Trump - Russian connections....FAR DEEPER than anyone ever imagined

"Watergate" Bob Woodward: Trump Dossier Is a 'GARBAGE DOCUMENT' - Intelligence Chiefs Should 'APOLOGIZE' TO TRUMP.

What amazes me is the fact that liberals for the past eight years sat back and thought everything was okay. Well Trump won. Now all of a sudden they want to actually look at who is becoming President. They dismissed all of the things said about Obama and just chalked it up to Racism. I think that is what I am going to do now. If you don't want Trump for President, then your just a bigoted racist.

Or we could just call it for the hoax that it is.

yournewswire.com...

a reply to: muse7

My god by some of the replies here it seems Trump can do no wrong and is squeaky clean. He probably could actually shoot someone on fifth ave. While the seemingly blind and ferocious loyalty is commendable but it's sad and scary at the same time. Seriously, all one needs to do is take a look at his past relationship with Roy Cohn for instance to see what a corrupt scum bag he is. Just because Hillary is corrupt and would have been horrible for the country it doesn't mean this guy will be any better. I'm sure his cabinet, some of whom have gotten rich by fleasing the middle class, will really care about that same middle and working class. Billionaires always do right?

Pot - kettle. But I digress.

originally posted by: Konduit
"Watergate" Bob Woodward: Trump Dossier Is a 'GARBAGE DOCUMENT' - Intelligence Chiefs Should 'APOLOGIZE' TO TRUMP.

And Carl Bernstien, another Watergate journalist had this to say:

Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, who helped to uncover the Watergate scandal, told CNN that Trump’s statements should disqualify him. “It ought to be apparent to all, and the Democrats should be able to make the case, that he is manifestly unsuited to be the president of the United States because of his recklessness with the national security,” Bernstein said.

Link

So which Watergate reporter is right?

The fact is, the two worked as a team during the Watergate/Nixon days. But since? Let's see about 'your guy' here...

Woodward often uses unnamed sources in his reporting for the Post and in his books. Using extensive interviews with firsthand witnesses, documents, meeting notes, diaries, calendars, and other documentation, Woodward attempts to construct a seamless narrative of events, most often told through the eyes of the key participants.

Wikipedia

Wow, isn't that the same exact thing he's criticizing this dossier of doing? Using unnamed sources?

HYPOCRITE! and FAKE NEWS ALERT!

a reply to: Kettu

The left is at it again, conflating mean words and statements with actual actions.

Heard It Through The Grapevine

a reply to: Konduit

What mean words?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

"False" can come about by various means.

It's nice to see someone exercising logic. The Google spreadsheet below shows all the various ways we can get FAKE or FALSE news.

docs.google.com...

Such as somebody took the meaning of something out of context.

This would be scenario #3.

This can happen unintentionally, and then somebody else takes that and runs with it perhaps because it serves their ends.

And this is scenario #7.

Impressively, you hit on the one situation where fake news and true news collide.

The only way to tease the two apart is to explicitly state that the intelligence the news is based upon is accurate, but the reporter fouled up out of a wrongheaded desire to challenge the source, due to hasty reporting, or because their bias got in the way even though they were trying to be accurate.

This is true news because the source material is accurate despite the bad reporting.

The only time we would consider scenario #3 to be false news is when we assume or discover the reporter is intentionally lying (transforming it to scenario #7) despite knowing the source of the story is true.

In this situation we call it "fake news" because even though the intel the news is based upon is accurate, the reporting on it is intentionally BSh*tty. Tricky to say which is which honestly in this sort of situation, but the reporter perpetrating the error would know definitively which of the two is the truth of the matter.

I think I first heard the "fake news" term this election in reference to those Macedonian based blog sites that were posting up "news" stories that were total fabrications. Such stories that were total fabrications regardless of motives were HOAXES.

This is scenario #8. The person is just reporting anything they want without any regard for facts other than to support whatever narrative they're trying to create.

Now fast forward to this BuzzFeed/CNN "dossier" story: When there is a FAKE report (a HOAX report) being propped up by smear campaign propaganda "news" outlets to deliberately cause political damage to a specific politician. It's as good as a FAKE (aka HOAX) "news" story being posted in the Macedonian blog accounts or whatever.

What you are describing actually is scenarios #7 and #8, but here's where you make your first error.

We have no idea if the intel is false. The current news seems to suggest the intelligence community is taking the report seriously, but that doesn't indicate the intel is true. We have conflicting information about the initial release of the document which suggests scenario #3 (misreported news which can either be due to bias, hasty reporting, or to challenge the official narrative) or scenario #7 (intentional misinformation).

Whichever you pick will entirely mimic your bias with regards to whether you favor the intel or the reporters documenting the story.

The way to distinguish good news from bad news is to ask whether the news source proactively updates their story when the original information is found to be inaccurate. If so, they're doing good reporting because information isn't static.

For comparison, watch an episode of Alex Jones if you want to see what bogus news looks like (scenarios #4, #8, #3, & #7).

Now if some regular person that merely hears and repeats the story, this brings the claims back into 'false allegation' territory on such a specific account, unless that it someone debunks it and then they still go on repeating the claim because its damaging then they themselves become part of the smear campaign thus making their efforts also properly FAKE.

Correct, this is scenario #4, #6, and #7.

"FAKE" should mean HOAX. [...] Something merely not being true can be untrue, whereas FAKE is a fabrication. FALSE. A false allegation. Made up. A deliberate fiction meant to smear.

I agree there is a distinction between FAKE and FALSE. FAKE has the implication of some application of truth when it shouldn't have been applied. However it doesn't exclusively mean the intentional promotion of horse manure. I can have a FAKE Rolex and simply have been fooled.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

This is true news because the source material is accurate despite the bad reporting.

Is it now?

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

All of which is irrelevant. It matters not if I call it fake, you call it false, someone else calls it wrong. It seems you can't be told or accept the simple reality that your view on the definition of fake news is not universal and you simply don't get to decide on it. Sorry.

The only thing that matters right now is that the allegations have not been proven and the burden of proof remains on those that want to make judgements on what I term as fake news.

I do, however, find it amusing how those on the left are desperate to protect their fake news outlets and seem to hate it and fight like crazy when they are called fake news.

After all these comments, though, I still eagerly await proof that the report allegations are true.

a reply to: UKTruth

All of which is irrelevant. It matters not if I call it fake, you call it false, someone else calls it wrong.

I don't believe that you are really as stupid as you are pretending to be. ThingsThatDontMakeSense laid it out perfectly and in detail. It is a fact that there is a document making allegations about Trump. Reporting the existence and provenance of the document is a true news story. It is up to you to decide whether the story is credible. You can see scans of the document in question here.

Here are the facts supporting the possibility that the document may contain some elements of truth.

1. The intelligence community appears to consider the source legitimate.

2. The Russian intelligence services have relied on blackmail in the in the past.

3. Russian hotels are used as "honeypot traps" for foreign businessmen.

4. Trump has visited Russia and commented on the women there:



@realDonaldTrump

5. Trump has been very forward about guiding the GOP towards an unusually pro-Russian position.

The only thing that matters right now it's that the allegations have not been proven and the burden of proof remains on those that want to make judgements on what I term as fake news.

The story is true. You may question the veracity of the document, but the document exists. The above facts suggest that even if some or all of the allegations are false, Trump is still in a position to be blackmailed. Even a faked pornographic film cooked up by his political enemies would appear to be at least plausibly true.

After all these comments, I still eagerly await proof.

I find it a bit gratifying that you have been forced to raise the bar from "evidence" to "proof."

a reply to: DJW001

Detail does not equate to truth. You can explain in great detail your rationale for what you believe is fake news and I applaud the effort, however my view is different and as there is no agreed definition between all parties, I will continue to apply my view.

Now,
You have linked lots of information and yet no evidence.
You have also failed to link stories that refute the report - a clear sign that you are pushing propaganda and are dishonest.

Replies to your points:
1. There are also intelligence officials who have refuted the document as fake.
2. Does not constitute evidence that they have material on the people you choose.
3. So?
4. How does Trump commenting on Russian women provide evidence that the document is not fake??????
5. It's more fake news to suggest that Trump is pushing 'pro Russian' policies. Not wanting escalation and looking to improve relations in not 'pro Russia'.

Yours, my friend, is a kangaroo court.

The document does exist you are right. It is a fake document and the news media of CNN and Buzzfeed reported this fake document and thus foisted fake news onto the public.

The constant and detailed deflections including links to stories with no evidence, innuendo and opinion, whilst leaving out dissenting views on the agenda you are driving is another classic example of fake news.

Now I will say it again. The burden of proof is on you. You either have evidence that the document is true or you don't. Opinion pieces do not count.

Still awaiting evidence. When you have some please post.

a reply to: UKTruth

You have linked lots of information and yet no evidence.

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

You have also failed to link stories that refute the report.

Why should I do that? I am not trying to disprove anything. That seems to be your intent.

The constant and detailed deflections including links to stories with no evidence, innuendo and opinion, whilst leaving out dissenting views on the agenda you are driving is another classic example of fake news.

You are the one deflecting. Is there or i there not a "dossier" making claims that would make Trump susceptible to blackmail? Are Trump's circumstances not such that he would be both a possible target of blackmail, whether the allegations made are true or not? These are real issues, not "fake news."

Now I will say it again. The burden of proof is on you. You either have evidence that the document is true or you don't. Opinion pieces do not count.

Where have I ever expressed the opinion that the document is "true?" That is not for me to determine. All I have maintained is that the document exists, and that makes it newsworthy. Most of the reporting on it is accurate, and therefore not, by any reasonable definition, "fake news." Do you deny that the document exists? I've linked to it so you can read it yourself. It is up to you to determine whether you believe the information it contains is true.

Still awaiting evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly? That Trump is a pervert? Who cares? The issue is that Trump's personality and actions have left him susceptible to blackmail. Even if the contents of the dossier are not true, they are plausible. With CGI technology, a political enemy can create a video of Trump doing anything they want. Thus, even if something like that is produced, you will be able to reject it as "evidence" on those grounds. The problem is, Trump has been caught lying and denying so frequently that his denials in the face of such a hoax would have no credibility. This is not fake, it is fact.


ETA:

It is a fake document and the news media of CNN and Buzzfeed reported this fake document and thus foisted fake news onto the public.

Now you're the one making a positive claim as to the authenticity of the document. Where is your proof? Russian denials? "Expert" opinions?

originally posted by: DJW001

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

I have information that you hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed UKTruth slept on in 2010 because you hate him so much. I don't have any evidence, nor corroboration but because of my intelligence background there are many in the intelligence community willing to vouch for my credibility. I also have information that you have been colluding with Russians to advance your own agendas for personal gain among other very serious allegations of which will all be included in my raw intelligence report classified of course, until leaked to the media....

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You have linked lots of information and yet no evidence.

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

You have also failed to link stories that refute the report.

Why should I do that? I am not trying to disprove anything. That seems to be your intent.

The constant and detailed deflections including links to stories with no evidence, innuendo and opinion, whilst leaving out dissenting views on the agenda you are driving is another classic example of fake news.

You are the one deflecting. Is there or i there not a "dossier" making claims that would make Trump susceptible to blackmail? Are Trump's circumstances not such that he would be both a possible target of blackmail, whether the allegations made are true or not? These are real issues, not "fake news."

Now I will say it again. The burden of proof is on you. You either have evidence that the document is true or you don't. Opinion pieces do not count.

Where have I ever expressed the opinion that the document is "true?" That is not for me to determine. All I have maintained is that the document exists, and that makes it newsworthy. Most of the reporting on it is accurate, and therefore not, by any reasonable definition, "fake news." Do you deny that the document exists? I've linked to it so you can read it yourself. It is up to you to determine whether you believe the information it contains is true.

Still awaiting evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly? That Trump is a pervert? Who cares? The issue is that Trump's personality and actions have left him susceptible to blackmail. Even if the contents of the dossier are not true, they are plausible. With CGI technology, a political enemy can create a video of Trump doing anything they want. Thus, even if something like that is produced, you will be able to reject it as "evidence" on those grounds. The problem is, Trump has been caught lying and denying so frequently that his denials in the face of such a hoax would have no credibility. This is not fake, it is fact.


ETA:

It is a fake document and the news media of CNN and Buzzfeed reported this fake document and thus foisted fake news onto the public.

Now you're the one making a positive claim as to the authenticity of the document. Where is your proof? Russian denials? "Expert" opinions?

You have provided opinions and innuendo. If you believe that is evidence then you are mistaken.

Once again, you or I (or anyone else) do not need to disprove an allegation, you must prove allegations. Simple to understand.

Yes the document exists. If it were simply reported that a document existed that would not be fake news. It became fake news when Buzzfeed published the document and CNN ran their story linking to Buzzfeed. Your argument seems to be that if you report on fake documents and position them 'make you own mind up' or in any way 'credible' then the reporting is valid. Nonsense.

I STILL await evidence that the detail in the document are true. I know you don't have any as I am following the story and nothing of any substance has been confirmed.

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: DJW001

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

I have information that you hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed UKTruth slept on in 2010 because you hate him so much. I don't have any evidence, nor corroboration but because of my intelligence background there are many in the intelligence community willing to vouch for my credibility. I also have information that you have been colluding with Russians to advance your own agendas for personal gain among other very serious allegations of which will all be included in my raw intelligence report classified of course, until leaked to the media....

Your story is as credible as CNN's reporting or Buzzfeed's.
i.e. it is FAKE NEWS.
Good example.

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: DJW001

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

I have information that you hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed UKTruth slept on in 2010 because you hate him so much. I don't have any evidence, nor corroboration but because of my intelligence background there are many in the intelligence community willing to vouch for my credibility. I also have information that you have been colluding with Russians to advance your own agendas for personal gain among other very serious allegations of which will all be included in my raw intelligence report classified of course, until leaked to the media....

No that's false rumour

That MI6 guy who worked on this wasn't a no life net troll

originally posted by: Whereismypassword

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: DJW001

If information isn't "evidence," what, in your opinion, is?

I have information that you hired prostitutes to urinate on the bed UKTruth slept on in 2010 because you hate him so much. I don't have any evidence, nor corroboration but because of my intelligence background there are many in the intelligence community willing to vouch for my credibility. I also have information that you have been colluding with Russians to advance your own agendas for personal gain among other very serious allegations of which will all be included in my raw intelligence report classified of course, until leaked to the media....

No that's false rumour

That MI6 guy who worked on this wasn't a no life net troll

Irrelevant opinion.
Mr Steele is yet to comment. Some experienced US intelligence officials doubt he even wrote the document.
Even if he did, his motivations are unclear beyond he was asked to provide opposition research.

The inconvenient truth is that attacks on those saying the document is fake does not remove the requirement on those saying it is true to prove such.

Oh ffs's!!!

Even I have a russian connections.

The left are idiots.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Oh ffs's!!!

Even I have a russian connections.

The left are idiots.

It seems some have disappeared down a rabbit hole and ended up trying to push a false notion that now the document is out there, it has to be proven fake. It's an effort to legitimise fake news, but the tried and trusted process of requiring allegations to be proven before they are accepted will not yield to such poor debating tactics.