Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Feck]

.......A really big angry elephant on Viagra

[Forty Two]

https://www.rt.com/usa/412581-assange-cbs-bet-trump/

"CNN still refuses to address the huge, glaring obvious question: how did "multiple sources" all innocently get the same date on the same email wrong? And how/why did this also happen to MSNBC? What's the explanation for that?? http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/med" - Glenn Greenwald. http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/c ... index.html

[pErvinalia]

Glenn Greenwald has gone all conspiracy theorist in the last few years. I follow him on Twitter, and some of the shit he comes out with is pretty full on.

[Forty Two]

Video: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: Vladimir Putin "knows how to handle an asset and that's what he's doing with the President"

I guess James Clapper is just another untrustworthy, low-T, libtard, snowflake, beta cuck.

He testified more than once, under oath, that he - the former Director of National Intelligence - had seen zero evidence of any collusion with Russia. He also stated to NBC - "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report." Clapper also testified under oath as to why the original report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not include the so-called "Russian dossier" which cropped up weeks later in the Trump administration, Clapper said, "We couldn't corroborate the sourcing." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james ... le/2622452

The handling like an asset quote was, in clapper's own words, a "figurative" device to describe how Putin is acting -- Putin was a case officer for the KGB and "knows how to handle an asset." However, he was not suggesting that the President was a spy siphoning information to Russia, as an "asset" for an intelligence agency would be. It's not a meaningful statement, except as a descriptor of Putin's behavior.

But, if you think Clapper is to believed, then when he says that "there was no evidence..." and he has "seen no evidence..." do you believe him?

Also, I don't use the words cuck, snowflake, beta or Low-T - I haven't called anybody any of those words. Now, as for untrustworthy, people are to some extent trustworthy and to some extent untrustworthy. They have agendas, they have allegiances, they have good and bad memories, and good and bad abilities to narrate stories, some lie, some don't, some lie sometimes and tell the truth other times, sometimes people are mistaken. That's why reports need to be confirmed, and journalistic ethics are that we ought not blindly trust anonymous sources, or any sources, but especially anonymous ones. It doesn't matter to me if Clapper things Putin is treating the President like an asset. What matters to me is if Clapper says that Trump did something wrong, unethical, or illegal, also depending on the importance of the thing alleged.

[Forty Two]

Glenn Greenwald has gone all conspiracy theorist in the last few years. I follow him on Twitter, and some of the shit he comes out with is pretty full on.

I've never been a fan of Glenn Greenwald. However, the specific cite/comment that I posted does not depend on our belief in the veracity or sanity of Glenn Greenwald. it doesn't matter who said it. What Greenwald asked there is a good question. How could so many independent sources get the date wrong, across multiple news outlets, all of whom said they confirmed it. CNN said, for example, they had CONFIRMED the story.

So, the import is -- either the media is lying, or they are being lied to in a fairly expansive fashion and are being duped. Either way, who the fuck "confirmed" the story for them? Who are the anonymous sources? When anonymous sources fuck you in the ass, you get to disclose them. Why in the world would these assholes still be anonymous?

That's not proof of anything. It's a question that may have solid answers. However, it's a good question - these are good questions - and nobody is answering them.

[Seabass]

Video: Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: Vladimir Putin "knows how to handle an asset and that's what he's doing with the President"

I guess James Clapper is just another untrustworthy, low-T, libtard, snowflake, beta cuck.

He testified more than once, under oath, that he - the former Director of National Intelligence - had seen zero evidence of any collusion with Russia. He also stated to NBC - "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report." Clapper also testified under oath as to why the original report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election did not include the so-called "Russian dossier" which cropped up weeks later in the Trump administration, Clapper said, "We couldn't corroborate the sourcing." http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/james ... le/2622452

The handling like an asset quote was, in clapper's own words, a "figurative" device to describe how Putin is acting -- Putin was a case officer for the KGB and "knows how to handle an asset." However, he was not suggesting that the President was a spy siphoning information to Russia, as an "asset" for an intelligence agency would be. It's not a meaningful statement, except as a descriptor of Putin's behavior.

But, if you think Clapper is to believed, then when he says that "there was no evidence..." and he has "seen no evidence..." do you believe him?

Also, I don't use the words cuck, snowflake, beta or Low-T - I haven't called anybody any of those words. Now, as for untrustworthy, people are to some extent trustworthy and to some extent untrustworthy. They have agendas, they have allegiances, they have good and bad memories, and good and bad abilities to narrate stories, some lie, some don't, some lie sometimes and tell the truth other times, sometimes people are mistaken. That's why reports need to be confirmed, and journalistic ethics are that we ought not blindly trust anonymous sources, or any sources, but especially anonymous ones. It doesn't matter to me if Clapper things Putin is treating the President like an asset. What matters to me is if Clapper says that Trump did something wrong, unethical, or illegal, also depending on the importance of the thing alleged.

That was 2017 May when Clapper said he'd seen "no evidence of collusion" while working for the Obama administration. The investigation is ongoing, and is expected to run well into 2018.

Also, I don't use the words cuck, snowflake, beta or Low-T

Right. Your views just happen to be very similar to the views of those who do.

[Tero]

Robert Mueller Ascends Into Sky With Umbrella After Trump Family Promises They Learned Lesson About Honesty

https://politics.theonion.com/robert-mu ... 1821395781

[Forty Two]

That was 2017 May when Clapper said he'd seen "no evidence of collusion" while working for the Obama administration. The investigation is ongoing, and is expected to run well into 2018.

Also, I don't use the words cuck, snowflake, beta or Low-T

Right. Your views just happen to be very similar to the views of those who do.

No evidence yet produced - lots of bogus stories published, though, to the point of journalists getting suspended for publishing false reports that appeared to be just this kind of evidence.

What views? That anonymous sources need corroboration? That Clapper said he's not seen any evidence? What're you on about?

[Forty Two]

Robert Mueller Ascends Into Sky With Umbrella After Trump Family Promises They Learned Lesson About Honesty

https://politics.theonion.com/robert-mu ... 1821395781

Is that where Mueller is going to learn his lesson in honesty? Wasn't it Mueller who sent FBI agents to Iceland to try to get the Icelandic government to help frame Julian Assange? That was reported in the news, quotes from former Icelandic minister Ogmundurr Jonasson. Is that a report we should believe, or ought we scrutinize it and ask for evidence?

What about the reports that Mueller lied to the Senate committee, and the multiple whistleblowers coming out against him? Dennis Montgomery, etc. Do we believe those sources? Or, should we get some evidence?

Mueller is the stand-up guy, eh? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/co ... 940169cdc8

[Brian Peacock]

Nobody can be trusted, evah!

[Forty Two]

This is politics. Should I trust Jonasson? Why not?

[Brian Peacock]

You tell me.

[Forty Two]

No.

I find the allegation interesting, but before I believed it, I would need corroboration. The allegation is too general. It's interesting that he has attached his name (and reputation) to it, and there doesn't seem to be anything (at least as far as I know) that a former Icelandic minister would have to gain by making it up. But, quite frankly, it is a massively serious allegation -- possibly of a crime -- and as such, we should have some significant corroboration.

Now, you tell me, should we believe him? What if he was an anonymous source? Should we believe the anonymous source?

[Brian Peacock]

We've already rehearsed those arguments about whether or not media reports involving anonymous sources, or intelligence releases, or statements from the President's PR team, are categorical statements of truth or not. All along I've said that an independent inquiry is needed, and all along you've said that's impossible because someone else did something bad once, and reasons. If nobody can tell what the truth is then who cares about lies and liars?

[Forty Two]

First, I never said that there shouldn't, categorically, be an inquiry. I've said that to date nobody has presented a shred of evidence that there was any collusion, that the Russians did any hacking, that the Clinton and Podesta emails were hacked by the Russians, or that the Russians effected the election in some way.

Now, there are reasons to not have an inquiry - like, there isn't a credible allegation. And, in this case, there is reason to believe that the inquiry underway was precipitated by the Steele Dossier which was bought and paid for by Trump's political opponents. They claim the Russians hacked Hillary's emails to help Trump, but they didn't let the FBI analyze the server. Why? Normally, there needs to be probable cause to undertake a criminal inquiry, and just because someone's political opponents scream and yell unsupported allegations does not mean there should be an inquiry.l

That being said, we've had an inquiry for a year now, and still nothing.

Lastly, we've already rehearsed various arguments, but that wasn't the question was. The question was - do you believe Jonasson, and if so, why? If not, why not? Is his allegation enough to believe? Is it enough to start an inquiry? It's a serious allegation. Serious as fuck, if it's true. But, are such allegations enough to start inquiries? Are they enough for you to believe it?

And, oh, let's face it - you aren't jsut saying "there should be an inquiry to investigate these serious, but as yet unfounded, allegations." You think the allegations are true, don't you? You think the Russians hacked, and they did so to help Trump and Trump coordinated with them illegally, right? If not, why not? If so, why?