• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

35-Page Report Alleging Trump Was "Cultivated, Supported And Assisted" By Russia

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'As reported moments ago, CNN is leading with a story about a 35-page dossier compiled by a former member of British intelligence, which had been distilled into a 2-page appendix presented to Trump last Friday by the US intel community, and which contains "explosive, but unverified, allegations" that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for at least 5 years and "endorsed by Putin" gained compromising information about him, with the aim of "encouraging splits and divisions in the western alliance."

The memo has allegedly been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.'


NOTE: You have to go to the website - via either link - to see the document (I do not know how to post it here).

Here Is The Full 35-Page Report Alleging Trump Was "Cultivated, Supported And Assisted" By Russia | Zero Hedge

https://www.scribd.com/document/336222345/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations#from_embed




Thoughts?
 
"A former" blah blah blah writes a report about "unverified, allegations" about blah blah blah ... CNN is so desperate for another plane to disappear.

I'm waiting on the report with the verified facts. In fact, you can call me Detective Sergeant Joseph "Joe" Friday - - Just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

However, if it turns out to be true, feces should be readied to be flung fiercely at the rotating air oscillator.
 
Thoughts?

As reported moments ago, CNN is leading with a story about a 35-page dossier compiled by a former member of British intelligence, which had been distilled into a 2-page appendix presented to Trump last Friday by the US intel community, and which contains "explosive, but unverified, allegations"...

Allegations...a leading story on CNN.

My thoughts are? More mudslinging from the Alt-Left. :coffeepap:
 
Allegations...a leading story on CNN.

My thoughts are? More mudslinging from the Alt-Left. :coffeepap:
You mean like all the allegations against Hillary Clinton? Or the allegations against her husband that turned out to be true back in the "good ol' days?" Please. Don't be such a partisan Trump apologist. There is nothing wrong or unusual with the media reporting on allegations, especially serious ones involving the President.
 
You mean like all the allegations against Hillary Clinton? Or the allegations against her husband that turned out to be true back in the "good ol' days?" Please. Don't be such a partisan Trump apologist. There is nothing wrong or unusual with the media reporting on allegations, especially serious ones involving the President.

I am not a "partisan Trump apologist." I used to be a Public Defender. Allegations only have weight in the court of public opinion...a court I give no credence to.
 
I am not a "partisan Trump apologist." I used to be a Public Defender. Allegations only have weight in the court of public opinion...a court I give no credence to.
What does being a public defender have to do with being a partisan? You can be a partisan public defender. You act as if allegations being leading stories is evidence of mudslinging when in reality allegations have always been common breaking stories.
 
That article reads like trash tabloids. Lots of "sources" and ambiguous people. Lots of implied "allegations" and "maybes and could be's."

...but because it's negativiTrump, liberals will swear by its legitimacy.
 
I swear to the legitimacy.
 
That article reads like trash tabloids. Lots of "sources" and ambiguous people. Lots of implied "allegations" and "maybes and could be's."

...but because it's negativiTrump, liberals will swear by its legitimacy.

Rejoice. Your days of denial are soon to be over!
You wanted details... now you're getting them via"Live Stream":2razz:
 
What does being a public defender have to do with being a partisan? You can be a partisan public defender. You act as if allegations being leading stories is evidence of mudslinging when in reality allegations have always been common breaking stories.

:roll:

I referenced my time as a Public Defender for two reasons.

1. Facts build a valid case, whereas allegations in the "news" are simply gossip designed to color public opinion before a case is even made.

2. As for them being "common breaking stories?" Allegations which have been trumpeted in the news, yet turned out to be untrue, have destroyed the lives of any number of people. I'd have more respect for your position if retractions for false/mistaken reports were trumpeted just as loudly and repeatedly as opposed to ending up as a paragraph on some inner page of a newspaper, or briefly mentioned after the weather or some fluff piece on TV...if a retraction is reported at all. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
'As reported moments ago, CNN is leading with a story about a 35-page dossier compiled by a former member of British intelligence, which had been distilled into a 2-page appendix presented to Trump last Friday by the US intel community, and which contains "explosive, but unverified, allegations" that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for at least 5 years and "endorsed by Putin" gained compromising information about him, with the aim of "encouraging splits and divisions in the western alliance."

The memo has allegedly been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.'


NOTE: You have to go to the website - via either link - to see the document (I do not know how to post it here).

Here Is The Full 35-Page Report Alleging Trump Was "Cultivated, Supported And Assisted" By Russia | Zero Hedge

https://www.scribd.com/document/336222345/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations#from_embed




Thoughts?

Sounds to me like Obama is having fun paying back Trump for the Birther B.S.

When CNN and the Washington Post team up, fair chance it is fake news.
 
You mean like all the allegations against Hillary Clinton? Or the allegations against her husband that turned out to be true back in the "good ol' days?" Please. Don't be such a partisan Trump apologist. There is nothing wrong or unusual with the media reporting on allegations, especially serious ones involving the President.


I am curious, did you vote for Hillary? I find few libertarian values consistent with Hillary.
 
'As reported moments ago, CNN is leading with a story about a 35-page dossier compiled by a former member of British intelligence, which had been distilled into a 2-page appendix presented to Trump last Friday by the US intel community, and which contains "explosive, but unverified, allegations" that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for at least 5 years and "endorsed by Putin" gained compromising information about him, with the aim of "encouraging splits and divisions in the western alliance."

The memo has allegedly been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.'


NOTE: You have to go to the website - via either link - to see the document (I do not know how to post it here).

Here Is The Full 35-Page Report Alleging Trump Was "Cultivated, Supported And Assisted" By Russia | Zero Hedge

https://www.scribd.com/document/336222345/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations#from_embed




Thoughts?
Think I would have to have a boat load of in-depth details and facts before I would jump on that bandwagon. A whole load of speculation and connecting dots that really do not connect. Now if it were true, trump would be the first President hung for Treason and we would be officially in WWIII.
 
'As reported moments ago, CNN is leading with a story about a 35-page dossier compiled by a former member of British intelligence, which had been distilled into a 2-page appendix presented to Trump last Friday by the US intel community, and which contains "explosive, but unverified, allegations" that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for at least 5 years and "endorsed by Putin" gained compromising information about him, with the aim of "encouraging splits and divisions in the western alliance."

The memo has allegedly been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.'


NOTE: You have to go to the website - via either link - to see the document (I do not know how to post it here).

Here Is The Full 35-Page Report Alleging Trump Was "Cultivated, Supported And Assisted" By Russia | Zero Hedge

https://www.scribd.com/document/336222345/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations#from_embed




Thoughts?

Thanks for post that. My first thought is that most of the people braying here haven't read and won't read it. There has been a great deal of background information - various reputable sources and over a period of time - that help paint the big picture. In fact, it seems that they are all convinced that this is all about email hacking. That alone tells us they haven't brought themselves up to speed. Also, it tells me that they aren't going to read detailed information you might provide.

First, they will deny it even though they don't really understand what exactly they are denying

Second, if the information is determined to be credible and is reported as such they will attack the source and continue their denial.

Third, they will discount the value and implications of the truth. Part of that will be because they haven't done due diligence and won't.

I'm not going to bother to look it up here but I know that some of the people braying about the story and demanding truth or nothing at all are some of the same people who were all over Clinton's and the DNC emails before the facts were known.
 
:roll:

I referenced my time as a Public Defender for two reasons.

1. Facts build a valid case, whereas allegations in the "news" are simply gossip designed to color public opinion before a case is even made.

2. As for them being "common breaking stories?" Allegations which have been trumpeted in the news, yet turned out to be untrue, have destroyed the lives of any number of people. I'd have more respect for your position if retractions for false/mistaken reports were trumpeted just as loudly and repeatedly as opposed to endng up on some inner page of a newspaper, or briefly mentioned after the weather or some fluff piece on TV...if a retraction is reported at all. :coffeepap:
Allegations can be just gossip. But this allegation isn't one of them. Will it be proven? Only time will tell. But this is no tabloid smear story. Professional media outlets have always and should always report serious allegations regarding the President of the United States.
 
I am curious, did you vote for Hillary? I find few libertarian values consistent with Hillary.
Sadly yes, and believe me when I say I would never have predicted that a year ago. Trump is the antithesis to libertarian values, far more so than Clinton. But that isn't what this thread is about, so I will end that conversation here so as not to derail it.
 
Looks like the Manchurian Muslim has been replaced by the Russian boogieman as the new magnet for the stupid.
 
:roll:

I referenced my time as a Public Defender for two reasons.

1. Facts build a valid case, whereas allegations in the "news" are simply gossip designed to color public opinion before a case is even made.

2. As for them being "common breaking stories?" Allegations which have been trumpeted in the news, yet turned out to be untrue, have destroyed the lives of any number of people. I'd have more respect for your position if retractions for false/mistaken reports were trumpeted just as loudly and repeatedly as opposed to ending up as a paragraph on some inner page of a newspaper, or briefly mentioned after the weather or some fluff piece on TV...if a retraction is reported at all. :coffeepap:

Yeah! What does having an idea about law have anything to do with law stuff?? Geez, you must be a Trump lover. Prolly got a poster of him above your bed, ya dirty Trump lover!
 
Think I would have to have a boat load of in-depth details and facts before I would jump on that bandwagon. A whole load of speculation and connecting dots that really do not connect. Now if it were true, trump would be the first President hung for Treason and we would be officially in WWIII.

That is probably why a former MI-6 agent was very concerned and took the information he found to a friend who was an FBI agent stationed in Rome. From what I have read no one involved in the discovery, investigation and reporting of this has said that the information has been determined to be true and correct. But the information or rather some of it was shared with Trump, Obama, security agency heads and the "Gang of Eight." Obviously that was not for the benefit of the press. I would assume it was done as part of the investigation and part of the threat assessment, both of which are ongoing.

Given what we do know about Trump's history there is certainly a lot of smoke. Does it mean there is a fire? Who knows at this point?

Finally, even if none of the information is correct the allegations and apparent international discussions that have been going on under the surface for a while now can still be a very serious threat to the nation.
 
I am not a "partisan Trump apologist." I used to be a Public Defender. Allegations only have weight in the court of public opinion...a court I give no credence to.

You're good then with what we do know about Trump's Russian connection. You've never seen any red flags? Nothing that would make you cautious?
 
Thanks for post that. My first thought is that most of the people braying here haven't read and won't read it. There has been a great deal of background information - various reputable sources and over a period of time - that help paint the big picture. In fact, it seems that they are all convinced that this is all about email hacking. That alone tells us they haven't brought themselves up to speed. Also, it tells me that they aren't going to read detailed information you might provide.

First, they will deny it even though they don't really understand what exactly they are denying

Second, if the information is determined to be credible and is reported as such they will attack the source and continue their denial.

Third, they will discount the value and implications of the truth. Part of that will be because they haven't done due diligence and won't.

I'm not going to bother to look it up here but I know that some of the people braying about the story and demanding truth or nothing at all are some of the same people who were all over Clinton's and the DNC emails before the facts were known.

The only distraction you left out that I see from the GOPrussians is tds--trumpistan deflection syndrome.

Btw, a source I'm using for data on the congressional district method of the EC has trump leading 191 to 185 with only FL, PA, KS, and NC remaining to be scored.

Add in 60 for trump's 30 states and 40 for Clinton's 20 states and you get 251 to 225.

trump will pull ahead of 270 of course with those 4 states.

Keeping in mind Romney would have beaten Obama 273-265 with this method, DEMs got completely outplayed in 2014.

The data is without lean but the source would be rhetorically shot down.

So far, 18 GOP representatives won in Clinton won districts while 11 DEM reps won in trump CDs.

These would be termed 'soft' districts and would be in play in 2018.

In your AZ, AZ-2 is Clinton/GOP rep and AZ-1 is trump/DEM rep .
 
You're good then with what we do know about Trump's Russian connection. You've never seen any red flags? Nothing that would make you cautious?

List what "we do know" about Trump's "Russian Connection" and I'll let you know. :wassat1:
 
Looks like the Manchurian Muslim has been replaced by the Russian boogieman as the new magnet for the stupid.

I prefer to call him a GOPrussian from trumpistan .
 
List what "we do know" about Trump's "Russian Connection" and I'll let you know. :wassat:

Not a chance. I'm not playing games. There is a great deal of background information re Trump and Russian money going back years, we both know that. Many sources, we both know that. Assume I know everything you know, assume you know everything I know and let's start from there.
 
Not a chance. I'm not playing games. There is a great deal of background information re Trump and Russian money going back years, we both know that. Many sources, we both know that. Assume I know everything you know, assume you know everything I know and let's start from there.

Sorry man. I don't assume anything if I can help it. One of the lessons I learned in the Army. Assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom