The Plot to Subvert an Election

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

So shouldn't we demand an apology from every Russia-Trump collusion propagandist who has told his/her audience that the Steele dossier has been verified?

Who, MSM or otherwise, has assured us that all of the dossier has been verified?

Other than dave, who doesn’t strike me as the apologetic type, who has assured us that all of the dossier has been verified?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

So shouldn't we demand an apology from every Russia-Trump collusion propagandist who has told his/her audience that the Steele dossier has been verified?

Who, MSM or otherwise, has assured us that all of the dossier has been verified?

 Here's an example of Rachel Maddow vouching for the accuracy and integrity of the dossier by innuendo, by repeating that the dossier's creators "stand by the dossier."

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-01-08  

There is Dianne Feinstein today saying, quote, to my knowledge, there has not been a single fact in that report that has proven to be incorrect. And what we got today from her releasing these 312 pages against the wishes of Republicans is a clear, readable statement about where the dossier, in fact, came from, how it came to be this former British intelligence agent was engaged by this American company to talk to people in Russia about Trump`s business trips there and about the Russian government`s interest and involvement in the presidential election involving Trump.

I mean, if your counter argument against the whole Russia investigation that threatens this presidency, if your whole counter-argument is that the dossier produced by Fusion GPS is corrupt and not credible and the whole investigation springs from that, if that`s what you`re counting on, it is existentially damaging to that argument, to have the public learn in detail how that thing actually came to be and why the people who created it believed its credibility at the time and how they handled the information as they received it and why to a one they all stand by it now.

[ . . . ]

And importantly, the company that commissioned it, the firm that paid for the research and hired Christopher Steele to do, it they say – and they know more about it than anybody – they say they stand by what is in that report. All this criticism, months of criticism, Republicans going after it with everything they have, the firm that commissioned that report says we stand by it.

Don`t you want to know on what basis they stand by it? How can they think – how can they think, with all of these attacks they are still OK with it? Why?

[ . . . ]

MADDOW: Michael, we have been watching this issue about the Fusion GPS transcript since August, since that original testimony when we found out it was 10 hours of testimony, when we know that Fusion`s principals came out and said after the testimony, we stand by the dossier. When we heard them say that they would support releasing the transcript, we sort of realized right away that would be a really interesting transcript to read as people really attack this dossier.

On the specific dossier allegation that this post derives from -- that Manafort managed the Trump-Russia conspiracy -- here's Georgetown law prof Paul Butler, an MSNBC consultant, suggesting that it's been corroborated:

So according to Maddow, nothing in the dossier has been disproved and Fusion GPS vouches for it.

That’s what we should demand an apology for, is it?

DaveSchmidt said:
So according to Maddow, nothing in the dossier has been disproved and Fusion GPS vouches for it.
That’s what we should demand an apology for, is it?

I think she went a bit further than that.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:
So according to Maddow, nothing in the dossier has been disproved and Fusion GPS vouches for it.
That’s what we should demand an apology for, is it?

I think she went a bit further than that.

 Not in her actual words.  I can't speak to what your "what she really meant" may indicate.

paulsurovell said:

I think she went a bit further than that.

I take it you think she went as far as assuring her audience that the dossier has been verified; otherwise, you wouldn’t have stated that the MSM had done so.

OK. You made a case. Readers here can decide whether they’re convinced.