@Amanda Matthews
only outfits characterizing the hearing as a Steele "no-show" at a "deposition" are Fox and various feeder sites, all of which likewise wear MAGA hats. Fox was deliberately, explicitly created as the Minitrue for the Republican Party; that hasn't changed. I generally don't credit their work unless and until it appears somewhere whose raison d'être is something other than pushing whatever is the Republican line of the moment.

What I find more interesting is the question of whether Steele will succeed in affording himself of protections intended for governmental actors. Which he was not. He was a mercenary, providing information to a private client, for money. At least that's how he began. Before his come-to-jesus moment, when he began flapping back and forth across the Atlantic, speaking in tongues, to all who would listen, that The Hairball is a Rooski.

It is clear he has long been confused about his roles. Because that stuff of his that appeared in Buzzfeed does not read like standard political opposition research. It more resembles the sort of raw intelligence reports that spooks prepare for their masters. Indeed, there are intelligence people who say they recognized the Buzzfeed material, before he was outed, as Steele's, because it read just like reports he would circulate when he was in MI6. Opposition research identifies sources, and passes on their credibility; it is also organized decently, rather than just a series of blats. Raw intelligence reports, conversely, are often a series of blats, simply presenting the information received, without judgement. Sometimes there is a summary, but generally not; intepreting the information is left to the analysts. What is attached, is a coded annex, which identifies and discusses sources. Because it is a given in intelligence work that you vet the sources, before you vet the information. Who is this person? What was their access? Who were their subsources? And what was their access? What was the motive, in providing the information? Have they previously demonstrated credibility? Etc. This information is more closely held than the actual raw intelligence; I doubt Steele passed it up to Fusion. I would assume he prepared it at least for Orbis. Maybe he later shared it with the FBI. Maybe he shared it with Mueller. Maybe not. Maybe the dog ate it, along with the homework. We do know, most recently from the Grassley/Graham filing, that Steele did indeed prepare more material than appeared in Buzzfeed.

And now he is claiming he gets to wall off his acts and information from judicial scrutiny because he once worked as a spook, and in preparing this material he spoke to people with whom he was familiar from his spook days, or to whom he gained access, because of his former spookdom. But he wasn't spooking. He was out there grubbing in the monies. Like the rest of the grinds.

For sure those people, and sorts of people, are not going to be talking to him again. Because they do not want to be in the newspaper. No doubt other ex-spooks, likewise now out in the private sector, are having a great Hate for Steele, because, as a result of this fiasco, their own potential sources will fear that, if they speak, they too may someday be raked over the polonium on Frauds and Fiends, Reid My Joy, etc. He is why they now cannot have nice things.

#1.1.1.1.1 #1.1.1.1.1

less unreliable that the “left leaning” rags have been. Like the NYT or WP. If I only read the rags on the ‘approved’ list I’d be screaming “She was cheated by the Russians”.

Was he ordered by a US court to give a deposition? Yes. Did the British courts say he had to submit to ‘examination’. Yes again. From your link.

Last November, a British court ruled Steele should undergo lengthy pre-trial questioning but on Monday his lawyers sought to have that order quashed.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-court-steele/u-s-libel-case-te...

He’s been ordered by a US and a British court to be deposed. Has he complied with the judges (either of them singly or both collectively)? Obviously not. He has not shown up for the court mandated deposition. And since Faux has truthfully reported the facts according to even YOUR source,why would they lie about missing a deposition on Monday? You have nothing that contradicts that statement. What makes your unverified claim so ‘reliable’? And it changes nothinh anyway. He has not shown up for his court ordered deposition.

Did I say there were consequences for Steele not showing? No, I didn’t. In fact I printed the part about his lawyers, what they argued, and that the court would take it ‘under advisement. I got that frrom my ‘unreliable’ source. And that’s EXACTLY what Reuters said. What I did say is there generally are consequences for blowing off a deposition and that fact is also true. And who knows? There very well might be (should be) when the court comes back with its decision.

About that lawyer for the plaintiff. Did she not say exactly what Reuters said? Is there a reason that if Reuters says something, it’s true, but If it comes from someone else, someone personally involved in the case (and obviously familiar with all the details) and they say the same thing, it’s not? I bet she has more far information than Reuters does and that it’s pretty darm reliable.

So what was it that Faux said that was unreliable?