I think we need to accept that for some, nothing should be reported on unless it can be proven without a doubt, unless there is physical evidence that can be shared. Innocent until proven guilty. Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Lock her up.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reports on Russian connections to Trump [Summaries in OP] #GoldenShowers
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
I think we need to accept that for some, nothing should be reported on unless it can be proven without a doubt, unless there is physical evidence that can be shared. Innocent until proven guilty. Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Lock her up.
Joel Was Right
Member
Perhaps. But in this instance, it was shared because, "part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security."
It was related to the bigger picture of Russia's role.
BronsonLee
Member
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
The source is credible because the IC says it is.
The contents of the dossier are going to be briefed to both democrats and republicans in senate this week.
Thats how credible it is.
Joel Was Right
Member
Could you please clarify with information rather than passive aggressive statements?
I have been at work all day. I didn't have time to refresh this page.
ThreePiMatt
Member
While proving the ties with Russia would be a lot more damning, even if the prostitute angle was proven it would help to completely delegitimize him as a leader. The GOP might have to remove him just to try and save their own asses.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
as reported by a credible source. They didn't share gaf posts with him that said Trump is a russian plant.
I'm sorry. Read the OP. It explains why this is so credible.
If this is to try and convinced someone else, dont waste your time, whoever is denying to you this, will keep doing so because it doesn't fit into their argument, remember most of the people that are asking for more proof , didnt needed evidence with things like Clinton /Benghazi, Obama/Birther cases. is Confirmation bias.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I'm sorry, can you clarify that?
Unfortunately, it's still just somebody's word. For now, there is no smoking gun, and until there is, it is impossible for anything to come of it... so I assume that's why FBI and CIA are hard at work following up on this.
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Huh? What? I dont get it.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Exactly as it stands now:
A source with high credibility has made a report and the IC is taking it serious until they can verify it.
Thats what we are at.
....Just asking questions amirite?
It's credible because
1) the IC deems that the source is credible, and in addition:
2) Included a 2 page summary of similar allegations from separate source(s) to both Obama and Trump.
Spiegel devoted several paragraphs to the 4Chan stuff: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...l-das-dossier-aufgesetzt-haben-a-1129691.html
Absurd.
Absurd.
This is in the OP of the topic about how credible this guy is. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author
except the entire house which will be briefed on it now
Just to play Devil's advocate here, it would be equally credible if this information was false and being spread in a manner to delegitimize Trump's credibility among our allies. Again, say it is false, how do you think this would affect our allies with sharing intelligence with Trump's administration or making policy regarding Russia?
I'm not saying this stuff is false, I'm just saying false or not, either fucking way, it affects National Security.
It's all right there in the OP. No need to be passive aggressive about it when the information you're looking for is at the top of the page.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
This isnt a whistleblower situation, this source is known for being meticulous, and for being highly knowledgeable. Their work is obviously based on investigation.
sir_kevith
Member
Just because you have to work doesn't mean he's your servant.
You're either being incredibly disingenuous or lazy with your line of questioning. Read the OP. Or better yet, go to any major news source for more details.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
#fakenews
The same person that "accidentally" stumbled on the 4chan rumor and just wanted to share it. When that fell through they moved on to other "questions".
Yeah I edited my post. Obviously intelligence is taking it seriously due to the source, but nothing will be done until the proof is there and is irrefutable. (video/audio)
RustyNails
Member
Yea but the lamestream media is in the pockets of Clintons. What now???
That's what I'm saying. Im aiming that statement at pro Trump folks who call it bullshit and nonsense. It may be, it may not be. It's too early to tell yet and it may be true or parts of it that are true but can't ever be verified without definitive proof.
Unrelated to the topic though.
The dude who produced the dossier is the same dude that exposed the FIFA corruption.
So it's credible in part because the dude who compiled it has a track record of uncovering corruption elsewhere, and being correct.
There are verified errors and corroborated information as well in the dossier. Have you read any of the articles or even the OP? It's not one claim. And a former MI6 agent is not "just somebody."
He's also the guy who figured out the Russians were behind that polonium poisoning back in 2006. The guy's no joke.
Oh wow. Didn't know that one. This one is looking more and more true.
Hey maybe they "just have some questions" and reading a wall of text is hard work.
Yes, I've been keeping up on the situation. What I am trying to say is that those hoping for Trump to be arrested for treason and stripped of his Presidency are going to be disappointed because right now, all they have is a very credible source (or sources) saying these things happened. But they need hard proof for anything to be done about it.
I think that's what happens when I construct a hasty post, then an even hastier edit.
That's when I realize I have wasted my time and return back to the adult table.
tfur
Member
For the record, since you are being given mis-information about the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency report that was given as an excuse for going into Iraq because of WMD's. The report that was given to congress did indeed say that there were WMDs in Iraq, and both the CIA and the DIA signed off on this fact. Whether it was massaged into fact or not, the Intelligence Community DID say there were WMDs in Iraq.
This is from a previous set of posts on this issue. Look it up for yourself.
To say CIA said there were no WMD's is not true. People are reading fake news sites put out today that is not part of what really happened.
Up to and including the day of Powells' public meeting, CIA still pushed that there were mobile biological weapons factories. They were even concerned that other agencies (DIA) maybe could be questioning/backpedaling. CIA used a person called Curveball who informed and mis-informed about this issue.
Here is a link to CIA actual site in regards to WMD's in Iraq.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraqi_mobile_plants/
Here is a link to a Wapo article that goes into the true details of CIA support of WMDs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html
CIA pushed it. DIA questioned it. DIA still put out paper supporting CIA. This information was submitted as fact to congress. This was used to go to war.
And another post:
I am 100% correct that CIA and the DIA put out official documents and support for WMD's in Iraq. For someone to say that CIA said there were NO WMD's in Iraq is a complete fabrication, and is a false statement.
They put these reports out, in spite of other discovery showing holes in their theories and conclusions. These reports were given to the congress and to the leadership. You are correct that people doubted them, but CIA absolutely supported the notion of WMDs through official reports to congress.
Iraq October 2002 NIE on WMDs (unedacted version)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259216899/Iraq-October-2002-NIE-on-WMDs-unedacted-version
CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons;
Main Subject of Today's Senate Intelligence Report Remains Largely Secret;
Agency Censors Document Despite Public CIA Speeches, Testimony, Statements
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/
Joel Was Right
Member
I haven't talked about 4chan at all. Please be careful before accusing others of being disengengous. People should be free to share thoughts and disagree.
My fault for not reading the OP. I'm sorry.
But a few of you are completely absurd with your hyperbole when attacking me, especially those of whose commentary I once valuesd. This is not how people should discuss serious things.
Jorok Goldblade
Member
When this whole Presidency thing goes belly-up, I've got an opening for Donald in my seventies cop show pitch:
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
My facebook feed is riddled with "but he's a germaphobe" dogshit.
BronsonLee
Member
OFF WITH YOUR HEAD
When this whole Presidency thing goes belly-up, I've got an opening for Donald in my seventies cop show pitch:
oh lord in heaven
Yes,yes...but what about the jokes it allows us to make till the end of time?
KernelPanic
Member
sugarhigh4242
Banned
Simply refuse to argue on the basis of facts.
gnarlyxcharlie
Member
BronsonLee
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked