Bombshell: Leaked Kremlin docs show 2016 Russian plan to boost "mentally unstable" Trump campaign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Fake what? What do you mean? Russia leaked fake docs to make Trump look bad? Or someone else leaked fake docs to make Putin and Trump look bad? Or...?

I think we’ll find out the memo is not real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Prove it then.

That’s not how this works. The memo has to be verified. I don’t have to prove that it’s fake.

I am a research scientist. Any time I see results that are exactly what I hoped for, I double and triple check my assumptions and experiment design so I didn’t create the answer I wanted. This feels fake to me and I will need it be validated thoroughly before I believe it.

What's so confusing? What's so invalid about it?
We already knew the Russians were conducting influence operations to help Trump in the 2016 election. Senate Intelligence Committee report. Mueller report (Internet Research Agency and FSB indictments). That's all been established. We knew Russia did this.

We just never, until now, had proof of a direct link of all of this back to Putin himself, nor deeper insights into the motives.

It’s this proof that I don’t think will hold up. It’s like the Bush story that got Dan Rather fired. The outlines are true. It sounds plausible. But the reason major outlets aren’t reporting this is that the document cannot be verified. I am not saying anything in your first paragraph is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Fake what? What do you mean? Russia leaked fake docs to make Trump look bad? Or someone else leaked fake docs to make Putin and Trump look bad? Or...?

I think we’ll find out the memo is not real.

DP. Of course it's not real. Once again, the same liberals are salivating over something that is going to turn out to be pure fantasy. It's pathetic, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who (still) don’t believe in the Steele Dossier: “There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.”

Oh, it’s real alright. Though none of us knows what it is (I have my theories).

The peepee tape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Prove it then.

That’s not how this works. The memo has to be verified. I don’t have to prove that it’s fake.

I am a research scientist. Any time I see results that are exactly what I hoped for, I double and triple check my assumptions and experiment design so I didn’t create the answer I wanted. This feels fake to me and I will need it be validated thoroughly before I believe it.

What's so confusing? What's so invalid about it?
We already knew the Russians were conducting influence operations to help Trump in the 2016 election. Senate Intelligence Committee report. Mueller report (Internet Research Agency and FSB indictments). That's all been established. We knew Russia did this.

We just never, until now, had proof of a direct link of all of this back to Putin himself, nor deeper insights into the motives.

It’s this proof that I don’t think will hold up. It’s like the Bush story that got Dan Rather fired. The outlines are true. It sounds plausible. But the reason major outlets aren’t reporting this is that the document cannot be verified. I am not saying anything in your first paragraph is wrong.

That’s a terrible example. I believe it was quietly said that the infamous Bush memo was actually authentic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Fake what? What do you mean? Russia leaked fake docs to make Trump look bad? Or someone else leaked fake docs to make Putin and Trump look bad? Or...?

I think we’ll find out the memo is not real.

DP. Of course it's not real. Once again, the same liberals are salivating over something that is going to turn out to be pure fantasy. It's pathetic, really.

That’s all that’s left to you it seems. Denial, delusion, just say it’s fake, just say it was stolen, just say we won. It’s amazing how well it works though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I just don’t believe it.

I agree that Trump was the best way for Russia to destabilize the US. I also am convinced (by the evidence) that Russia interfered in our elections on behalf of team Trump. No question about any of that.

But this memo? It’s too pat. Too much what a liberal (like me) would assume to exist.

It’s a good fake. But it’s a fake.

Fake what? What do you mean? Russia leaked fake docs to make Trump look bad? Or someone else leaked fake docs to make Putin and Trump look bad? Or...?

I think we’ll find out the memo is not real.

DP. Of course it's not real. Once again, the same liberals are salivating over something that is going to turn out to be pure fantasy. It's pathetic, really.

That’s all that’s left to you it seems. Denial, delusion, just say it’s fake, just say it was stolen, just say we won. It’s amazing how well it works though.

Given the state of the R party and majority still thinking that the election was stolen, I'd say peddling lies is working well for them.

I don't know if this bombshell is a lie or not, but it's pretty believable considering how Trump kowtowed to Russia and praised Putin. I'm sure Reagan must've been turning over in his grave.

-former R

[Anonymous]

Has anyone noticed that the usual Russiagaters - Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, to name a couple - haven't touched this "reporting" with a ten foot pole? It has not been covered on MSNBC at all.

Here's another one:

[Anonymous]

One reason to think it’s not real is that it starts the timeline for the Russian manipulation campaign in Jan. 2016, when we know it actually began earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One reason to think it’s not real is that it starts the timeline for the Russian manipulation campaign in Jan. 2016, when we know it actually began earlier.

Oooooooooooh!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One reason to think it’s not real is that it starts the timeline for the Russian manipulation campaign in Jan. 2016, when we know it actually began earlier.

Good point.

I think what Kasparov said about it is probably true, though. This document may be faked, but essence of what is says is correct and goes with what we know already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone noticed that the usual Russiagaters - Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, to name a couple - haven't touched this "reporting" with a ten foot pole? It has not been covered on MSNBC at all.

Here's another one:

+1
Yep. They're finally wising up that perhaps immediately jumping on the outrage bandwagon isn't really the brightest move. Too bad DCUM's finest haven't caught on yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone noticed that the usual Russiagaters - Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, to name a couple - haven't touched this "reporting" with a ten foot pole? It has not been covered on MSNBC at all.

Here's another one:

+1
Yep. They're finally wising up that perhaps immediately jumping on the outrage bandwagon isn't really the brightest move. Too bad DCUM's finest haven't caught on yet.

Doesn’t change the fact that we already know the broad outlines of this to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Doesn’t change the fact that we already know the broad outlines of this to be true.

Exactly.

Trump has been mobbed up his whole life.
He was compromised into running for President.
He did Putin's bidding for 4 years.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Doesn’t change the fact that we already know the broad outlines of this to be true.

Exactly.

Trump has been mobbed up his whole life.
He was compromised into running for President.
He did Putin's bidding for 4 years.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

+1. Doesn’t change that Trump was the most morally compromised, disloyal, incompetent president in history.