Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Crispin]

NBC: Intel Officials Used Trump-Russia Memo as Example of ‘Unvetted Disinformation’

According to a report from NBC News, president-elect Donald Trump was not actually briefed on the unsubstantiated memo alleging links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and officials brought the two-page summary of the memo to his briefing to serve as an example of “disinformation.”
“Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period,” a senior official told NBC News. The reason they brought the memo, the official told them, was to provide examples for Trump of the difference between “analyzed intelligence and unvetted ‘disinformation.'” According to the official, they never had to use it.
The NBC report appears to contradict the Tuesday CNN report, which broke news of the memo’s existence. CNN reported that the memo was “presented” to Trump, and the reason for its inclusion was to “was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies.” The NBC report would appear to jibe however with assertions from Trump and Kellyanne Conway that Tuesday night was the first time they heard about the document.
According to NBC, intelligence chiefs also brought along examples of “disinformation” about Hilllary Clinton to present if they had to, but never did.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...e-trump-tower/

even the Intel Officials that had brought that document to the Trump Intel briefing did so to give an example of ‘Unvetted Disinformation’ fake fucking news

Breitbart, really?

[urasim]

Was in reply to this line.

What the fuck are you trying to say? Are you saying the the person who wrote the report knew first hand that there was a golden shower?

Do you maybe think that it's a second, third, or even twelfth hand story passed down until it was finally jotted down by an intelligence officer and leaked to the media? Can't believe you're willing to trust these people with nothing but hearsay at this point. Wait for the actual investigators to do their job.

Breitbart, really?

CNN, really? Both are equally shitty in my eyes.

[Baelic]

Hopefully they release it then.

One thing that bother me is people are more concerned with the russians guessing people's email passwords then they are with what was found.

They won't, why do you think Trump is being so lovey-dovey for Russia right now?

[Edge-]

Breitbart, really?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tr...alings-n705586

Original story.

CNN, really? Both are equally shitty in my eyes.

CNN is wildly unprofessional and pretty shit, but they aren't a fraction as bad as Breitbart. Like, not even close.

[Deleted]

What the fuck are you trying to say? Are you saying the the person who wrote the report knew first hand that there was a golden shower?

Do you maybe think that it's a second, third, or even twelfth hand story passed down until it was finally jotted down by an intelligence officer and leaked to the media? Can't believe you're willing to trust these people with nothing but hearsay at this point. Wait for the actual investigators to do their job.

Donald Trump: "Ok, first of all, these meetings, as you know, are confidential, classified. So I'm not allowed to talk about what went on in a meeting. But we had many witnesses in that meeting. Many of them with us. And I will say again, I think it's a disgrace that information would be let out. I saw the information. I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It did not happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents they got together -- sick people -- and they put that crap together."

It was first handed, by someone hired by the Republican opponents of Trump. All of this was reported.

[Skulltaker]

NBC: Intel Officials Used Trump-Russia Memo as Example of ‘Unvetted Disinformation’

According to a report from NBC News, president-elect Donald Trump was not actually briefed on the unsubstantiated memo alleging links between the Trump campaign and Russia, and officials brought the two-page summary of the memo to his briefing to serve as an example of “disinformation.”
“Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period,” a senior official told NBC News. The reason they brought the memo, the official told them, was to provide examples for Trump of the difference between “analyzed intelligence and unvetted ‘disinformation.'” According to the official, they never had to use it.
The NBC report appears to contradict the Tuesday CNN report, which broke news of the memo’s existence. CNN reported that the memo was “presented” to Trump, and the reason for its inclusion was to “was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies.” The NBC report would appear to jibe however with assertions from Trump and Kellyanne Conway that Tuesday night was the first time they heard about the document.
According to NBC, intelligence chiefs also brought along examples of “disinformation” about Hilllary Clinton to present if they had to, but never did.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...e-trump-tower/

even the Intel Officials that had brought that document to the Trump Intel briefing did so to give an example of ‘Unvetted Disinformation’ fake fucking news

Do they actually quote NBC? Citing them as a spurce?

[Vyxn]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tr...alings-n705586

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-vladimir-putin-compromising-intelligence-donald-trump-fabrication/

Multiple U.S. government and intelligence officials told CBS News on Tuesday that an addendum to the classified intelligence report on Russia’s efforts to interfere in the U.S. election contained unverified details of potentially compromising information that Russia has gathered on Mr. Trump.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-investi...ry?id=44693343

The dossier provides no back-up evidence, but the claims were hard to ignore, officials told ABC News. And the allegations gained currency in intelligence and law enforcement circles as Trump continued his unorthodox defense of Russian hacking and unrestrained praise of Putin.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...ign-and-russia

The brief, which NPR has seen but not independently verified, was given by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain to FBI Director James Comey on Dec. 9. Details from it have been part of presentations by Comey and other intelligence leaders to Trump, President Obama and key leaders in Congress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14U2QZ

Classified documents that the heads of four U.S. intelligence agencies presented last week to President-elect Donald Trump included claims that Russian intelligence operatives have compromising information about him, two U.S. officials said Tuesday evening.

They told Reuters the claims, which one called "unsubstantiated," were contained in a two-page memo appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that U.S. intelligence officials presented to Trump and President Barack Obama last week.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/10/russian-hacking-cnn-information-election-trump/96414062/

In the end, U.S. authorities determined that Trump needed to know the information, if he didn’t know its existence already, the official said, adding that the contents remained the subject of investigation. The official declined to comment on Trump's reaction to the presentation. And the president-elect, who has scheduled his first news conference Wednesday, did not immediately comment on the revelations.

It looks like plenty of major news organizations have not only gotten in on the story, but have themselves gotten confirmation by contacting sources themselves, directly contacting US officials.

Oh, and we all caught how Trump said he knew about this before the press conference, right? He admits the briefing is real. He admits that what CNN and Buzzfeed are reporting, did happen.

"Ok, first of all, these meetings, as you know, are confidential, classified. So I'm not allowed to talk about what went on in a meeting. But we had many witnesses in that meeting. Many of them with us. And I will say again, I think it's a disgrace that information would be let out. I saw the information. I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It did not happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents they got together -- sick people -- and they put that crap together. "

Donald Trump seems far more upset that the information was made public, than that it exists. But Trump flat-out admits that CNN reported on something that actually happened. Sorry, but CNN didn't make up the briefing report. Or the summary. If he's so convinced the information in that report was false, you'd think he'd be mad at the source. Until then, he's left wallowing in his own hypocrisy as leaked, but true, information is put out there for everyone to see.

It's going to be a fun four years.

If CNN did what any other journalist would have and should have done if they had any journalistic ethics and integrity left they wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot poll knowing that the contents of that report was nothing but made up bull crap, and putting it out there was nothing but an attempt to plant a seed of disinformation to damage Trump. it was blatant political partisanship and that is what makes CNN a fake news orginization because what they are doing isn't news anymore but propaganda

[Reeve]

CNN's reporting, which is being conflated, purposely by the Trump team, with Buzzfeed.

OK, since I'm not familiar with the CNN issue and CNN has a ton of stories I don't want to dig through to figure it out, could you give me a brief summary?

[Vyxn]

Breitbart, really?

my mistake gave the wrong address to the source

http://www.mediaite.com/election-201...isinformation/

is that better?

- - - Updated - - -

Do they actually quote NBC? Citing them as a spurce?

my mistake gave the wrong address to the source

http://www.mediaite.com/election-201...isinformation/

is that better?

[Machismo]

If CNN did what any other journalist would have and should have done if they had any journalistic ethics and integrity left they wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot poll knowing that the contents of that report was nothing but made up bull crap, and putting it out there was nothing but an attempt to plant a seed of disinformation to damage Trump. it was blatant political partisanship and that is what makes CNN a fake news site because what they are doing isn't news anymore but propaganda

And if it had been a report on Hillary, and they did nothing, people would be bashing CNN for not reporting it.

I know this, because it has happened countless times in recent months. People were complaining that CNN wasn't reporting enough on Wikileaks and Benghazi, even though the information was, and even still is unsubstantiated.

So, all those times that other sources made references to Benghazi, when they did not have confirmation of the evidence, was just as bad. Where were you then? Where were you when Fox news hinted that Hillary had something to do with Seth Rich's murder... they reported that just yesterday. Where is your outrage? Where's your anger for all the news reports that said Hillary killed 4 men in Benghazi, or that Obama had a birth certificate that could be false? Surely you were outraged by such blatant political partisanship, right? When Comey released his letter, and the entire world went ape shit, where was your outrage at the media for daring to report on it?

Going by the threads you started, you clearly support a double standard.

[NYC17]

If CNN did what any other journalist would have and should have done if they had any journalistic ethics and integrity left they wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot poll knowing that the contents of that report was nothing but made up bull crap, and putting it out there was nothing but an attempt to plant a seed of disinformation to damage Trump. it was blatant political partisanship and that is what makes CNN a fake news orginization because what they are doing isn't news anymore but propaganda

Holy hell, the complete self unawareness it takes for you or anyone who defends Trump's nonsense, to lecture anyone or anything else on ethics, especially after his pathetic display of a press conference earlier, is fucking mind numbing.

[urasim]

Donald Trump: "Ok, first of all, these meetings, as you know, are confidential, classified. So I'm not allowed to talk about what went on in a meeting. But we had many witnesses in that meeting. Many of them with us. And I will say again, I think it's a disgrace that information would be let out. I saw the information. I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It did not happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents they got together -- sick people -- and they put that crap together."

It was first handed, by someone hired by the Republican opponents of Trump. All of this was reported.

None of that says anything about first hand knowledge of the events written in the 2 page report. Do you know what first hand account means? It means they were there. They weren't there for the golden showers or the dealings with Russia. Not only are you wrong about the events or this story, but you're wrong about words and their meanings... You should quit now to save yourself from further embarrassment.

[Breccia]

According to a report from NBC News

I assume you mean this one?

Feel free to read the whole thing, but I think this part is the part in question:

" Two U.S. officials told NBC News that materials prepared for Trump in advance of last week's intelligence briefing included damaging allegations from the dossier — unverified by American intelligence agencies — about his dealings with the Russians.

Officials prepared a two-page summary of the dossier for Trump's briefing Friday at Trump Tower in New York.

Multiple officials say that the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, but the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

The briefers also had available to them unvetted "disinformation" about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump. "

You will notice that
1) NBC news does not, in fact, call the Trump information unvetted.
2) In fact, the NBC report says the information was investigated. It was, therefore, not unvetted.
3) The NBC report mentions information that was unvetted, but that was on the Clinton Foundation.
4) Trump did admit he saw the information. It was the first thing he said to respond to the first question he was asked.

What you have posted is an example of intentionally poor editing and misleading quoting. Please, read the NBC article yourself. Remember, there is a difference between "vet" and "verify"

[Deleted]

None of that says anything about first hand knowledge of the events written in the 2 page report. Do you know what first hand account means? It means they were there. They weren't there for the golden showers or the dealings with Russia. Not only are you wrong about the events or this story, but you're wrong about words and their meanings... You should quit now to save yourself from further embarrassment.

That's how intelligence services work. It doesn't change the fact that the report was first handed from the British investigator that compiled all the data. Trump saw it before it was released by Buzzfeed.

[DeadmanWalking]

What the fuck are you trying to say? Are you saying the the person who wrote the report knew first hand that there was a golden shower?

Do you maybe think that it's a second, third, or even twelfth hand story passed down until it was finally jotted down by an intelligence officer and leaked to the media? Can't believe you're willing to trust these people with nothing but hearsay at this point. Wait for the actual investigators to do their job.



CNN, really? Both are equally shitty in my eyes.

Breitbart is far shittier than CNN, If CNN reports a story wrong there are consequences, people get fired. If Breitbart reports a story wrong they pat each other on the back and line up for the noon circle jerk.

[Breccia]

If CNN did what any other journalist would have and should have done if they had any journalistic ethics and integrity left they wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot poll knowing that the contents of that report was nothing but made up bull crap, and putting it out there was nothing but an attempt to plant a seed of disinformation to damage Trump. it was blatant political partisanship and that is what makes CNN a fake news orginization because what they are doing isn't news anymore but propaganda

I have repeatedly posted, with links, that every major news organization in the US, and some international ones, have all reported this.

Even FOX reported on this. I linked it myself.

Your statement appears to be at odds with how actual journalism works.

[Vyxn]

And if it had been a report on Hillary, and they did nothing, people would be bashing CNN for not reporting it.

I know this, because it has happened countless times in recent months. People were complaining that CNN wasn't reporting enough on Wikileaks and Benghazi, even though the information was, and even still is unsubstantiated.

So, all those times that other sources made references to Benghazi, when they did not have confirmation of the evidence, was just as bad. Where were you then? Where were you when Fox news hinted that Hillary had something to do with Seth Rich's murder... they reported that just yesterday. Where is your outrage? Where's your anger for all the news reports that said Hillary killed 4 men in Benghazi, or that Obama had a birth certificate that could be false? Surely you were outraged by such blatant political partisanship, right? When Comey released his letter, and the entire world went ape shit, where was your outrage at the media for daring to report on it?

Going by the threads you started, you clearly support a double standard.

No what CNN would have done if a similar report was about Clinton they would have used journalistic ethics and tried to verify any of the contents and when they would find nothing can be verified and actually a lot of the claims are proven to be lies they would have reported that the document in question was disinformation and then used it as an example of fake news

[Deleted]

No what CNN would have done if a similar report was about Clinton they would have used journalistic ethics and tried to verify any of the contents and when they would find nothing can be verified and actually a lot of the claims are proven to be lies they would have reported that the document in question was disinformation and then used it as an example of fake news

The entire world reported about the document and it was proven to be true by Trump itself. Now the content of the documents are allegations that have to be confirmed or denied by the intelligence services and Trump himself.

[Machismo]

No what CNN would have done if a similar report was about Clinton they would have used journalistic ethics and tried to verify any of the contents and when they would find nothing can be verified and actually a lot of the claims are proven to be lies they would have reported that the document in question was disinformation and then used it as an example of fake news

They did report that the document was not verified. They were passed information from intelligence officials, that even Trump's team has confirmed. Not only that, John McCain said he passed information to the agencies, when it was handed to him.

Once again, how is it different than all those other instances of reporting, some of which you posted about? How is this different than the countless reports about Benghazi and e-mails? How is it different than the WMDs? How is it different than the reported stories of Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, or Flight 93? How was it different than the Obama birther issue?

[Vyxn]

I assume you mean this one?

Feel free to read the whole thing, but I think this part is the part in question:

" Two U.S. officials told NBC News that materials prepared for Trump in advance of last week's intelligence briefing included damaging allegations from the dossier — unverified by American intelligence agencies — about his dealings with the Russians.

Officials prepared a two-page summary of the dossier for Trump's briefing Friday at Trump Tower in New York.

Multiple officials say that the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, but the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

"Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

The briefers also had available to them unvetted "disinformation" about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump. "

You will notice that
1) NBC news does not, in fact, call the Trump information unvetted.
2) In fact, the NBC report says the information was investigated. It was, therefore, not unvetted.
3) The NBC report mentions information that was unvetted, but that was on the Clinton Foundation.
4) Trump did admit he saw the information. It was the first thing he said to respond to the first question he was asked.

What you have posted is an example of intentionally poor editing and misleading quoting. Please, read the NBC article yourself. Remember, there is a difference between "vet" and "verify"

Donald Trump Wasn't Told About Unverified Russia Dossier, Official Says

According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted "disinformation."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tr...alings-n705586