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

Nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yaya said:
Yet you always take rawstory as gospel. Do you deny he is walking back his assertions? What exactly is the supposition and speculation?
Click to expand...

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!
 
God bless America said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yaya said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s what Trump does quite often in his business. It’s the way he cheats the little guys.
 
Yaya said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last night "legal eagle" Soymad thought Trump was a party to the case, apparently. :rofl2:

Soymad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yaya said:
Yet you always take rawstory as gospel. Do you deny he is walking back his assertions? What exactly is the supposition and speculation?
Click to expand...

I stand by my previous assertion.

The Times article is filled with innuendo, supposition and speculation.
 
Nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is where all this nonsense is coming from.

It's the Trump defense doing it's best to cloud the picture.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simply "debunk" it if its not truth. Should be easy peasy......just give us the objective, demonstrable, repeatable evidences. Proceed. :laugh: Truth: Its a 180 from the propaganda that you are suggesting......there is no objective, demonstrable, repeatable evidences produced from the supposed SMOKING GUN TRUMP/RUSSIAN COLLUSION documents used by Obama's DOJ to illegally obtain permission to WIRE TAP any US CITIZEN...especially the campaign opposition to the ones who funded the research contained in the document.

You demanded evidence for RUSSIAN/US POLITICIAN collusion.....here's your SMOKING GUN, the only problem it has DNC fingerprints all over it. And this is just the tip of this DEEP STATE collusion.....who had the head of the DNC helping use TAX MONEY to fund terrorist activities for IRAN. Must we forget about the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ who used a criminal foreign national as TECH SUPPORT for all the DNC computer networking? Now you charge Trump/RUSSIA with being the one leaking DNC emails? Really? The problem with all special investigations with an unlimited budget? The truth often comes out...and its not the truth expected. I say, allow THE SHOW to continue to closure. This is exactly why TRUMP will never fire this SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, he is doing more harm than good to the real culprits.....behind Collusion, THE DNC. Trump was powerless void of this deception he has used to his own ends of draining the swamp.

Look at the facts. The swamp is being drained....one rat at a time, covert and rouge FBI agents, career democrat politicians have been forced by their own comrades to fall on their swords. This is enjoyable as hell watching this thing play out.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top