The Guardian: source for 35 page "dossier" is "consistently reliable, meticulous,

[Generator]

43. Interesting thanks for answering

I was aware of the false flag being used for centuries of course-just in today's lingo-it raises my hackles.
The British usage doesn't bother me as much because as I understand it was written for Americans. The alpha group/Cohen thing are somewhat questionable I agree. It wasn't written for the British government or American of course, but for private sources as I understand it. Sloppy work or false info? We shall see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028458457
cyclonefence said this:
"This "report" is not an official intelligence document. It was written, under contract, by a retired British intelligence agent who was hired first by Republicans opposed to Trump (I have read that it was John McCain who gave the report to the FBI), then by Democratic operatives, so it doesn't matter that it does not conform to standard regulations.

Democrats were picking at Comey all day long to get him to reveal that he has this report, and he refused to acknowledge that he has this (unspecified) information because the usual ongoing investigation shit. If it were clearly a fake, I don't think he would hesitate to denounce it as such. What better way to be rid of these allegations once and for all?

The report itself isn't a leaked document. It was written to tell the story, so of course background material, etc., is present that you wouldn't find in an official document. The report is a document that was leaked; it was composed under contract, not leaked to the people who paid for it. Some one or more of those people leaked it."

On that thread you mentioned-I hadn't read it all last night just now-that's the point I'm making. Thanks to cyclonefence!