On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:09:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Christopher Steele, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election.

That tells me it is 10-30% bull**** and why would a guy even give us
that low number (70% true) if he thought it was better than that.

Again, why does any of this surprise you? Why are you treating
it like some confession? Again, AFAIK, Steele presented what
he had as RAW INTELLIGENCE, that had not been verified.
And he's said that based on his judgment 10 to 30% could be
untrue. So what? If even 70% of what he had in there is true,
it's devastating. And the core allegation, that Russia was
helping Trump in the election has been verified as TRUE.




As
Clare pointed out when you are selling something you make it sound as
good as you can. Me bet is the accuracy is lower than that much like
"Your Mileage May Vary".

It is all still what he says he "believes", not what he knows is true.

That's wrong too. Steele never said what he believed regarding
any of what he obtained. He just said this is the raw
intelligence I obtained, he provided it to the FBI.



That is a legal word you use to try to avoid a libel suit.