http://www.voanews.com/a/reports-russian-operatives-claim-to-have-compromising-information-on-trump/3671499.html
Here OP, Let me help:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
>Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
>The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.
>The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.
>One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.
....
http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-intelligence-chiefs-told-trump-that-russia-attempted-to-compromise-him/
>According to the breaking report, this information was presented to both men as part of the intelligence briefings they received on Russia’s hacking that was done to influence the election.
>In part of a two-page synopsis, it was shown that Russian officials claimed to have compromising personal and business information on Trump. Per CNN, the FBI is now currently looking at the credibility and accuracy of these allegations. It was also explained that this was separate from the intelligence report and only presented to those with the highest security clearance.
>The two-page document also showed allegations that there was communication between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government. CNN says they can confirm that this information was given to Trump, but they can’t confirm if it was actually discussed in the briefing.
>The synopsis is of a dossier that was prepared by an ex-British intelligence agent for the use of opposition research against Trump. Buzzfeed got a hold of the dossier and reported that many of the claims in it are unverified and may be impossible to verify. Also, it noted there were some errors in it.
>> The document was prepared for political opponents of Trump by a person who is understood to be a former British intelligence agent. It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors. The report misspells the name of one company, “Alpha Group,” throughout. It is Alfa Group. The report says the settlement of Barvikha, outside Moscow, is “reserved for the residences of the top leadership and their close associates.” It is not reserved for anyone, and is also populated by the very wealthy.
>Some of the claims in the dossier are that Trump allegedly hired prostitutes in Russia for kinky sex acts.
....
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
>>98754
You realize that's just a /pol/ false flag to discredit the government/media, right?
This just in. Hacktivist group ANONYMOUS will be releasing Donald Trump's "golden shower" video on Inauguration Day.
>>98765
There was something to the story before /pol/'s false flag. See >>98667
That part of the story came out long before.
>>98775
The CNN story in >>98751
is separate from the Buzzfeed story mentioned in >>98752. Although the Buzzfeed story claims to be related, there is no proof right now, only the fact that the allegations are similar to what /pol told Rick Wilson back during the campaign. Only James Comey apparently knows what's really going on.
>>98767
I want to see this so bad, but only if it doesn't totally sperg out Americans. Like, this should just be serious lulz, not a scandal -- plenty of other shit is there for scandals.
DT hiring hookers to pee on a bed just because Obama slept there? Totally sounds like something he'd do, and I'll laugh my ass off if true, but I'm kinda more concerned about a dysfunctional and inherently corrupt Cabinet and a petty vindictive Congress right now to consider it a scandal.
>>98735
Trump gave democrats plenty of dirt to use and still failed. What could they have that is more shit than what we are given daily?
>>98765
Oh they got dirt on him bad, filled our air waves with shit, forced our hand and played us like a fiddle. Now you cry Reichstag fire? Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
This just in, Trump's rating is now higher than Jesus Christ's!
>>98791
This just in Jesus Christ is dead, and everyone if fighting over his dead corps that they can't find.
Supplemental: Donald Trump shit the bed then had his picture taken smearing it all over his body.
>>98754
Hey thank for sharing.
>>98796
is this a jojo reference?
>>98775
>There was something to the story before /pol/'s false flag
No there wasn't. Rick, is that you?
It was a BS story someone made up and tried to pass off to Rick Wilson back in November. The CIA and the media both took the bait, and added their own "Russian hacker" bits to the story, which didn't even exist previously.
The "Intelligence Community's" just blew its credibility and its own legs off at the knees, and the media outlets that don't retract and denounce the stories are about to get libel-hole'd into bankruptcy.
>>98805
I just watched Rick on the MSNBC replay of the post-Obama speech commentary saying he heard about this in late 2015.
>>98806
>I just watched Rick on the MSNBC replay of the post-Obama speech commentary saying he heard about this in late 2015.
Yeah he's full of shit. Trump was barely even a factor at that point.
Still better than Clinton.
>>98791
I would imagine any platform he would want to run on would be really unpopular today, if the Bible is any suggestion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
>WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.
>The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.
>The two-page summary, first reported by CNN, was presented as an appendix to the intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking efforts during the election, the officials said. The material was not corroborated, and The New York Times has not been able to confirm the claims. But intelligence agencies considered it so potentially explosive that they decided Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump and congressional leaders needed to be told about it and informed that the agencies were actively investigating it.
>Intelligence officials were concerned that the information would leak before they informed Mr. Trump of its existence, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about it publicly.
>In an appearance recorded for NBC’s “Late Night With Seth Meyers,” Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, Kellyanne Conway, said of the claims in the opposition research memos, “He has said he is not aware of that.”
>Since the intelligence agencies’ report on Friday that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had ordered the hacking and leaks of Democratic emails in order to hurt his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, and help Mr. Trump, the president-elect and his aides have said that Democrats are trying to mar his election victory.
...
>The decision of top intelligence officials to give the president, the president-elect and the so-called Gang of Eight — Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress and the intelligence committees — what they know to be unverified, defamatory material was extremely unusual.
>The appendix summarized opposition research memos prepared mainly by a retired British intelligence operative for a Washington political and corporate research firm. The firm was paid for its work first by Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals and later by supporters of Mrs. Clinton. The Times has checked on a number of the details included in the memos but has been unable to substantiate them.
>The memos suggest that for many years, the Russian government of Mr. Putin has looked for ways to influence Mr. Trump, who has traveled repeatedly to Moscow to investigate real estate deals or to oversee the Miss Universe competition, which he owned for several years. Mr. Trump never completed any major deals in Russia, though he discussed them for years.
>The former British intelligence officer who gathered the material about Mr. Trump is considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia, American officials said. But he passed on what he heard from Russian informants and others, and what they told him has not yet been vetted by American intelligence.
>The memos describe sex videos involving prostitutes with Mr. Trump in a 2013 visit to a Moscow hotel. The videos were supposedly prepared as “kompromat,” or compromising material, with the possible goal of blackmailing Mr. Trump in the future.
>The memos also suggest that Russian officials proposed various lucrative deals, essentially as disguised bribes in order to win influence over Mr. Trump.
...
>The memos describe several purported meetings during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump representatives and Russian officials to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta.
>If some of the unproven claims in the memos are merely titillating, others would amount to extremely serious, potentially treasonous acts.
>One of the opposition research memos quotes an unidentified Russian source as claiming that the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was carried out “with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team.” In return, the memo said, “the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue” because Mr. Putin “needed to cauterize the subject.”
>Michael Cohen, a lawyer and adviser to Mr. Trump, also went to Twitter to deny a specific claim in the opposition research involving him. One of the memos claims that Mr. Cohen went to Prague in August or September to meet with Kremlin representatives and to talk about Russian hacking of Democrats.Michael Cohen, a lawyer and adviser to Mr. Trump, also went to Twitter to deny a specific claim in the opposition research involving him. One of the memos claims that Mr. Cohen went to Prague in August or September to meet with Kremlin representatives and to talk about Russian hacking of Democrats.
>Mr. Cohen tweeted on Tuesday night:
>>I have never been to Prague in my life. >#fakenews
>In addition, in a recent interview with The Times, one of the Russian officials named in the memo as having met with Mr. Cohen, Oleg Solodukhin, denied that he had met with Mr. Cohen or any other Trump representative.
>“I don’t know where that rumor came from,” Mr. Solodukhin, of the Russian organization Rossotrudnichestvo, which promotes Russian culture and interests abroad, said in a telephone interview.
>The Times reported before the election that the F.B.I. was looking into possible evidence of links between the Trump campaign and Russia. But the investigation surfaced again at a Senate hearing on Tuesday in a series of questions from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, to the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.
>Mr. Wyden, trying to draw Mr. Comey out on information he may have heard during a classified briefing, asked if the F.B.I. had investigated the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. Mr. Comey demurred, saying he could not discuss any investigations that might or might not be underway. Mr. Wyden kept pressing, asking Mr. Comey to provide a written answer to the question before Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20 because he feared there would be no declassification of the information once Mr. Trump took office.
>After the hearing, Mr. Wyden posted on Twitter:
>>Director Comey refused to answer my question about whether the FBI has investigated Trump campaign contacts with Russia
>The F.B.I. obtained the material long before the election, and some of the memos in the opposition research dossier are dated as early as June. But agents have struggled to confirm it, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.
>Allies of Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader from Nevada who retired at the end of the year, said the disclosures validated his call last summer for an investigation by the F.B.I. into Mr. Trump’s links to Russia.
...
>Democrats on Tuesday night pressed for a thorough investigation of the claims in the memos. Representative Eric Swalwell of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for law enforcement to find out whether the Russian government had had any contact with Mr. Trump or his campaign.
>“The president-elect has spoken a number of times, including after being presented with this evidence, in flattering ways about Russia and its dictator,” Mr. Swalwell said. “Considering the evidence of Russia hacking our democracy to his benefit, the president-elect would do a service to his presidency and our country by releasing his personal and business income taxes, as well as information on any global financial holdings.”
>>98813
If it was all consensual, then I would agree, on the condition that he asked Russia to release whatever dirt they wanted, then dismissed his cabinet nominees, and started from scratch as though he was interested in faithfully executing the charges of his office according to his own honest estimation of national interest without fear of whatever a foreign government could do to him (or his own business interest).
I would have a high opinion of him as a person and maybe as a president, no matter what other pervy shit he was into, if he did all that.
>2017
>falling for a honey trap
Or maybe he just didn't give a shit
Whether or not this is it, I don't think there's any question that they have dirt on Trump.
Trump has made numerous Trips to Russia on vacation and business and they have almost certainly spied on him and tapped his communications during that time.
Russia probably hacked the GOP as well and will use this information if and when the time comes.
>>98830
There's alot more to this current scandal than the golden showers story, and no one outside of buzzfeed has mentioned it.
>>98832
>There's alot more to this current scandal than the golden showers story, and no one outside of buzzfeed has mentioned it.
(Because it's bullshit)
>>98833
The pissing and hentai is bullshit but the rest isn't.
>>98751
I remember hearing about how buddy-buddy he wanted to be with Putin and thinking "The Russians probably have some dirt on him."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586626
>Furious Trump denies Russian 'leverage'
>US President-elect Donald Trump has reacted furiously to allegations that Russia has compromising material on him, saying Moscow has "never tried to use leverage on me".
>Mr Trump condemned US intelligence agencies for allowing "fake news" to "leak" into the public, asking: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?"
>The claims say his election campaign communicated with Moscow and also contain suggestions of prostitute use.
>Russia also angrily denied the claims.
>Dmitry Peskov, President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, said the allegations were "pulp fiction" and a "clear attempt to damage relations".
>Ten questions to ask Trump at his press conference
>In a series of tweets, Mr Trump said: "Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!
>"I win an election easily, a great "movement" is verified, and crooked opponents try to belittle our victory with FAKE NEWS. A sorry state!
>"Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"
>Mr Trump is due to hold his first news conference as president-elect later on Wednesday.
...
>Last week, US intelligence agencies reportedly presented the new claims - in the form of a two-page synopsis - to the president-elect, to President Barack Obama and to congressional leaders, CNN said on Wednesday.
>They were published in full by Buzzfeed the same day.
>Also last week, US intelligence agencies released another unclassified report saying Russia ran a hacking campaign to influence the US presidential elections.
Lawyer's denial
>Now separate reports circulating in US media say Russia has damaging information about the president-elect's business interests, and salacious video evidence of his private life.
>Among the claims included in the new 35-page dossier are that Trump aides were involved with the alleged Russian hack of the Democratic Party of his rival Hillary Clinton.
>Michael Cohen, a lawyer to Mr Trump named in the memos, has denied a specific claim that he went to Prague in August or September 2016 to meet Kremlin representatives to talk about the hacking.
>"I've never been to Prague in my life. #fakenews," he tweeted.
>US media suggest the videos were prepared as "kompromat" - compromising material collected about a politician or public figure in order to create a threat of negative publicity, if needed.
>The allegation that Mr Trump was vulnerable to blackmail and was being manipulated financially or otherwise is astonishing, says the BBC's Paul Wood in Washington.
...
>>98870
>Rick Wilson did not hear about this until X date
>t. Rick Wilson
This guy sure has proved to be a phenomenal source of information in the past, right?
The story is fucking retarded on it's face regardless, even excluding the logic of having a known germaphobe who doesn't even like shaking hands wanting to get pissed on by random hookers.
>In a campaign that was unprecedented, this goes to new extremes, our correspondent adds.
How this came to light
>The allegations began circulating in political and media circles in recent months.
>The BBC understands they are based on memos provided by a former British intelligence officer for an independent organisation opposed to Mr Trump in Washington DC. Sources say the CIA regards them as "credible".
>The original intention was to derail Mr Trump's candidacy, reports say.
>The BBC first saw the documents in October but has been unable to verify the claims included. Several material inaccuracies have been highlighted in them.
>However past work by the British operative was considered by US intelligence to be reliable, US media say.
>The existence of the documents was first reported by Mother Jones in October.
What we know already about Russia hacking claims
>US spy agencies say Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic Party emails during the presidential campaign.
>They say the order came from the Kremlin to sway the election for Mr Trump and away from his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
>But so far Mr Trump has failed to explicitly agree with the conclusions of the intelligence services. And he has condemned those who oppose good relations with Russia as "fools".
>Russia has denied any involvement in the hacks and accused the US of conducting a witch-hunt.
>>98878
What allegations? The ones that claim Russia maybe has dirt on Trump that the FBI is still working on verifying?
There is literally no story outside of "There may be a story", so what is the point? All this report says is that intel agencies told Trump about what's kicking around, and that they're trying to figure out what is and is not true. Wow, stunning revelation, how can Dumpfkins even compete!?
>>98885
>The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.
See where it says "in part" ?. That means everything they had was more than just what the mysterious former MI5 guy who was a friend of Rick's gave them.
>>98887
See where is says "allegations"? That means it's an unproven statement that still requires investigation and evidence to purport the claim.
>>98888
It's funny how the tone of your post sounds like a Hillary supporter trying to make excuses for Podesta's emails being on wikileaks.
>allegations
Ahh but we don't even know what's in the classified report yet. We've only seen the appendix. Rest assured, the truth will leak out one way or another, and no amount of explaining away or damage control from Trump, his fanboys, or Kelly-Ann Conway will prevent it from happening.
>>98891
That's great dude, and until that happens it's just a bunch of bull that people desperately wish was true.
>>98892
It has already happened, for Trump, Obama, and the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, some of which are probably currently the ones leaking the story to the press in the first place.
>>98893
To be fair, it isn't clear that Obama or Trump actually read the addendum part of the report. In fact the Washington Post specifically says Obama didn't read it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html
>In an interview with NBC News on Tuesday night, Obama said he had not seen the report and declined to comment on classified information.
>Obama had ordered the intelligence community to produce the report on Russian attempts to interfere in the presidential election, and it was completed this month.
>“My expectation and my hope is that this work will continue after I leave. That Congress, in possession of both the classified and unclassified reports, that the president elect and his administration, in possession of both the classified and unclassified reports, will take it seriously and now get to work reinforcing those mechanisms that we can use to protect our democracy,” he added.
>>98897
The WaPo story contradicts the CNN report:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEdbrpMviZw
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/11/the-problem-of-too-much-information/
>Writing for the New Republic in 2009 in a slightly different context, Lawrence Lessig stumbled onto a problem for American politics that has metastasized over the past 12 months.
>His subject was transparency, the sharing of information about what the government was doing at a massive scale. "We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse," he wrote. "And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness--will inspire not reform, but disgust. The 'naked transparency movement,' as I will call it here, is not going to inspire change. It will simply push any faith in our political system over the cliff."
>What Lessig worried might happen if huge amounts of information were made public was that people would either intentionally or unintentionally cherry-pick information to suit their political rhetoric. He used the example of people mis- or over-interpreting campaign contributions. A $2700 contribution from an individual to a member of Congress is a drop in a very large bucket, but rarely implies any real sense in which the politician is beholden to that person. Nonetheless, every election cycle sees a raft of critiques based on that relationship. That was why faith in the system would be undercut, he figured, since public information could be cobbled together to make nearly any political point.
>Lessig was writing only within the context of information produced by and about the government, but it's easy to see how the same concern ripples outward into the vast ocean of information that now exists online. It's easy, too, to guess what prompts our revisiting Lessig's essay: The release by BuzzFeed of a document full of unverified, sensational allegations against president-elect Trump.
...
>For weeks (or perhaps months) news outlets have been working to report on the claims made in the file (apparently compiled by a former intelligence officer) and to determine what the ramifications have been within the American intelligence community. BuzzFeed, arguing that "Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect," dropped the file without context or clarification about what might or could be true. (At least one of the more explosive allegations, about a Trump lawyer meeting with Russians in Prague, appears to have been debunked.)
>The document is full of a very particular type of information. Wired spoke with former agents who described it as human-based intelligence that is useful in raw form but requires a lot of sifting and validation. How trustworthy is the source? Has the source provided good information in the past? Is this someone with real information or just someone who reads the news and wants to pass along fabricated stories?
>"In this case," a former British intelligence officer told Wired, "the doc gives no indication that the company has done work to rigorously separate the two…and consequently it’s really hard to tell whether any of the info is actually true, or just a very exciting and expensively produced fan-fiction novel."
>There are clearly communities for whom that distinction is understood and not a reason to withhold the document from public view. The president of ProPublica defended its publication, in part because releasing it would "accelerate discovery of what in [the] dossier is true and what [is] not" -- as with that Prague meeting. A member of Congress told our Robert Costa that he was frustrated he only learned about the allegations after the BuzzFeed release.
...
>But both of those parties -- the media and elected officials -- have some desire and ability to parse what's true and untrue, to apply the necessary caveats and evaluate what should and shouldn't be considered factual. Looping back to Lessig's point, not everyone does.
>The Atlantic's David Graham points out that dumping the document without validation is an abdication of what BuzzFeed, as a media outlet, is supposed to do. Members of the press are provided with any number of rumors and allegations which they are then tasked with validating or debunking; it's rare when a rumor is published without that process having taken place. In the rush to compete in a splintered media environment, that process has often been curtailed, which is probably part of the reason why public confidence in the media has dipped. Report one-too-many incorrect or unverifiable rumors and trust in the rest of your reporting will decline.
>That doesn't mean that individuals considering the details of the BuzzFeed documents are better equipped to evaluate them. BuzzFeed's claim that Americans should "make up their own minds" about the rumors is patently ridiculous (as our Erik Wemple noted) simply because there's no realistic way for Americans to do so. If CNN couldn't verify whether or not these events took place, how could a random person on the street? Even assuming they wanted to; the most salacious story from the document is currently trending on Twitter simply because it's embarrassing to Trump, not because anyone has any particular reason to believe it.
>The broader problem for the media, though, is that many Americans feel as though they can evaluate information as ably as those who've spent decades immersed in the field.
...
>You've probably heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's the idea that you must have a certain amount of knowledge of a subject in order to know how little you know about it. In other words, the more incompetent you are at something, the less likely you are to be aware of that incompetence. We've seen a rash of amateur investigations of late, often motivated by political reasoning, that have had unwelcome results, with Pizzagate at the top of the list.
>Pizzagate -- the nonsensical idea that Hillary Clinton staffers were involved in a pedophilia ring operating in or near a D.C. pizza joint -- rose to national attention when a man entered the restaurant with a rifle to free children that the internet had convinced him were being enslaved there. They weren't, and his investigation of the rumors demonstrated that to be the case. "The intel on this wasn’t 100 percent," the man later told a reporter, which is actually totally wrong: The intel was 100 percent, it just made clear that the thing he believed and hoped to be true -- that the conspiracy existed and that he could help curtail it -- wasn't accurate. His "self-investigation" of the rumors gave him unwarranted confidence in his ability to evaluate the information presented, though that information was the worst sort of cherry-picking: bizarre assumptions made on emails, weird assertions about iconography at restaurants and so on. So much information was available about the pizza place and the Clintons that amateur sleuths could draw a line from there to child slavery, if they wanted to.
>Think of the shed in "A Beautiful Mind," where Russell Crowe's John Nash picks out individual letters from news articles and connects them with thread in elaborate patterns. Now imagine if he could post his results on the internet and build off of the threaded walls of thousands of other people.
...
>Writing about that Pizzagate self-investigation, Jonathan Mahler of the New York Times noted that the distribution of information that defines the internet and allows it to get around roadblocks works for good and bad.
>[S]omewhere along the way, the democratization of the flow of information became the democratization of the flow of disinformation. The distinction between fact and fiction was erased, creating a sprawling universe of competing claims. The internet can’t route around censorship when the people who use it remain in their own closed information loops, which is nothing more than self-imposed censorship.
>That's what happened here. The media has long served as an imperfect gateway blocking bad information, but thanks to the splintered media environment and social media, those walls have washed away. The press was working to suss out what was and wasn't worth reporting from that dossier of claims, but the internet routed around that holdup, in the form of BuzzFeed. There are some benefits to that. That doesn't mean it was good to do.
>At some point, we need to figure out how to solve this problem, how to better teach people to fairly evaluate information that's presented to them and to set aside, as necessary, their partisan inclination to believe the worst about their opponents. We're still new at this "everyone can access everything and draw their own conclusions" thing, clearly, and, for all of his frustrations today, it has largely served to Trump's benefit. The "fake news" ecosystem in which website publish nonsense to drive ad revenue is the most extreme version of the problem.
>But it is by no means the whole problem.
>>98941
lol you must be new here
>>98941
Lurk more, retard
Our media is seriously damaging the government right now. Good on Trump for calling them out. When we pass laws banning this sort of liberal filth from places like CNN or Gallup, along with firing the whole CIA, NSA, and FBI, then we can move forward and make America great again.
>>98912
>You've probably heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Why do liberals always bring this up? So called "experts" have fucked over this country. It's time for the common man Joe to rise up and make America great again.
>>98893
>probably currently the ones leaking the story to the press in the first place.
That's what Trump said today in his press conference.
>>98735
Russia does have dirt on Trump. The only real question is how much.
>>98735
>voanews
How ironic.
>>99115
Yes.
Any nation as interested in another nation of similar standing in the world (for security intelligence/diplomatic reasons) would undoubtedly be a pathetic nation for NOT having a file on someone like Trump.
As you point out
- what do they have?
- is any of it bad?
- how bad is it?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/politics/james-clapper-donald-trump/
>The US director of national intelligence has denied that the intelligence community leaked claims that Russia holds compromising personal and financial information on President-elect Donald Trump.
>In an unusual statement on Wednesday evening that highlighted tensions between spy chiefs and the incoming president, James Clapper, a key adviser to the US President on security and intelligence, rejected a suggestion by Trump that the agencies were responsible for the story going public.
>Clapper said he told Trump that intelligence agencies made no judgement about the reliability of the allegations.
>The claims were summarized in a two-page synopsis prepared for Trump and Barack Obama ahead of a national security briefing last week. Clapper's statement amounted to the first public confirmation from a US official of CNN's story that the synopsis existed and had been put together for the President, President-elect and eight Congressional leaders.
>In his first press conference as President-elect on Wednesday, Trump railed on the US intelligence agencies, suggesting they were responsible for leaking the "nonsense" to the media. Any such move by the agencies would be a "tremendous blot on their record," he said.
>Before speaking with reporters, Trump went further in his attack. He said in a tweet: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"
...
>>98765
nigga please.
everything is a falseflag when its something you dont like
face it - you elected Putins little bitch and now Russia is going to start WW3.
Good jorb Americucs.
>>99018
Yeah, the common, international brand tycoon millionaire con- man!
When will Americans stop expecting the federal government to solve their personal issues?Protip: Never
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/opinions/intelligence-russian-trump-opinion-dowling-handley/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Top+Stories%29
>>99404
Being this dumb
>>100005
>you're dumb because you don't believe my propaganda!
>>98735
Seriously? Trump might be a Trojan Horse for Russia? Puh-leeze! The Russia propaganda was crafted to help Clinton divert attention away from the Podesta emails!
>>100361
>The Russia propaganda was crafted to help Clinton
What kind of bait is this?
>>100391
Pretty sure it's meant to be a joke, hence "Puh-leeze!" which I have never seen used outside of parody.
Then again we've hit the point where real, parody, and false flag opinions are all identical looking in their ridiculousness.
>>100391
There is absolutely no evidence that Putin is a thug and has had oppostion killed.. This is all just a conspiracy theory.. Putin is a statesman with high morals and discipline. He is not a clown like Obama . Crimeans have the right to rejoin Russia if they want and they voted to do so... so please get your facts straight.. What you hate democracy and self determination?
>>100391
Democrats would rather have WW3 than admitting their lies
>>101305
>>Hurr durr durr democrats hurr durr hurr
CNN:
>Trump is Nixon
FOX:
>Trump is Reaga... wait guys, we can do one better. He's really just like :O EISENHOWER! :U why didn't we see it before??!
MSNBC:
>Trump is literally time-traveling Hitler in makeup and a shitty wig
>>101315
Breitbart:
>Guys I think we can do EVEN BETTER: Trump is ABRAHAM LINCOLN my god we are geniuses
Huffington Post:
>Trump is the unholy fusion of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao; forged in the dark fires of Mordor by Emperor Palpatine on the behest of Satan
Every president is dirty. Why would Trump be any different? At least he doesn't keep using "God" as an excuse like the Bush's. Jesus Christ..
>>101434
>Why would Trump be different?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-most-powerful-vice-president
>>98735
>voanews.com
Lel, getting news from a literal propaganda machine.
I can see the Russians looking at Trump favorably just because he didn't want to nuke people who are not his enemies.