Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Trump compromised by Russian intelligence, reports say Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Very good history of the dossier in the Guardian this evening.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ch-john-mccain

    It would appear that this is a solid piece of research by a widely respected source who has in the past been relied on for accuracy and that it is taken seriously by the intelligence agencies, John McCain and the media organisations.
    It's ******** and you know it
    Liberal fake news again desperate to try and stop Trump
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serions871)
    Erm, no... it's called slander
    If you've got evidence that goes against what was said in the article then please share with us, otherwise your accusations of "slander" is complete *******s.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    It's ******** and you know it
    Liberal fake news again desperate to try and stop Trump
    "fake news" - The new buzzword for the right wing when they find something they dont want to be true.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Very good history of the dossier in the Guardian this evening.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ch-john-mccain

    It would appear that this is a solid piece of research by a widely respected source who has in the past been relied on for accuracy and that it is taken seriously by the intelligence agencies, John McCain and the media organisations.
    If it was solid the Guardian would have ran the story already themselves. But they didn't, nor did anyone else.
    Media organisations are not taking this seriously. The entire media community has almost unanimously criticised the decision of Buzzfeed to publish the report.
    You're literally inventing fake stuff up now to try and shore up this fake news fiasco.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    If you've got evidence that goes against what was said in the article then please share with us, otherwise your accusations of "slander" is complete *******s.
    (Original post by highlyf)
    "fake news" - The new buzzword for the right wing when they find something they dont want to be true.
    You're anti-Trump, obviously you'd try to damage his chances at a successful presidency because you're jealous that you've finally lost something, the forgotten people have finally won and you are desoerate to try and stop Trump. Go back to reading buzzfeed
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    If you've got evidence that goes against what was said in the article then please share with us, otherwise your accusations of "slander" is complete *******s.
    It's the person making the slanderous claim that has to defend against the accusation, not the victim of slander (Trump and his supporters).

    Slander means a false claim designed to ruin his reputation. There is zero evidence for it, we can only presume that it is fake. It is saldner and you know it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biglad2k16)
    You're anti-Trump, obviously you'd try to damage his chances at a successful presidency because you're jealous that you've finally lost something, the forgotten people have finally won and you are desoerate to try and stop Trump. Go back to reading buzzfeed
    This isn't about winning and losing. If you think you've won something because dirty Drumpf is president, you're just a loser.

    I don't need to try and stop dirty Drumpf, im on a forum site idiot. Dirty Drumpf the rapist seems to have already done a good job of that with his piss fetish and colluding with foreign governments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    "fake news" - The new buzzword for the right wing when they find something they dont want to be true.
    It just means fake news. Get over yourself- we won, you lost.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    It just means fake news. Get over yourself- we won, you lost.
    Nah, it's just means "Im a whiny pissbaby and I dont like it when things dont go my way". The mainstream media isnt fake.

    Again, what is it with Trump supporters feeling like theyve won something?
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    If there is no evidence, there would be nothing to be verified. Thats a paradox. Are you struggling there?

    "apparently" - No media source published it because it was a document handed to intelligence services including the UK. They were never known to the media.

    The FBI investigations mean nothing.

    "The FBI however continued to refuse to comment on the issue, despite reports that it had requested and perhaps acquired a warrant for further investigation from the Foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court. The silence was not altogether surprising. The FBI counter-intelligence division, headquartered in Washington, is extremely secretive, much more so than the New York field office, which had strong links to former prosecutor and mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was by then working for Trump. The threat of leaks from New York about Clinton emails had reportedly pushed Comey into making his October surprise announcement."

    Nothing magically is going to come to light. Only the truth. It's time you stop defending dirty drumpf and his piss fetish.
    That makes literally no sense. An allegation isn't evidence. Evidence is an established truth. Allegations become evidence after they have been verified. Until then they remain unfounded allegations.

    No, it's transpired that this report has been around for months, simply most media outlets have refused to run it because it's completely unverifiable to the point of being unethical to publish. It was more recent intelligence briefing that led CNN and Buzzfeed to publish.

    Everyone knows the FBI investigated Trump's alleged link to Russia. That has no relevance here.

    I'll remember your attitude here if ever in the future you start whining about fake right wing news.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    Nah, it's just means "Im a whiny pissbaby and I dont like it when things dont go my way". The mainstream media isnt fake.

    Again, what is it with Trump supporters feeling like theyve won something?
    Well, they won the election. It's undeniable that the mainstream media is biased AF against him- the only one that isn't is Fox. The fact is that this story was probably completely made up- the 'dossier' is literally some pages that have been printed out and highlighted. We have no idea who really wrote it. It could literally be anyone so it's as legit as a dossier saying that Obama is a Muslim. Yet the media reports it in a way that gives it some legitimacy and that persuades some people that it might be real when it's clearly as fake as a three dollar bill.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    That makes literally no sense. An allegation isn't evidence. Evidence is an established truth. Allegations become evidence after they have been verified. Until then they remain unfounded allegations.

    No, it's transpired that this report has been around for months, simply most media outlets have refused to run it because it's completely unverifiable to the point of being unethical to publish. It was more recent intelligence briefing that led CNN and Buzzfeed to publish.

    Everyone knows the FBI investigated Trump's alleged link to Russia. That has no relevance here.

    I'll remember your attitude here if ever in the future you start whining about fake right wing news.
    No mate im just pointing out your paradox.

    The report was just some investigative work. You make the judgement as to whether its true or not, CNN and buzzfeed has made it very clear that it may be complete bs.

    Thats the thing though. Right wing fake news on twitter and facebook is really, it is provable completely false and designed by people to manipulate and brainwash people. These are large news outlets which are heavily regulated and make professional decisions. Calling the latter fake news is nothing more than ignorant distrust and a continuation of the silly childish "**** the establishment" rhetoric.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Well, they won the election.
    They didnt win. Trump did. The person they voted for won.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    No mate im just pointing out your paradox.

    The report was just some investigative work. You make the judgement as to whether its true or not, CNN and buzzfeed has made it very clear that it may be complete bs.

    Thats the thing though. Right wing fake news on twitter and facebook is really, it is provable completely false and designed by people to manipulate and brainwash people. These are large news outlets which are heavily regulated and make professional decisions. Calling the latter fake news is nothing more than ignorant distrust and a continuation of the silly childish "**** the establishment" rhetoric.
    There is no paradox, merely you not knowing what 'evidence' means.

    That's not how journalism works. It's completely unethical to publish an unverified smear job about someone. That's precisely why most media simply didn't.

    This report originally was commissioned as a means to smear Trump. It's complete unproven and unverified and full of factual errors and inconsistencies. That's some gold-medal winning mental gymnastics from you there to try and justify that as anything other than fake news.
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    no mate im just pointing out your paradox.

    The report was just some investigative work. You make the judgement as to whether its true or not, cnn and buzzfeed has made it very clear that it may be complete bs.

    Thats the thing though. Right wing fake news on twitter and facebook is really, it is provable completely false and designed by people to manipulate and brainwash people. these are large news outlets which are heavily regulated and make professional decisions. calling the latter fake news is nothing more than ignorant distrust and a continuation of the silly childish "**** the establishment" rhetoric.
    Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    There is no paradox, merely you not knowing what 'evidence' means.

    That's not how journalism works. It's completely unethical to publish an unverified smear job about someone. That's precisely why most media simply didn't.

    This report originally was commissioned as a means to smear Trump. It's complete unproven and unverified and full of factual errors and inconsistencies. That's some gold-medal winning mental gymnastics from you there to try and justify that as anything other than fake news.
    Perhaps it's unethical, but I dont see you making a fuss about the FBI publicly announcing an investigation into Clinton days before the election which may have ended up costing her the election. It's also called transparent journalism, you seemed fine when hillarys emails got hacked and accusing her of stuff when she was never criminally convicted and here you are now making a fuss over this because it's unethical. You're fine with unethical practise when it suits you.

    Here's a tweet: "Damn rich to hear caveats and warnings from the news media about 'rushing to judgment' when they spewed lies about Hillary a mile a minute."

    We as the citizens have every write to see the Dossier. You can't stop us from seeing it. Earlier on you were saying that this was made up on 4chan and now some real backing has come to this.

    Ofc it was to smear dirty Drumpf, but that in no way means that they wanted to make up lies about it. Where are the factual errors?
    It's not fake news because theyve made it clear that it's unsubstantiated, they did not say that dirty Drumpf pissed on women. Unethical at most.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    Bahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
    Yes I know you're a sheep for jumping on the "mainstream media are fake arghhhh!1!!!!!!!!!" bandwagon.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by highlyf)
    Perhaps it's unethical, but I dont see you making a fuss about the FBI publicly announcing an investigation into Clinton days before the election which may have ended up costing her the election. It's also called transparent journalism, you seemed fine when hillarys emails got hacked and accusing her of stuff when she was never criminally convicted and here you are now making a fuss over this because it's unethical. You're fine with unethical practise when it suits you.

    Here's a tweet: "Damn rich to hear caveats and warnings from the news media about 'rushing to judgment' when they spewed lies about Hillary a mile a minute."

    We as the citizens have every write to see the Dossier. You can't stop us from seeing it. Earlier on you were saying that this was made up on 4chan and now some real backing has come to this.

    Ofc it was to smear dirty Drumpf, but that in no way means that they wanted to make up lies about it. Where are the factual errors?
    It's not fake news because theyve made it clear that it's unsubstantiated, they did not say that dirty Drumpf pissed on women. Unethical at most.
    The FBI didn't detail what information they had that led them to re-opening their investigation of Clinton. There's also the fact that Clinton's email scandal is true. She did have a private e-mail server that had classified intelligence on it. She had the server wiped and then lied to congress about it. They are all verified facts.

    What on Earth are you waffling about? Why do you keep saying that I was fine with so and so? I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort.
    But regardless, again, Clinton's email scandal is true. The FBI themselves said she was recklessly careless in her handling of classified information. Director Comey simply believed her reckless carelessness did not meet the threshold required for criminal prosecution under relevant statutes.
    Not that I'm sure what any of that has anything to do with this. Nice red herring. So to clarify, you think unverified smears against Trump is okay because in the past people used verified, true smears against Clinton?

    I said the water-sports story was made up on 4Chan.
    What real backing? Nothing has changed. Nothing in the report has been verified. There's still no evidence backing the allegations.

    TIL that its okay to publish slander as long as you have a disclaimer saying it's probably not true. I wonder how well that will go down if I publish a story about how Jeremy Corbyn likes to dabble in beastiality? Disclaimer: He probable doesn't, but I'll let you decide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    The FBI didn't detail what information they had that led them to re-opening their investigation of Clinton. There's also the fact that Clinton's email scandal is true. She did have a private e-mail server that had classified intelligence on it. She had the server wiped and then lied to congress about it. They are all verified facts.

    What on Earth are you waffling about? Why do you keep saying that I was fine with so and so? I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort.
    But regardless, again, Clinton's email scandal is true. The FBI themselves said she was recklessly careless in her handling of classified information. Director Comey simply believed her reckless carelessness did not meet the threshold required for criminal prosecution under relevant statutes.
    Not that I'm sure what any of that has anything to do with this. Nice red herring. So to clarify, you think unverified smears against Trump is okay because in the past people used verified, true smears against Clinton?
    They are facts that haven't led to a criminal conviction. They were also published at a time where it can easily affect the elections. This Dossier was published when it would have no impact on the elections.

    Whilst it is unsubstantiated, it isnt necessarily a lie.

    You're wrong in saying that the smear on Clinton was true, since opening up the investigation didnt necessarily mean she was guilty at such a crucial moment.

    It's not a smear. You still can't seem to come up with a reason as to why we as the public are not allowed to see this Dossier even if it is completely unsubstantiated.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.