US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

Yeah, these inconvenient truths have their way of making to the surface. We haven't seen the the end of this russia puppet-gate scandal.

Think for yourself instead of being a right wing apologist. Who are you going to believe, a credible ex MI-6 agent who our own government relied on and use to expose FIFA's corrupt leadership and has an outfit where his credibility makes or breaks his business. Or an administration that lies to the public daily supported by right wing faux news or alex jones propaganda site that tries to discredit this news.

Yeah, Trump is a dumpster fire and he has compromised the security of this country for his own personal gain while you right wing lemmings continue to support this illegitimate sexual deviant president. And, don't even get me started on his treasonous accomplice Flynn.

It's CNN, and on that note, just breaking...



pretty girl dominates wind toy...

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Wow, you clearly did not read the source.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals.

CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.

But hey, continue your petulant tirade.

Yeah, these inconvenient truths have their way of making to the surface.

Indeed.

a reply to: Jonjonj

That's awesome!

a reply to: JinMI

It's awesome news, brought to you by me.

You are welcome.

Of course I read the article. Corroboration is what the article was talking about; not the facts. I believe you were one of those that summarily dismissed the dossier as fake news. It looks less like fake news now doesn't it? Plus, Russian spies have been kicking the can lately. I wonder why? Maybe it's because Putin is such a nice guy that we want to become allies with?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Wow, you clearly did not read the source.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals.

CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

US intelligence officials emphasize the conversations were solely between foreign nationals, including those in or tied to the Russian government, intercepted during routine intelligence gathering.

But hey, continue your petulant tirade.

Yeah, these inconvenient truths have their way of making to the surface.

Indeed.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

CNN Feb 10 2017
None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

So........ unnamed sources say they confirmed things but wont say what things were confirmed, says CNN... did I just read that correctly?

Yes.

In other words: We will give you the bottom line. We're not giving you the details.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

CNN Feb 10 2017
None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

So........ unnamed sources say they confirmed things but wont say what things were confirmed, says CNN... did I just read that correctly?

Yes.

In other words: We will give you the bottom line. We're not giving you the details.

I think the question should really be, at what point does not releasing classified information garnered during 'routine intelligence gathering', become a greater National Security threat (by keeping those who have the greatest vested interest in being well informed - the constituency) than the perceived potential threat itself?

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense CNN had the integrity to drop Donna Brazile as an analyst when they found out she leaked the questions.

Yet they continued to tell people the source they themselves relied on to fire her was not to be trusted and should not be believed. You call that integrity?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense CNN had the integrity to drop Donna Brazile as an analyst when they found out she leaked the questions.

Yet they continued to tell people the source they themselves relied on to fire her was not to be trusted and should not be believed. You call that integrity?

Let's employ Occam's razor.

1. CNN is cautious about the DNC leaks because the SOURCE that leaked the documents was initially unknown to everyone. We now know it was Russia.
2. CNN discovers something unsettling about how one of their employees appeared to have given information to DNC when they shouldn't have.
3. CNN to be cautious puts the employee on notice while investigating the claims.
www.politico.com...

Does this mean CNN is:

A. Cautiously investigating whether the material is accurate
B. Saying one thing and doing another.

(A) is the most logical conclusion. CNN investigated the claims, found them to be accurate, and sacked their employee.

If you answered (B) that means they would have never fired Donna Brazile because they would have continued to deny the material was valid.

If you'd like to multiply hypotheses needlessly, feel free to invalidate your appeal to Occam's razor, and add as many other "what ifs" to come up with other scenarios as you'd like.

So yes, integrity is a good word here.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It's CNN, and on that note, just breaking...

pretty girl dominates wind toy...

Fake news... toy dominates pretty girl is more like it. She got frustrated and threw the toy down in frustration. The toy obviously won.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It's CNN, and on that note, just breaking...

pretty girl dominates wind toy...

Fake news... toy dominates pretty girl is more like it. She got frustrated and threw the toy down in frustration. The toy obviously won.

But the headline was pretty girl dominates toy so, you completely missed the reversal didn't you?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Jonjonj
It's CNN, and on that note, just breaking...

pretty girl dominates wind toy...

Fake news... toy dominates pretty girl is more like it. She got frustrated and threw the toy down in frustration. The toy obviously won.

But the headline was pretty girl dominates toy so, you completely missed the reversal didn't you?

Meta-fake news! When will the insanity stop!

a reply to: Byrd

And we're just supposed to take their word for it, and whomever this "source" supposedly is, when we have a clear history if them being dishonest Ruling Establishment scum?

I just dont get you.