Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

If It's Yellow Let It Mellow [Trump/Russia Scandal]: Timeline, News, Analysis

1235717

Posts

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    PROX wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I sweat to God this is like a boilerplate Tom Clancy novel. It even involves fucking Prague and an ex M16 spook with 'Steele' as a last name.


    I'm expecting the sex workers to appear on TV any hour now, threatening to blow-up the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan with a nuclear device if their demands aren't met.


    EDIT: Also the plot twist with the Michael Cohen being a different Michael Cohen from the original suspect.
    THANK YOU. Looks like it's out.



    I'm glad it's not the Iraq WMDs guy. Confidence in memo: +17%

    Well, this whole thing has been good for breaking people's spirits...

    /dotamemes

    It's filtering throughout all major news channels. Steele went underground after WSJ broke the news. The man now fears for his friends and family.

    People don't flee from lies, no one ever killed anyone because they were spreading lies about them. It takes the truth to inspire that kind of terror.

    And anybody who's ever brushed against the dark corners of the world should realize how incredibly shitty it was to out him. Poor guy. But the public won't believe anything that goes against their bias unless they have "proof" and even that isn't enough usually. Fucking shitty irresponsible media.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    MayabirdSpoitshrykeRchanenEdith UpwardsCommander ZoomKetBraLoisLaneCelloN1tSt4lkerNobeardMan in the MistsMatev
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Have you looked up what happens to people Putin is displeased with?

    Giggles_FunsworthSpoitIncenjucarHarry DresdenMayabirdPanda4YoumcdermottFencingsaxRchanenDedwrekkaMegaMekA Kobold's KoboldEdith UpwardsCommander ZoomKetBratynicBurnageLoisLaneTransporterN1tSt4lkerPLANobeardHacksaw14357Man in the MistsMatevKnuckle Dragger
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    CNN doing a good job of picking apart that tweet, just being clear about what is being said, and defending against the fake news attack full on. I like it.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Wrestling.png?dl=0
    tynic
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    That's the downside of using Fake News as an attack. The attacked party either has to let it slide or actively fight back against it. It upends the normal demure/regain access cycle. I really don't think they've thought that particular angle of cowing the press through.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    Emissary42 on
    TryCatcher
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    It's absolutely verifiable if you were to review the dude's methodology and sources, and much of it could be verified with a forensic analysis of Trump's financials.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Panda4You
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    It's absolutely verifiable if you were to review the dude's methodology and sources, and much of it could be verified with a forensic analysis of Trump's financials.

    ...

    What.

    ...

    What the goosing hell are you going on about? There's nothing fucking there. The fact that everyone is running from this like it's polonium-laced tea is a solid fucking sign of that.

  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    It's absolutely verifiable if you were to review the dude's methodology and sources, and much of it could be verified with a forensic analysis of Trump's financials.

    ...

    What.

    ...

    What the goosing hell are you going on about? There's nothing fucking there. The fact that everyone is running from this like it's polonium-laced tea is a solid fucking sign of that.

    Huh. We must be on different internets. It's been the main topic of conversation for two days over here.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    FencingsaxPanda4YouDedwrekkaMegaMekSpoitEdith UpwardsArdolKetBraRhesus PositivejdarksunLoisLaneNobodyN1tSt4lkerForarHacksawMan in the MistsSomestickguy
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Two different things. The details from Buzzfeed still seem dubious and I think parsing it that's what Clapper was referring to?

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    Emissary42 on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    It's absolutely verifiable if you were to review the dude's methodology and sources, and much of it could be verified with a forensic analysis of Trump's financials.

    ...

    What.

    ...

    What the goosing hell are you going on about? There's nothing fucking there. The fact that everyone is running from this like it's polonium-laced tea is a solid fucking sign of that.

    Huh. We must be on different internets. It's been the main topic of conversation for two days over here.

    If theres nothing there, why is the entire trump administration and the russiand behaving as if we just found where he buried his twin brother behind the woodshed.

    The worst allogations may not be true, but there is something here.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
    FencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthshrykeLoisLanePLACelestialBadgerLostNinjaHacksawdiscriderMan in the MistsTubularLuggage
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Yeah, it's definitely two different things, but he talks about both. He says the "leaks" are damaging to national security, but that the "private security document" is not a US intelligence estimate.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    SurfpossumOneAngryPossumSo It GoesGiggles_FunsworthArdolHakkekageBurnagejdarksunN1tSt4lker
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    SurfpossumPanda4YouDedwrekkaSo It GoesSpoitGoumindongArdolKetBraGnizmoHakkekageKipling217BurnagejdarksunLoisLaneTofystedethN1tSt4lkerLostNinjaHacksaw14357Man in the MistsMatevjoshofalltrades
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    All that said, I grow ever more fond of my original theory: along with real stuff, MI6 guy's sources were fed disinformation that ended up in his report.

    Which will discredit the entire thing to anyone so inclined.

  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    Wasn't it the leak of an Intelligence Community report that included a summary of Steele's document that lead to this whole mess?

    Or was the summary of the Steele report included in the declassified summary of the IC report?

    It's all rather annoying to keep track of.

  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    Emissary42 on
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Your sins lay heavy upon you, defiler of souls Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    ArcTangent on
    Harry DresdenPhoenix-DFencingsaxMegaMekSpoitGiggles_FunsworthshrykeCantideArdolKetBraGnizmoRhesus PositivejdarksunQanamilDoctorArchNobeardRedTideHacksawchocobolicious14357Man in the MistsMatev
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    I feel like you're reading more into Clapper's statement than anybody else here. The only thing denied is that the American intelligence community created or leaked the files. He specifically makes no claims as to veracity. And I'm not entirely sure I understand the hostility?

    FencingsaxRchanenSurfpossumSo It GoesSpoitdispatch.oGiggles_FunsworthKristmas KthulhuKetBraQuidHakkekagejdarksunLoisLaneTofystedethN1tSt4lkerLostNinjaHacksaw
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Emissary42 was warned for this.
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe in incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    No, stop being a goose. You know damned well that this isn't even as sturdily built as the Killian Documents, and the longer you all paw at its threadbare remnants the less anyone open to opposing Trump will ever believe you in the future. Drop it.

    ElJeffe on
  • PROXPROX Registered User regular
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    I wish that we could say that people can be wrong a few times, but can also be correct some times. This story has so much swirling around it that it deserves the utmost scrutiny because of how important it is.

    darkmayoSurfpossumGiggles_FunsworthPanda4YouLoisLaneQanamilN1tSt4lkerNobeardMan in the MistsMatev
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe in incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    No, stop being a goose. You know damned well that this isn't even as sturdily built as the Killian Documents, and the longer you all paw at its threadbare remnants the less anyone open to opposing Trump will ever believe you in the future. Drop it.

    You realize that none of us work in the media, right? Like, I don't know who you're carrying water for, but this is front page news tomorrow.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Giggles_FunsworthEdith UpwardstynicjdarksunLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerCelestialBadgerLostNinjaHacksaw14357Man in the MistsMatev
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    I feel like you're reading more into Clapper's statement than anybody else here. The only thing denied is that the American intelligence community created or leaked the files. He specifically makes no claims as to veracity. And I'm not entirely sure I understand the hostility?

    Yeah. The whole zero to angry and "I hate you all for discussing it" seems weird.

    Also not everybody is running from it. Seems like CNN, ABC and a few others are hopping on the train of, this is interesting...

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    SpoitGiggles_Funsworthjdarksun
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    Actually Dan Rather has posted some really insightful good stuff on Facebook, akin to blog posts, this past year. Just saying. :)

    enlightenedbumshrykeArdolGnizmoJohnny ChopsockyjdarksunLoisLaneadejaanN1tSt4lkerDeliciousTacosHacksawVeagleMan in the Mistsjoshofalltrades
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.

    The argument that it was proven to be false gets incredibly thin when the DNI makes a public statement about it, and doesn't say that it was proven false or unverifiable.

    When he says "Unverified" that means that they haven't yet made a determination on it.
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    "We embarrass you". Fuckin really?

    Dedwrekka on
    Giggles_Funsworthjdarksun
  • bitflipperbitflipper Registered User new member
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Rchanen wrote: »
    I feel like you're reading more into Clapper's statement than anybody else here. The only thing denied is that the American intelligence community created or leaked the files. He specifically makes no claims as to veracity. And I'm not entirely sure I understand the hostility?

    Yeah. The whole zero to angry and "I hate you all for discussing it" seems weird.

    Also not everybody is running from it. Seems like CNN, ABC and a few others are hopping on the train of, this is interesting...

    CNN were the ones who broke it, not buzzfeed.

    steam_sig.png
    RchanenEdith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthjdarksunLoisLaneTofystedeth
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    Actually Dan Rather has posted some really insightful good stuff on Facebook, akin to blog posts, this past year. Just saying. :)

    That you and who else of any import noted on outside of a small, choking branch of a rapidly changing industry?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe in incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    No, stop being a goose. You know damned well that this isn't even as sturdily built as the Killian Documents, and the longer you all paw at its threadbare remnants the less anyone open to opposing Trump will ever believe you in the future. Drop it.

    You realize that none of us work in the media, right? Like, I don't know who you're carrying water for, but this is front page news tomorrow.

    I'm well aware. I'm also well aware of how we're going to watch the organizations involved choke and die over the next few weeks, just like Rather's once shining career corroded into a heap of junk for his over-eagerness to attack a politician he despised. The end result: no one gave a shit about anything Rather ever said again in any sense that mattered, and he retired a laughingstock and a fraud.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited January 12
    bitflipper wrote: »
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

    Ok mr guy who coincidentally joined 2 days ago in a total coincidence.

    Seriously though, this is a Big Story, and even if CNN decides to go spineless, there are news organizations that would love to have this. Imagine the NYT trying to reclaim their Watergate glory days or whatever.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthjdarksunLoisLaneMan in the MistsMatev
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Wrestling.png?dl=0
    SurfpossumRchanenSpoitOneAngryPossumHarry DresdenSo It GoesEdith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthQuidKetBraHakkekagejdarksunArbitraryDescriptorLoisLaneN1tSt4lkerHacksawMan in the MistsTubularLuggage
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Your sins lay heavy upon you, defiler of souls Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    .
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    Actually Dan Rather has posted some really insightful good stuff on Facebook, akin to blog posts, this past year. Just saying. :)

    That you and who else of any import noted on outside of a small, choking branch of a rapidly changing industry?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe in incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    No, stop being a goose. You know damned well that this isn't even as sturdily built as the Killian Documents, and the longer you all paw at its threadbare remnants the less anyone open to opposing Trump will ever believe you in the future. Drop it.

    You realize that none of us work in the media, right? Like, I don't know who you're carrying water for, but this is front page news tomorrow.

    I'm well aware. I'm also well aware of how we're going to watch the organizations involved choke and die over the next few weeks, just like Rather's once shining career corroded into a heap of junk for his over-eagerness to attack a politician he despised. The end result: no one gave a shit about anything Rather ever said again in any sense that mattered, and he retired a laughingstock and a fraud.

    Chill out, dude. The entire news media industry except for Fox and Breitbart are not going to be killed by this. You're not even consistent at this point. The only relevant claim you've made about why it's obviously false is that everybody's running from it. The only one I see that doesn't have it on the front page is Fox. After a few weeks time, there's still going to be news companies besides Fox.

    And I hesitate to even call them news.

    ArcTangent on
    Edith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthjdarksunN1tSt4lker
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    I think a big part of the problem is that if at this point you haven't been following along from the beginning you're reading more rebuttals and responses and not engaging with the information that was released.

    steam_sig.png
    SpoitdavidsdurionsEdith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusKetBraHakkekageLoisLaneTofystedethN1tSt4lkerNobeardLostNinjaHacksaw14357
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    Variable wrote: »
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    Yeah. Most of us are not convinced of its truth. But we find it interesting and find the pattern of denials by both Trump and Russian officials to be somewhat concerning.

    shryke wrote: »
    The Democrats aren't crazy but they are still, you know, running the US and it's foreign policy. Which is in the "you don't have a global hegemony without bombing a few eggs" wheelhouse.
    OrcaNobeard
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    bitflipper wrote: »
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

    Ok mr guy who coincidentally joined 2 days ago in a total coincidence.

    Seriously though, this is a Big Story, and even if CNN decides to go spineless, there are news organizations that would love to have this. Imagine the NYT trying to reclaim their Watergate glory days or whatever.

    Desperately wanting something to be true does not make it true. Also, that's the Washington Post, not NYT that pulled Watergate.
    Variable wrote: »
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    According to DNI, nothing in that report is true. Not a single scrap is verifiable. Think long and hard about why all these organizations, both governmental and media, are shying from hunting Trump on this right now - or for the months they had it before - and you will understand that it's. not. real.

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    That's not at all what Clapper said.

    Edit: To be clear, not verified is not unverifiable, and it's certainly not the same as false.

    OneAngryPossum on
    DedwrekkaSurfpossumSpoitPhoenix-DSo It GoesEdith UpwardsFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthArdolKristmas KthulhuQuidKetBraMegaMektynicGnizmoHakkekagejdarksundurandal4532LoisLaneNobodyAngelHedgieTofystedethN1tSt4lkerForarDoctorArchHacksawMan in the MistsMatevTubularLuggage
  • ArcTangentArcTangent Your sins lay heavy upon you, defiler of souls Registered User regular
    edited January 12
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    bitflipper wrote: »
    I give this controversy a lifespan of a week, tops. The level of detail supports the theory that it's bullshit. It's the pinocchio effect.

    It's pathetic how badly some people want this whole thing to be true.

    Ok mr guy who coincidentally joined 2 days ago in a total coincidence.

    Seriously though, this is a Big Story, and even if CNN decides to go spineless, there are news organizations that would love to have this. Imagine the NYT trying to reclaim their Watergate glory days or whatever.

    Desperately wanting something to be true does not make it true. Also, that's the Washington Post, not NYT that pulled Watergate.
    Variable wrote: »
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    According to DNI, nothing in that report is true. Not a single scrap is verifiable. Think long and hard about why all these organizations, both governmental and media, are shying from hunting Trump on this right now - or for the months they had it before - and you will understand that it's. not. real.

    Not true and not currently verified are not the same thing. Not even close.

    And nobody's shying from hunting Trump on it. They asked him about it today. Literally, to his face. He refused to answer. That's part of the problem.

    ArcTangent on
    OneAngryPossumPhoenix-DSurfpossumEdith UpwardsFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthOrcaArdolQuidMegaMekGnizmoHakkekageEtiowsajdarksundurandal4532ArbitraryDescriptorLoisLaneRainfallTofystedethN1tSt4lkerDoctorArchHacksawRozVeagleMan in the MistsTubularLuggagejoshofalltrades
  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know Texas booniesRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    According to DNI, nothing in that report is true.

    This is not what Clapper's said. Specifically what he has said is that it did not originate from the IC (we knew this) and they have made no determination as to the veracity of the contents.

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (GHOST)
    OneAngryPossumFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthArdolMegaMekGnizmojdarksundurandal4532LoisLane
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    PROX wrote: »
    ArcTangent wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    MechMantis wrote: »
    ...that seems like an incredibly reasonable response.


    "We didn't make it, we didn't release it, we aren't going to make any claims about its veracity.

    But we did tell you about it."

    This doesn't jibe with my reading. It was a document they had and knew at least some of the provenance of, but had tossed aside for much the same reason most of the media tossed it aside: it wasn't verifiable. It's fun to read into things guys, but at some point you enter the realm of fiction. If you attempt to make serious decisions with something like that as one of its cornerstones, you're going to have a lot of problems.

    edit: for example, if any organization has a hateboner for Trump, the biggest belongs to the Washington Post. That they didn't run with this and have not is very telling.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decision-to-brief-trump-on-allegations-brought-a-secret-and-unsubstantiated-dossier-into-the-public-domain/2017/01/11/275a3a6c-d830-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html ?

    And some stuff does seem like it could be tracked, like this:
    ia7t5apa5y9q.jpg

    Admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but there are some fairly concrete things in there.

    You mean the part you missed where it was pointed out as an example of potential cloudy misinformation? Seriously, I expect better of all of you, or am I just gesticulating at an aggravated flock of geese?
    Others disputed that and said that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate Steele’s claims without getting detailed information about his sources in Russia, information he is seen as unlikely to be willing to share.

    A former senior U.S. intelligence official also questioned his ability to maneuver in Russia and gain access to high-level officials with ties to the Kremlin or Russian President Vladi­mir Putin. “How did this former British intelligence officer talk to all these Russian officials and not get arrested for espionage?” the former official asked. Steele’s identity and association with his investigations firm are public, and are almost certainly known to Russian counterintelligence.

    You embarrass me, and might even embarrass waterfowl everywhere.

    It's unverified, not unverifiable or implausible, and the entire reason it's a big deal is because the amount of detail and the person who compiled it lends it credibility.

    And Dan Rather went on the evening news one night and proclaimed from his high seat that Bush Jr wasn't what he claimed. The crater from that event's fallout is still fresh at CBS, and Dan Rather has not since penned so much as a significant blog post.

    edit: grammataricization

    If there was one time that a credible source was wrong about something, then I guess all credible sources are wrong and we can only believe incredulous sources.

    Back to Project Veritas we go.

    I wish that we could say that people can be wrong a few times, but can also be correct some times. This story has so much swirling around it that it deserves the utmost scrutiny because of how important it is.

    This is true, it's not like it was revealed that Rather was faking every story. This story is getting that scrutiny, but to dismiss a source requires greater acknowledgment that that they fucked up once. Everyone fucks up once or twice, when it is a re-occuring than yes, we dismiss them or they're already from Fox News.

    SpoitGiggles_Funsworth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Pokemon Champion (retired) Ann ArborRegistered User regular
    Trump is instinctually aggressive with literally everyone except Putin. Why? I'm going to again point to this piece. All independent reporting he points to. It was true in the summer, it's true now.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    davidsdurionsEdith UpwardsGiggles_FunsworthDarkPrimusArdolPanda4Youjdarksundurandal4532LoisLaneFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudCptKemzikA Kobold's KoboldHacksawRozMan in the Mists
  • VariableVariable Ted Hitler Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Variable wrote: »
    bit flipper and emissary what exactly are you denying is true? because no one is saying the specifics in the document are accurate, just that it was amassed and given to our intelligence community.

    all of which is corroborated by that statement

    only Trump's people are calling it a lie and they have done so vaguely and by correlating what CNN has said (what I posted here) and what Buzzfeed published (the specific accusations)

    According to DNI, nothing in that report is true. Not a single scrap is verifiable. Think long and hard about why all these organizations, both governmental and media, are shying from hunting Trump on this right now - or for the months they had it before - and you will understand that it's. not. real.

    you mean like how I said it wasn't proven true?

    you seriously are missing something here if you think this post I'm quoting of yours reveals something. no one is saying this stuff is proven. it DID, however, circulate. fact. known fact, verified by the tweet above.

    so... like take a deep breath and figure out who you're arguing with because they're not posting in this thread.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | WiiU-Variable | 3DS-3866-8105-7478 | Steam | Twitch
    Sig%20-%20Wrestling.png?dl=0
    Giggles_FunsworthPanda4YouMegaMekArbitraryDescriptorQanamilMan in the Mists
Sign In or Register to comment.