up?

[forkup]

Published in January of 2017, how much of information made public by Mueller's investigation has buttressed or diminished the essence of Steele's original reporting?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence.

"He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments.

"The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product...."

"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time.

"In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

"We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

"These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically.

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

So, how often are you required to prove a negative?

It isn't for anyone to disprove that dossier of lies. It is for you to provide the proof of the allegations.

I agree. From what I've read most of it can't be proven and loads of it are allegations with no proof.

-Actually proving a negative is something that happens all the time. For instance, I can prove I'm not asleep at the moment, if you would claim I was.
In a murder case an alibi can prove someone couldn't have committed a murder, would be another example.
-In regards to the Steele dossier pretty specific allegations were made. The fact that some has been proven, but none has been disproven, might not point to everything in it being true. But it does point to it having a higher likelihood of being true than it has to being untrue. The fact that no obvious discrepancies have been found, means something all in itself.

 

[forkup]

No one is asking you to "prove a negative."

Can you prove any positive allegations found in the Steele Dossier are lies; how about this one?

That's what proving a negative is, moron.

Telling someone "can you prove something is a lie" is "proving a negative." That's not the way it works. YOU have to prove they are true. Nobody is under any obligation to "prove a lie." In a court of law the prosecution is under obligation to prove the guilt of the defendant, the defendant is not under any obligation to "prove his innocence."

-I can most definitely prove something is a lie a lot of the time. For instance, I can prove that Mexico isn't paying for the wall. Not that difficult a task. Since Trump is asking for money to built it. I can prove I'm awake by answering if you would say I'm asleep. I can prove that the sun came up this morning if you would claim it didn't, etc., etc.,
- In the Steele dossier pretty specific allegations were made. None of them have been disproven. While some have been confirmed. This speaks to the likelihood of it being truthful. The premise of the OP

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Salacious and unverified"...yup must be accurate

 

[forkup]

"Salacious and unverified"...yup must be accurate

Neither salacious or unverified give any indication to a statement being accurate or not.

 

[ph3iron]

I invite any USMB wingnut to show one item that has been proven false, from the Steele Dossier.

They keep blabbing how Hillary commissioned it when it was a right wing bunch.
Incredible, a career Brit Moscow guy v's trump??
I'm not sure if the golden shower video
Was in there.
But knowing trump I guess Putin has it

 

[ph3iron]

You guys have really lost it.

Agree ^^^.....and they lost it when America voted Donald Trump as President!

instead of their favorite witch ....Clinton.

Since then, they have not been able to have a moment of peace.




Thanks GOD for President Donald Trump!

Me too, our brave pussy grabber.
Don't get near him.
I'm still waiting for things he has actually done .
Make America great? Our WWII Nazi group name?
That's it?
Worse job creation than Obama?
Lousy stock market?
Huge deficits ?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Published in January of 2017, how much of information made public by Mueller's investigation has buttressed or diminished the essence of Steele's original reporting?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence.

"He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments.

"The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product...."

"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time.

"In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

"We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

"These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically.

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

So, how often are you required to prove a negative?

It isn't for anyone to disprove that dossier of lies. It is for you to provide the proof of the allegations.

I agree. From what I've read most of it can't be proven and loads of it are allegations with no proof.

-Actually proving a negative is something that happens all the time. For instance, I can prove I'm not asleep at the moment, if you would claim I was.
In a murder case an alibi can prove someone couldn't have committed a murder, would be another example.
-In regards to the Steele dossier pretty specific allegations were made. The fact that some has been proven, but none has been disproven, might not point to everything in it being true. But it does point to it having a higher likelihood of being true than it has to being untrue. The fact that no obvious discrepancies have been found, means something all in itself.

The fact is that once again Democrats have duped the idiots who continually reelect them. You sir are a moron.

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

NOTHING of substance in that dossier has been proven true and several things have been proven conclusively false.

 

[BWK]

You guys have really lost it.

Agree ^^^.....and they lost it when America voted Donald Trump as President!

instead of their favorite witch ....Clinton.

Since then, they have not been able to have a moment of peace.




Thanks GOD for President Donald Trump!

Cheer leading for criminals. Go get em tiger. And by the way, don't break your neck debating the OP.

it gets boring trying to make the Clinton witch admirers .....and the DemonRats .....trying to show them the truth.....over ....and over....and over and over........

how thick you people are?????


but since it's Christmas......one more time

Comey debunks Steele dossier
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/comey_debunks_steele_dossier.html

Look people, we got us one making up lies from a link a retard could even catch. Will the poster please quote to us the exact words from Comey, "debunking the Dossier". Lol! People, I can't wait for this explanation.

Can you link us to the various articles talking about how Trump lost the election because of the dossier, or don’t they exist because you still lost?

You can't answer my question, so you make up one of your own that no one made a claim too. What's the matter, can't you debate like an intelligent adult?

 

[BWK]

Published in January of 2017, how much of information made public by Mueller's investigation has buttressed or diminished the essence of Steele's original reporting?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence.

"He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments.

"The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product...."

"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time.

"In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

"We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

"These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically.

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

So, how often are you required to prove a negative?

It isn't for anyone to disprove that dossier of lies. It is for you to provide the proof of the allegations.

That is a stupid question.

It has been publicly acknowledged by the FBI that the parts of the Dossier that have been checked on, match up to Mueller's investigation evidence. The other parts have not been verified. The verified parts are evidence because they match Mueller's. The unverified parts are neither lies or truths because they have not yet been verified.

Are you people on the Right so damn stupid that you can't understand that?

 

[BWK]

Published in January of 2017, how much of information made public by Mueller's investigation has buttressed or diminished the essence of Steele's original reporting?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence.

"He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments.

"The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product...."

"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time.

"In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

"We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

"These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically.

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

So, how often are you required to prove a negative?

It isn't for anyone to disprove that dossier of lies. It is for you to provide the proof of the allegations.

I agree. From what I've read most of it can't be proven and loads of it are allegations with no proof.

-Actually proving a negative is something that happens all the time. For instance, I can prove I'm not asleep at the moment, if you would claim I was.
In a murder case an alibi can prove someone couldn't have committed a murder, would be another example.
-In regards to the Steele dossier pretty specific allegations were made. The fact that some has been proven, but none has been disproven, might not point to everything in it being true. But it does point to it having a higher likelihood of being true than it has to being untrue. The fact that no obvious discrepancies have been found, means something all in itself.

The fact is that once again Democrats have duped the idiots who continually reelect them. You sir are a moron.

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

NOTHING of substance in that dossier has been proven true and several things have been proven conclusively false.

One year later was almost a year ago goober.
He was right on some accounts. Meanwhile, major parts of the dossier have been verified by subsequent investigations into Russian election meddling, while others still remain a mystery. This is from your article dumb ass, which was almost a year ago. Get with the times.

And even your own article a year ago points to evidence of substance. Lol! Don't you even read your own links?

 

[BWK]

No one is asking you to "prove a negative."

Can you prove any positive allegations found in the Steele Dossier are lies; how about this one?

That's what proving a negative is, moron.

Telling someone "can you prove something is a lie" is "proving a negative." That's not the way it works. YOU have to prove they are true. Nobody is under any obligation to "prove a lie."

Sad how many mentally ill folk we have in this country. I mean my little children know that I think they did something I make sure they did it before they have to worry about an ass whipping. I don't line them and "okay now prove to Daddy that you didn't do this or you're getting a busting"

Speaking of ass whipping, you got yours whipped with an outdated link that disputes what you are saying.

 

[BWK]

Agree ^^^.....and they lost it when America voted Donald Trump as President!

instead of their favorite witch ....Clinton.

Since then, they have not been able to have a moment of peace.




Thanks GOD for President Donald Trump!

Lol..

"But...but...but... Hillary!"

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

 

[forkup]

Published in January of 2017, how much of information made public by Mueller's investigation has buttressed or diminished the essence of Steele's original reporting?

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective

"The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence.

"He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments.

"The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product...."

"With that in mind, we thought it would be worthwhile to look back at the dossier and to assess, to the extent possible, how the substance of Steele’s reporting holds up over time.

"In this effort, we considered only information in the public domain from trustworthy and official government sources, including documents released by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office in connection with the criminal cases brought against Paul Manafort, the 12 Russian intelligence officers, the Internet Research Agency trolling operation and associated entities, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

"We also considered the draft statement of offense released by author Jerome Corsi, a memorandum released by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff related to the Carter Page FISA applications and admissions directly from certain speakers.

"These materials buttress some of Steele’s reporting, both specifically and thematically.

"The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven."

So, how often are you required to prove a negative?

It isn't for anyone to disprove that dossier of lies. It is for you to provide the proof of the allegations.

I agree. From what I've read most of it can't be proven and loads of it are allegations with no proof.

-Actually proving a negative is something that happens all the time. For instance, I can prove I'm not asleep at the moment, if you would claim I was.
In a murder case an alibi can prove someone couldn't have committed a murder, would be another example.
-In regards to the Steele dossier pretty specific allegations were made. The fact that some has been proven, but none has been disproven, might not point to everything in it being true. But it does point to it having a higher likelihood of being true than it has to being untrue. The fact that no obvious discrepancies have been found, means something all in itself.

The fact is that once again Democrats have duped the idiots who continually reelect them. You sir are a moron.

How true is the Trump-Russia dossier? One year later, what we know about its claims

NOTHING of substance in that dossier has been proven true and several things have been proven conclusively false.

Give me one single thing in your link that proves ANYTHING CONCLUSIVELY FALSE? There are only 2 types of allegations listed. Verified and not proven. It's not verified and unverified, or proven and false. Is it reading comprehension, or are you simply hoping I won't click your link?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Lol..

"But...but...but... Hillary!"

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

You feel all better about yourself after posting this? LOL. You really believe DJT is a Russian spy?

 

[skye]

Lol..

"But...but...but... Hillary!"

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

You are the only uneducated idiot.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

You are the only uneducated idiot.

No there are many others just like him. Stalinist Leftist trolls.

 

[georgephillip]

Has the OP yet proven that he isn't a child rapist?

"A new lawsuit filed in federal court accuses presidential hopeful Donald Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl at Jeffrey Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion more than 20 years ago,"
"Jane Doe" files civil rape complaint against Trump in NY court

 

[forkup]

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

You feel all better about yourself after posting this? LOL. You really believe DJT is a Russian spy?

They call it agent. And he's either an agent or he has serious troubles doing what Presidents are supposed to do. Why don't you give a better explanation for stuff like this?
Bombshell report reveals new details about Trump's Oval Office meeting with Russians after he fired Comey

 

[georgephillip]

Telling someone "can you prove something is a lie" is "proving a negative." That's not the way it works. YOU have to prove they are true. Nobody is under any obligation to "prove a lie." In a court of law the prosecution is under obligation to prove the guilt of the defendant, the defendant is not under any obligation to "prove his innocence."

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10]

"Saying, 'You cannot prove a negative,' has been called pseudologic[citation needed] because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.[citation needed]

"However, the argument is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate a positive assertion ('there is a chair in this room,' requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience).

"The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy."

The negative claim that Trump has no empathy may be disproved by a single contradictory example.

 

[BWK]

I invite any USMB wingnut to show one item that has been proven false, from the Steele Dossier.

You rape children.

Prove you are innocent.

But but but...Hillary lost.

Ooh! Double down!

That takes some guts. No brains though.

So you’re responding to someone who is brainless? OK...

I'm bored.

So am I. These folks are uneducated idiots.

They come on here to tell us about how the Dossier is a lie, and yet call it a negative. The FBI claims the Dossier not only exists, but parts have been verified. If that is a lie, then prove that is a lie. They can't do it, therefore, they can only debate like idiots. Which is exactly what they are doing, making this boring. Of course, I knew that from the beginning of this thread, that they would only distract from their own weaknesses.

You feel all better about yourself after posting this? LOL. You really believe DJT is a Russian spy?

What's there to feel better about? Debating idiots only makes me feel like one. The problem is, the Left can't find any wingers with any intelligent arguments on this board. They can only deflect. And I just gave a perfect example of that in my previous post.