President Trump

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apologies. I suppose I am not used to anyone needing citations from me in my regular dialogue.

Clapper's statement link
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...er-trump-russia-memo-wasn-t-leaked-us-n705956

So Clapper confirms no leaks came from the intelligence agency, which is the charge Trump and his minions are making over and over:

"I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said, referring to the intelligence community.

Then the NBC reporter points out the fact:

The 35-page privately-prepared memorandum published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday includes claims that the Russian government has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for five years, among other allegations. (BuzzFeed is partly funded by NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News.)

And Clapper admits leaks "appearing in the paper are bad:

"I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security," Clapper said.

So Clapper is calling the release of a "privately-prepared memorandum" as a leak.

That is semantics that are unrelated to the lie Trump is promoting that the intelligence agency is the source of the leaks.

I think you've missed the issue, perhaps you aren't aware of Trump's specific accusation. Allow me to clarify that for you:

BBC: Trump condemns spy agency 'leak' of 'fake news'

President-elect Donald Trump has accused US intelligence agencies of leaking allegations that Russia has compromising material on him.

Huff-Po: Trump Accuses CIA Director Of Leaking ‘Fake News’ About Russian Dossier

In an extraordinary escalation of tensions between the president-elect and his intelligence agencies, Donald Trump suggested in a tweet Sunday that outgoing CIA Director John Brennan may have leaked information about the existence of an unsubstantiated report that Russia allegedly has compromising information on Trump.

So your little foray into the meaning of the word, leak, is a complete side track to the issue, Trump claiming falsely the US intelligence agency is the source of a dossier that was in reality was a "privately-prepared memorandum".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So just normal media behaviour then

Are you referring to the source of the hacked emails, "the media"? Or have you elevated Wikileaks to the title of "normal media"?

The normal media did not have control over what was given to Wikileaks.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Discussing the content of the emails as a deflection from the emails being stolen and by whom is just as poor form as discussing who and how the emails where stolen when discussing their contents.

I see that largely the opposite way...

...that focusing on how the emails were obtained is a deflection to avoid the content of those emails.

The embarrassing content is not itself ameliorated by how the emails were obtained.

 

[wareyin]

I see that largely the opposite way...

...that focusing on how the emails were obtained is a deflection to avoid the content of those emails.

The embarrassing content is not itself ameliorated by how the emails were obtained.

What, exactly, was the "embarrassing" thing about the content, again? That the DNC was doing routine politics? That, amongst themselves, they were doing the very stuff that the RNC was doing out in the open that nobody cared about? We all know that the far left and the far right have worked tirelessly to spin the emails as somehow underhanded and nefarious, but I've yet to see an example that held up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Granted, a good bit of the electorate won't apply scrutiny to political claims, so this spin seems to have actually worked. I would just hope that long time participants in these various threads might just display a tiny bit of skepticism when they hear claims about Clinton being 'fed questions in advance' that were so glaringly, blatantly, obviously going to be asked (because nobody knows residents of Flint, "lead in the water" Michigan might be concerned about water quality). Or realize that the entire RNC was against Trump openly, so a few DNC members preferring Clinton (while doing nothing to show favoritism) doesn't actually mean the system was rigged.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I see that largely the opposite way...

...that focusing on how the emails were obtained is a deflection to avoid the content of those emails.

The embarrassing content is not itself ameliorated by how the emails were obtained.

No, the emails never amounted to anything more than a minor scandal about Clinton getting a town hall question from CNN (and that was a town hall in Flint where the first question was about the lead poisoning problem -- duh). But Trump and the Vast Right-Wing BS Machine spun the email dump as yet another pseudo-scandal of vast illegal and unethical Crooked Hillary activity, just waiting to be uncovered. Trump mentioned WikiLeaks something like 167 times in the final month of campaigning, implying that massive illegal activity was being covered up by the FBI, and then he wants to say it didn't have any effect on the results? "Give me a break!"

But no, some people are clearly intent on avoiding the serious issues that transcend the election results: Why did Putin want to help Trump? Did Trump make a "great deal" with Putin, or does Putin really have kompromat? Why did Trump operatives steamroll the Republican Party Platform Committee into changing the wording of just one section, changing it from providing Ukraine with "lethal defensive weapons" to providing "appropriate assistance," just days before the WikiLeaks dump? Why does Trump continue to ignore Putin's imperialistic actions? Why is Trump undermining NATO and encouraging countries to leave the EU? Why does Trump keep hinting that he'll find some reason to raise the sanctions? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I see that largely the opposite way...

...that focusing on how the emails were obtained is a deflection to avoid the content of those emails.

The embarrassing content is not itself ameliorated by how the emails were obtained.

It works both ways was my point.

If one is discussing concerning implications of the hacking/leaking in terms of international espionage and interference, then discussing the contents and trying to turn the conversation towards 'corrupt democrats' is a deflection.

If one is discussing the concerning implications of the behavior of Democratic Party officials in terms of corrupt behavior, then discussing the details of who hacked them and trying to turn the conversation towards 'Putin interference' is a deflection.

They are both valid issues worth discussing, but they are also both capable of being employed as a distraction to the other issue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you dismissing out of hand the evidence I have posted here?

I'm not dismissing anything. Until such time as the information in the document has actually been verified, it remains uncertain. Sure, the document exists... but there are many blogs out there packed full of bad intel. The fact that the blogs exist isn't evidence than anything in them is actually true. So far as I can tell (and I haven't looked at news today) the information that is reported to exist in the document is still, at present, unverified.

Are you accepting unverified information as true?

And the evidence Varoche added that Trump's platform re Russia and the Ukraine veered from the GOP Party line to one favorable to Putin.

So what? Evidence that Trump likes Putin isn't evidence that Trump cheated.

Who has the bias?

I'm sure I have many biases. This just isn't one of them. You appear to have assumed that anyone who disagrees with your method of argumentation is de facto a Trump supporter. This is a false assumption.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's hoping no one opens the box.

Limbo's not so bad once you get over the ambiguity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Without the official source telling CNN what was discussed in the classified briefing, there is NO STORY. Leaks do not need, and most often do not have, official documents to go along with them.

I would imagine BuzzFeed would respectfully disagree.

Just for clarity, are you certain you understand what the word "classified" means?

 

[Emily's Cat]

(I'm still half waiting for someone to say "just kidding!")

I'm still pretty sure we're being punked. Or maybe the Twilight Zone is a real thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see that largely the opposite way...

...that focusing on how the emails were obtained is a deflection to avoid the content of those emails.

The embarrassing content is not itself ameliorated by how the emails were obtained.

So you approve of Russia hacking a political party's confidential emails?

 

[Emily's Cat]

When you release dirt on one side when there is dirt on both sides, you present a false reality to the public.

So just normal media behaviour then

That is pretty much my response on this too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not dismissing anything. Until such time as the information in the document has actually been verified, it remains uncertain.

And???

It was reported as unverified.

Sure, the document exists... but there are many blogs out there packed full of bad intel. The fact that the blogs exist isn't evidence than anything in them is actually true. So far as I can tell (and I haven't looked at news today) the information that is reported to exist in the document is still, at present, unverified.

Are you accepting unverified information as true?

The investigative agency and the investigator had extensive expertise and credibility. You keep acting like this was the equivalent of a Breitbart story.

So what? Evidence that Trump likes Putin isn't evidence that Trump cheated.

That's some pretty heavy denial you have going on there.

I'm sure I have many biases. This just isn't one of them. You appear to have assumed that anyone who disagrees with your method of argumentation is de facto a Trump supporter. This is a false assumption.

Again you fail to quote where I've said any such thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just for clarity, are you certain you understand what the word "classified" means?

Yes. This is relevant why? The information was not classified, it was obtained by a private investigator. There may have been parallel classified information.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Discussing the content of the emails as a deflection from the emails being stolen and by whom is just as poor form as discussing who and how the emails where stolen when discussing their contents.

Here's where my family history of military service is going to bubble up.

We're talking about emails that were not allowed to be on a private server, and were required to be on a government server, with government-level protections in place. Emails that in some cases contained classified information, even if it was very few of them.

The content of the emails is absolutely important.
The fact that sensitive and classified information was placed into an environment where it could be stolen in the first place is absolutely important.
The fact that sensitive and classified information was placed into an environment where it could be stolen, by someone who unquestionably should have known better and who, by all reason, appears to have willfully skirted policy for her own ends, is also absolutely important.

Trying to divvy it up as if we should only be allowed to talk about one aspect of this at a time doesn't seem like a reasonable approach.

For comparison, if I had company-related emails in my personal email account that included HIPAA defined private information, I would be found to be in breach of 1) my company's privacy policies and 2) federal law. I could be fined and/or fired. If I knew beforehand that I wasn't allowed to keep HIPAA data in my private accounts, and had willfully skirted those policies, I absolutely would be fired, I would probably be disciplined by my actuarial oversight organization, and there's an extremely high likelihood that my career would be over.

HIPAA data doesn't even rise to the level of nationally classified data.
Coming from a military upbringing, having been raised by people with access to classified information, and being married to someone who routinely worked with TS-SCI data for half his adult life, I personally view Clinton's actions as treasonous. Others disagree, and they're entitled to their beliefs and opinions. The ultimate decision will be made by the appropriate agencies.

ETA: My apologies, I have conflated two different email issues. I somehow thought we were talking about the emails from Clinton's private server, not the DNC.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And???

It was reported as unverified.

Okay... but you keep treating it as if the content constitutes evidence.

The investigative agency and the investigator had extensive expertise and credibility. You keep acting like this was the equivalent of a Breitbart story.

I don't believe I've done any such thing.

That's some pretty heavy denial you have going on there.

Denial of what, exactly?

Again you fail to quote where I've said any such thing.

Thus the phrase "you appear to..."

 

[varwoche]

.... So what? Evidence that Trump likes Putin isn't evidence that Trump cheated.

We're asked to believe the pro-Ukraine language was removed from the GOP platform magically, without human involvement. The deceptiveness adds intrigue above and beyond Trump likes Putin.

Needless to say (?) this isn't proof that Trump coordinated with Russia or otherwise cheated.

 

[turingtest]

Best just stick it in Schroedinger's box and move on.

What, next to Emily's cat?

My status is still undetermined

 

[newyorkguy]

...So what? Evidence that Trump likes Putin isn't evidence that Trump cheated...

I think this bears repeating. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are known to have looted billions of dollars from state industries being privatized; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents falsely convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents murdered; Putin has ordered invasions of neighboring countries.

Why in the world would Donald Trump like someone like this?

We have to be careful here, folks, that we don't get so locked into positions that we begin accepting looting of public money running into the billions of dollars, war crimes, murder, false imprisonment. We seem to be fast approaching the point where we will actually be "debating" whether it's wrong to murder someone you really really dislike when that person begins creating problems for you. This whole turn of events is becoming like a nightmare.

 

[Spindrift]

I think this bears repeating. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are known to have looted billions of dollars from state industries being privatized; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents falsely convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents murdered; Putin has ordered invasions of neighboring countries.

Why in the world would Donald Trump like someone like this?

We have to be careful here, folks, that we don't get so locked into positions that we begin accepting looting of public money running into the billions of dollars, war crimes, murder, false imprisonment. We seem to be fast approaching the point where we will actually be "debating" whether it's wrong to murder someone you really really dislike when that person begins creating problems for you. This whole turn of events is becoming like a nightmare.

Why? Because Putin does all the things Trump wishes he could do.