Trump backpedals furiously on Assange

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Russia influenced the election - that's a fact.
Did they influence the outcome - we will never know, Trump may have won without their help.

"Influenced" as per "tried to and failed miserably" or "actually did damages, like China back in 2014?".

Maybe I've missed it, but the only thing I've seen via the media is "Trump sides with Assange over the intelligence community," and since the only thing the intelligence community is discussing with regard to Assange is his statement that the Russians didn't give him the information, that pragmatically means "Trump agrees with assange that the russians didn't give him the hacked information."

So just so I can be clear: You understand and agree that Trump pragmatically is agreeing with Assange that the Russians didn't give him the information? But you're then making the point that "That doesn't mean he agrees with everything Assange says"?

I'm not sure I understand why that matters? Was someone here suggesting Trump agreeing with Assange on something other than Russia?

No, that's not what it means. Intelligence agencies claims that Russia's tried to influence the election, but fails to give specifics. Assange says that what they published did not come from Russian or any states parties sources. What the government tries to say is that they may or may not be related to any documents sent by wikileaks, although they've removed all and every mention of wikileaks from their documents.

So, what Trump actually says is that he do not believes the DNC/Podesta's hacking comes from Russia, as per stated by Assange. Which is the limit of his claim. Anyone trying to see further than that is making deductions about the psychological profile of Trump. Simply put, you cannot.

[schwarzkopf]

"Influenced" as per "tried to and failed miserably" or "actually did damages, like China back in 2014?".

Influenced, like changing the mind of 2 jurists out of 12. No way of knowing if it affected the outcome.

[drakensoul]

So, what Trump actually says is that he do not believes the DNC/Podesta's hacking comes from Russia, as per stated by Assange.

Okay, so this is where the rest of the country is right now as well. We all know that Trump doesn't believe the hacking came from Russia, just like Assange says it didn't.

This thread is about Trump backpedaling on having agreed with Assange. You just admitted that he does indeed agree with Assange re: hacks not from Russia. And then he (Trump) posted a new tweet saying that the media is being dishonest by saying he agrees with Assange.

Yet you, I, and anyone else who isn't blind to pragmatism can see that he does. So where are we disagreeing? It seems we both agree that he originally tweeted in a way that shows he sides with Assange on the hacks not being from Russia, and now he's tweeting saying he never sided with Assange.

But we both have now agreed that he did side with Assange.

So why is he saying he didn't and using it as a prop to point at the media and call them dishonest, when by definition he is the one being at least disingenuous?

[moremana]

Am I missing something? Op what does this have to do with "Back peddling"

You read shit the wrong way.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Okay, so this is where the rest of the country is right now as well. We all know that Trump doesn't believe the hacking came from Russia, just like Assange says it didn't.

This thread is about Trump backpedaling on having agreed with Assange. You just admitted that he does indeed agree with Assange re: hacks not from Russia. And then he (Trump) posted a new tweet saying that the media is being dishonest by saying he agrees with Assange.

Yet you, I, and anyone else who isn't blind to pragmatism can see that he does. So where are we disagreeing? It seems we both agree that he originally tweeted in a way that shows he sides with Assange on the hacks not being from Russia, and now he's tweeting saying he never sided with Assange.

But we both have now agreed that he did side with Assange.

So why is he saying he didn't and using it as a prop to point at the media and call them dishonest, when by definition he is the one being at least disingenuous?

Because, again, the article says: "DONALD Trump has denied he agrees with Julian Assange’s claim that Russia was not behind US election hacks a day after he appeared to back him." While what he said is “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people....to make up their own minds as to the truth. The media lies to make it look like I am against “Intelligence” when in fact I am a big fan!”

So, if anything, Trump clarified his stance toward the intelligence services, but not about the claims themselves.

[Espe]

Appropriate, and not typical K.O. fare :

Interesting times we live in.

[Deleted]

No, this has been debunked long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3b8xVJStU

Anyone looking at those PDF files (who is familiar with how the file creation works via scanning) would understand they aren't "forged" but instead artifacts of the scanning process. It's why the different layers aren't whole words, but rather groups of letters at a time.

That quite outdated. This is the newest development https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM&t=2s. It is 100% fake on 9 different accounts, investigated by two different very well respected sources.

[Deleted]

Because, again, the article says: "DONALD Trump has denied he agrees with Julian Assange’s claim that Russia was not behind US election hacks a day after he appeared to back him." While what he said is “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. "

The article was quite accurate - Trump did appear to agree with Julian Assange's claim. On Dec 3, he posted one tweet about 'so-called "Russian hacking"', where both the "so-called" and the quotation marks indicate he does not believe Russia did hack (and the quotation marks over "Intelligence" are also a jibe at the intelligence community that will soon have to work for him).

The "Intelligence" briefing on so-called "Russian hacking" was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!

On Dec 4, he posted his two tweets quoting Assange.

Now on Dec 6, he says it is "wrong" that he believes Assange's claim.

But to be fair to Donald, maybe he does and does not believe Assange's claim. Trump is quite capable of appearing to believe two opposite propositions, because he doesn't care about the truth[1]. The sad thing is that his supporters, such as you, don't care either.


[1] Where's the information he promised to give us on Tuesday or Wednesday, throwing new light on Russia's supposed hacking?

[Kelz]

No, this has been debunked long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3b8xVJStU

Anyone looking at those PDF files (who is familiar with how the file creation works via scanning) would understand they aren't "forged" but instead artifacts of the scanning process. It's why the different layers aren't whole words, but rather groups of letters at a time.

It was debunked in 2011? Good thing the investigation kept going on for another 5 years

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ari...23931057-story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlfo1jJCBrk
https://www.intellihub.com/obamas-bi...roven-forgery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frqVINnQjc
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/eviden...g-to-congress/

These are all from December 2016.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah... that's adorable.

That has been debunked so many times, that it's pathetic. Trump said he'd provide information, he never did. Add that to the long list of lies.

Birthers are the best.

Ok.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ari...23931057-story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlfo1jJCBrk
https://www.intellihub.com/obamas-bi...roven-forgery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frqVINnQjc
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/eviden...g-to-congress/

These are all from December 2016.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh... I'm gonna need a link on that.

Take 5

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ari...23931057-story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlfo1jJCBrk
https://www.intellihub.com/obamas-bi...roven-forgery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frqVINnQjc
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/eviden...g-to-congress/

These are all from December 2016.

[Paranoid Android]

This guy is the biggest piece of shit alive.

[Pantelija]

Obama, like Bush before him were not insane, fascist nor demagogues. Trump is all three.

That's a big difference.

I dont think you even know what those words mean

[Belize]

I
Take 5

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/ari...23931057-story
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlfo1jJCBrk
https://www.intellihub.com/obamas-bi...roven-forgery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8frqVINnQjc
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/12/eviden...g-to-congress/

These are all from December 2016.

Two youtubers, a pair site closer to Inforwars with its sentionalist and very clearly biased headlines than anything remotely credible (Intellihub/WND (LOL at the latter with it's article about Hillary having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, fantastic stuff)), a sheriff in Phoenix Arizona, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Truly the credible evidence everyone was looking for. You know, there's a guy on Youtube and Infowars that keep telling us Romney is part of the Lizardpeople. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH.

Anyways, laughing at your shit sources aside, that's a pretty nice conspiracy theory you've got there. I'll pin it next to Tower 7.

[Paranoid Android]

I take it this has been posted:

Intel report says US identifies go-betweens who gave emails to WikiLeaks

US intelligence has identified the go-betweens the Russians used to provide stolen emails to WikiLeaks, according to US officials familiar with the classified intelligence report that was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday.

[Kelz]

Two youtubers, a pair site closer to Inforwars with its sentionalist and very clearly biased headlines than anything remotely credible (Intellihub/WND (LOL at the latter with it's article about Hillary having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, fantastic stuff)), a sheriff in Phoenix Arizona, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Truly the credible evidence everyone was looking for. You know, there's a guy on Youtube and Infowars that keep telling us Romney is part of the Lizardpeople. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH.

Anyways, laughing at your shit sources aside, that's a pretty nice conspiracy theory you've got there. I'll pin it next to Tower 7.

Your source was also a youtube video from 2011. There is more evidence about Obama's birth certificate being fake than there is about Russia hacking the DNC and yet everyone believes that Russia hacked the DNC. Open your eyes buddy. The evidence is right there in front of you.

[Noxx79]

Your source was also a youtube video from 2011. There is more evidence about Obama's birth certificate being fake than there is about Russia hacking the DNC and yet everyone believes that Russia hacked the DNC. Open your eyes buddy. The evidence is right there in front of you.

Keep swallowing your fake news. It's much easier than thinking. Show actual proof buddy, open your eyes and realize that you're being lied to so you can stroke your feeble ego.

[Belize]

Your source was also a youtube video from 2011. There is more evidence about Obama's birth certificate being fake than there is about Russia hacking the DNC and yet everyone believes that Russia hacked the DNC. Open your eyes buddy. The evidence is right there in front of you.

My source? I never posted any youtube videos, friend.

Unless you're so deep into conspiracy shit, that you've memorized every video there is, and know exactly what I'm talking about with Romney.

[Beet]

Man I clicked thinking this would be hilarious but it's not even worthy of a smirk. Backpeddles furuously? Really OP? This is some clickbait garbage if I ever saw any.

[Kelz]

My source? I never posted any youtube videos, friend.

Unless you're so deep into conspiracy shit, that you've memorized every video there is, and know exactly what I'm talking about with Romney.

No I apologize, I replied to 3 different people and I just got mixed up with who I was replying to.

But the evidence is still there. After a 5 year long investigation, the document came back as a forgery based on 9 points conducted by two different people with no knowledge of one another and netted very similar results. The only evidence someone gave proving it was "debunked" was a youtube video from 2011.

infracted - forbidden topics

[schwarzkopf]

I dont think you even know what those words mean

I know what they mean - Trump fits all three. That's just the facts ..... denial of that facts is what got him elected.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

The article was quite accurate - Trump did appear to agree with Julian Assange's claim. On Dec 3, he posted one tweet about 'so-called "Russian hacking"', where both the "so-called" and the quotation marks indicate he does not believe Russia did hack (and the quotation marks over "Intelligence" are also a jibe at the intelligence community that will soon have to work for him).



On Dec 4, he posted his two tweets quoting Assange.

Now on Dec 6, he says it is "wrong" that he believes Assange's claim.

But to be fair to Donald, maybe he does and does not believe Assange's claim. Trump is quite capable of appearing to believe two opposite propositions, because he doesn't care about the truth[1]. The sad thing is that his supporters, such as you, don't care either.


[1] Where's the information he promised to give us on Tuesday or Wednesday, throwing new light on Russia's supposed hacking?

The article was quite accurate - Trump did appear to agree with Julian Assange's claim. On Dec 3, he posted one tweet about 'so-called "Russian hacking"', where both the "so-called" and the quotation marks indicate he does not believe it (and the quotation marks over "Intelligence" are also a jibe at the intelligence community that will soon have to work for him).



On Dec 4, he posted his two tweets quoting Assange.

Now on Dec 6, he says it is "wrong" that he believes Assange's claim.

But to be fair to Donald, maybe he does and does not believe Assange's claim. Trump is quite capable of appearing to believe two opposite propositions, because he doesn't care about the truth[1]. The sad thing is that his supporters, such as you, don't care either.


[1] Where's the information he promised to give us on Tuesday or Wednesday, throwing new light on Russia's supposed hacking?

Spare me the "The sad thing is that his supporters, such as you, don't care either".

I give you instead "The sad thing is that his defector, such as you, will look at everything, twist everything, to try to get him down."

I'd state again that I am not a republican and that the sole reason I supported Trump initially was to prevent a real, documented ethically challenged person to get in office, but that would probably go right over your collective heads.

I think it's fair to say the discussion on this topic will lead to nothing in the coming days. So bash one another as you want, I'll go back to commenting relevant information.

PS: My opinion remain unchanged. Trump has agreed with a claim of Assange, but did not state that he agreed with Assange as a whole. I agree with Assange and Wikileaks personally. It is possible for Trump to believe the evidence brought by Wikileaks, simply because the Intelligence agencies have not said that the podesta/DNC hack wasn't caused by Russian. Instead, they've claimed that Russia tried to tamper with the election. Repeatedly, they've failed to say it in a clear and direct way -- that's common when you try to change goalpost. Did Russia actually try to hack something in the elections? Perhaps, but it is not related to the e-mails.

The part I agree is that Trump's making his claim purposefully blurred, but then again that has been his method the whole election. Like Obama's and Clinton's, but I digress.