6 ms·

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notic

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that

aww_dang 4y ago
> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume. In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  > but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin. Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications. The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer. From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases. You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold: 1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated 2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?
    - notavalleyman 4y ago
      Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.
      - aww_dang 4y ago
        That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further. Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR. Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?
        notavalleyman 4y ago
        I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act
tristor 4y ago
> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  Thanks for the context - I didn't really understand you though - why do you say the actual specifics were mostly false, while also saying the Congress investigation verified some parts and couldn't verify others?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    There were a large number of allegations in the dossier. So, pulling numbers out of the air, but... say it was something like 70% of the allegations were false, 10% were verified true, and 20% could not be verified as either true or false. As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown. But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    According to Bellingcat[1], Igor Danchenko who was Steeler’s primary source was probably being fed information by the GRU. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spooked-private-investigators https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spo...
_dain_ 4y ago
>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it. Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual. https://archive.ph/2fHH5 https://archive.ph/2fHH5
  - colpabar 4y ago
    How can a document be "real" if it's full of "not necessarily factual" claims?
  - db48x 4y ago
    It’s a real dossier full of hearsay, lies, calumny, etc. Steele was paid to assemble it, by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton no less, for the express purpose of smearing Trump in the hopes that something would stick.
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134 https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134 > Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax." But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts. > The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” > Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump. > Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters. > Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.
colpabar 4y ago
According to the new york times: > Was the dossier a reliable source of information? > No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy. https://archive.ph/2fHH5 https://archive.ph/2fHH5 This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.
- pdabbadabba 4y ago
  I think it's worth noting, though, that saying its "sourcing was thin and sketchy" is not the same thing as saying it was "a bunch of nonsense." Many of the allegations in it could, of course, still be true even if poorly sourced.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fallingknife 4y ago
The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place. https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-investigation-indictment https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...
Trumpi 4y ago
Regarding point 2: There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier. Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl... I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.
- Trumpi 4y ago
  This lawsuit could also bring up evidence against the Steele dossier: https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-lawsuit.pdf https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-laws...
Terry_Roll 4y ago
> 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges. Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-gives-agents-legal-immunity-to-commit-serious-crimes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605 I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press. Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo! So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?
sofixa 4y ago
Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.
- dijit 4y ago
  I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-to-destroy-hard-drives-with-snowden-info-guardian-says-reporting-continues-ny/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-gchq-visit-guardian-destroy-computers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny". D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    The claim is > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
    - DeWilde 4y ago
      Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.
    - dijit 4y ago
      > > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice > The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it. a few things; 1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks. 2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage. 3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets. 4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.
barrbid8 4y ago
Sporktacular 4y ago
Yeah, I'm getting bad vibes about this piece too. I can't dismiss it but there are some pretty serious claims deserving solid sources. Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims. Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.
pyuser583 4y ago
I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.” I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.

aww_dang 4y ago

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume. In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.

notavalleyman 4y ago
> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin. Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
- aww_dang 4y ago
  I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications. The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer. From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases. You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold: 1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated 2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?
  - notavalleyman 4y ago
    Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.
    - aww_dang 4y ago
      That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further. Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR. Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?
      - notavalleyman 4y ago
        I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act

tristor 4y ago

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.

notavalleyman 4y ago
Thanks for the context - I didn't really understand you though - why do you say the actual specifics were mostly false, while also saying the Congress investigation verified some parts and couldn't verify others?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  There were a large number of allegations in the dossier. So, pulling numbers out of the air, but... say it was something like 70% of the allegations were false, 10% were verified true, and 20% could not be verified as either true or false. As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown. But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  According to Bellingcat[1], Igor Danchenko who was Steeler’s primary source was probably being fed information by the GRU. [1] https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spooked-private-investigators https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spo...

_dain_ 4y ago

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

notavalleyman 4y ago
Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it. Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual. https://archive.ph/2fHH5 https://archive.ph/2fHH5
- colpabar 4y ago
  How can a document be "real" if it's full of "not necessarily factual" claims?
- db48x 4y ago
  It’s a real dossier full of hearsay, lies, calumny, etc. Steele was paid to assemble it, by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton no less, for the express purpose of smearing Trump in the hopes that something would stick.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134 https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134 > Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax." But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts. > The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” > Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump. > Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters. > Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.

colpabar 4y ago

According to the new york times: > Was the dossier a reliable source of information? > No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy. https://archive.ph/2fHH5 https://archive.ph/2fHH5 This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.

pdabbadabba 4y ago
I think it's worth noting, though, that saying its "sourcing was thin and sketchy" is not the same thing as saying it was "a bunch of nonsense." Many of the allegations in it could, of course, still be true even if poorly sourced.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

fallingknife 4y ago

The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place. https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-investigation-indictment https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...

Trumpi 4y ago

Regarding point 2: There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier. Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl... I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.

Trumpi 4y ago
This lawsuit could also bring up evidence against the Steele dossier: https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-lawsuit.pdf https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-laws...

Terry_Roll 4y ago

> 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges. Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-gives-agents-legal-immunity-to-commit-serious-crimes https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605 I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press. Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo! So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?

sofixa 4y ago

Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.

dijit 4y ago
I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-to-destroy-hard-drives-with-snowden-info-guardian-says-reporting-continues-ny/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-gchq-visit-guardian-destroy-computers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny". D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.
- sofixa 4y ago
  The claim is > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
  - DeWilde 4y ago
    Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.
  - dijit 4y ago
    > > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice > The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it. a few things; 1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks. 2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage. 3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets. 4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.

barrbid8 4y ago

Sporktacular 4y ago

Yeah, I'm getting bad vibes about this piece too. I can't dismiss it but there are some pretty serious claims deserving solid sources. Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims. Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.

pyuser583 4y ago

I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.” I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.