There is no proof. Anywhere. This story is worthless garbage. Liberals in general have lost touch with reality, and specifically you are as big a joke as zeke is.
Russia claims to have compromise info on Trump
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Also, about those "legitimate news sources"....
...one of the things this "dossier" contained was a reference to Michael Cohen being in Prague. It would've been ridiculously easy for anybody to ask him to address this. Instead, "legitimate" sources moved with this thing without having done that....
....and, oops, Michael Cohen has never even been to Prague.
That's how nuts people have become. Whether it's John McCain, or the FBI, or the news outlets who ran with this. They all, to one degree or another, fell for a hoax that could've been discovered with one phone call. One phone call.
Just want to emphasize the willingness by which this hoax is consumed by the mob. Have we seen one from the liberal caucus here with the brains or stones to see this fiction for what it is?
Per the information supplied in this leak to determine if it is true, let's see what happens in Ukraine. Per the leak Putin is fine with a buildup of defense by the US in the Baltic countries as his focus is on Ukraine at least at the present time. Rex Tillerson said in his confirmation hearing today that we should have come out a lot more aggressively against what Russia did there. So it should be interesting to see if we just lay over and play dead in assisting Ukraine or are more aggressive under Trump in assisting it?
So, if, and big if, one section of a report is incorrect, that proves for you the entire report is incorrect? Good thing your tests weren't graded that way. You miss one question and it's a zero.
Jake Tapper (who is one of precious few elite DC journalists I actually trust) tweeted that government sources have said it was "a different Michael Cohen" who traveled to Prague.
OK, which Michael Cohen was it who went to Prague on Trump's behalf -- if it wasn't Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen? And can we get this other Michael Cohen arranged for an interview?
That's how bad they've gotten. Whoever's peddling this is now saying it's not inaccurate...Michael Cohen went to Prague to lobby on Trump's behalf with the Russians. It's just a different Michael Cohen. And they're actually feeding this information to journalists.
What a circus.
The Dems have to be careful. They might spin themselves off the face of the earth before Trump even gets into office.
Well, that's sorta how these sorts of things work. This isn't a math test, zeke. If something is to stand up under scrutiny, it needs to stand up under scrutiny.
But...did you read my last post? Some "government source" is now saying that the dossier is correct -- Michael Cohen DID go to Prague to negotiate with the Russians on Donald Trump's behalf. Just not that Michael Cohen who happens to be Trump's attorney.
In other words, their defense isn't that this was wrong. It's just a case of mistaken identity.
So....who do you figure this other Trump associate named Michael Cohen was, if it wasn't the one everybody knows about?
Hold the phone, there, friend. I'm not sold this report is actually accurate. I am, however, confident in saying that it's newsworthy, at least as far as the legitimate media are going with it. Note that none of them wanted to actually publish details. We only know what's in the report because Buzzfeed just don't give a damn (they were blasted today in WaPo over it, BTW).
But you're confident saying this is all a hoax? That's pretty rich. We don't know what this is. We just know that people like McCain were confident enough in the sources to think the FBI should look into it, and the FBI was concerned enough about it to do just that. Did you notice buried in the Guardian story that the FBI got a FISA warrant for one of Trump's campaign aides? Didn't say which one, but that's meaningful.
I've said repeatedly that this could turn out to be hogwash. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. If you were really reading this thread closely, I wouldn't have to repeat that, although it's a big, fast-moving thread, so I'm not upset that I do. But you seem to be perfectly willing to jump to a conclusion: that this is all just a hoax. Glass houses and all that.
From my daily NYT email:
Intelligence officials briefed Donald Trump on unsubstantiated reports of potentially damaging information.
The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented Mr. Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump
The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy
(Emphasis mine) The NYT tells us who compiled the memo and why they did it.
I saw that hours ago. So? Trump says he has no deals, no business interests in Russia. That is a proveable lie. Why do you think he won't release his tax returns?
I am -- because this report didn't just surface yesterday. It's been floating around for months. That being the case, I'm supremely confident that it's been looked into...and probably not with a casual degree of urgency, either.
Throw on top of that this whole "Michael Cohen" thing and....I'm confident that somebody, somewhere tried to pull a fast one. I'm not saying I know where it originated. But I am confident in saying it's fabricated. Because, if it wasn't, somebody would already have determined there was enough that could be substantiated to report on it.
Do you realize that somebody has now taken to saying "Oh, it was another Michael Cohen."
Oh yeah? Which one? Who is he? Trump has two Michael Cohens who he might dispatch to foreign countries to negotiate with foreign governments on his behalf? Who's this mysterious other one?
You calling the whole thing a hoax is as ludicrous as the same people on here convinced it's iron-clad truth.
Both sides need to step back off their ledges.
That's not new. That was part of the reporting last night. In fact, there was even more detail in the Guardian. They specified that the investigation started at the behest of groups opposed to Trump during the primary and continued by groups opposed to Trump during the general. They did not say whether they were the same groups (i.e., it could be anti-Trump activists outside of the party structure, rather than operatives who were acting on the behalf of specific campaigns).
So? Are you joking?
The whole thing immediately fell apart with one quote from the actual Michael Cohen....which makes the people pushing this scramble around for an explanation. The explanation they come up with is that it was some other guy named Michael Cohen who Trump dispatched to Prague?
In other words -- it's not that they're saying "Oh, well, that part might have been false. But the rest of it is solid." They're saying "It's still TRUE!! It's just mistaken identity, that's all."
You don't find that telling?
It's a hoax. If it weren't a hoax, we'd have learned about it long ago.
I'm just applying common sense. That's still allowed here, isn't it?
Michael Cohen isn't exactly an uncommon name. But that's not really the point. The point is you have no good reason to simply dismiss this as a hoax. We don't know enough about this to judge one way or the other. The only thing we can say with confidence is that intelligence officials looked into it, and were concerned enough about it to brief Obama, Trump and the Gang of Eight on the basic outline. That's it.
No. Are you joking??? Sorry, but the whole report does NOT fall apart just because you say it does. The report was filled with multiple issues. Because one fact is incorrect does NOT mean the whole thing is. Again....why do you think he refuses to release his taxes? That would be a very easy way to show us he has NOT ties with Russia. He said that today, you know. You believe him, right?
This is a key point: this was research purportedly built from several different sources. If the report is at least what it claims to be - opposition research someone compiled about Trump - then it's quite possible that the report as a whole will end up neither true nor false, but a mixture of various facts that are one or the other.
Goat....this is not some brand new thing. It's been floating around for months....which means it's been looked into for months. If it was true, it would've been in the public ether for months. Because, trust me, there are plenty of people who would've wanted it there and would've been eager to corroborate it.
It's simple common sense. You should try it.
Hey, you reckon the Donald is doin some colludin with the Russkies and compromising the USA and all, and he would just write down the evidence on his 1040?
You aren't using common sense, IMO....you've gone into hyper-partisan defense mode.
Common sense would be..."this whole thing seems kinda far-fetched, I doubt anything comes of this".
Not...."this is a hoax and McCain and/or the FBI fell for it! What dupes they are! I used common sense and figured it all out already!"
That's Mas/Lucy level of deduction.
What does that even mean?
I'm sure Donald Trump has been to Russia before. So....with that being the case, is that enough to say that it contains a mixture of facts and falsehoods?
You'd be right -- if this thing were as new to those in political news and electoral politics as it is to the rest of us. But it isn't.
It's been vetted, likely very thoroughly. And nobody could substantiate what it says.
That only points to one plausible conclusion, twenty.
You don't think evidence, if there were any, would have surfaced over time, considering how polarized people are about Trump?
I think this is a better way to approach it....with caution.
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/spy-agency-vets-read-bombshell-trump-report-caution/
I totally agree -- months ago when this came to some degree of light.
Caution was the way to proceed. And that's why this didn't come out public until now. Because nobody could substantiate it.
Ergo.....
Yeah, he's wrong. And so are you.
I'd be totally with you guys if this was something new that nobody had had sufficient chance to look into. It may seem like that to all of us, because we just now learned about it. But it's actually not. It's been looked into.
And now the people peddling it are having to say things like "It was another Michael Cohen" to defend it.
It all points one place.
That article says McCain just passed this along to the FBI in December. There has been nothing I've read indicating that the govt has had this info for months.
“My general take is that the intelligence community and law enforcement seem to be taking these claims seriously. That itself is highly significant. But it is not the same as these allegations being verified,” says Hennessey, who is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Even if this was an intelligence community document—which it isn’t—this kind of raw intelligence is still treated with skepticism.”
Nope, but I guarantee you it shows something he doesn't want us to see. I'd say it's very likely he owes serious money to the Russians and that he has various dealings with them. If so, he lied about that today,
It was looked into by who exactly? And when? Seems those in govt have only been looking at it for maybe a month.
I actually read the report.
And it's not just that they blew that -- somebody is also trying to prop it up by saying it must've been somebody else.
Let me put it this way. Say there was an actual Michael Cohen who went to Prague. I'd say chances are pretty good there was. How do they go from there -- the fact that a guy named Michael Cohen went to Prague -- to establishing a stated purpose to his trip (that being to negotiate with the Russians on DJT's behalf)?
It probably is a fact that some guy named Michael Cohen went to Prague, after all. So we're back to some of what's in there being factually supported! But I'm interested in the leap from the "what" (somebody named Cohen going to Prague) to the "why" (to meet with the Russians on Trump's behalf). If they had the wrong guy all along, where did they come up with the reasoning behind the trip?
A source that the IC is not going to reveal because they refuse to burn sources?
Here's Carl Bernstein:
'It came from a former British MI6 agent who was hired from a political opposition research firm in Washington who was doing work about Donald Trump for both republican and democratic candidates opposed to Trump.
'They were looking at Trumps business ties, they saw some questionable things about Russians, about his businesses in Russia, they in turn hired this MI6 former investigator, he then came up with additional information from his Russian sources, he was very concerned by the implications of it, he then took it to an FBI colleague that he had known in his undercover work for years, he took it to this FBI man in Rome who turned it over to the bureau in Washington in August.
'And then, a former British ambassador to Russia independently was made aware of these findings and he took the information to John McCain – Senator John McCain of Arizona – in the period just after the election, and showed it to McCain – additional findings.
'McCain was sufficiently disturbed by what he read to take it to FBI director James Comey himself personally, they had a five minute meeting the two men, very little was said, McCain turned it over to him and is now awaiting what the FBI’s response is to that information.'
'They were looking at Trumps business ties, they saw some questionable things about Russians, about his businesses in Russia, they in turn hired this MI6 former investigator, he then came up with additional information from his Russian sources, he was very concerned by the implications of it, he then took it to an FBI colleague that he had known in his undercover work for years, he took it to this FBI man in Rome who turned it over to the bureau in Washington in August.
'And then, a former British ambassador to Russia independently was made aware of these findings and he took the information to John McCain – Senator John McCain of Arizona – in the period just after the election, and showed it to McCain – additional findings.
'McCain was sufficiently disturbed by what he read to take it to FBI director James Comey himself personally, they had a five minute meeting the two men, very little was said, McCain turned it over to him and is now awaiting what the FBI’s response is to that information.'
Numerous media sources have said they've been shopped the story -- but they couldn't corroborate it.
That's mediaspeak for: this is bullshit.
Here is hoping this whole story is as accurate as "The FBI would never get a subpoena for Anthony Wiener's laptop unless they were certain it had solid evidence" was. I don't want it to be true, but I do think it has to be investigated.
The media would be much better if it really were objective. They did the same thing when they reported that the kid who killed all those people at the Aurora Colorado theater was a member of the tea party. The media is simply too pro-left and it blows up in their faces in a number of different ways. You would think they would understand that approximately half of the county disagrees with their leftism and seeks fair reporting. It is in the media's self-interest to be fair, but they just can't do it. They are becoming irrelevant and are slowly going out of business.
