Intel: Russia has Compromising info on Trump.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

No, you don't know how Wikileaks operates. They're completely opaque. You have a better handle on how the IC works due to its place in elected government than you do about what goes on at Wikileaks. For an organization that loves taking away everyone else's privacy, they sure seem to think we should just trust them.

Being able to read, predict, write, publish and then see you do the exact envisionned answer, certainly makes me wonder if people here are more willing to pick a fight than ever agreeing to concede in the middle, or agree to disagree.

[Shadowmelded]

For an organization that loves taking away everyone else's privacy, they sure seem to think we should just trust them.

Trust them with our information if their database idea ever pans out. Not to mention they seem to be awfully anti-leak although only when it comes to Trump. Strange...

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Trust them with our information if their database idea ever pans out. Not to mention they seem to be awfully anti-leak although only when it comes to Trump. Strange...

PS: This is not a leak. Look the definition up

[Shadowmelded]

PS: This is not a leak. Look the definition up

What are you talking about? The 2 page report? The dossier? How else do you think the press got news of either?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

What are you talking about? The 2 page report? The dossier? How else do you think the press got news of either?

The link you sent explains a deliberate government decision. The illegal part comes about the administration's own rules, but the people implicated in this are immune. Per definition, this cannot be a leak, as the source is not anonymous and the "permission" was accorded.

The second part explain that by funnelling information to a media party, who then proceed to do a synthesis of it, mean that, when released in its editorialized form, the information is no longer raw but tainted of human bias.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I'm kind of lost on the whole alleged 'CIA sending information to NBC before Trump' thing. Where did this come from?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I'm kind of lost on the whole alleged 'CIA sending information to NBC before Trump' thing. Where did this come from?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...source-n703741

[Kaleredar]

Is the problem!

I judged Trump's positions and found them lacking in how they'd help anyone but himself and select few corporate individuals.

[Shadowmelded]

The link you sent explains a deliberate government decision. The illegal part comes about the administration's own rules, but the people implicated in this are immune. Per definition, this cannot be a leak, as the source is not anonymous and the "permission" was accorded.

The second part explain that by funnelling information to a media party, who then proceed to do a synthesis of it, mean that, when released in its editorialized form, the information is no longer raw but tainted of human bias.

So transparency is only permitted when done through Wikileaks? Not exactly comforting. Further the complaint that it's tainted by human bias kind of contradicts the idea that passing along the information is illegal. It's only illegal if it's top secret, which means it would be credible/vetted. So either it's true and they're breaking their own rules or the information is fabricated. Which is it? It can't be both. The addition of "before the PEOTUS sees it" just further cements the idea that they're running interference for Trump and/or the Kremlin (along with their sudden request for information damaging to the CIA that conveniently coincides with the CIA taking an interest in Trump's Kremlin ties.)

[starlord]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...source-n703741

"The official agreed to talk to NBC News after the Post published leaked details of the review because the official felt that the details the paper's report focused too much on the Russian celebration and not enough on the thrust of the report."
what?

[LaserSharkDFB]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...source-n703741

Okay, so... it looks like we have some staffers telling NBC some secondhand information about a report that would be made public the next day. I don't see any indication that this was an official CIA decision; in fact, the CIA isn't mentioned in this at all. And Trump may say he wasn't told about it, but given that he apparently doesn't like getting briefings, I take that with a grain of salt.

This honestly doesn't seem particularly out of the ordinary. You can say that it gets 'tainted with bias' when they publish the article, but that happens to all news all the time. Not really seeing any particular reason for complaint here.

[May90]

I won't quote, out of respect, all the people who did, but there's no doubt that there has been a huge US vs THEM going on in this thread. And take in consideration that one party is strongly on the defensive while the other is strongly on the offensive, which quite frankly leads to absolutely no

I mean, in the article, apparently. You don't get to attack the article for the way some people interpreted it, and you don't get to attack the company for that either.

[Shalcker]

You obviously do not have any idea on the war against ISIS. US is not directly involve in any major theatre there, and for good reason.

What?

This is from October:
Mosul offensive: officials confirm US troops are on the ground

This is from December:
U.S. forces embedding more to help Iraqis retake Mosul: commander
'Our coalition must endure': 5,000+ US troops embed with coalition forces to strike Mosul

You obviously have no idea.

[Elim Garak]

So this whole "Russian hackers hacked Trump" thing seems to be very popular in US media, what do you think they are distracting the American nation from? What else is going on behind the hysteria?

[callipygoustp]

[starlord]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WLbjBP38-0

oh wow i knew there were gonna be pee jokes but damn.

[Martinezzz]

[QUOTE=DeadmanWalking;44174361]Show us the proof it was debunked. Go ahead, link some actual facts.

[COLOR="#417394"][SIZE=1]

Show me that is true Show us the proof go ahead some actual facts . Did CNN tell you its true it must be then

[Mormolyce]

Enjoying your soon to come Trump presidency?

Immensely!

You know I don't live in America, yeah?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Immensely!

You know I don't live in America, yeah?

Same Canada FTW

[Breccia]

Okay, so... it looks like we have some staffers telling NBC some secondhand information about a report that would be made public the next day. I don't see any indication that this was an official CIA decision; in fact, the CIA isn't mentioned in this at all. And Trump may say he wasn't told about it, but given that he apparently doesn't like getting briefings, I take that with a grain of salt.

To supplement: Director of National Intelligence Clapper was specific in saying they didn't leak the info. There is, therefore, evidence that it was not an official CIA decision.

Plus the bolded of course. If you cut class, don't feign outrage because the test has material you skipped.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WLbjBP38-0

In case this is taken down, here's the source;

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l.../3454408?snl=1