Intelligence Officials: Russians may have Compromising Information on Trump - Polidicks

So far it's been very back-and-forth on whether or not any of the dossier is real, but boy fuckin' howdy are things gonna be interesting for a bit. Let's see where this goes.

[QUOTE=DuCT;51652335]Hogan/Thiel is/was nowhere near the level of shittery that Gawker did to them, and in the amount of shit Gawker did in general, or how shittier they would go during the trial.[/QUOTE] It's not really pertinent to the thread though so I think we should drop it. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mythman;51652083][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819000924207251456[/media][/QUOTE] Haha this website is actually [url=https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/]owned[/url] by Laura Ingram who is apparently under consideration to be [url=http://thehill.com/homenews/news/305754-laura-ingraham-under-consideration-for-white-house-press-secretary]White House Press Secretary[/url]

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652352]It was on /r/all. Keyword being [U][B]W A S[/B][/U][/QUOTE] It wouldn't have fallen off /r/all in less than an hour. What's actually happening here is that /r/the_donald posts don't typically ever appear on /r/all for non-subscribers because of the way reddits' algorithm works.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url] The New York Times is saying the report is "Unsubstantiated". Found this from the /r/politics mega-thread. [QUOTE]The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it. Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the summary is classified and talking about it would be a felony. The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them. The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.[/QUOTE] Also the Former British operative is real I guess. What''s interesting to see is that the firm was originally hired by the Republicans, but was then hired by the Democrats for Hillary. Who knew? Still think the Buzzfeed article is fake though. That has to be a /pol/ leak.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51652356]It's not really pertinent to the thread though so I think we should drop it. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] Haha this website is actually [url=https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/]owned[/url] by Laura Ingram who is apparently under consideration to be [url=http://thehill.com/homenews/news/305754-laura-ingraham-under-consideration-for-white-house-press-secretary]White House Press Secretary[/url][/QUOTE] kill me

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652401][url]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news[/url] The New York Times is saying the report is "Unsubstantiated". Found this from the /r/politics mega-thread. Also the Former British operative is real I guess. Who knew?[/QUOTE] I said he was earlier? All of this is real besides the actual veracity of the claims themselves. The only thing we don't know is whether the Russian contacts the MI6 agent spoke to were telling the truth or not.

[QUOTE=person11;51652431]I said he was earlier? All of this is real besides the actual veracity of the claims themselves. The only thing we don't know is whether the Russian contacts the MI6 agent spoke to were telling the truth or not.[/QUOTE] Do [U]you[/U] really think they were telling the truth? Sometimes a gut feeling is the best feeling a person can get.

if this shit is true then it will be the biggest political scandal in american history heres hoping no one gives it the nickname "pissgate" or something

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652447]Do [U]you[/U] really think they were telling the truth? Sometimes a gut feeling is the best feeling a person can get.[/QUOTE] what the fuck does this even mean have you overdosed on trump's memes or something

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652447]Do [U]you[/U] really think they were telling the truth? Sometimes a gut feeling is the best feeling a person can get.[/QUOTE] Literally "Feels before reals" in plaintext

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652447]Do [U]you[/U] really think they were telling the truth? Sometimes a gut feeling is the best feeling a person can get.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't know. I am hoping that the MI6 agent's gut feelings were right on this one. The Russian contacts could have been lying for fun, showing off for fun, or could have been instructed to say the most threatening and bombastic sounding bullshit to scare/confuse us. Or they are telling the truth, and Trump defiled the bed in the Presidential Suite forever.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51652460]what the fuck does this even mean have you overdosed on trump's memes or something[/QUOTE] The post means do you think that the agents were lying or not. It's not rocket science. Feels can have a lot more validity than reals. Like if you feel like it is false, more than likely it is [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Memeshit" - rilez))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652447]Do [U]you[/U] really think they were telling the truth? Sometimes a gut feeling is the best feeling a person can get.[/QUOTE] Burden of proof is on the accuser, obviously, but I think this post is dangerously close to going from a healthy sense of skepticism to straight up 'feels not reals' [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]The post means do you think that the agents were lying or not. [U][I][B]Feels can be a lot more proof of validity than reals[/B][/I][/U].[/QUOTE] Jesus fucking [I]Christ[/I]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51652356]Haha this website is actually [url=https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/]owned[/url] by Laura Ingram who is apparently under consideration to be [url=http://thehill.com/homenews/news/305754-laura-ingraham-under-consideration-for-white-house-press-secretary]White House Press Secretary[/url][/QUOTE] Jesus, how many fucking connections does Trump have to right wing media trash? Steven Bannon - Breitbart, David J. Pecker - National Enquirer, Jared Kushner - The Observer, Laura Ingram - Lifezette

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]The post means do you think that the agents were lying or not. It's not rocket science. [B]Feels can be a lot more proof of validity than reals.[/B][/QUOTE] What the fuck am I reading lmao?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51652356]It's not really pertinent to the thread though so I think we should drop it. [/QUOTE] Fair.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]The post means do you think that the agents were lying or not. It's not Rocket Science here man come on[/QUOTE] you are asking me how credible the anonymous russian agents I have never seen, heard, or met are I just want to make sure this is real and I'm not having a stroke

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;51652490]you are asking me how credible the anonymous russian agents I have never seen, heard, or met are I just want to make sure this is real and I'm not having a stroke[/QUOTE] I think you had that stroke if you're questioning if "do you think the agents told the truth" is a real question

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]Feels can have a lot more validity than reals. Like if you feel like it is false, more than likely it is[/QUOTE] my feeling is that you've completely lost the fucking plot

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]Feels can be a lot more proof of validity than reals.[/QUOTE] Well my feelings are better than your feelings, what do you have to say to that?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51652509]Well my feelings are better than your feelings, what do you have to say to that?[/QUOTE] Then you have the right to feel that way about it.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652519]Then you have the right to feel that way.[/QUOTE] you can't say that feelings have magical truth telling powers and then immediately disregard someone else's feelings what kind of fucking harry potter fantasy world are you living in, dude

Can someone sum up what the situation is as it stands now, including what the reports claim (besides #GoldenGate) and validity claims on both sides? I'm a little lost

Not a single mainstream news outlet has claimed these allegations or true or false. Leftists want it to be true and are probably writing stories with that in mind, while the right wing media has already deemed it "fake news" We should stop shitting on Buzzfeed, as it says right at the top of their article that everything in the document is unsubstantiated. Any libel lawsuit would be hard-fought.

[QUOTE=Stroheim;51652467]The post means do you think that the agents were lying or not. It's not rocket science. Feels can have a lot more validity than reals. [B]Like if you feel like it is false, more than likely it is[/B][/QUOTE] I can't decide if this edit is better or worse

Can we ignore the feels guy who has no idea what he's talking about and get back to the claims. Has anything new come out since the first releases?

It's not often when you see someone admit that their angle is that they put more stake in their "gut feeling" than facts and reality

[QUOTE=The Rifleman;51652553]Can we ignore the feels guy who has no idea what he's talking about and get back to the claims. Has anything new come out since the first releases?[/QUOTE] Nope. Lots of journalists are scrambling to verify if the claims are real or not. [editline]10th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;51652554]It's not often when you see someone admit that their angle is that they put more stake in their "gut feeling" than facts and reality[/QUOTE] Hey, at least I'm honest about my angle.

I'm pretty sure the Buzzfeed document is garbage, they even say on their page "We don't even know if its real will let you decide!" as to shrug off any journalistic responsibility. Theirs probably a story building with the FBI investigating ties with the Trump campaign and Russia, but this isn't the bombshell we've been hoping for.

As much as I want the golden showers thing to be true to completely discredit Trump, something like that seems too "good" to be true. The world is really surreal these days, so I won't discredit it. But I definitely believe that there's at least some case building up against him.