Trump accuses U.S. spy agencies of Nazi practices over 'phony' Russia dossier

[mtls2005]

Yellow Journalism at its best. 

 

More and more things trickling out.

 

We all know that the Russians would never, ever gather Kompromat on Trump.

 

 

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Don't you get tired with deflections?  This has nothing to do with Obama! LOL  Topic is Trump.  Nazi practice comment.  Etc.

 

It's like Trump's PR team. Blame everybody else.

 

I find it unusual that given you made a statement about the current president being a reputable president, one who doesn't lie, has been challenged by another, and is backed up by facts that he has, you suddenly go off on another tangent, accuse that member of deflecting, something which I have noticed you are also guilty of.  You mentioned this in post ID 75 if you cannot remember.

 

You also state that  it has nothing to do with Obama, which is true but it was you who initially deflected and introduced him into the conversation when outlining that he does not lie.  That in itself is untrue.  In so far as the President-Elects reference to Nazi Germany, I took this to relate to the item that was leaked by whoever, as being the same method and style of propaganda that was used by the Nazi's against their opponents whey they were vying for power just before Hitler unleashed his madness upon the world.

 

I don't think it was any more or any less but then others have differing opinions to which they are entitled but I do not believe they should attempt to change the meaning to suit their agendas or delegitimise his election with and his right to be inaugurated as the 45th President of the USA.  But please, if you accuse others of deflecting then I suggest you desist in doing so as well.  And have a nice day  

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

 

I don't believe that for a minute. Trump won because he tapped into the anger of ordinary working class people that had been told that the US was doing fine economically, yet, they were on their knees due to job losses and zero wage growth. An anger that the Democratic party didn't even know existed.

Trump also won because he lied and slung mud like no other.  It's also possible the Russian hacking helped him win.  It was a slim margin of victory.  But, we'll never know for sure.

[mike324]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Trump also won because he lied and slung mud like no other.  It's also possible the Russian hacking helped him win.  It was a slim margin of victory.  But, we'll never know for sure.

 

Well majority of Trump supporter still thinks the economy was a disaster under Obama, they believe everything Trump said such as him taking credit for saving and job creations by big corporate companies when in reality it was already planned ahead before he was president. Arduent Trump supporters here can't admit Trumps faults, like Trump backtracking on it was Russia who was hacking the US,  before he says its impossible.

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I find it unusual that given you made a statement about the current president being a reputable president, one who doesn't lie, has been challenged by another, and is backed up by facts that he has, you suddenly go off on another tangent, accuse that member of deflecting, something which I have noticed you are also guilty of.  You mentioned this in post ID 75 if you cannot remember.

 

You also state that  it has nothing to do with Obama, which is true but it was you who initially deflected and introduced him into the conversation when outlining that he does not lie.  That in itself is untrue.  In so far as the President-Elects reference to Nazi Germany, I took this to relate to the item that was leaked by whoever, as being the same method and style of propaganda that was used by the Nazi's against their opponents whey they were vying for power just before Hitler unleashed his madness upon the world.

 

I don't think it was any more or any less but then others have differing opinions to which they are entitled but I do not believe they should attempt to change the meaning to suit their agendas or delegitimise his election with and his right to be inaugurated as the 45th President of the USA.  But please, if you accuse others of deflecting then I suggest you desist in doing so as well.  And have a nice day  

 

Please reread my post.  I didn't say what you thought.  I said I'd like the current president to not lie, and focus only on the US, not personal business.

Quote

You start to make good arguments, then go downhill by blaming others for Trump's rants.  I don't see any who want revenge.  Just a reputable president.  One who doesn't lie.  And one who's focused on the US, not his businesses and his family.  It's all up to Trump as to how things play out from here.  Nobody to blame but himself.

 

I said this thread has nothing to do with Obama.  Which it doesn't.  But some members did a comparison.

 

[Si Thea01]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

Please reread my post.  I didn't say what you thought.  I said I'd like the current president to not lie, and focus only on the US, not personal business.

 

I said this thread has nothing to do with Obama.  Which it doesn't.  But some members did a comparison.

 

 

I did misread and apologise for that.

[Ulysses G.]

47 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

Please reread my post.  I didn't say what you thought. 

 

I guess that I misread it too. You have brought up other topics on threads and then cried "deflection" when I replied to what you said.  I thought this was another case like that.

As far as Trump lying and slinging mud, he had plenty of competition when it comes to that. Maybe some of it eminating from partisans in the spy agencies that he is complaining about.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I guess that I misread it too. You have brought up other topics on threads and then cried "deflection" when I replied to what you said.  I thought this was another case like that.

As far as Trump lying and slinging mud, he had plenty of competition when it comes to that. Maybe some of it eminating from partisans in the spy agencies that he is complaining about.

 

Sure. All those hordes of liberals working for the CIA, NSA, DIA etc. They're the ones to blame for sure.

[Ulysses G.]

All it takes is a few. They don't ALL work for the IRS.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Here is a fair and balanced sober description of the dossier / Russian piss controversy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?_r=0

Quote

 

How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump

Now, after the most contentious of elections, Americans are divided and confused about what to believe about the incoming president. And there is no prospect soon for full clarity on the veracity of the claims made against him.

“It is a remarkable moment in history,” said Mr. Wilson, the Florida political operative. “What world did I wake up in?”

 

Is the salacious part true? We can't know yet and we may never know. But, get real, considering trump's perverted history documented on the grab the "p" tape, which was obviously the tip of the iceberg, honest people will admit it may well be true. 

No big deal for a private citizen. A very big deal for a president who has been bizarrely friendly to Putin. 

 

 

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I guess that I misread it too. You have brought up other topics on threads and then cried "deflection" when I replied to what you said.  I thought this was another case like that.

As far as Trump lying and slinging mud, he had plenty of competition when it comes to that. Maybe some of it eminating from partisans in the spy agencies that he is complaining about.

I think Trump slung the most mud.  His rants were terrible.  No denying that.

 

What partisans in the spy agencies?

[Ulysses G.]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I think Trump slung the most mud.  His rants were terrible.  No denying that.

 

What partisans in the spy agencies?

 

Journalist Glenn Greenwald says the CIA wanted Hillary elected and strongly opposed Trump while aiding her campaign. Greenwald is not a Trump supporter, but his investigation of this issue is eye opening.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

 

...

Edited January 13, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Journalist Glenn Greenwald days the CIA wanted Hillary elected and strongly opposed Trump.

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

If you are talking about the latest scandal, the documents have been out in the public for some time.  Weren't created by the CIA.  But Trump's claiming FAKE NEWS.  Blasting everybody for it.  Can't blame the CIA for everything.

 

But yes, the CIA would probably prefer Hillary.  She didn't bash them constantly.  Can't blame them for not liking Trump. LOL  Sometimes, you really do reap what you sow.  A lot of Trump's tirades are going to come back and haunt him.

[55Jay]

On 1/12/2017 at 0:22 PM, IMA_FARANG said:

I don't want to be 'inappropriate" but anyone who has any experience with "intelligence reports" knows very well to doubt them until verified by futher information.

No professional analyst would say otherwise.

There are people who dedicate their whole lives to analysing information and verifying what they can by crosschecking that with other available sources.

That is the job of the CIA.

All it takes these days is an internet connection and computer.  Any moron can post nonsense to feed the plethora of kooks and others who are predisposed to believe certain narratives.  InfoWars...etc.

 

I read the "Company" Intel reports and tend to agree they are riddled with errors, and slips in and out of common-man's vernacular.  IMO, credibility was lost with the multiple, subjective, born-again christian characterizations of Trump's alleged sexual adventures as "perverted" behavior.

 

It would be interesting to learn more about the guy(s) who wrote them.  In particular, who was the client/intended recipient of these "intel" assessments, and what are their interests?

Edited January 13, 2017 by 55Jay

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

But yes, the CIA would probably prefer Hillary.  She didn't bash them constantly. 

 

Huh? Neither did Trump. Most of this started after he won the election. Pretty bizarre justifying the CIA interfering in the election no matter what the excuse.

[jcsmith]

I'd say it's a big problem when Trump comes out of calls and meetings and then comes away with tweets like this, “James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!”

However Clapper's version of the same phone call was very different. He says that they gave a summary of that information to Trump to let him know what was being said so he could prepare for that news breaking, that they were not passing any judgement on it, and that he did not believe that our intelligence community was behind the leaks. The buzzfeed document was not the same document that intelligence gave him.  It was a summary based on that document. 

So the real problem here is that Trump has now had two similar events here, where he leaves these briefings and then tweets false information. He did the same thing earlier in the week based on last Friday's meeting with intelligence officials. He came out of it and tweeted, "Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched! "

That of course was also not true. They said that it wasn't their place to cast judgement or opinion on that. Though it of course is virtually impossible that it had no effect.

 

That was just days after this, " The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange! 

 

And once again, the intelligence community disagrees with that. They said it was never scheduled for Tuesday when he said it was. That of course comes on the heels of him questioning the intelligence communities assessment that Russia was involved in the hacks prior to that.

 

The bottom line is that Trump is declaring war on the very intelligence community that he needs to be relying on. And he is doing so in a dishonest fashion, which is pretty much how he has approached everything else in his life.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Huh? Neither did Trump. Most of this started after he won the election. Pretty bizarre justifying the CIA interfering in the election no matter what the excuse.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291700-trump-before-intelligence-briefing-i-dont-trust-intelligence

 

Quote

 

Trump before classified briefing: I don’t trust US intel

By Julian Hattem - 08/17/16 10:34 AM EDT

 

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309860-sanders-for-trump-to-summarily-dismiss-russian-interference-makes-no-sense

 

 

Quote

 

Sanders: Trump's dismissal of Russian interference 'makes no sense'

By Rebecca Savransky - 12/11/16 11:27 AM EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday criticized Donald Trump for dismissing a recent CIA assessment that concluded Russia intervened in the U.S. presidential election to help the billionaire win the presidency.

 

"This is very serious stuff. I think we go forward. But I don't want to go backwards," Sanders said Sunday on CBS's "Face The Nation."

"We've got to take a hard look at the role that the Russians played in this election process. We'll see where the investigation goes. But for Donald Trump to summarily dismiss all of this makes no sense to me at all." 

......

Trump in an interview that aired Sunday blasted the recent report, saying he thinks it's "ridiculous" and "just another excuse."

 

"I don't believe it," the president-elect said in an interview that aired Sunday on "Fox News Sunday."

 

 

Look at the dates.  I could put up many more articles.  All before the election, and all with Trump bashing the intelligence community.

 

Again, you reap what you sow.  He's got this coming to him.

[digibum]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

What are you talking about? Who doesn't lie? You certainly can not be talking about the current president. His lies have certainly hurt the American people a lot more than Trump's.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

 

 

 

 

It must have been hard for you to pretend to be neutral for the last few posts.  I almost bought into it.  

 

A true sign of a political zealot is someone who brings up radically irrelevant facts and make absurd comparisons in order to prove their point.  Someone mentioned the CIA and WMDs earlier.  What, we're never ever ever going to believe the CIA again?  Why not just disband it then?  Or, can we believe the CIA when they say things you agree with but if they say something you don't like, WMDs!!!!!!!!!!

 

And the old, "Obama lied about keeping your doctor" thing.  What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?  You were responding to someone who was obviously not talking about the normal amount of lying politicians engage in.  Trump flat out denies facts that are clearly undeniable.  I don't care if Trump lies about picking the best people - for instance putting up Ben Carson for HUD - but if you can watch of video of him saying something and then have him deny that he ever said it - not that it was out of context but flatly deny he even said it - well, that's a BIG problem for me in a leader.  

 

I really don't understand why people get all emotionally attached to a party or a candidate.  You're not picking a sports team.  You're picking someone to do a very important job.  If they suck at that job, fire them!  Don't keep voting these people in because you're afraid of the other side.  

 

 

[digibum]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Now THIS we agree on. That is certainly how I felt. However, now that he is in office, I am willing to give him a chance. I have been happy with the way that he has softened some of his positions and like some of the things that he intends to do.

 

I find the people who just want revenge -  because he proved them wrong - and want nothing more than to delegitimize his presidency,  sickening. They attack absolutely eveything that he says and does and are not sincere about their reasons for doing it. Their problem is that they have falsely cried wolf so often that no one is paying attention anymore.

 

Sorry, I gotta hold the person in the most important job in the world to a higher standard than I hold the fat kid on the soccer team.  I don't have to give him a chance.  He's got to prove he's capable of the job.  

 

I don't want revenge.  You couldn't have found a more overjoyed person had he started acting presidential on Nov 9th.  

 

And, to be totally honest, I'm the type of person who will benefit greatly under his presidency.  My taxes will go down.  I have investments in real estate so eliminating the CFPB and gutting Dodd-Frank will remove a toooooooon of regulatory obstacles in trading in notes/mortgages.  Listen, over a four year Trump presidency, literally, I stand to be several hundred of thousands of dollars better off than under Clinton.  

 

But none of that changes the fact that he's an infantile, thing-skinned, egomaniac.  And those are very dangerous qualities in someone with enormous power.  

 

The part that makes Trump such a bad president is because it's easy to believe he does this kind of stuff.  He says and believes so much insane stuff that, really, I have no boundary on his behavior.  

 

If the headline on Google News had been, "MI6 Reports Claims Ted Cruz Engaged in Golden Shower Party in Russia" I would be like, "What is this clickbait BS?"  But you put Trump's name in there and it's like, "Well, I wouldn't put it past him."  

 

And I realllllllllllly don't like Ted Cruz.  

[digibum]

43 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

The bottom line is that Trump is declaring war on the very intelligence community that he needs to be relying on. And he is doing so in a dishonest fashion, which is pretty much how he has approached everything else in his life.

 

I was just having a conversation about this with someone today.  Trump is the first president where there is a serious concern that either the military or the intelligence services may be forced into a position of deciding if the president falls under the oath that they took to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.  

 

Folks in the intelligence community tend to be very patriotic.  Most of them could be making 10x what they make working in the private sector but they devote their lives to protecting the interests of the United States.  

 

Could they be pushed to the point where they view Trump as an enemy of US interests?  

 

It's an interesting hypothetical.  During the Cold War, there was a huge concern as to whether or not the guys in the bunker who actually had to turn the keys and push the buttons on the nukes would follow orders if they came.  Would they fire up the missles if they had reason to suspect the president was launching a pre-emptive strike?  

 

Now you have the president-elect creating a hostile working environment with the people who topple governments for lunch.  Is there a scenario where they turn on the chain of command?  

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I guess that I misread it too. You have brought up other topics on threads and then cried "deflection" when I replied to what you said.  I thought this was another case like that.

As far as Trump lying and slinging mud, he had plenty of competition when it comes to that. Maybe some of it eminating from partisans in the spy agencies that he is complaining about.

This is like saying don't go to Japan, the least violent nation in the world, because like Honduras, the most violent nation in the world, because people get murdered there. You consistently ignore the numbers. Nobody, but nobody, lies with the frequency and sheer volume that Donald Trump does. And that is backed up by independent fact checking organizations.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Huh? Neither did Trump. Most of this started after he won the election. Pretty bizarre justifying the CIA interfering in the election no matter what the excuse.

Not so much of a problem for you to justify the FBI's interference, though?

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not so much of a problem for you to justify the FBI's interference, though?

 

You mean like making the decision not to prosecute Trump's opponent? That would seem to suggest that the FBI has been petty evenhanded at worse.

[Somtamnication]

That man is seriously ill. To insult the 1000s of career diplomats and intelligence agents who risk their lives on a daily basis to carry the "merkin's" ambitions. Seriously, this has got to be a joke!

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You mean like making the decision not to prosecute Trump's opponent? That would seem to suggest that the FBI has been petty evenhanded at worse.

Prosecute for what?

[Slip]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You mean like making the decision not to prosecute Trump's opponent? That would seem to suggest that the FBI has been petty evenhanded at worse.

Didn't they report their investigation into the democrats to congress, did they do the same for Trump's and I missed it?

[ilostmypassword]

53 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You mean like making the decision not to prosecute Trump's opponent? That would seem to suggest that the FBI has been petty evenhanded at worse.

The military made a decision not to prosecute Michael Flynn when he shared classified intelligence with foreign powers.  The grounds were that he didn't realize that the information was classified.  I haven't seen any condemnation of Flynn from any prominent conservatives. Personally, although Flynn is clearly a loon, I don't think he should have been prosecuted.  Prosecutors, civilian and military, routinely take intent into account before deciding whether or not to prosecute. Comey violated no rules in making that decision. But he did violate the rules twice first in condemning clinton in explaining his decision not to prosecute, and then in sending that letter to the Senate.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Prosecute for what?

 

Being extremely careless handling very sensitive,  highly classified material - in other words, Gross negligence. 

[Jingthing]

Oops.

Is Golden Showers-gate really true?

We don't know. 

But we do know it's much more credible a possibility than the disgusting racist "birther" attack the trump led on Obama for several years.

How can anyone look at trump the same after this?

 

 

The suspicion wouldn't be strong if it wasn't for his very bizarre affection for Vladimir.

 

So, what is kompromat? A Putin speciality. 

With allegations that Russian intelligence agencies collected comprising material about President-elect Donald Trump, Russian opposition member Illya Yashin, explains the power of“kompromat” and how it is used by Russian security services

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/what-is-kompromat/2017/01/13/48c8ef2c-d99d-11e6-a0e6-d502d6751bc8_video.html

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Jingthing

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Being extremely careless handling very sensitive,  highly classified material - in other words, Gross negligence. 

I don't believe that was proven.  Nor prosecuted.  Though some would have liked to see that done. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/fbi-director-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-criminal-james-comey

Quote

The FBI has determined that a new batch of emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s private email server “have not changed our conclusion” that she committed no criminal wrongdoing, FBI director James Comey told congressional leaders in a letter on Sunday.