Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Vyxn]

It's just absolutely adorable that you're relying upon an NBC anonymous source for your information. How progressive of you.

- - - Updated - - -



CNN's multiple sources didn't leak the question to the Clinton camp. Donna Brazile did.

What happened to personal accountability?

and how did Bazile get the questions she wasn't on the CNN debate committee ?

- - - Updated - - -

Which intelligence officials are to be believed? Denying things happened make it so much easier.

you tell me? you had no problem believing all of them on the Russian email hacking

[bergmann620]

I know reading comprehension can be hard sometimes

President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tr...alings-n705586

Thanks for the condescension- it pairs well with my bagel for breakfast.

Alas, what we have here appears to be 'conflicting reports'. CNN has multiple sources that say he was briefed, and others have at least one source, but there is a single source saying he wasn't. Being that none of us know any of these sources, we have a few choices:

1) We believe none of them.
2) We believe the one or ones that represent the 'side' of the narrative we want to shill for.
3) We believe the majority of sources, which back CNN.

Any other choice is logically inconsistent.

Yet and still, the only way you can say CNN presented 'fake news' or that they're 'lying' is if you believe they had no sources, and made their story up out of whole cloth. Of course, unless you have some evidence, to put that forward would be just more 'fake news'.

(Lastly, being that the full 35-page dossier has been floating around in some form for months, and it appears to have been widely disseminated amongst the upper echelons, if Trump and his team hadn't seen it months ago, they are wholly incompetent.)

[Machismo]

Funny thing is 113 pages about stuff thats not true, alot of this is all those butt hurt by the loss still cant get over it and it gives them something to cry about, blame, whatever.. all it does is take away from other news thats not fake and needs to be discussed.

What part of the CNN report was "fake news?"

[ati87]

What part of the CNN report was "fake news?"

They are trying to change the meaning of what fake news is.

Fake news is something that's made up for us normal people but since the left doesn't do that they are trying to change to meaning to all news that may or may not turn out to be correct.

[Daelak]

They are trying to change the meaning of what fake news is.

Fake news is something that's made up for us normal people but since the left doesn't do that they are trying to change to meaning to all news that may or may not turn out to be correct.

Exactly. They don't want to be held liable for the weakening of liberal democracies just yet, because they aren't sure their side is safe once freedom of the press is taken away.

[Vyxn]

Thanks for the condescension- it pairs well with my bagel for breakfast.

Alas, what we have here appears to be 'conflicting reports'. CNN has multiple sources that say he was briefed, and others have at least one source, but there is a single source saying he wasn't. Being that none of us know any of these sources, we have a few choices:

1) We believe none of them.
2) We believe the one or ones that represent the 'side' of the narrative we want to shill for.
3) We believe the majority of sources, which back CNN.

Any other choice is logically inconsistent.

Yet and still, the only way you can say CNN presented 'fake news' or that they're 'lying' is if you believe they had no sources, and made their story up out of whole cloth. Of course, unless you have some evidence, to put that forward would be just more 'fake news'.

(Lastly, being that the full 35-page dossier has been floating around in some form for months, and it appears to have been widely disseminated amongst the upper echelons, if Trump and his team hadn't seen it months ago, they are wholly incompetent.)

and do we have a name of that source? what makes you think they wouldn't make it up or some of it up then claim they got it from a source but gives no names for it to be confirmed?
CNN has already proven they are unethical by not once but twice giving the Clinton camp debate questions

[bergmann620]

and do we have a name of that source? what makes you think they wouldn't make it up or some of it up then claim they got it from a source but gives no names for it to be confirmed?
CNN has already proven they are unethical by not once but twice giving the Clinton camp debate questions

If that's the game we're playing, Trump has proven himself unethical thousands of times and should be impeached 10 minutes after being sworn in.

[Machismo]

and do we have a name of that source? what makes you think they wouldn't make it up or some of it up then claim they got it from a source but gives no names for it to be confirmed?
CNN has already proven they are unethical by not once but twice giving the Clinton camp debate questions

Then call them out for exactly that, those employees being shills for Hillary.

Consistency is awesome, you should try it. You wanted to bitch and whine that CNN posted an article about an unverified document, yet you posted multiple articles that focused on unverified information? How do you explain your hypocrisy?

Now, you said if I gave you examples, you would answer. I gave you examples, and yet, you refused to answer. Not only are you a hypocrite, you are also a liar.

Here are some articles you posted about unverified sources of information:

http://www.mediaite.com/election-201...sed-cia-names/

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/repo...-email-server/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...linton-emails/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-ci...erally-lethal/

Not only were you not outraged by the media outlets' actions, you actually posted it...

Seriously, the hypocrisy is astounding.

[DeadmanWalking]

President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/tr...alings-n705586


so who should I believe? that is a tough one should I believe the network that not once but twice unethically passed on debate questions to the Clinton campaign or NBC

- - - Updated - - -



Trump said he was told but later and not by the intel officials like CNN claimed

Because Trump would totally not lie when his ego gets bruised and feels something makes him look bad. *rolls eyes* You need to stop mainlining Trumpisms because it isn't a good substitute for heroine.

- - - Updated - - -

and do we have a name of that source? what makes you think they wouldn't make it up or some of it up then claim they got it from a source but gives no names for it to be confirmed?
CNN has already proven they are unethical by not once but twice giving the Clinton camp debate questions

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/opinio...ley/index.html

I'll also note that Megan Kelly claimed Fox news gave answers to Trump before the Fox nominee debate and that they tried to poison her before the debate so she couldn't ask Trump hard questions in her book.

[NYC17]

Oh wait, it's fine guys. In a 6am Twitter tantrum the next POTUS said Russia says they have nothing, and as you know, Russia is irreproachable on these matters.

Yes, the next POTUS, who days ago finally admitted he thinks Russia was behind the hacking, used Russia as a source of proof that Russia has nothing on him. This is where we are now.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...ims-whitehall/

So it seems that after Russia, it's time for the UK to drag themselves in the US politics, by feeding the FBI information.

Interesting turn of events.

[Miztickow]

Biden confirmed that intelligence agencies told Obama and Trump about the unconfirmed report. That doesn't mean the report is true, it means that the briefing happened, which is what CNN reported.

This isn't hard people. It is factual that intelligence agencies came to Barack and Dump and said, "Look, there is this report, it may or may not be true, but we feel it is important enough that you need to know that this report exists." and that's exactly what CNN reported, that the briefing happened.

In the original breaking story they didn't mention buzzfeed, buzz did its thing after their report. They didn't mention any of the details in the uncorroborated story, just that the uncorroborated story was presented to the presidents, which is entirely factual and confirmed by the VP Biden.

Why this is so hard to understand I do not know.

I think they understand it, but they are just grasping at straws, looking for any reason to say "FAKE NOOS!"

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wait, it's fine guys. In a 6am Twitter tantrum the next POTUS said Russia says they have nothing, and as you know, Russia is irreproachable on these matters.

Yes, the next POTUS, who days ago finally admitted he thinks Russia was behind the hacking, used Russia as a source of proof that Russia has nothing on him. This is where we are now.

In the same press conference a couple minutes after admitting that it was probably Russia, he says he doesn't know, it could be someone else.

[Paranoid Android]

It's just absolutely adorable that you're relying upon an NBC anonymous source for your information. How progressive of you.

Weird? I remember when NBC was lefty/liberal news.

[Vyxn]

She guessed it.
She guessed that a debate in Flint would contain questions about their water.

she guessed the question verbatim word for word? Nice try

[DeadmanWalking]

I think they understand it, but they are just grasping at straws, looking for any reason to say "FAKE NOOS!"

- - - Updated - - -



In the same press conference a couple minutes after admitting that it was probably Russia, he says he doesn't know, it could be someone else.

He looked stunned when the reporter quoted him on that, because he didn't want to say it. He has been peddling this line it wasn't Russia because it would make him look bad and he attacks anything that makes him look bad, and he admitted it because his brain was switched to the off position for a moment.

Also "CNN made this crap up." and "The intelligence agents leaked it." How does an intelligence agency leak something that a news company 'made up'? It's the chicken and the egg, either CNN made it up or the Intelligence agency leaked it, can't be both as it's not physically possible.

- - - Updated - - -

she guessed the question verbatim word for word? Nice try

Yes, one has to guess the question word for word because it is impossible to know that having an event in Michigan would result in a question about the water in flint because nobody is talking about it. *rolls eyes*

Now you are just trying to fill dead air while grasping at straws.

[Vyxn]

Then call them out for exactly that, those employees being shills for Hillary.

Consistency is awesome, you should try it. You wanted to bitch and whine that CNN posted an article about an unverified document, yet you posted multiple articles that focused on unverified information? How do you explain your hypocrisy?

Now, you said if I gave you examples, you would answer. I gave you examples, and yet, you refused to answer. Not only are you a hypocrite, you are also a liar.

Here are some articles you posted about unverified sources of information:

http://www.mediaite.com/election-201...sed-cia-names/

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/repo...-email-server/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...linton-emails/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-ci...erally-lethal/

Not only were you not outraged by the media outlets' actions, you actually posted it...

Seriously, the hypocrisy is astounding.

you are left with a choice do you believe NBC or do you believe CNN not hard of a choice because CNN has proven to be unethical

[Miztickow]

He looked stunned when the reporter quoted him on that, because he didn't want to say it. He has been peddling this line it wasn't Russia because it would make him look bad and he attacks anything that makes him look bad, and he admitted it because his brain was switched to the off position for a moment.

Also "CNN made this crap up." and "The intelligence agents leaked it." How does an intelligence agency leak something that a news company 'made up'? It's the chicken and the egg, either CNN made it up or the Intelligence agency leaked it, can't be both as it's not physically possible.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, one has to guess the question word for word because it is impossible to know that having an event in Michigan would result in a question about the water in flint because nobody is talking about it. *rolls eyes*

Now you are just trying to fill dead air while grasping at straws.

The Senators on the "Intelligence" Committee leaked it. They did the same thing when Comey told them about Anthony Wiener's e-mails.

[Vyxn]

Weird? I remember when NBC was lefty/liberal news.

it is same as CNN but like I have already posted you are left with a choice which one to believe when you have conflicting articles you go with the one that didn't pass one not once but twice debate questions to the Clinton camp proving they are unethical

[DeadmanWalking]

you are left with a choice do you believe NBC or do you believe CNN not hard of a choice because CNN has proven to be unethical

Allow me to educate you on the nature of 'word for word question'.

"One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash," Brazile emailed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director.
Brazile added: "Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint."
That exact question was not asked the next night at the debate in Flint, Michigan. But Mikki Wade, a public-housing program manager who subsequently said in an interview that her son had developed a rash from the contaminated water, asked Clinton about the situation with the water in Flint.
"If elected president, what course will you take to regain my trust in government?" Wade asked.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donna...debate-2016-10

So no, it wasn't word for word, but you keep grasping at desperation straws. You only prove everyone else right.

[Machismo]

you are left with a choice do you believe NBC or do you believe CNN not hard of a choice because CNN has proven to be unethical

I'm not left with a choice. Personally, I don't find either to be ethical, so that's besides the point. I have looked at the information, and I will agree with the assessment from Fox News and Shepard Smith. CNN reported on a legitimate story, and fulfilled journalistic standards.

You still haven't answered my question about those other articles about unverified information. Were you outraged about the media sources... while you were posting them?

Thanks for proving my point.