Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Way to deny that I was RIGHT.
I'm out of here. It smells bad and it's full of fools.

This doesn't change a god damned thing cookie.

So sorry ...

Bolting because you were called out for lying.. again

originally posted by: Sillyolme
From the article...

None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI publicly disagreed with the finding Russia tried to interfere,

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is in the OP.
Guess you didn't even read it ...
And yet you argue with me...
Unbelievable.

Way to selectively edit the source by leaving out improtant info..

None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI publicly disagreed with the finding Russia tried to interfere, but that is to be expected, since none of them conducted a review.

Framing the consensus as the result of 17 separate analyses was just as obviously wrong in October as now in June. It’s always been clear that intel agencies run by the Coast Guard or the Department of Energy would not be expected to investigate and weigh in on an election hacking attempt.

The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview after she again reiterated it in May.

Nice try...

I guess we are now back to this -

I strongly urge people to verify claims made by this poster for accuracy and truth

you are the one who is unbelievable.

a reply to: Grambler

What stories did Vice retract?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Grambler

i just think its hilarious that all news is FAKE NEWS ...all of it, just like trump exclaims over and over, and then just 1 little piece of fluff found in the news that fits your agenda and news is all of a sudden REAL NEWS.

so funny, and you call me a hippocrite, lofl

I love the willful stupidity of posts like this.

We say a lot of the msm news is untrust worthy.

Then they admit they were wrong several times.

And you say because we think they are untrustworthy, we can't trust their retraction.

This is a level of stupidity of such a great magnitude that I know you can't really mean what you are saying.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Grambler

What stories did Vice retract?

I am On mobile so I cantlink.

Just Google vice retracts,

I saw the hill has an article on it

a reply to: Grambler

no one admitted they were "untrustworthy" , they retracted statements...statements that do not even effect the over-all Russia investigations. Many news sources retract statements, especially if they are trying to cover up to the minute news.

But i stand by what i posted and still think its funny and proven true by just perusing thru these small case studies of forum threads, so predictable...you guys.

and i will say it again...all news is fake, unless it fits to your agenda, no matter how fluffy it is...then it becomes real news.

so funny , tee hee, you guys

a reply to: Xcathdra

I wasn't aware that either of them made the claim, if they did (and I'm not doubting you), they were wrong in their facts..
but you mention susan rice unmasking, and I kind of think that you are wrong in your facts with that... as well as those politicians and media outlets that continue that story. if she followed the proper course to unmask, she did nothing wrong, and her reasons and need for the unmasking was reviewed by others before it was unmasked.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

I wasn't aware that either of them made the claim, if they did (and I'm not doubting you), they were wrong in their facts..
but you mention susan rice unmasking, and I kind of think that you are wrong in your facts with that... as well as those politicians and media outlets that continue that story. if she followed the proper course to unmask, she did nothing wrong, and her reasons and need for the unmasking was reviewed by others before it was unmasked.

Rice already admitted to unmasking and she claims she did nothing wrong. However 702 places restrictions / requirements on unmasking US citizens. Namely a valid reason is needed and a paper trail is required. The compounding issue with that was AG Lynch / Obama going down the road of making sure restricted material, such as those who were unmasked, was accessible to many many many people, again violating 702.

That unmasked info was then leaked to the media - a major violation.

As for what they did or did not know - as I said they both had the highest security clearance - Clinton as Secretary of State and Rice as National Security Advisor. Clinton made the 17 claim in a debate and repeated it there after. Susan Rice made the 17 claim during her rounds with the talk shows.

Why that is so concerning factors into the Clinton campaign calling the investigation into the email mess as a "review" and Comeys testimony that Lynch directed him to use a term other than investigation. The 17 intel agencies seems like another one of those "coordinated" statements.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I am not sure that the lack of their weighing in is a confirmation of agreement to the findings. In fact, the only forensic testing done on the DNC servers (which are not government computers) that we the public know of was done only by Crowdstrike. Not the NSA nor CIA nor FBI, all of which do have the computer forensics labs to make a determination. Given some of the chicanery done by the DNC within the party to Sanders during the primaries, I am not as trusting to their claims.

In either way, there are a plethora of topics that neither I nor you weigh in on ATS. I would hope that our lack of commentary isn't mistaken for our agreement on the subject. For the record, I think most of the Mars rocks threads were just pictures of rocks. But I didn't participate because "It's a rock." doesn't really engage a reader nor lead to respectful discussion.

a reply to: dawnstar

IF the goal was to come up with a reason to unmask, and then disseminate the information as widely as possible, then wrongdoing may have occurred because the goal all along was to get the information leaked.

Unmasked info was leaked, SOMEONE did something wrong.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Sillyolme

I am not sure that the lack of their weighing in is a confirmation of agreement to the findings. In fact, the only forensic testing done on the DNC servers (which are not government computers) that we the public know of was done only by Crowdstrike. Not the NSA nor CIA nor FBI, all of which do have the computer forensics labs to make a determination. Given some of the chicanery done by the DNC within the party to Sanders during the primaries, I am not as trusting to their claims.

In either way, there are a plethora of topics that neither I nor you weigh in on ATS. I would hope that our lack of commentary isn't mistaken for our agreement on the subject. For the record, I think most of the Mars rocks threads were just pictures of rocks. But I didn't participate because "It's a rock." doesn't really engage a reader nor lead to respectful discussion.

That was so good. It took me a few minutes to stop laughing. Then a star just did not seem like enough of a thank you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and, more than likely, the only thing that was wrong, was the danged leaks!!!
which is, and has been long before obama got into office a big problem...
and quite frankly, I can think of at least two instances where republican congressmen have let loose classified information in open hearings of congress!
and, I thought wikileaks was our friends?? I guess some leaks are good, some are bad?

a reply to: dawnstar

Congressmen / Congresswomen revealing, whether accidentally or intentionally, classified info during hearings / on the floor is technically not illegal under the speech and debate clause of the constitution.

If Clinton / Rice didnt have access to the info they did and werent in the positions they were then maybe I can see a "mistake" occurring. However, given who they are and the positions they held it was not a "mistake".

Just like it was not a "mistake" when Rice and Clinton kept saying the Benghazi attack was a random event precipitated by a youtube video.

It was an outright lie to try and cover up illegal activity.

a reply to: Sillyolme

This doesn't change a g** damned thing cookie.

Princess, those two words carry a lot of weight and we don't use them, remember ?

buck

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

it depends, if they intercept a conversation between an american citizen and the head of some top terror organization in the middle east and they hear they talking about blowing up nyc, they might just want to know just whom that american citizen is. and they just might want to let the local police both in that citizen's hometown and nyc know who this guy is and what he might want to do....
if you don't want to be unmasked, don't have conversations with people in other countries that has content that might make them think that something is illegal going on. because if they think that, well, they will try to find out who you are and then send the information to the right agencies to investigate further.

if you disagree with all of the surveilence that the gov't is doing in it's efforts to defend us from the evil terrorists, I might tend to agree... but is not, then I have to tell you, if this is just some made up bs to get someone on trump's team out of trouble or to confuse the investigation into the russia matter....
I imagine crippling our surveilence network would be a great favor to give to many foreign powers and terrorists the world over. and considering some of that network is up to be renewed by congress this year, it's possible that it might be crippled.

a reply to: dawnstar

except we are not talking about necessary unmasking. we are talking about unmasking and distribution for the simple desire to cause embarrassment.

Your rationale is exactly the one I use to say I don't care about the DNC/Hillary email hacks. Wrongdoing should be exposed.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like it matters.
You guys .
Every day you grasp at the flimsiest straws to make yourselves believe this is going away.
Every single day.
Last night it was Eric Holder tweeting secret messages to dems about running for the hills instead of what he actually said which was be strong.

The arguments get weaker every day.
Trump gets more desperate and crazy every day.
He'll be peeling on the Whitehouse lawn soon.

It's the opposite, friend. I was never invested, emotionally or otherwise, in the Russian story. It seems others have bet their house on it.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Pyle

It clearly says "Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment". How do you know they agree if they weren't involved in making the assessment? Because you were lied to, and you believed it.

So do you trust the assessment that was made by the 3? Do you think the other 13 would come to a different conclusion if they had the chance to do their own assessment? It's not as if the other 13 dissented. This is more of technical detail than a bombshell - the top three intelligence agencies in the US, after making their own independent assessment, all agree that Russia was behind the election hacking. That's a pretty strong statement.

I don't. None of them had access to the crime scene. Im not a conspiracy theorist, but this all reeks of CIA psyop, and deep-state spooks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't know... there's two separate stories that you might be talking about...
one involves one or more bush associates that were unmasked because conversations peaked the interest of the intelligence agency.... I believe Flynn was one, and as we now know... it seems the interest may have been warrented.
the other involved a situation where the FBI I believe it was, found that an error in the process was discovered and brought in a bunch of information that shouldn't have been brought in.. and supposedly the FBI notified the proper oversight committee of the problem and then corrected it...

to be honest, I don't really know if trump himself was ever unmasked, only one or maybe a few more of his top people... like flynn.

I'm sorry, but when you have the conservative news media throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated "facts" as well as the liberal media, it's kind of hard to tell just what the heck is going on really... I spend alot of time, going back to news articles that were written long before this thing erupted and run with a series of possibilities as to what might be the real story until I find enough to discredit a possiblity and write it off.

but, I do assume that when intelligence people stand up in front of a congressional committed and take an oath, what they say afterwards probably holds more weight than undisclosed sources and when even the republican congressmen are saying that yes, the russians were putting on one heck of an assault on our election process.... well, it's more than likely true!! and there is a very good possiblity that if they look hard enough into trump, they will find some illegal doings..some of which involve russian oligarchs. weather or not they do anything about it, at this point, I think will depend on trump's future actions... if he keeps acting like a loose cannon, they just might decide to ditch him for their own survival.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Too bad the retractions dont get nearly the coverage as the original lies.

I think it's about time to start pulling Business Licenses and put a stop to sedition.

a reply to: dawnstar

we know the Obama administrator intentionally leaked as much as possible and distributed as much as possible, on purpose. We know this because they admit it. Not because a crime was found, there was nothing criminal and still isn't.

Even Flynn I have yet to see anything.