Russians Compromising Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the Reince Priebus appearance this morning on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/priebus-memo-is-complete-total-garbage-852421187774

I don’t have time to watch it.
If somebody wants to watch it, then tell us at what point in the interview he says that Trump has never been in Russia, I would appreciate it.

I think the allegation is that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague, not that Trump has never been to Russia.

I am the pp. Exactly. So, the initial post about what Priebus said is fake news.
And, this is how rumors get started, folks.
Three pages of rebutting the fact that Trump has never been to Russia when that has never been stated.
Get a life, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lol..CNN doesn't I guess.

The report was given to the FBI in October. The intelligence agencies have been investigating and verifying for two months and have determined that the agent and his sources are credible. Some of the information is probably wrong, some is probably right.

It's news. Publishing the entire memo is probably not a good idea, but the official two page synopsis is the official conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the Reince Priebus appearance this morning on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/priebus-memo-is-complete-total-garbage-852421187774

I don’t have time to watch it.
If somebody wants to watch it, then tell us at what point in the interview he says that Trump has never been in Russia, I would appreciate it.

I think the allegation is that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague, not that Trump has never been to Russia.

I am the pp. Exactly. So, the initial post about what Priebus said is fake news.
And, this is how rumors get started, folks.
Three pages of rebutting the fact that Trump has never been to Russia when that has never been stated.
Get a life, folks.

Say folks one more time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol..CNN doesn't I guess.

Wow it's so weird that Joe Nobody from ABC Affilliate can't get the intel source to get on the phone and independently confirm all the info

I mean, I know 4 US Intel heads have verified it. But this dude didn't. So it's highly unlikely to be true.

How many unverified rumors were published about Huma's emails on Wiener's laptop? Remember when those were supposed to have been the one's Clinton deleted? Apparently, real journalists have double standards.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol..CNN doesn't I guess.

Wow it's so weird that Joe Nobody from ABC Affilliate can't get the intel source to get on the phone and independently confirm all the info

I mean, I know 4 US Intel heads have verified it. But this dude didn't. So it's highly unlikely to be true.

How many unverified rumors were published about Huma's emails on Wiener's laptop? Remember when those were supposed to have been the one's Clinton deleted? Apparently, real journalists have double standards.

Oh yeah. They were happy to breathlessly report (falsely) thousands of new emails. But no no. This, which has been vetted for months and has US, UK intel and Kerry and McCain backing it by name... we're gonna need more proof.

[Anonymous]

How long would Breitbart or Alex Jones hold this story? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

[Anonymous]

We won't get to see the video until the Trump has outlived his usefulness to Putin. Then it will drop.

[Anonymous]

#makingwatergate

[Anonymous]

(Farce)

"It's not like he asked them to poop on him" - KellyAnne Conway, spinning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the Reince Priebus appearance this morning on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/priebus-memo-is-complete-total-garbage-852421187774

I don’t have time to watch it.
If somebody wants to watch it, then tell us at what point in the interview he says that Trump has never been in Russia, I would appreciate it.

Brokaw said that while this has been around - and while they've been chasing after it - it's not fully verifiable. Priebus said the info in BuzzFeed is false. He added that it was RNC opposition. What's her face added that the stories needed to be triple-sourced, which isn't the case.

That's all I got.

[Anonymous]

Funny....in the other thread last week a number of us said that the LAST group Trump wants to pick a public fight with is the intelligence folks. That they could sink his presidency at their whim. A lot of you came in and "downplayed" what we said while also denigrating the competence of the US intelligence community. Well.... And even if THIS is not true, I suspect that he will be fending off this sort of stuff for the foreseeable future. Folks, in politics information is power!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The intel community is actually widely conservative/Republican. Not sure why folks think they would lie? Or that the whole source for this is 4chan. People are delusional as Trump!!

Widely? Come on. LEO is widely conservative/republican. Intel, especially the CIA, is very ivy league. And the ivy league has always had a large 'liberal' population, one that has become a near totality on their campuses recently.

Pro tip: don't think about this stuff on the liberal/conservative binary. Think of it as groups, mafias really, fighting over the limited turf out there. The general population is caught between these detestable groups and should recognize them as all parasitic.

Most Ivy League liberals wouldn't be caught dead working for an intelligence agency. They are too pure, at least in their early years!

Also, I think there are a lot more conservatives at Ivy League campuses than you think. Granted it's been 10 years but when I went back for law school (to the same university as undergrad), I was very struck by how much more visible conservative voices were than they'd been even a couple years before. Numbers-wise perhaps not a ton, but they were quite vocal.

That's true, no doubt. But "ivy league liberals" or whatever is a pretty large group of people relative to the # employed in intel. And you can count on the preponderance of ivy leaguers to value their own career and self-aggrandizement over any need to be pro-social.

I agree on "conservatives" at ivy league campuses. What they're aren't so many of are "Conservatives": case matters here. The intel agencies are full of people who are "Liberals" while being "conservative". An Ivy league degree ties you to the establishment, to the idea that tomorrow should mostly be like today or yesterday. Intel agencies indulge these folks in sexy work and given them very fat budgets to do it. But a lot of the work is substantively about maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis the place of the American elite abroad, which is "conservative" if possibly "Liberal" in a domestic political sense.

Sorry, but I know a bunch of these folks and I'll reiterate: this is an ugly, ugly turf war amongst members of the elite. These are the elephants of "When elephants fight, the grass is crushed". The mafias in the elite are elephants, almost all of the population is the grass. And I am deeply saddened by what all this portends.

Well, I only know one, so I will defer to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am the pp. Exactly. So, the initial post about what Priebus said is fake news.
And, this is how rumors get started, folks.
Three pages of rebutting the fact that Trump has never been to Russia when that has never been stated.
Get a life, folks.

Well, you see, this is an internet forum. And the people here were discussing what the PP wrote (which is still there, you can read it again) while someone verified whether it was accurate by the link provided. And someone did. And so the conversation moved on.

This is conversation. It's not submitted claims of fact. People have conversations.

You know this, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lol..CNN doesn't I guess.

Wow it's so weird that Joe Nobody from ABC Affilliate can't get the intel source to get on the phone and independently confirm all the info

I mean, I know 4 US Intel heads have verified it. But this dude didn't. So it's highly unlikely to be true.

To be fair they didn't verify the actual information. They merely determined the source is credible. There's a big difference. It's the difference between saying this stuff is actually true and saying it's possible so we should look into it. The latter is what's going on here. It may well be none of it is true; we can't know that. But the intelligence heads think it's at least possible and therefore concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#makingwatergate

goldengate