Russians Compromising Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I don't know if anyone has mentioned it in the 67 pages, but several foreign intelligence services are now investigating the dossier. If any of those services can confirm the allegations, they will also be able to blackmail Trump. Trump could end up serving many masters.

Another delightful piece of the puzzle.

Given what he told the EU about NATO & Russia, I think the foreign agencies have a lot of interest in taking him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't care about the Tinkle with Trump event. What's important is whether his campaign was talking with Russians. Can't Trump's sons be investigated or subpeonaed about their interactions over the years and what they knew?

Yes, the Bipartisan Senate panel can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an Indian and I always thought that this country was a Democracy. US has now become the Banana Republic of the Russians, and Trump the bitch of Putin. How have the mighty fallen!

I predict that the next 4 years the Russians will rape the world and RNC will rape this country.

What is the Melania connection? She is also a former nude model and came from an Eastern Bloc country. What is her role?

Eastern bloc countries are not generally favorable to Russia as they were under their thumb and suffering and hating it for so many years. Slovenia is a beautiful country with lovely people and, this is all neither here nor there, but, everybody speaks English so a nice travel destination. I think the weird thing about this new administration if you can call it that is that Melania probably will have no role. She's been muscled out by Ivanka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I don't know if anyone has mentioned it in the 67 pages, but several foreign intelligence services are now investigating the dossier. If any of those services can confirm the allegations, they will also be able to blackmail Trump. Trump could end up serving many masters.

Another delightful piece of the puzzle.

Given what he told the EU about NATO & Russia, I think the foreign agencies have a lot of interest in taking him down.

Anonymous as well (on twitter)

[Anonymous]

Ending NATO would be a disaster of epic proportions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty sure you're talking about what folks like me call "establishment liberals" or many youngsters simply and bitterly call "liberals". We find it not at all surprising that you all are joining with the intelligence community and the powerful against a legitimately elected President. Realize that if the evidence is flimsy, and at present it would be charitable to even call the hacking evidence "circumstantial", using these bodies in this way actually makes Trump look better. As someone who hopes to challenge the noxious parts of his platform, I do not want him in that position.

Since this was all in response to an assumption that a previous poster had a narrow worldview and needed to read more widely, I'll share two pieces I'd consider both "lefty" and the first piece is massively more detailed and a better source on the 'hacking' than anything I've seen in what I'd call an "establishment liberal" outlet, like WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, BuzzFeed, etc., though piece number 2 uses a writer whose main job is at Harpers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-really-hack-the-dnc/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/the-russian-dossier-reminds-me-of-the-row-over-saddams-wmds/

If you think you know of something more convincing that supports the accusations of disturbing issues around Trump and Russia, I'd be very grateful if you shared them.

Different PP. I appreciate your sharing these sources and alternative viewpoints. My take on them is that they amount to an attempt to find holes in the information that has been provided to the public thus far. This is an important thing to do, and I hope people continue to do it. But to suggest that these are definitive evidence that the claims that Russia is behind the hacks or that the information compromising Trump is a complete overstatement. I think the articles go too far (or at least as far as the people they are criticizing) in ascribing motivation to the IC and Obama Administration to completely fabricate this information or to be overly quick to blame Russia. The article casting doubt on the dossier is even more ludicrous, since it mostly amounts to a journalist arguing that a former MI6 agent's information must be suspect because he was unable to get similar information from credible sources. Again, no one has said that every thing in that dossier is true...but there is a suggestion that enough of it could be true to warrant further investigation. The nature of espionage is that you are going to get a lot of half-truths and fabrications, but they are clues about where to investigate further. Steele did not dump those memos into the public sphere, he gave them to investigative and law enforcement agencies for further follow up.

The reality is that the general public has only been made aware of a portion of the information the IC has. It's not surprising to me that the information that they've shared so far is not definitive, because it's the unclassified portion of what they've shared. Nothing in the links you've shared points to an alternative, more plausible culprit. It just states that the evidence is not enough to "convict" Russia...which I think most reasonable lefties believe to be the case.

It's notable that Counterpunch is raising alarms that blaming Russia could lead to a new Cold War, which suggests that they have a concrete motive in casting doubt on these accusations. If you ask me, Russia's behavior over the past few years seems to be angling for a new Cold War, and I agree that if they are indeed found to be behind these activities it could start one. I'm certainly not in favor of that outcome, but I'm also not in favor of dismissing information and conclusions out-of-hand just to avoid it either.

I've been hesitant to reply to you, as I worry you're a troll, but breifly:

-Journalists are supposed to question the powerful, finding "holes" in their narratives. That's much of their value proposition to consumers, they shouldn't be stenographers.

-Nothing factual has been presented as evidence of 'Russian hacking'. Nothing. It's all opinion at this point, it's plausible yes, but these pronoucements fail to acknowledge (deliberately?) that there are clearly other possibilities. Given the severity of the allegations, claiming the IC knows more, but refuses to share any of that, should be a red flag to anyone with even minimal skepticism.

-Doubting a shoestring website's motives since they don't want a 'second cold war' is silly. Remember that a second cold war is worth many trillion $ to some, money that comes from the rest of us. Doubt the people who will be receiving those trillions first, they have much more reason to lie through their teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Pretty sure you're talking about what folks like me call "establishment liberals" or many youngsters simply and bitterly call "liberals". We find it not at all surprising that you all are joining with the intelligence community and the powerful against a legitimately elected President. Realize that if the evidence is flimsy, and at present it would be charitable to even call the hacking evidence "circumstantial", using these bodies in this way actually makes Trump look better. As someone who hopes to challenge the noxious parts of his platform, I do not want him in that position.

Since this was all in response to an assumption that a previous poster had a narrow worldview and needed to read more widely, I'll share two pieces I'd consider both "lefty" and the first piece is massively more detailed and a better source on the 'hacking' than anything I've seen in what I'd call an "establishment liberal" outlet, like WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, BuzzFeed, etc., though piece number 2 uses a writer whose main job is at Harpers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-really-hack-the-dnc/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/the-russian-dossier-reminds-me-of-the-row-over-saddams-wmds/

If you think you know of something more convincing that supports the accusations of disturbing issues around Trump and Russia, I'd be very grateful if you shared them.

Different PP. I appreciate your sharing these sources and alternative viewpoints. My take on them is that they amount to an attempt to find holes in the information that has been provided to the public thus far. This is an important thing to do, and I hope people continue to do it. But to suggest that these are definitive evidence that the claims that Russia is behind the hacks or that the information compromising Trump is a complete overstatement. I think the articles go too far (or at least as far as the people they are criticizing) in ascribing motivation to the IC and Obama Administration to completely fabricate this information or to be overly quick to blame Russia. The article casting doubt on the dossier is even more ludicrous, since it mostly amounts to a journalist arguing that a former MI6 agent's information must be suspect because he was unable to get similar information from credible sources. Again, no one has said that every thing in that dossier is true...but there is a suggestion that enough of it could be true to warrant further investigation. The nature of espionage is that you are going to get a lot of half-truths and fabrications, but they are clues about where to investigate further. Steele did not dump those memos into the public sphere, he gave them to investigative and law enforcement agencies for further follow up.

The reality is that the general public has only been made aware of a portion of the information the IC has. It's not surprising to me that the information that they've shared so far is not definitive, because it's the unclassified portion of what they've shared. Nothing in the links you've shared points to an alternative, more plausible culprit. It just states that the evidence is not enough to "convict" Russia...which I think most reasonable lefties believe to be the case.

It's notable that Counterpunch is raising alarms that blaming Russia could lead to a new Cold War, which suggests that they have a concrete motive in casting doubt on these accusations. If you ask me, Russia's behavior over the past few years seems to be angling for a new Cold War, and I agree that if they are indeed found to be behind these activities it could start one. I'm certainly not in favor of that outcome, but I'm also not in favor of dismissing information and conclusions out-of-hand just to avoid it either.

I've been hesitant to reply to you, as I worry you're a troll, but breifly:

-Journalists are supposed to question the powerful, finding "holes" in their narratives. That's much of their value proposition to consumers, they shouldn't be stenographers.

-Nothing factual has been presented as evidence of 'Russian hacking'. Nothing. It's all opinion at this point, it's plausible yes, but these pronoucements fail to acknowledge (deliberately?) that there are clearly other possibilities. Given the severity of the allegations, claiming the IC knows more, but refuses to share any of that, should be a red flag to anyone with even minimal skepticism.

-Doubting a shoestring website's motives since they don't want a 'second cold war' is silly. Remember that a second cold war is worth many trillion $ to some, money that comes from the rest of us. Doubt the people who will be receiving those trillions first, they have much more reason to lie through their teeth.

The bolded statement s patently false. This has been covered over and over again. On top of that, even Trump acknowledges the Russians did the hacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
-Nothing factual has been presented as evidence of 'Russian hacking'. Nothing. It's all opinion at this point, it's plausible yes, but these pronoucements fail to acknowledge (deliberately?) that there are clearly other possibilities. Given the severity of the allegations, claiming the IC knows more, but refuses to share any of that, should be a red flag to anyone with even minimal skepticism.

The bolded statement s patently false. This has been covered over and over again. On top of that, even Trump acknowledges the Russians did the hacking.

+1 This is why Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. People believe what he says. He shouts out lies for all to hear, for weeks on end, but his mea culpa is quieter and stated only once. But his followers don't hear that part. They just hold on to the lies.

[Anonymous]

The Russians put Trump in the White House because they have more filth on him than they had on HRC.
Now they have him where they want him, it is time to sit at the table.

[Anonymous]

"Trump is “a grown man, and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world,” Putin said. “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-17/putin-says-he-doesn-t-believe-trump-met-prostitutes-in-russia

LOL Putin, he has to brag even about his prostitutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Trump is “a grown man, and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world,” Putin said. “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-17/putin-says-he-doesn-t-believe-trump-met-prostitutes-in-russia

LOL Putin, he has to brag even about his prostitutes.

See, Putin confirmed that he does not have any dirt on Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trump is “a grown man, and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world,” Putin said. “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-17/putin-says-he-doesn-t-believe-trump-met-prostitutes-in-russia

LOL Putin, he has to brag even about his prostitutes.

See, Putin confirmed that he does not have any dirt on Trump.

lol.. only a moron would actually publicly confirm he's got dirt on Trump, and we know Putin is not a moron. Why do that when you can use him as a stooge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trump is “a grown man, and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world,” Putin said. “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-17/putin-says-he-doesn-t-believe-trump-met-prostitutes-in-russia

LOL Putin, he has to brag even about his prostitutes.

See, Putin confirmed that he does not have any dirt on Trump.

lol.. only a moron would actually publicly confirm he's got dirt on Trump, and we know Putin is not a moron. Why do that when you can use him as a stooge?

Missed the \s at the end, haha! I am guessing the tweet is coming soon....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Trump is “a grown man, and secondly he’s someone who has been involved with beauty contests for many years and has met the most beautiful women in the world,” Putin said. “I find it hard to believe that he rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-17/putin-says-he-doesn-t-believe-trump-met-prostitutes-in-russia

LOL Putin, he has to brag even about his prostitutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
-Nothing factual has been presented as evidence of 'Russian hacking'. Nothing. It's all opinion at this point, it's plausible yes, but these pronoucements fail to acknowledge (deliberately?) that there are clearly other possibilities. Given the severity of the allegations, claiming the IC knows more, but refuses to share any of that, should be a red flag to anyone with even minimal skepticism.

The bolded statement s patently false. This has been covered over and over again. On top of that, even Trump acknowledges the Russians did the hacking.

+1 This is why Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. People believe what he says. He shouts out lies for all to hear, for weeks on end, but his mea culpa is quieter and stated only once. But his followers don't hear that part. They just hold on to the lies.

Haha, keep dreaming. I've poured over the evidence presented publicly and it's all about conjecture.

Basically, the malware was constructed with X-agent, formerly a Russian project, though currently available to anyone if you know where to look.
The computer security firm Crowdstrike lumped the malware in with a whole set of other malware based on a black box methodology. Basically it 'looks similar' to other malware, also tagged with an unverified claim of being Russian, upon a few suppositions, including one that says Russian hackers work 9-5, Moscow time, so if we look at malware compiled then, we should suspect GRU/FSB. That's basically it and why the DNI report needed to hype the sorry Russian propaganda channel.

The "Russian's hacked the election" is birther-level stupidity. I guess we know that whatever people's politics are, they are equally stupid, particularly when an election is won in a surprising fashion by their opponents. Lol!

That you rely on an obvious liar like Trump (it was actually Preibus, btw) for confirmation it makes this even more hilarious!