President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

InTheTrees

aloyisious wrote: »

Taa OK. I was wondering why a journalist would with-hold "information" worthy of a story.

Watching the news that's true on Fox. Rice has denied she leaked anything, GOP senators asking for investigation of Rice "unmasking".

A simple illustration of "Unmasking":

NSA tells the FBI it has intercepted a message from an ISIS terrorist saying "We're going to kill <american citizen> next week".

The FBI asks the NSA to unmask te american citizens name. Unmasking is simply revealing the american citizen's name. It is very common, and very necessary.

It doesn't mean anything was leaked.

Igotadose

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You won't be missed around here anyway.

I think our Trump supporters are losing it. We've got the best one of the bunch swearing online and getting banned for a day, and another one quitting in a huff. Perhaps they're seeing the truth. Another one's migrated to the Brexit thread.

Seems a shame, I did learn things from all of them - not necessarily GOOD things, but it didn't feel like a complete waste of time engaging them. And at least 1 roots for and posted good articles about my favorite US football team on another thread. Plus they're parroting Breitbart a lot these days, seems like their better online sources of deflection and lies have dried up too.

I wonder if this is all part of Trump being so unpopular, the conscious subset of his supporters is looking in the mirror and not liking what they see, they come to a discussion forum like this one and their anger really doesn't get them through the discussions anymore.

Perhaps that'll bode well in the 2018 midterms. It'll be interesting to see how Newt Gingrich's old seat does in the special election to replace that madman running the EPA.

listermint

On the chemical attack, the first thing Spicer did was blame Obama.

So there, that demonstrates the level of diplomacy you will expect from a trump white house

Yourself isit

InTheTrees wrote: »

A simple illustration of "Unmasking":

NSA tells the FBI it has intercepted a message from an ISIS terrorist saying "We're going to kill <american citizen> next week".

The FBI asks the NSA to unmask te american citizens name. Unmasking is simply revealing the american citizen's name. It is very common, and very necessary.

It doesn't mean anything was leaked.

But information was leaked. Also why would susan rice know about this particular information?

Really Interested

Yourself isit wrote: »

But information was leaked. Also why would susan rice know about this particular information?

So information was leaked, Trump loves leaks.

But unless you have evidence Rice leaked nothing. She knew of the unmasking because she in her role asked for certain names to be disclosed to her. When asked about it she correctly denied as to tell of the fact that unmasking was done may have been leaking. That was done by the WH.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/susan-rice-denies-leaking-trump-associate-intel-defends-unmasking-requests.amp.html

In fact the only leaking seems to come from the WH. My bet Trumps nearest and dearest.

Chips Lovell

Please remember to stay on topic. Discussion of banned posters or those who've closed their accounts isn't part of this debate.

Thanks

aloyisious

InTheTrees wrote: »

A simple illustration of "Unmasking":

NSA tells the FBI it has intercepted a message from an ISIS terrorist saying "We're going to kill <american citizen> next week".

The FBI asks the NSA to unmask te american citizens name. Unmasking is simply revealing the american citizen's name. It is very common, and very necessary.

It doesn't mean anything was leaked.

So if you're the Nat Sec Advisor to the President and you hear of a foreign power sending messages to US domestic IT servers and you ask, so you can properly fulfil that role, for the I/D's of the domestic users, you are "unmasking" some-one?

Following that logic I suppose, if it's correct, there should be no information sharing at all between the staff of US domestic and foreign Int & Sec agencies, to prevent "unmasking" and leaking, even if the result is a US secure from leaks but holed below the waterline when it comes to stopping foreign powers infiltrating and subverting US domestic affairs at will.

Yourself isit

Really Interested wrote: »

So information was leaked, Trump loves leaks.

But unless you have evidence Rice leaked nothing. She knew of the unmasking because she in her role asked for certain names to be disclosed to her. When asked about it she correctly denied as to tell of the fact that unmasking was done may have been leaking. That was done by the WH.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/04/susan-rice-denies-leaking-trump-associate-intel-defends-unmasking-requests.amp.html

In fact the only leaking seems to come from the WH. My bet Trumps nearest and dearest.

Trump leaked when he wasn't in power? And he leaked evidence about himself or his team.

Yourself isit

aloyisious wrote: »

So if you're the Nat Sec Advisor to the President and you hear of a foreign power sending messages to US domestic IT servers and you ask, so you can properly fulfil that role, for the I/D's of the domestic users, you are "unmasking" some-one?

Following that logic I suppose, if it's correct, there should be no information sharing at all between the staff of US domestic and foreign Int & Sec agencies, to prevent "unmasking" and leaking, even if the result is a US secure from leaks but holed below the waterline when it comes to stopping foreign powers infiltrating and subverting US domestic affairs at will.

I like the way she "heard about it" rather than went looking for it.

And in fact this information was not shared between agencies until Obama made an order at the end of his presidency allowing raw intelligence to be shared.

It's interesting that people are now OK with most people being surveilled

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

The only argument that has been put forward about Russia influencing the election so far is that they hacked the DNC's emails. Those emails were factually correct and their effect on the election result is too hard to quantify. Maybe the emails changed no ones mind on who to vote for, and again, if the emails really did change some people's mind, the emails were true anyway. I don't see what the big deal is.

I would like to read anything that proves Trump was colluding with Russia and it helped him win the election. Until there's any proof of this it feels like a witch hunt.

---

On a separate note about Trump. His credibility is so low that he can order China to sort out North Korea or he will go to war with Pyongyang, yet nobody really cares. If Obama or Bush or Clinton had threatened North Korea with war it would be the top story around, but because it's Trump, people/reporters/tv pretty much take it with a pinch of salt and don't really know if what he's saying is the truth or a lie.

Really strange times...

CMOTDibbler

Really Interested wrote: »

So information was leaked, Trump loves leaks.

In fact the only leaking seems to come from the WH. My bet Trumps nearest and dearest.

If I may quote Sir Humphrey Appleby?

"The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top".

Zubeneschamali

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I would like to read anything that proves Trump was colluding with Russia and it helped him win the election. Until there's any proof of this it feels like a witch hunt.

The FBI are investigating. They are not going to release evidence that might be used in court.

When they progress to charges and court cases, we may see the evidence.

CMOTDibbler

Yourself isit wrote: »

I like the way she "heard about it" rather than went looking for it.

And in fact this information was not shared between agencies until Obama made an order at the end of his presidency allowing raw intelligence to be shared.

It's interesting that people are now OK with most people being surveilled

You'd assume that the National Security Adviser has enough on their plate than to instigate snark hunts. OTOH, a lot of reports from the various security agencies would cross their desks. I would assume that this is how they "hear" about things.

As for most people being surveilled. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't foreign agents from diplomatic staff to "diplomatic staff" being routinely surveilled? And if they were making contact with US citizens, those contacts would be picked up routinely?

Leroy42

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The only argument that has been put forward about Russia influencing the election so far is that they hacked the DNC's emails. Those emails were factually correct and their effect on the election result is too hard to quantify. Maybe the emails changed no ones mind on who to vote for, and again, if the emails really did change some people's mind, the emails were true anyway. I don't see what the big deal is.

I would like to read anything that proves Trump was colluding with Russia and it helped him win the election. Until there's any proof of this it feels like a witch hunt.

Really? Have you read nothing on these pages. Demfad has provided serious amounts of information in this regard. IT is true that there is no smoking gun, but the amount of smoke is quite incredible.

The mere fact that Trump, through Spicer etc, is focusing on who leaked rather than denying the content is telling wouldn't who say? This is something that Trump can pretty easily sort out. He has the power to release all the intel. He can demand that the GOP carry out their House investigation ASAP.

But he doesn't seem to want that. If I was being alleged to have colluded with a foreign power I would want to clear my name pretty quickly. Trump seems more interested in shutting down the investigations and redirecting them to focus on the leaks, of HC or Obama.

None of that of course, proves he has done anything, but you can't say that the only argument is the DNC hacking. That is either wholly ignorant or wilfully disingenuous.

Professor Moriarty

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The only argument that has been put forward about Russia influencing the election so far is that they hacked the DNC's emails. Those emails were factually correct and their effect on the election result is too hard to quantify. Maybe the emails changed no ones mind on who to vote for, and again, if the emails really did change some people's mind, the emails were true anyway. I don't see what the big deal is.

I would like to read anything that proves Trump was colluding with Russia and it helped him win the election. Until there's any proof of this it feels like a witch hunt.

---

On a separate note about Trump. His credibility is so low that he can order China to sort out North Korea or he will go to war with Pyongyang, yet nobody really cares. If Obama or Bush or Clinton had threatened North Korea with war it would be the top story around, but because it's Trump, people/reporters/tv pretty much take it with a pinch of salt and don't really know if what he's saying is the truth or a lie.

Really strange times...

You're having a laugh.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report in January stating that "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Among other things, the report said, Russian intelligence services gained access to Democratic National Committee computers for nearly a year, from July 2015 to June 2016, and released hacked material to WikiLeaks and other media outlets to help President-elect Trump's election chances."

But it didn't affect the outcome? I doubt you believe that. Just in case you are truly deluded, here's an analysis showing exactly how it affected the election.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The FBI are investigating. They are not going to release evidence that might be used in court.

When they progress to charges and court cases, we may see the evidence.

We may see evidence? I would like to see evidence.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really? Have you read nothing on these pages. Demfad has provided serious amounts of information in this regard. IT is true that there is no smoking gun, but the amount of smoke is quite incredible.

The mere fact that Trump, through Spicer etc, is focusing on who leaked rather than denying the content is telling wouldn't who say? This is something that Trump can pretty easily sort out. He has the power to release all the intel. He can demand that the GOP carry out their House investigation ASAP.

But he doesn't seem to want that. If I was being alleged to have colluded with a foreign power I would want to clear my name pretty quickly. Trump seems more interested in shutting down the investigations and redirecting them to focus on the leaks, of HC or Obama.

None of that of course, proves he has done anything, but you can't say that the only argument is the DNC hacking. That is either wholly ignorant or wilfully disingenuous.

I haven't read any of this thread, and considering it is hundreds of pages long that isn't practical.

Can you tell me, or post a source, of any actual evidence that there was collusion between Trump and Russia?
And if there is any evidence, can you tell me how it won him the election?

Billy86

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The only argument that has been put forward about Russia influencing the election so far is that they hacked the DNC's emails.

That's just of ignoring a lot of other arguments put forward, perhaps most prominently why so many leading members of the Trump team/campaign repeatedly lied about connections and meetings with Russian officials both before and after the election. If that's not an issue to set off alarm bells, I don't know what is - why would they repeatedly lie about it, over and over and over? And why are they now clearly trying to cover something up, perhaps most noticeably with Devin Nunes who is supposed to be investigating the matter yet was on Trump's transition team?

Leroy42

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

We may see evidence? I would like to see evidence.



I haven't read any of this thread, and considering it is hundreds of pages long that isn't practical.

Can you tell me, or post a source, of any actual evidence that there was collusion between Trump and Russia?
And if there is any evidence, can you tell me how it won him the election?

Right, so basically it ignorance. Just because you aren't aware of any of it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Maybe spend some time reading back over the last few pages before coming on posting what you believe to be facts, based on nothing more than a lack of any information.

Demfad, and others, have posted plenty of information and links. Try a google search or read some articles. If you really think that the only area of concern regarding Trump and Russia is the DNC e-mails then I can't help you

Billy86

Also, the paranoia and infighting among some who are being investigated is pretty interesting...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/04/roger-stone-kushner-is-leaking-intel-to-scarborough.html

During a segment on InfoWars today, Roger Stone, who was previously an adviser during the early months of President Trump's campaign, claimed to host Alex Jones that Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner was leaking information to MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.

"Jared Kushner, perhaps the one presidential aide who cannot be fired, is now in regular text message communications with Joe Scarborough" Stone claimed. "Many of the anti-Steve Bannon stories that you see, the themes that you see on Morning Joe, are being dictated by Kushner. And while Mr. Kushner's plate is very full with Middle Eastern peace and the China visit, and so on, in this case I think he is disserving the president."

"There is no question now that sources tell me that the president' son-in-law enjoys a very lively text exchange with Joe Scarborough," Stone continued.

"Joe Scarborough is no friend of the president, he revels in passing fake news. He himself has more scandals than you can shake a stick at."

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're having a laugh.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report in January stating that "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Among other things, the report said, Russian intelligence services gained access to Democratic National Committee computers for nearly a year, from July 2015 to June 2016, and released hacked material to WikiLeaks and other media outlets to help President-elect Trump's election chances."

But it didn't affect the outcome? I doubt you believe that. Just in case you are truly deluded, here's an analysis showing exactly how it affected the election.

1. The emails that were released were factually true. The public are entitled to know as much factually correct information as possible.
2. The American government has been interfering in elections around the world for decades, so them being upset about another country trying to interfere with their electoral process is at the very least highly hypocritical.
3. Julian Assange has stated the leaked emails did not come from Russia. And even if they did, it doesn't implicate Trump in anyway.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Leroy42 wrote: »

IT is true that there is no smoking gun.

Quoting you directly.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so basically it ignorance. Just because you aren't aware of any of it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Maybe spend some time reading back over the last few pages before coming on posting what you believe to be facts, based on nothing more than a lack of any information.

Demfad, and others, have posted plenty of information and links. Try a google search or read some articles. If you really think that the only area of concern regarding Trump and Russia is the DNC e-mails then I can't help you

Is there any actual evidence that Russia hacked the elections?

Is there any actual evidence Trump colluded with Russia?

Professor Moriarty

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

1. The emails that were released were factually true. The public are entitled to know as much factually correct information as possible.
2. The American government has been interfering in elections around the world for decades, so them being upset about another country trying to interfere with their electoral process is at the very least highly hypocritical.
3. Julian Assange has stated the leaked emails did not come from Russia. And even if they did, it doesn't implicate Trump in anyway.

1. Yeah and Trump didn't misrepresent their content in anyway. Nope. Nah. No Siree Bob.
2. Irrelevant red herring. The point is about DNC emails affecting the outcome of the election.
3. Director of National Intelligence Services of the United States of America who oversees 16 intel services and sits in cabinet as advisor to POTUS on intelligence matters. Or Julian Assange. Who to believe....so hard....can't choose....

Billy86

"Tangatagamadda wrote:

Is there any actual evidence Trump colluded with Russia?

There is piles of evidence in this very thread, which has been pointed out to you already.

If I am right Leroy has already said he is not jumping to conclusions, but that there is plenty of evidence.

Edit: Nevermind, I see you've already point blank refused to look at the evidence pointed out to you in this thread...

Christy42

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

1. The emails that were released were factually true. The public are entitled to know as much factually correct information as possible.
2. The American government has been interfering in elections around the world for decades, so them being upset about another country trying to interfere with their electoral process is at the very least highly hypocritical.
3. Julian Assange has stated the leaked emails did not come from Russia. And even if they did, it doesn't implicate Trump in anyway.

1. The releases are all on one side with plenty of reason to believe releases from the other side would not be reported. Second of all the releases are specifically timed to cause damage as opposed to merely releasing them to inform. To the point when that you can predict when they will come due to when Trump has a new scandal.
2. Irrelevant
3. Julian Assange has repeatedly lied. He heavily encouraged rumours that it was a murdered dnc staffer that was the source abusing the man's name. He promised he would turn himself in if Manning was released. He has also lied about the extent of upcoming releases (this next release is the big one with something relevant we swear). Finally while it does not specifically implicate Trump it does raise questions about him and his team. Especially those who had meetings with Russia that they attempted to cover up.

In fact you have called it a witch hunt but the fact remains that this line of questioning has led to multiple staff members needing to resign for lying about Russian contacts, lying about income from Russia, lying about working for a foreign government etc. Does not seem like a witch hunt. More like an investigation that is finding a lot of wrong doing in an adminsitration

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

Finally while it does not specifically implicate Trump it does raise questions about him and his team. Especially those who had meetings with Russia that they attempted to cover up.

Not to mention Roger Stone, who was happy to talk about his back channel contact T's with Assange only to go on a massive meltdown on twitter when called on it, who now seems very, very worried (latest being the accusations against Kushner if you go up a few posts).

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

1. Yeah and Trump didn't misrepresent their content in anyway. Nope. Nah. No Siree Bob.
2. Irrelevant red herring. The point is about DNC emails affecting the outcome of the election.
3. Director of National Intelligence Services of the United States of America who oversees 16 intel services and sits in cabinet as advisor to POTUS on intelligence matters. Or Julian Assange. Who to believe....so hard....can't choose....

1. Trump might have misrepresented them. It doesn't change that the contents contained within them are actually true though.
2. It's somewhat relevant. You can't interfere in elections around the world and not expect some blow back in fairness.
3. Can you name those 16 intel services by any chance? Could the information come from the same department office that said Iraq had WMD's? Or Julian Assange, a person who has released millions of documents for over a decade all of which have been authentic.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Christy42 wrote: »

1. The releases are all on one side with plenty of reason to believe releases from the other side would not be reported. Second of all the releases are specifically timed to cause damage as opposed to merely releasing them to inform. To the point when that you can predict when they will come due to when Trump has a new scandal.
2. Irrelevant
3. Julian Assange has repeatedly lied. He heavily encouraged rumours that it was a murdered dnc staffer that was the source abusing the man's name. He promised he would turn himself in if Manning was released. He has also lied about the extent of upcoming releases (this next release is the big one with something relevant we swear). Finally while it does not specifically implicate Trump it does raise questions about him and his team. Especially those who had meetings with Russia that they attempted to cover up.

In fact you have called it a witch hunt but the fact remains that this line of questioning has led to multiple staff members needing to resign for lying about Russian contacts, lying about income from Russia, lying about working for a foreign government etc. Does not seem like a witch hunt. More like an investigation that is finding a lot of wrong doing in an adminsitration

That's a far better answer than anyone else has given, thanks.

1. During the campaign the leaks only came from one side, agreed. We don't know for sure why though, that's my main point.
The RNC might have better encryption on their servers, there may have only been a leaker from within the DNC, Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead, Russia may have favoured Trump, Russia may have colluded with trump.
We just don't know though, as of now there is no hard evidence to back anyone's claim.
2. It's relevant in the context of pointing a finger at Russia and calling what they did "an act of war". When the US has been at it for decades.
3. You say it doesn't implicate Trump. Let's see what an investigation brings up, until there is evidence I will withhold judgement.

Professor Moriarty

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

1. Trump might have misrepresented them. It doesn't change that the contents contained within them are actually true though.
2. It's somewhat relevant. You can't interfere in elections around the world and not expect some blow back in fairness.
3. Can you name those 16 intel services by any chance? Could the information come from the same department office that said Iraq had WMD's? Or Julian Assange, a person who has released millions of documents for over a decade all of which have been authentic.

1. The actual contents were basically anodyne. Trump's misrepresentation and spin, fed by Wikileaks over the entire course of the election, which in turn was fed by Russia, damaged Clinton's electoral chances greatly and cost her the election, as the analysis I provided illustrates.
2. No it's not relevant to the fact that the emails cost her the election.
3. Sure So, the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security et al have been lying to the American people because Julian Assaange says so. Seriously?

CMOTDibbler

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

That's a far better answer than anyone else has given, thanks.

1. During the campaign the leaks only came from one side, agreed. We don't know for sure why though, that's my main point.
The RNC might have better encryption on their servers, there may have only been a leaker from within the DNC

Just on this. It doesn't have to be the RNC server. Any individual's email account could have been hacked, the same as Podesta's was. If your purpose is to just get any information to the public, then it's hardly going to cause you too much sweat to cast your net wider.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead.

This was a completely fabricated story. It came from RT originally afaik and was based on the conflation of the word 'non-legal' in a memo to mean 'illegal'. Around which, a story was built that included Clinton asking if they could use a drone strike to get Assange. Apart from the fact that there was no documentation to back that up, Assange was in London at the time and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the US would order a drone strike on London.

Christy42

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

That's a far better answer than anyone else has given, thanks.

1. During the campaign the leaks only came from one side, agreed. We don't know for sure why though, that's my main point.
The RNC might have better encryption on their servers, there may have only been a leaker from within the DNC, Assange may have had an issue with Clinton personally as she wanted him dead, Russia may have favoured Trump, Russia may have colluded with trump.
We just don't know though, as of now there is no hard evidence to back anyone's claim.
2. It's relevant in the context of pointing a finger at Russia and calling what they did "an act of war". When the US has been at it for decades.
3. You say it doesn't implicate Trump. Let's see what an investigation brings up, until there is evidence I will withhold judgement.

1. We can tell wikileaks is biased as they are specifically timing their releases for this reason.

2. Irrelevant. As you say it should all be public knowledge. I feel the US should not interfere in elections abroad but also feel their own elections should not have a pawn for another regime involved in them (this is different to say if Trump simply gets on well with Putin and dI'd not actively work with him).

3. The media is a powerful tool to keep the administration in line and have been vital in terms of putting pressure on the white house. This has resulted in them releasing the info that Flynn lied about Russian income from them and has helped remove Flynn, Stone and Manafort. They can't simply wait for the results of the investigation as investigative journalists are part of it. Second of all the fact that the investigation of such a serious mater is under way into people making such important decisions should be public knowledge so they can make informed decisions. Similarly for the lies his team has told about Russian connections.

Both myself and Leroy's (at least) have disagreed with demfad in terms of how far the poster goes with accusations but we can discuss their existence and we can see there are severe issues with the Nunes investigation. If we can't trust the investigation I figure better safe than sorry in terms of white house officials secretly working with a foreign government for their own ends.