I think you’re way ahead …
I’ll even help you out, F-P. Here’s a site that has annotated the dossier w/ cites to corroboration. It’s even easy to use.
That site is very lengthy and confusing and also looks like partisan junk. I’ve cited to Comey’s testimony to congress which clearly indicated that the FBI was not investigating the dossier and didn’t intend to. You come up with something that addresses that, then we’ll have something to discuss.
Keep carrying that water though, I’m sure it won’t ever weigh you down.
Lengthy??? It’s the goddamned dossier. Hover over the yellow parts and an annotation will appear showing you how that part has been corroborated.
Look, I get that it challenges your world view and makes you look pretty silly for defending it - but maybe give it an intellectually honest review.
The Trump Campaign was under investigation when Comey told Trump that he wasn’t personally being investigated.
Who do you, F-P, believe to be the head of a political campaign? Take your time, I’ll wait.
This is from April. Again, try to keep up:
So the FBI had this in 2016 and was using it as part of its investigation.
I see you’ve whipped out some clichés, but little of substance. I don’t have time for that type of silliness just now.
So I’ll just briefly note that your cite predates Comey’s testimony to Congress, and refers to some unspecified Trump associate.
The dossier link is full of substance if you were actually interested in learning anything about this rather than just parroting talking points. But we both know you’re not.
You put your trust in Donald J. Trump and I’ll put mine in Robert Mueller and we’ll see how things shake out. I mean, Trump’s never let anybody down before so you should come out of this feeling pretty good.
I’m just spekumalatin’ here, got no links or hard evidence of any kind, not even a story… but I’m thinking the next term with which we might all wish to become very familiar is: Cambridge Analytics. Especially in light of this story:
Facebook Says Likely Russian-Based Operation Spent Money on Ads
Facebook only confirms what we already knew, but with more specificity.
Now, just how did those crafty Russians know where to target their fake propaganda? What data-mining/analytics company could have assisted? Hmmmm…
How long, I wonder, before Steve Bannon hires an attorney or two?
You mean this Cambridge Analytica?
Yes, yes, that’s the company I meant. I always get the name wrong. Thanks for the correction. 
It was less of a correction and more of an explanation that interfering in democracy is apparently what they do. And they were brought on by the Trump campaign. I’m sure there’s nothing to it though.
I’m sure you’re right. Owned by Mercers, run by Bannon during the campaign… what could go wrong?
Link?
Here is a sober look at the dossier from a former CIA officer
To the contrary. I have no need for links to CT partisan tripe, because I follow this in mainstream media. If there were any serious allegations in that dossier which have been validated by subsequent revelations, the MM would report it.
More generally, you don’t get to link to lengthy and messy websites and say “somewhere in this mass of info is the proof of my position”. In the event that you are - against the evidence from your recent posts - actually trying to argue in good faith, then you look through that cite and pull out the specific points that support your position. Specifically, the specific consequential allegations first made in the dossier and validated by subsequent revelations. You got that, you have something at least. Until then you’re just babbling.
I discussed the details in post #2219. I’m unclear on whether you were unaware that I was referring to that post, or are asking for a cite as to the details in that post.
But if you’re asking about the second, it’s in the transcript of Comey’s testimony
If you refuse to look at it, you can’t know it is “partisan tripe”? Back up your statement here and lay out your proof that it’s stupid conspiracy theory partisan tripe bullshit.
Likewise, they would have reported if the dossier were found false but they haven’t.
The link is literally a copy of the dossier with sections highlighted and annotations from “mainstream media” articles containing the facts we know pertaining to those sections. The info pops up as you click on highlighted words so it’s not like you even have to look at footnotes at the bottom or go through a “mass of info” to read it.