Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani was mocked mercilessly Friday on Twitter after he attempted to shoot down those pesky Russia collusion theories that keep getting bandied about.
Problem was, he used Wikipedia as proof ― and the site’s entries are far from irrefutable.
Giuliani’s first tweet attacked the credibility of Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who compiled the infamous dossier about Donald Trump and Russia.
Notice the telltale Wikipedia footnote?
Giuliani followed up a few minutes later citing the website as a source.
RawStory noted the problem with this:
Wikipedia entries are not considered reliable pieces of evidence, given that anyone has the power to edit Wikipedia entries at any time.
Added to this, Giuliani himself admitted that he didn’t know whether this already flimsy evidence was actually true, even though he claimed it would completely destroy Steele’s credibility.
Twitter users were quick to pounce on Giuliani, and things got hilarious.
One person stated the obvious:
Another had a question for the former mayor of New York City.
One person thought the best way for Giuliani to learn how Wikipedia really works was to demonstrate it in real time.
The Wikipedia entry on Steele that Giuliani quoted cites a New Yorker story that has not been disproved. But whether Steele had been to Russia recently may not even be relevant, since he could have compiled the dossier through Orbis Business Intelligence, the investigative-research firm that he co-founded in 2009.