Donald Trump Jr emails show Russia communication

[dvdjs]

He didn’t do enough. Everyone acknowledges that. But that doesn’t excuse Jr.

On the other hand, if it is all a “hoax” as Trump says, then he did way too much.

 

[jesucated]

And which are the 3 or 4 connected to the story because 17 was incorrect?

The report was compiled by the CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI, and then issued on behalf of all 17 under the authority of the ODNI. As such, while 4 did the research, all 17 can be understood to have agreed.

It’s not dissimilar to a few individuals writing a letter/petition that is then signed by others. In both cases a small number might produce something, but the product comes to represent a much larger group.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The report was compiled by the CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI, and then issued on behalf of all 17 under the authority of the ODNI. As such, while 4 did the research, all 17 can be understood to have agreed.

It’s not dissimilar to a few individuals writing a letter/petition that is then signed by others. In both cases a small number might produce something, but the product comes to represent a much larger group.

Why would the story be retracted then?

 

[jesucated]

Why would the story be retracted then?

The stories were not retracted. There were corrections that amounted to what I laid out in my previous post. These are very different things.

Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible), the only outlet to have incorrectly used the word “retract” is RT (which, as has been noted multiple times in this thread, is a propaganda instrument of the Russian government that would have an interest in misleading people in this instance).

 

[josie_L]

Thanks for the Greenwald article.

He acknowledges that Junior’s story is noteworthy, but then diminishes its importance, not legally, but politically, by claiming somehow the according to the Democrats, the issue is collusion on the stealing of information from Podesta and the DNC.

Another semantical riff on “hacking”.

Legally, if the Trump team did not join in the theft, but only in making use of the ill-gotten gains, then that would be criminal conspiracy. The idea that that focus is a change of goalposts is silly, both because the conspiracy is still a serious crime, and the idea that the goalposts were somehow fixed by what Harry Reid once said is risible. They are fixed by the law.

To compound the nonsense, he then shifts to a discussion that is uniformed by legal boundaries at all, just some whataboutism regarding foreign contacts.

This is a hack job, by someone who ought to know better.

Coming from someone who could not recollect that a Russia/Trump collusion was being promulgated by the media (as of July 8th), I’ll stick to my own interpretations of said article:

I do recall and serious media outlets insisting on Russia/Trump collusion.

I similarly am unaware the medial kept alluding to Russia hacking the vote.

Perhaps you might provide some links.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14763530

I’m sure now you believe me.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t remember the contents of the dossier appearing any place else but Buzzfeed. Cnn didn’t report on the content, to my recollection. Just the existence of it.

The media was using this flawed dossier for all their assumptions of a Trump/Russia collusion.

 

[josie_L]

This is nonsense. Journalists in good media outlets write stories on the basis of information received from sources and fact checked through additional research.

Theoretically, yes, in practice, no. Or are you naive enough to believe that everyone is ethical when producing, editing and reporting the news even those in supposedly “good media outlets”? Everyone, including the NYT, can be blinded by their prejudices and biases (agenda-driven reporting), but just how far are some willing to make the ends justify the means though??? Moreover, I am disinclined to believe most of the leftist reportage of anything linked to Trump, because they have shown themselves to be more interested in party politics than truth. And do not ask me to corroborate this, I am fully conscious of what I say and why I say it based on years of reporting discrepancies (especially since the Media veers much to the left and has been much more lenient on and supportive of the Democratic party than Republican). .

 

[josie_L]

Can you cite sources that disprove much of the items in the dossier, or is this just rumor?

Here, I’m providing some info on false claims made, and how Steele himself said the sources were unverifiable and should not have been made public:

If ‘dodgy dossier’ accusation true, Trump Jr. would have no reason to meet with Russian lawyer

The amateurish nature of the infamous meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and two Russian lobbyists in June 2016 undermines a major accusation in a so-called dossier: its assertion of a long, information-trading relationship between Russian intelligence and Donald Trump and his aides.

If the Trump team had such a productive Moscow liaison for years, as the dossier, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, and his Russian sources claim, then why did the president’s son need to listen to two nominal Russian sources, a former U.S. intelligence official asks.

“If the Trumps actually had a long-standing relationship with the Russian intelligence services and were regularly receiving information on Hillary Clinton — this is one of the claims in the Steele dossier — there would be no reason to accept a meeting with an unknown lawyer who claimed to have compromising information,” Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and State Department counterintelligence official, told The Washington Times.

“If I’m friends with the owners of the Washington Nationals and getting box seat tickets from them, why would I go out on the street and buy tickets from a scalper? It just does not make sense.”

The dossier, financed by Democratic money and containing unverified accusations from a bevy of Russian sources, says a Kremlin source told Mr. Steele that the Russians were providing dirt on Hillary Clinton to the Trump operation.

Some Democrats who have criticized foreign influence in U.S. elections have embraced the dossier and its Russian sourcing and have spread the information around Washington, including at a key congressional hearing. . . . .

DEMOCRATS CITE DOSSIER"S LIES

A New York Times story that said U.S.-intercepted communications showed that Trump aides “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officers” was almost entirely false, Mr. Comey testified. He said that when the story appeared in February, he immediately notified Republicans and Democrats that it was not true.

Mr. Comey said “many, many stories” on the Trump-Russia probe were “dead wrong.”
A smattering of intelligence committee members have said as late as June that they have not seen evidence of Trump-Russian intelligence collusion.

Former Trump campaign aides argued that if there was any confirmed collusion and coordination with Russians, it was by Democrats to destroy Mr. Trump.

It was Democratic donors who funded Mr. Steele, who in turn paid Kremlin sources to dish unverified dirt on Mr. Trump and his aides and accused them of lawbreaking. He also accused Mr. Trump of salacious activity in a Moscow hotel room during his promoted 2013 Miss Universe contest there.

Mr. Steele packed his Russia-fed allegations into a series of memos handed out by Fusion GPS and Democrats to try to influence the presidential election.

After Mr. Trump won the election, Democrats continued to use the dossier to hurl charges, using Russian sources to accuse Mr. Trump of Russian collusion.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, read charges from the dossier at a much-watched hearing as if they were true. Another Democrat tried to get Mr. Comey, a hearing witness, to back up Mr. Steele’s contention that Mr. Trump met with prostitutes in Moscow.

In an exclusive Oval Office interview with The Washington Times in April, the president said it was a disgrace that Democrats were citing a dossier that had been proved untrue in a number of instances.

“The dossier has been totally discredited, No. 1. No. 2, Adam Schiff is totally partisan, as partisan as you can get,” Mr. Trump said. “And No. 3, the Russia story is a fake story. It was made up so that they can justify the fact that Hillary Clinton lost an election that a Democrat should not lose because it’s almost impossible for a Democrat to lose the Electoral College. And not only did she lose, but she lost by a lot because I got 306 and [she got] 232.”

Referring to Mr. Steele, the president said, “He made it up.”

Mr. Steele said Mr. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, traveled to Prague last year to orchestrate a hacking cover-up with Russian agents. Mr. Cohen said he had never been to Prague and presented evidence that he was in California at the time.

Perhaps no Trump associate has felt the ramifications of Mr. Steele’s Russian sources more than Carter Page, whose business career as an energy sector investor thrust him into many contacts with Russians. Merrill Lynch stationed him in Moscow for years.

He joined the Trump campaign as a volunteer adviser but was cast aside when leaks from the dossier during the campaign accused him of having discussions on Russian sanctions with Kremlin figures while on a publicized trip to Moscow to deliver a speech in July.

Since then, Mr. Page has dedicated much of his waking hours to trying to clear his name from what he says are Mr. Steele’s “fabrications.”

For example, Mr. Page said, he never met with the two Kremlin figures identified by Mr. Steele, and that while he knew of one of them he had never heard of the other.

**Mr. Steele’s most sensational charge is that Mr. Page and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort organized the Russian hacking of Democratic computers.
**

Mr. Page said he had never met Mr. Manafort and did not know of the hacking until it appeared in the press in June 2016.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/16/donald-trump-jrs-meeting-with-russians-undermines-/

 

[josie_L]

So yes, dvdjs, the claims that Russia/Trump colluded together to hack the DNC and Podesta’s emails are made by this Steele dossier, which was believed by many members of the Democratic party, and NOT A FIGMENT OF Greenwald’s (Columbia lawyer) IMAGINATION.

 

[josie_L]

The report was compiled by the CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI, and then issued on behalf of all 17 under the authority of the ODNI. As such, while 4 did the research, all 17 can be understood to have agreed.

It’s not dissimilar to a few individuals writing a letter/petition that is then signed by others. In both cases a small number might produce something, but the product comes to represent a much larger group.

Where are you getting this??? “Can be understood to have agreed” malarky?

FACT CHECK: Did 17 Intel Agencies ‘All Agree’ Russia Influenced The Presidential Election?

During an interview Wednesday with the tech news outlet Recode, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussed at length her belief that Russian interference in the 2016 election harmed her chances of winning.

“Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January,” said Clinton. “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

Verdict: False

**While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.**

Fact Check:

The intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Another of these agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) – speaks on behalf of the intelligence community and orchestrated the January report.

“The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional hearing in May. “Those three under the aegis of my former office.”

A handful of experienced analysts were chosen from the three agencies to investigate and draw independent conclusions. Each agency reached the same verdict about Russian interference.

So while the DNI published the report as an intelligence community assessment, Clapper clarified at the hearing that the report reflects the views of those three agencies alone. In fact, when questioned by Democratic Senator Al Franken, Clapper resisted the notion that all 17 agencies had reached a consensus

DHS published a joint statement with the DNI back in October expressing the same verdict about Russian interference, so it’s fair to say a handful of agencies have publicly drawn conclusions. But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.

dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/fact-check-did-17-intel-agencies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

Oh my, Hilary made an incorrect claim, a fancy way of saying she possibly lied. I wonder why the media took her at her word??

As for Russian interference into the elections, not even the NSA believes as per the voting registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations may have affected the results of the presidential elections:

The NSA document did not reach a conclusion about whether the interference had any impact on the outcome of the election. “It is unknown,” the NSA notes, “whether the aforementioned spear-phishing deployment successfully compromised the intended victims, and what potential data could have been accessed by the cyber actor.”

newsweek.com/who-won-election-nsa-report-suggests-russia-might-have-hacked-voting-system-621213

 

[josie_L]

Google is your friend.

After the elections, did Obama EVER DO ANYTHING. I’m sure like the media everyone thought Hillary would win.

 

[josie_L]

I am sure I can “google” and find other sources, but I am not going to take the time.

The real story is how many months the information about 17 intelligence agencies was inaccurately reported. There are probably many people who still
think it is true.

This is TRUE, media was reporting 17 intelligence agencies, probably because Hillary did first.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The “dossier” was a genuine fake. A work of fiction, deliberately written to be placed in front of President Trump so “they” could say the dossier was given to Trump.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_russian_collusion_story_the_acme_of_fake_news.html

 

[lmachine]

The “dossier” was a genuine fake. A work of fiction, deliberately written to be placed in front of President Trump so “they” could say the dossier was given to Trump.

There’s certainly misinformation in the dossier but key parts of it have been independently verified. It’s being treated seriously by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There’s certainly misinformation in the dossier but key parts of it have been independently verified. It’s being treated seriously by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

What parts have been independently verified, and by whom? And what parts are law enforcement and intel taking seriously?

 

[lmachine]

What parts have been independently verified, and by whom? And what parts are law enforcement and intel taking seriously?

A number of conversations the dossier described were intercepted and independently verified by intelligence agencies. We’ll have to wait until Mueller’s final report to know specifics

 

[jesucated]

Where are you getting this??? “Can be understood to have agreed” malarky?

There’s no “malarky” here. The joint statement was issued by the DONI and DHS and speaking on behalf of the entire USIC. This joint statement speaks with the unified voice of all of the US intelligence agencies. That four specific agencies conducted the research does not in any way diminish that this was a USIC statement and thus carries the weight of all of the agencies.

If you want to verify this yourself, you can read the statement: dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

[josie_L]

There’s no “malarky” here. The joint statement was issued by the DONI and DHS and speaking on behalf of the entire USIC. This joint statement speaks with the unified voice of all of the US intelligence agencies. That four specific agencies conducted the research does not in any way diminish that this was a USIC statement and thus carries the weight of all of the agencies.

If you want to verify this yourself, you can read the statement: dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

No, it does not. And James Clapper disproves this.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/fact-check-did-17-intel-agencies-all-agree-russia-hacked-the-dnc-podesta/

Also, from the same article I’ve already posted:

DHS published a joint statement with the DNI back in October expressing the same verdict about Russian interference, so it’s fair to say a handful of agencies have publicly drawn conclusions. But simply because the DNI speaks for the intelligence community as a whole doesn’t mean all 17 agencies reached independent conclusions, let alone conducted independent investigations. Clinton overstates her case.

Please read the article in my post before you post.

 

[josie_L]

What parts have been independently verified, and by whom? And what parts are law enforcement and intel taking seriously?

I cannot believe that intel is taking this seriously, when the person who wrote the dossier, says that the sources were unverified and was not meant to be made public.

This is also the same Christopher Steele who was paid by Fusion GPS with the backing of Hillary donors.

This is the same Fusion GPS, whose founder does not want to testify voluntarily in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And who will not give out the names of the Hillary donors who paid Christopher Steele via Fusion GPS.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!