jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
The #goldenshowers and #yellowjournalism jokes on twitter from this are pretty funny though
They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.You might consider taking this down. It been pretty well proven as a fairy tale.
The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.They are unconfirmed, not proven false. Why would Obama and Trump have been briefed on it if it were proven false? The fact that McCain believes this report is important says to me that there is something more here than just partisan rumor mongering. Hopefully it is false, but we should focus on proving that not dismissing it as a fairy tale.
The Trump messenger who supposededly had a meeting in Prague with the Russians has never been in Prague and was confirmed to be in the US on the dates in question for one. Even the publisher of the report said they thought it wasn't credible and other News Agencies said it was nonsense.
This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-intelligence-report-explainer.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
・ The former British spy, who had long experience in Russia and a network of connections there, compiled dozens of reports detailing what he heard from his contacts. The memos he wrote, mostly one to three pages long, are dated from June to December.
・ The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail him with sex tapes and bribe him with business deals. They also claim that the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives to discuss the Russians’ hacking and their leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.This portion here tells me this is a story about a non story. You're not just talking about hearsay, you're talking about hearsay within hearsay from an anonymous source. It's the equivalent to rumors.
Wait!!! You can't defend a presidential candidate. It isn't allowed by some. You might be an apologist.Hearsay and rumors deemed important enough by officials to take seriously. It's no smoking gun, but added to Trump's lack of transparency, unwillingness to trust American intelligence, praise of Putin it certainly creates questions.
If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.
Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned. Your comparison would be like if we actually saw a video of Trump pissing on a girl. Or at least the person who video taped it and their name.If the allegations had been made about Hillary in a leaked email you'd be assuming she was guilty, and so would DJT.
You wouldn't but you know Trump would come on. (unless you thought he meant the Justice Department, then I'd agree and withdraw this comment)Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned. Your comparison would be like if we actually saw a video of Trump pissing on a girl. Or at least the person who video taped it and their name.
When Trump does or says stupid shit I have no problem calling him out for it. But to put any credence in this at this point is a massive overreaction. Now if someone with actual evidence comes forward let me know. I'll take that seriously. (Personally I don't care if he pissed on hookers but giving Russia the ability to blackmail our President is scary).
You wouldn't but you know Trump would come on. (unless you thought he meant the Justice Department, then I'd agree and withdraw this comment)
That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.Wait!!! You can't defend a presidential candidate. It isn't allowed by some. You might be an apologist.
You are really obsessed by this. . Who's crying?That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.
You are so irked about anyone who defends Trump. Now why is that?That's funny. Here is what I see from you "Yes, I am a Trump apologist. So what? But don't call me a Trump apologist!". That was my point. And it stands. Defend him all you want, just don't cry about being "dressed down" or getting "the third degree" every time someone who has a problem with his behavior points out that you doggedly defend him at every turn. That is all.
I by no means think this stands up to legal scrutiny. What we're talking about is raw intelligence. More or less it seems like "leads" some of which are provably false.Actually I wouldn't and they wouldn't either. The level of evidence you're talking about wouldn't be admissible in court, it wouldn't be able to be used on an application for search warrant, the court system for example would give zero weight to this type of evidence. I guess I look at things from an attorney's perspective but this is to the level of not even worth investigating. A leaked email at least has a sender with a name on it. That someone actually wrote. Who can then be questioned.
Yes, I am obsessed by it {eyeroll}. I am not irked every time someone defends Trump nor I am irked by you defending him most of the time. You don't care that the man who will be president behaves like a a reddit troll and that is your prerogative. I have seen you take offense to someone "dressing you down" or whatever other term you want to use many times though. As much time as you spend telling other people how pointless their complaining is you really should be used to it.You are really obsessed by this. . Who's crying?
So far my favorite joke, has been that this is proof Trump's a true Goldwater Republican.The #goldenshowers and #yellowjournalism jokes on twitter from this are pretty funny though
So far my favorite joke, has been that this is proof Trump's a true Goldwater Republican.