Trump/Russia Dossier

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:56 am

claretdom wrote:Was the Trump vote more stupid then the Brexit vote ?

Without doubt.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:02 am

Imploding Turtle wrote: Not that that matters. Guilty until proven innocent is how it goes for Clinton while Trump gets away with everything.

W..what?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:34 am

What amazed me about yesterdays press conference was the inability of Trump to see the difference between being a maverick presidential candidate and actually being the president.

Its really obvious that Russia hacked US computers to influence the election.

But the election is done. All he has to do is condemn Russia for it, make sure that they are fully aware of US displeasure and tell them in no uncertain terms that it is completely unacceptable. Thats what a President of a country has to do.

He couldn't do it, spent the whole thing talking about Hilary, and then handed it over to his lawyer.

His lawyer? WTF?

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only thing i take issue with here is that it is in conflict with the constitution. I think that's a stretch.

Ok, I'll accept that but I'd certainly forward the notion that to call a business "fake" and in particular a press agency that is protected by the 1st amendment, is at least an abuse of power

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:16 pm

claretdom wrote:Was the Trump vote more stupid then the Brexit vote ?

Yes. I didn't get to vote on brexit and i admit to slightly leaning to the pro-brexit camp based on my doubts of economic sustainability of un-weighted free movement of labor not tied to sovereign state social welfare and taxation policies - basically there's a margin to be made.

Whereas voting Trump was stupid, though not as stupid as only really giving a platform to Trump and Clinton in the first place

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:38 pm

claretdom wrote:Was the Trump vote more stupid then the Brexit vote ?

Of course. What other word can you use for a system where the person who wins a 2 horse race, (gets more votes), finishes 2nd?

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:44 pm

James Comey had this information and was investigating it when he released the letter to Congress, one week before the election stating that the FBI had reopened the investigation into Hillary Clintons emails. Harry Reid, the head democrat in the senate, alluded to the fact that Comey was investigating Trump and had not released details of that investigation. Now we know what that information was, you can see just why Reid and the democrats were so aggrieved with Comey, especially as the reopening of the Clinton investigation did nothing but help her lose the election.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:54 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:spent the whole thing talking about Hilary, and then handed it over to his lawyer.

His lawyer? WTF?

I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him.
Don't be surprised when trump sues Buzzfeed out of existence. Like Hogan did with Gawker

grapidianclaret · Post by **grapidianclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:57 pm

Damo wrote:I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him.
Don't be surprised when trump sues Buzzfeed out of existence. Like Hogan did with Gawker

His lawyer was there to argue why it is OK for Trump to not distance himself from the many and varied conflicts of interest created by passing his business empire on to his two sons and not a blind trust, which is what should be done, ethically.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:04 pm

Damo wrote:I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him.
Don't be surprised when trump sues Buzzfeed out of existence. Like Hogan did with Gawker

Trump threatens to sue everyone, settles the few cases which ever make it to court.
Hogan was just a shill backed by Peter Thiel who hated Gawker four outing him as gay (even though true). Thiel is worth 2.4bn while I doubt trump is worth anywhere near that sum, his true net worth being his most touchy subject.

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:11 pm

It doesn’t even matter if this is fake or not, what matters is the damage it causes to all the agencies involved and why this is happening.

There was a documentary last year called Hypernormalisation and towards the end it talks about how Putin manages to keep such a tight hold of power in Russia. From what it said it goes beyond state-controlled misinformation: one example was Putin’s people covertly funding anti-Putin movements and protests, letting them gather pace, then bringing them down in scandal by revealing that the protesters were taking Putin’s money all along. The protesters, the public, no-one has any idea what’s real or what they can believe, apathy unsues, Putin rolls on. It’s starting to feel familiar.

There’s no doubt Putin wanted Trump in the White House, media coverage there was massively pro-Trump, whilst in ‘the West’ it was pro-Clinton. There’s evidence, accepted by Trump as I understand it, of Russia interfering in the election, hacking the Democrats and releasing the details. There are lots of reports of links between Trump and Putin’s people.

This British former spy that created this dossier (for the Republicans) must have had some credibility at some point, I find it hard to believe he’s sat at his desk and fabricated the lot of it. So it’s either true, or his sources, whoever they are, fed him false information. Maybe some of it is truth with a few bits of false chucked in, how would we be able to tell? I think it’s likely the only people outside of Trump’s inner circle who actually know how much of this is real or not are in Moscow, not Washington, or London.

The consequence today somehow seems to be Trump disowning his own intelligence agencies, even though their part in this is minimal. This is a President that:
a) looks suspiciously linked to Putin and Russia, where they have misinformation and manipulation down to a fine art, and
b) already looks like he’s not going to trust anything inconvenient that his own intelligence agencies (the only ones he should be trusting when it comes to Russia) will try to tell him.

Fake news wasn’t a thing before things started getting real with Trump’s campaign and he’s already shown that facts and the truth aren’t important to him getting where he wants to be. All news is now reporting on fake news as news and in this whole situation it’s increasingly difficult to know what’s real or what you can believe.

Whether the prostitute p*ss party happened or not, whether what’s going on is part of an elaborate Russian strategy to destabilise a rival superpower or not, it’s no good blaming Buzzfeed or the internet for failing to protect the President. This shouldn’t be sticking to him, he shouldn’t be swiping at his own intelligence agencies (in public at least) or the news agencies reporting it. With allegations as ridiculous as this a President should be able to rise above it, but instead he looks provoked, manipulated, weak and dangerous, and he’s not even in the job yet.

I hope enough of what’s being reported is true, or true enough, it makes his position untenable and someone else steps in who is less likely to invite this sort of rubbish on themselves. However I don’t think that will happen because I get the feeling that no-one in America has any control of the situation.

Clarinetclaret · Post by **Clarinetclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:40 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:If Trump nukes Moscow, do you think Russia will restrict its response to just America, or will they attack her allies aswell?

If you think this has nothing to do with us then I envy your naivety.

The threat of nuclear war has been around since the fifties, so why am I going to worry about it now? Nothing we can do if somebody decides to press the buttons.
And you think we're closer to nuclear war now than in the past? I certainly dont.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:00 pm

We've had the shooting war, the Cold War, and now we have the cyber war.

The things that will be going on by all the big players will seem unbelievable if it ever got out. I bet they are all it it, using cyber warfare to influence things. If the Yanks aren't at it too, e.g to undermine Putin, I'd be astonished.

I can also see it being likely that all kinds of incriminating material will be held on many people - sometimes sexual, sometimes not.

Anybody who doesn't believe any of the above would be incredibly naive. Which is basically 90% of the media.

But as to whether Trump is being blackmailed or coerced due to this material? The line from Batman Begins springs to mind. I can imagine Morgan Freeman's delivery now "so Mr Putin, you believe that this man is a manic narcissist who hates being bullied, prefers to bully himself, and has an itchy trigger finger, and you want to blackmail this man? Good luck with that".

I fear for the Russian people if true. Luckily, I don't think it is.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:19 pm

Damo wrote:I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him.
Don't be surprised when trump sues Buzzfeed out of existence. Like Hogan did with Gawker

Nobody posted a fake, libelous news story. Please quote something from it that even might be libelous.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:25 pm

Clarinetclaret wrote:The threat of nuclear war has been around since the fifties, so why am I going to worry about it now? Nothing we can do if somebody decides to press the buttons.
And you think we're closer to nuclear war now than in the past? I certainly dont.

I was answering someone who questions what the US presidency has to do with us.

And yes, I do think Trump is more likely to nuke someone than previous presidents. All but one.

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:46 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Nobody posted a fake, libelous news story. Please quote something from it that even might be libelous.

Um.

One could argue that the bit about him paying prostitutes to **** on things is pretty libellous.

Edit: That's a four letter word beginning with 'P' btw.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:26 pm

LongsideFacingUp wrote:Um.

One could argue that the bit about him paying prostitutes to **** on things is pretty libellous.

Edit: That's a four letter word beginning with 'P' btw.

None of the news organisations are saying he did that.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:42 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:None of the news organisations are saying he did that.

Show me where anyone said any of the news organisations are saying that

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:48 pm

Damo wrote:Show me where anyone said any of the news organisations are saying that

You.

"I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him."

Who posts news stories?

Understanding this does require you to apply some thinking so take your time.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:06 pm

Here's a short audio of Paul Wood talking about how this information is sourced on BBC Radio 4, and also pointing out that it was initially a Republican superPAC who employed the firm that compiled this dossier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyFTRVvhM5M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:08 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You.

"I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him."

Who posts news stories?

Understanding this does require you to apply some thinking so take your time.

Buzzfeed posted the dossier which contains the allegations.
Even though the admitted they were probably made up when they posted it as 'unverified'
Not that I would consider them to be a news organisation by the way

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:10 pm

Damo wrote:Buzzfeed posted the dossier which contains the allegations.
Even though the admitted they were probably made up when they posted it as 'unverified'
Not that I would consider them to be a news organisation by the way

"Unverified" does not mean "probably made up".

Edit: And i forgot to ask. How do you know anything in the dossier is libellous?

Edit 2: If it is libellous for the press to report what people are saying, which is what Buzzfeed is doing, then why wasn't it libellous for the press to report that some people were saying that Obama wasn't an American citizen?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:28 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You.
I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him."

Who posts news stories?

Understanding this does require you to apply some thinking so take your time.

Imploding Turtle wrote:If it is libellous for the press to report what people are saying, which is what Buzzfeed is doing

So Buzzfeed didn't say it. They are reporting that someone else said it.

So show me where I said any of the news organisations are saying that?

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:31 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:None of the news organisations are saying he did that.

Are you dense?

Buzzfeed News published the dossier with the slanderous material in it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/t ... .jrZXPQddK

It's the reason you were so gleefully able to start a thread titled 'Watergate II - Trump's Wet 'n' Wild Party'

You've always had dog **** opinions but now your just denying reality.

Keep going. I love it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:32 pm

Damo wrote:So Buzzfeed didn't say it. They are reporting that someone else said it.

So show me where I said any of the news organisations are saying that?

I already did. I'll try again, maybe it'll sink in this time.

"I would imagine his lawyer was there because somebody just posted a fake, libelous news story about him."
"a fake, libelous news story about him"
"news story"

Ask yourself this, if it's not posted by a news organisation then how can it be a news story?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:38 pm

LongsideFacingUp wrote:Are you dense?

Buzzfeed News published the dossier with the slanderous material in it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/t ... .jrZXPQddK

It's the reason you were so gleefully able to start a thread titled 'Watergate II - Trump's Wet 'n' Wild Party'

You've always had dog **** opinions but now your just denying reality.

Keep going. I love it.

How do you know it is slanderous?

LongsideFacingUp · Post by **LongsideFacingUp** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:44 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:How do you know it is slanderous?

The burden of proof is not on Trump to disprove the claim you ******* cretin.

The burden of proof is on Buzzfeed News once they decided to published materials that negatively impacted Trump's reputation.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:53 pm

LongsideFacingUp wrote:The burden of proof is not on Trump to disprove the claim you ******* cretin.

The burden of proof is on Buzzfeed News once they decided to published materials that negatively impacted Trump's reputation.

Getting upset isn't going to erase the fact that you have carelessly allowed the burden of proof to fall upon you by making the claim that the dossier contains slanderous material. Here is your claim:

Buzzfeed News published the dossier with the slanderous material in it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/t ... .jrZXPQddK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, the only way you can say that it contains slanderous material without being a liar is if you've checked the information and gathered contradictory evidence. Now since i'm sure you're not a liar I would like to know what this evidence is.

You have made a claim. All i'm asking is for you to back it up. I bet if Buzzfeed made a claim you'd want them to back it up, i know I would, and since you're surely not a hypocrite you'll understand and be forthcoming in backing up your claim.

I look forward to you corroborating what you claim to know.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:54 pm

Can't possibly be slanderous. Libelous maybe.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:12 pm

Doing Their Due Diligence: Millions Of Responsible BuzzFeed Readers Are Flying To Russia To Verify The Trump Dossier

"When a leaked dossier containing dozens of unverified, anonymous claims about Donald Trump’s connections to Russia was published on BuzzFeed yesterday, it caused a complete sensation all across the internet. Millions read the scandalous accusations from an uncorroborated, anonymous source, and the moment they did, they understood what they had to do: Droves of responsible BuzzFeed readers have now booked plane tickets and are flying to Moscow to verify the information in the Trump dossier themselves!......

...Now that’s how you consume the news responsibly! It’s encouraging to see just how many readers are dutifully investigating the unsubstantiated information presented in BuzzFeed’s story. Donald Trump is a controversial and polarizing figure, so it would have been easy to take inflammatory information about him at face value. Fortunately, we can rest easy knowing that there are millions of level-headed, ethical internet users who know that they are honor-bound to fully examine every primary source document and ensure its incontrovertible truth.
Faith in humanity restored!.."

http://www.clickhole.com/article/doing- ... e-buz-5318

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:00 pm

NRC wrote:Well Mr Rowls, the 1st amendment specifically qualifies the press to essentially be covered under the same citizen right as the freedom of speech. In effect Trump, by denying the question was denying freedom of speech and in particular when all the reporter wanted to do was to ask a question that would lead to Trump's scurrilous claim that CNN was fake news being seen for what it was - an abuse of power and quite possibly slanderous

I think it's tenuous -at best- to describe his actions as "unconstitutional". I don't think it works like that.

Lancasterclaret wrote:F**king hell Rowls
I mean, f**king hell
Trump just told the 1st Amendment to just do one, and you think that is fine?
What are the free principles of a democracy again?
Yeah, free press - which unless it asks the questions that Rowls wants, he's against
Free judiciary - again, unless it doesn't ask the questions that Rowls wants, he's against (see numerous EU threads)
Only got one more pillar of democracy to kick over Rowls and you are there.
Are you sure your political views are not a bit too much authoritarian?

See above for the answer I offered NRC. But well done you for being so .... erm ... DRAMATIC in this post. It really is something.

*****

It's been 24 hours since the press conference now but I see not a peep of the suggestion that anything "unconstitutional" occurred yesterday. Admittedly I have only checked the BBC website but I'd have imagined the President of the US breaking its own constitution would be a headliner.

And to back me up on the matter we have our trusted, respected and well-informed American correspondent who agrees with me:

Imploding Turtle wrote:Only thing i take issue with here is that it is in conflict with the constitution. I think that's a stretch.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:11 pm

Just because Rowls agrees with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, although I will admit to now having doubts.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:12 pm

No, but you are usually wrong. The best indicator of you being wrong is when I disagree with.

Now get an early night tonight. You were up far too late yesterday.

Clarinetclaret · Post by **Clarinetclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:18 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I was answering someone who questions what the US presidency has to do with us.

And yes, I do think Trump is more likely to nuke someone than previous presidents. All but one.

Don't talk rubbish. Alarmist shite. If you're that worried about who runs America why don't you move over, take residency then you can have a vote. Start a nuclear war my arse.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:20 pm

Exactly Clarinetclaret.

We've come very close to a nuclear war on a couple of occasions and both times it was Russian aggression and paranoia fuelling the conflict.

If anyone is going to start a nuclear war it'll be Putin, that fat Korean or some cranky general in the Pakistani army.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:28 pm

Clarinetclaret wrote:Don't talk rubbish. Alarmist shite. If you're that worried about who runs America why don't you move over, take residency then you can have a vote. Start a nuclear war my arse.

It's funny how you're this concerned about someone else being concerned about something you're not concerned by. Wouldn't the easy, mature thing to do be to simply not comment in the thread that is of no interest?

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be so offended by other people being interested or concerned by things that don't interest or concern you?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:57 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's funny how you're this concerned about someone else being concerned about something you're not concerned by. Wouldn't the easy, mature thing to do be to simply not comment in the thread that is of no interest?

Maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be so offended by other people being interested or concerned by things that don't interest or concern you?

I really don't think he is offended...

This article right here sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well, worth a read imo.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -heres-why" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:04 pm

Rowls wrote: We've come very close to a nuclear war on a couple of occasions and both times it was Russian aggression and paranoia fuelling the conflict.

If anyone is going to start a nuclear war it'll be Putin, that fat Korean or some cranky general in the Pakistani army.

You're probably right Rowls, but I would say the chances of one of those 3 possibilities has significantly increased with the election of Trump.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:08 pm

Trump won't start any wars imho but the second a shot is fired he will throw everything at it. Make no mistake, America is going to rebuild it's military to a point where even Russia would be daft to do anything too provocative.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:10 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I really don't think he is offended...

This article right here sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well, worth a read imo.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -heres-why" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's clearly upset that some people are more concerned by Trump than he is. The poor mite.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:02 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:Trump won't start any wars imho but the second a shot is fired he will throw everything at it. Make no mistake, America is going to rebuild it's military to a point where even Russia would be daft to do anything too provocative.

Remember you said this because I think that Russia will get even more bold with their aggression. I think they'll openly enter the Ukraine civil war because Trump won't do a thing. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Belarus fall to Russia either.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:22 pm

Yeah, sorry, got a bit annoyed there with you Rowls

You don't think there is anything wrong in the next US President basically refusing to talk to one of the biggest new corporations in the world, just because they report news that is unfavourable to him?

He called CNN a "fake news" station. Even Putin wouldn't go that far.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:29 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yeah, sorry, got a bit annoyed there with you Rowls

You don't think there is anything wrong in the next US President basically refusing to talk to one of the biggest new corporations in the world, just because they report news that is unfavourable to him?

He called CNN a "fake news" station. Even Putin wouldn't go that far.

Imagine if in the same news conference he accused a news organisation of being "fake" it turned out that he had paid staffers attending the conference so that they could cheer him, and that the huge business plan, containing thousands of pages, he had displayed to show off turned out to be full of blank pages.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:30 pm

Imploding Turtle ...

".. I think that Russia will get even more bold with their aggression.....

WTF are you on about?

I would be more concerned about American aggression. I'm sure you can recollect the 7 countries bombed under Obama's tenure.

What is your view of the following aggression?

ISIS, Al-Qaeda And The U.S. Airforce Wage War On Syria’s Public Utilities

"....This is a systematic, wide ranging campaign against Syrian infrastructure designed to deprive the people living under government protection of the basic necessities...."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/01/is ... ties-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:40 pm

What do you think the Russian and Syrian airforces have been targeting ffs?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:47 pm

This is literally my Facebook today.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:49 pm

Lancasterclaret

What do you think the Russian and Syrian airforces have been targeting ffs?

ISIS, Daesch, Jabhat al Nusra, Head Choppers and the rest of the Takfiri terrorists/rapists who wish to overthrow the government.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:50 pm

Oh, and civilian targets

barrel bombing anything that moves

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:52 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:

Obviously this joke, while funny, isn't based on facts. But if it was you would do well to remember that this works both ways. Those peddlers of 'pizzagate' who are outraged and are calling this fake news (it isn't) are hypocrites.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:55 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Obviously this joke, while funny, isn't based on facts. But if it was you would do well to remember that this works both ways. Those peddlers of 'pizzagate' who are outraged and are calling this fake news (it isn't) are hypocrites.

Oh, I don't deny that what so ever.