Reply to Russians Compromising Trump

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Russians Compromising Trump"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
Different PP.  I appreciate your sharing these sources and alternative viewpoints.  [b]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. [/b]  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.  [b]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.  [/b]

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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
What in my post makes you think I'm a troll?

And I did not explicitly disagree with any of your responses...in fact I stated them in my post above (well, except for the last one).  Yes, journalism should seek to find holes.  And yes, I don't think what's been presented is definitive...and no, I don't expect that while an investigation is ongoing the IC should share everything they know if there is concern it might compromise the investigation.  I stated above, and I'll restate, that I think further investigation is warranted.  I don't think we know everything yet.  I do think that there are some people in government, including Trump, who know more and it maybe be why they are willing to be more definitive in stating that it's Russia.

From a layperson's perspective, I do think that circumstantial evidence points strongly toward Russia as the most likely actor here.  Beyond that, it's a little bit strange that you're calling me troll.  The alternative explanation the sites you shared is espousing is that the IC is pointing the finger at Russia in order to precipitate a cold war and possibly WWIII...because they stand to personally benefit.  Yes, I think the IC can be shady.  But no, I haven't lost so much faith in our government institutions that I believe that the POTUS, PEOTUS, and Congress are conspiring with the IC to start another cold war in order to line their pockets.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics