Twitchy has already posted a piece on pollster Nate Silver today, in which he repeats his theory that James Comey’s October surprise of a letter one year ago today almost certainly cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election.
Silver isn’t only doubling-down on that theory today; he’s also confessing his unpopular opinion; namely, that who paid for the research to create the infamous Steele dossier on Donald Trump isn’t especially interesting or important.
Who funded the Steele dossier is not an especially interesting or important news story. #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 28, 2017
? Yeah it is. https://t.co/9qn4ma5LaT
— Evil Red Kid (@_SOURKIDZ_) October 28, 2017
Well, you've been wrong before https://t.co/hAqHBAp2WY
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 28, 2017
Also from just about a year ago, here’s a reminder that, yes, Silver has been very wrong before.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 8, 2016
Maybe it’s just from hearing for nearly a year now about how Russian collusion “hacked” the 2016 election, but we’re very interested in who paid Christopher Steele to compile that bogus dossier.
— Jeff Adams (@JeffAdams82) October 28, 2017
Yeah…You are right. team Hillary, the DNC and their powerful lawyers at Perkins Coie paying for the dossier is no big deal.
— NeoKong (@The_NeoKong) October 28, 2017
It actually is when the question is collusion and the sources cited in the dossier are Russians with active ties to the Kremlin. https://t.co/LbAB3ZHTtZ
— Michael (@Michael2014abc) October 28, 2017
What dossier said was built upon the agenda of person who purchased…It was a major story & a complete lie. Who caused that matters… https://t.co/Fi73jZmdXS
— (✿´‿`) Pani (@PenetratedLobe) October 28, 2017
Actually it may violate campaign finance laws. People have gone to prison for that. But keep telling people it's harmless.
— Sher4Trump (@sherrynron) October 28, 2017
— Angel Rivera ?? (@AngelRiveraLib) October 28, 2017
It might be the story of the decade, Nate; if the dossier was used to justify warrants, someone swore that opposition research was accurate. https://t.co/VHJn6sKCJ6
— Hank Rearden (@BuyReardenMetal) October 28, 2017
What if the FBI chipped in a couple of million? Think that's "uninteresting"? https://t.co/HRvUseNM3x
— DJSmith (@davidjacksmith) October 28, 2017
The fact that the @DNC funded dossier shows that:
1. Mueller investigation is based on a sham.
2. Clinton campaign spread Russian intel. pic.twitter.com/EhJrjrzgAB
— FDL Review (@FDLReview) October 28, 2017
For being so uninteresting and so unimportant, a lot of very powerful people seem pretty eager to deny they had anything to do with it. https://t.co/QS4RsbdnxD
— Jubal E. Harshaw (@alimhaider) October 28, 2017
i'm still amazed at the mental gymnastics well known people go through to avoid considering that people from their own party might have lied https://t.co/x8ExihWldm
— freeman michaels (@publicfreeman) October 28, 2017
* * *
Liberals aren't enjoying questions over who knew about funding of Trump dossier https://t.co/duNc1K5W0U
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 26, 2017