Members banned from this thread: evince and CFM


Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 157

Thread: Dossier drafter Steele backs off his earlier claims when faced with libel action

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    Typical partisan nonsense from the Washington Times.

    Filled with innuendo, supposition and speculation passed off as fact.

    So naturally, Trumpkins take it as gospel truth.

    What's wrong, couldn't find a source with MORE bias towards Democrats?
    Yet you always take rawstory as gospel. Do you deny he is walking back his assertions? What exactly is the supposition and speculation?

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.2 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-22-2017)

  3. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    Steele now refers to the intelligence he gathered as “limited.”
    On the charge of collusion by Mr. Trump and his campaign advisers, he now says there was only “possible coordination.”

    Direct quotes are innuendo? LOL
    BINGO!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.2 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-22-2017)

  5. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,548
    Thanks
    9,555
    Thanked 11,904 Times in 7,964 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Truth is an absolute defense to libel. Why would he back down from the truth?
    Convenient naivete on your part.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  6. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Convenient naivete on your part.
    What did I say that is naive?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.2 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-22-2017)

  8. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,548
    Thanks
    9,555
    Thanked 11,904 Times in 7,964 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    What did I say that is naive?
    Go back and read it.

    Everyone knows that's not how civil law in this country works itrl. Those with unlimited resources have the ability to keep legal actions in the courts for years which can intimidate a legal opponent, causing them to fear going broke and into debt.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  9. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Go back and read it. Everyone knows that's not how civil law in this country works itrl. Those with unlimited resources have the ability to keep legal actions in the courts for years which can intimidate a legal opponent, causing them to fear going broke and into debt.
    The responses by Steele as referenced were made in a "London courtroom". That's in England, Soymad. Try reading the OP before you comment.

    Here's another article about the case:

    "...he and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, have filed a defence in the high court of justice in London, in a defamation case brought by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian venture capitalist and owner of a global computer technology company, XBT, and a Dallas-based subsidiary Webzilla."


    If you have trouble understanding where "the high court of justice in London" is, let me know.

  10. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Yet you always take rawstory as gospel. Do you deny he is walking back his assertions? What exactly is the supposition and speculation?
    Christopher Steele is not a DEMOCRAT. He's British, and his statement is a matter of record in court documents as reported in the British press by the left-leaning Guardian back in April:

    A statement by Steele’s defence lawyers, endorsed by the former MI6 agent, said Orbis was hired between June and November last year by Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research consultancy to look into Trump’s links with Russia.

    In that period, Steele produced 16 memoranda citing mostly Russian sources as describing a web of alleged contacts and collusion between Trump aides and Russian intelligence or other Kremlin representatives.

    The document said that he passed the memos to Fusion on the understanding that Fusion would not disclose the material to any third parties without the approval of Steele and Orbis. They did agree to Fusion providing a copy to Senator John McCain after the veteran Republican had been told about the existence of Steele’s research by Sir Andrew Wood, a former UK ambassador to Moscow and an Orbis associate, at a conference in Canada on 8 November.



    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/28/trump-russia-intelligence-uk-government-m16-kremlin


    Poor Zappacrite.

    Now, watch him dance.

    I command you to dance, Zappacrite.

    Dance!

  11. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,548
    Thanks
    9,555
    Thanked 11,904 Times in 7,964 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post
    The responses by Steele as referenced were made in a "London courtroom". That's in England, Soymad. Try reading the OP before you comment.

    Here's another article about the case:

    "...he and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence Limited, have filed a defence in the high court of justice in London, in a defamation case brought by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian venture capitalist and owner of a global computer technology company, XBT, and a Dallas-based subsidiary Webzilla."

    If you have trouble understanding where "the high court of justice in London" is, let me know.
    Hey MORON.... which country's legal system is OURS modelled after????

    It works the same way in England as it does here. Wealthy individuals and organizations with unlimited resources can use the legal system to beat up the little guy.

    So, the point still stands.

    Try reading a history book before YOU comment.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  12. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    19,400
    Thanks
    1,745
    Thanked 6,394 Times in 5,099 Posts
    Groans
    1,397
    Groaned 908 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Go back and read it.

    Everyone knows that's not how civil law in this country works itrl. Those with unlimited resources have the ability to keep legal actions in the courts for years which can intimidate a legal opponent, causing them to fear going broke and into debt.
    Talk about naive, the case is in the UK you flipping moron.

    Further, in this country it is highly possible for him to get attorney fees if he wins. Also, with such a high profile case if you don't think someone or some org like the ACLU would take the case at no charge, YOU are the naive one


    Basically, your unsubstantiated claim is that he is now telling a different "truth" solely because of money. You are not only naive, but highly ignorant.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2018.2 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-22-2017)

  14. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,548
    Thanks
    9,555
    Thanked 11,904 Times in 7,964 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Talk about naive, the case is in the UK you flipping moron.

    Further, in this country it is highly possible for him to get attorney fees if he wins. Also, with such a high profile case if you don't think someone or some org like the ACLU would take the case at no charge, YOU are the naive one

    Basically, your unsubstantiated claim is that he is now telling a different "truth" solely because of money. You are not only naive, but highly ignorant.
    Read my above post re: UK legal system vs US.

    The rest of your blather is just oversimplification. In civil matters, the truth is rarely as cut & dried as in criminal cases, so "proving" one's case is not always as easy as you and your Trumpsucker buddy are trying to make it appear.

    If the guy has limited resources compared to accusers, he has to be extremely careful, possibly even backing off his claims out of fear of being financially ruined.

    And as for that nonsense about the ACLU, they would only get involved if it was a civil rights case.

    You highly ignorant fuck.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Nomad For This Post:

    Rune (12-23-2017)

  16. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,389
    Thanks
    101,920
    Thanked 54,766 Times in 33,631 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Hey MORON.... which country's legal system is OURS modelled after????

    It works the same way in England as it does here. Wealthy individuals and organizations with unlimited resources can use the legal system to beat up the little guy.

    So, the point still stands.

    Try reading a history book before YOU comment.
    It’s what Trump does quite often in his business. It’s the way he cheats the little guys.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Phantasmal For This Post:

    Nomad (12-22-2017), ZappasGuitar (12-22-2017)

  18. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Talk about naive, the case is in the UK you flipping moron.

    Further, in this country it is highly possible for him to get attorney fees if he wins. Also, with such a high profile case if you don't think someone or some org like the ACLU would take the case at no charge, YOU are the naive one


    Basically, your unsubstantiated claim is that he is now telling a different "truth" solely because of money. You are not only naive, but highly ignorant.
    Last night "legal eagle" Soymad thought Trump was a party to the case, apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soymad View Post
    When you can afford a team of high priced lawyers, threatening someone with a libel suit is a good way to stop them from saying things about you that you don't like. Even if those things might be true. Trump knows all about those bully tactics.
    Libel law in the UK is vastly different, despite Soymad's ignorant assertion.

    "English laws are much more favorable for someone looking to protect their reputation," says Jenny Afia, a lawyer in London who often represents people making libel and privacy claims. "Crooks and brigands from around the world come here to launder their reputations, where they couldn't get exculpation in either their home country or indeed in the United States of America," says Mark Stephens, a London lawyer who often represents media companies in these cases.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways


    I enjoy Soymad's public humiliation.

  19. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Compost View Post
    It’s what Trump does quite often in his business. It’s the way he cheats the little guys.
    Trump has nothing to do with this case, cancer cunt.

  20. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaya View Post
    Yet you always take rawstory as gospel. Do you deny he is walking back his assertions? What exactly is the supposition and speculation?
    I stand by my previous assertion.

    The Times article is filled with innuendo, supposition and speculation.
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to ZappasGuitar For This Post:

    Rune (12-23-2017)

  22. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Go back and read it.

    Everyone knows that's not how civil law in this country works itrl. Those with unlimited resources have the ability to keep legal actions in the courts for years which can intimidate a legal opponent, causing them to fear going broke and into debt.
    That is where all this nonsense is coming from.

    It's the Trump defense doing it's best to cloud the picture.
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ZappasGuitar For This Post:

    Nomad (12-22-2017), Rune (12-23-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. Clinton Campaign / DNC paid for Steele Dossier
    By dukkha in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 391
    Last Post: 10-31-2017, 08:43 PM
  2. Replies: 171
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 07:40 PM
  3. McCain delivered the Steele dossier to Comey
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-28-2017, 08:13 AM
  4. NSA Whistleblower Backs Trump Up on Wiretap Claims
    By TheDonald in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-08-2017, 08:27 AM
  5. Is Christie backing off earlier claims of no knoledge?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 02:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •