What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (5 Viewers)

Sabertooth said:
I tend to think you are right.  He just can't understand the audacity of some people to actually disagree with him on something and not cave.  That's what happens when you live in an echo chamber.  
Click to expand...
If nothing else, the fits he's going to throw when he finds out he doesn't have as much power as he thinks should be pretty entertaining.  Assuming of course he IS held in check.  :oldunsure:

 
Amused to Death said:
I don't believe the "specific" info has been made public.  I believe they have been presented to Trump.

Here's 16 of the agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 
Click to expand...
They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info.  It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence.   The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input.  This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.  

 
Yeah.  I think he actually thinks if he just mocks people and Conway simply smiled into the camera, all opposition will just stop.  Wait until he actually does something.  I'm personally looking forward to his whining about how obstructionist his own party is.  And how he'd do great beautiful things if only.  

 
Rove! said:
They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info.  It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence.   The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input.  This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.  
Click to expand...
Exactly, so you should trust Putin.  And that Wikilieaks guy - he pinky swore Russia didn't give him any info.

Everyone of those agencies agreed to put their names on the report.  Ignore their judgement if you want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's some pretty funny fake Trump accounts on Twitter.

@Trump_Is_Hip: If Julian Assange says he knows so much why doesn't he use a sunbed? He looks like a haunted dolphin. Very very pale!

 
Rove! said:
They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info.  It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence.   The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input.  This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.  
Click to expand...
pretty sure that if you want detailed info, you have to either have Top Secret clearance or won a national election.  Either one.

 
A couple of fomrmer intelligence officers ripping the IC

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.

Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.
Click to expand...
 
@Trump_Is_Hip: People say the movie E.T. is a classic but he entered the country ILLEGALLY and also wore a child's dress! Not good!

 
@Trump_Is_Hip: Never watching Aliens again! Very unrealistic! A woman couldn't beat a monster especially in space. Stupid and lazy!

 
@Trump_Is_Hip: The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just like a really bad nightclub where none of the women put out. So sad!

 
@Trump_inHistory: 9/14/1910
"I believe in science" is progressive code for "we're going to shut down the horse and buggy industry". Pathetic! Bad for Economy!

 
moleculo said:
be careful citing articles written before the IC's report to Obama/congress/Trump was released.  This article pre-dates that.
Click to expand...
The point about NSA is still excellent, and nothing signifigant came out in the declassified that invalidates the McGovern/Binney analysis.

 
Rove! said:
Former analyst Larry C Johnson calls the latest report a "joke"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump
Click to expand...
Speaking to Kremlin-funded news agency Russia Today - which itself was the subject of seven pages of the intelligence report - Mr Johnson said: “It’s designed to smear Trump.

“I don’t think they’re hiding anything because they don’t have anything. These are ‘or and how’ intelligence estimates as opposed to an intelligence analysis based on fact. There’s no fact underlying this. There are analytical assumptions.

“This thing it’s a joke. If I’m a Russian intelligence analyst, with one of your intelligence services, I would be suspicious and think ‘What are the Americans up to? They really can’t be this stupid.’ And let me just reassure the folks on your side of the ledger – yeah, they actually are.”
Click to expand...

 
moleculo said:
I'm positing that anyone or anything (including legit media) citing Russia Today automatically gets disqualified.  Immediate red X.
Click to expand...
I was citing Larry Johnson.  Just because RT happened to broadcast his assessment doesn't change who the source is.

 
Rove! said:
I was citing Larry Johnson.  Just because RT happened to broadcast his assessment doesn't change who the source is.
Click to expand...
I don't know who Larry Johnson is.  I mean, there was a Larry Johnson who played for UNLV and then Charlotte, and there was a Larry Johnson who played for the Chiefs (I remember something about him and diapers), but I don't  think either of these guys are the one you are referring to.  I do know who RT is, and I know they aren't exactly a disinterested bystander.

 
moleculo said:
I don't know who Larry Johnson is.  I mean, there was a Larry Johnson who played for UNLV and then Charlotte, and there was a Larry Johnson who played for the Chiefs (I remember something about him and diapers), but I don't  think either of these guys are the one you are referring to.  I do know who RT is, and I know they aren't exactly a disinterested bystander.
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

hes not perfect (nobody is), but his experience and knowledge carry a lot of weight

 
Rove! said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

hes not perfect (nobody is), but his experience and knowledge carry a lot of weight
Click to expand...
He carries no more weight than the dozens of analysts who worked on it.  In fact I'd say he carries significantly less weight, since he hasn't worked for an intelligence agency in close to a quarter-century.  

If you look hard enough you can find dissenting voices on anything.  Here, as with climate change, vaccines, or whatever else the GOP is objecting to these days, it's the overwhelming voice of experts in the industry that matters.

 
Do you all think Trump would let Putin have a go at his wife if he asked? Are we sure they already have not?
Maybe his wife is the spy, and its too obvious that no one thinks it. Where has she been this whole time anyways?

 
packersfan said:
This should come as no surprise to anybody. CNN reporting Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Trump. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
Click to expand...
Also in the story:  "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."

 
Don Quixote said:
Also in the story:  "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."
Click to expand...
If true, this is disqualifying IMO.

 
Don Quixote said:
Also in the story:  "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."
Click to expand...
This is one of those uncomfirmed allegations that most people strongly suspected was going on. Been hinted at for months. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
195
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top