Archy1221

And there you have it folks, the evolution of the Steele Dossier. Apparently now it’s irrelevant (Now that’s it’s discredited). Yet it was widely used in Trumps term to discredit his administration

What do you even mean with this first sentence? I was simply replying to your post with my own thoughts. How does that equate to “having fun pouring over it”. It is relevant that the QB missed a touchdown on first down because then the interception never happens. It is relevant that while AM made some absolutely brilliant escape plays, he also missed some relatively easy reads for TD’s and big plays as evidenced by Helfrich’s commentary and the reply video from the game. and BTW, I have always been critical of the special teams unit, so bringing that into the discussion to try and refute my reply to you is nonsensical at best.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/tnamp/

Now why would the FBI, investigate line by line, yet only make passing reference in an actual report on Trump/Russia? Hmmm… The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously,[25] and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and identified and spoke with at least two of Steele's sources.[26] In January 2017, the primary sub-source said that Steele misstated or exaggerated certain information.[27] The Mueller Report, a summary of the findings of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.[26]

anyone telling you the Steele Dossier hasn’t been discredited is being obtuse and isnt being truthful.

It’s not all that silly to focus on in reality because on first down, he should have thrown a wide open touchdown pass

I don’t mind discussing my thoughts but would prefer to know what particular institutions you are referring to and not discuss a general statement about institutions which could mean all institutions.

This is the kind of stuff that shows Trump is and has been no good for the Republicans since mid/late December 2020. He has jumped the shark since that point and been a net negative all the way around. I think this headline quote kinda sums it up. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-commentator-scott-jennings-slams-trump-for-trying-to-sabotage-another-republican-in-georgia-he-needs-to-advance-the-party-instead-of-his-personal-emotional-problems/ CNN Commentator Scott Jennings Slams Trump for Trying to ‘Sabotage Another Republican in Georgia’: He Needs to Advance the Party Instead of His ‘Personal Emotional Problems’

Who said that?

Let us not forget all the Trump/Russia claims a certain poster has put on this message board when they were all speculation and have since turned out to be false.

Sure, but how is mandating shots for previously infected people with antibodies slowing the spread of the disease when they have as much protection as people fully vaccinated according to Fauci and CDC members. We just don’t know when that protection wears off, which is the same question for the vaccine too. I don’t see the harm in those people getting at least a single shot and a study bears out they could get even more protection, but that’s not the question at hand.

Sure, I got no problem with that assessment. But that’s quite different than a mandate.

Are you aware of how many hours of depositions the Trump kids went through?

Nope. I am against the Covid vaccine mandate, because of how Previously infected people have similar antibody responses, plus the fact that under 35 years of age, Covid outcomes are not much different than the flu and we don’t mandate flu vaccines.

Not sure what is “good to know I guess”. I never said what you are insinuating I said. Why do that?