No but I heard about the most important part.
As much as I want it to be true, I doubt this report has merit. Apparently every major new agency was aware of this report months ago and didn’t report it. It could have swung the election and no one thought it credible enough to report.
However if it is true, I wonder how many days Trump gets to be President before resigning instead of allowing himself to get impeached.
1 Like
I love how news orgs ask Putin’s spokesman if it’s true. Like, what is he going to say? “Vell, ya, of course! Ve vant him under our thumbs!”
1 Like
Um, MotherJones went to print regarding the same documents last October. They just didn’t publish the report itself, though the article does pull a number of quotes from the same report, which pretty much confirms they were using the same documents.
1 Like
There is a big difference between reporting in a general sense about second hand unverified information and just dumping that information and saying, “look what we found. Not saying it’s true or not but… We found this!”
Almost as big as the difference between what you said, and “Well shit, you’re right, my bad, turns out they didn’t decline them at all, and did publish about them despite them not being verified.”
Except… They didn’t publish the documents. (Which is the point I raised, go back and reread what I wrote.)
Buzzfeed was the first to publish the actual documents. Others had written about the existence of the documents without going into details.
I’m sure the report is biased (ex-intelligence officer hired by Trump opposition to investigate ties to Russia), but there’s also enough inside knowledge and gravitas that it merits real investigation and public answers. You can’t ignore this one.
Well, you can try, I suppose.
Apparently there was enough potentially true stuff that the intelligence community and John McCain thought it was worth looking into.
That man is a savant.
Edit - Also, if you aren’t familiar, Paul Wood is a respected foreign correspondent whose primary specialty is War and Intelligence reporting.
1 Like
Not for nothing but… If 2016 was the year of Russian espionage and interference with the election then they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Regardless of the current dossier story.
Clinton lost.
Trump is being painted as illegitimate.
Severe distrust of media (fake news).
Distrust between the incoming administration and intelligence services.
General distrust of intelligence services by American public.
Think about it, 2016 has been the year that keeps on giving for Russian intelligence services regarding the USA.
1 Like
I’d say Snowden leaks were the main cause of distrust of intelligence services, this is icing on the cake.
Says the man who always wears sunglasses because his vision is augmented and joined a futuristic terrorist cell because his brother was like “Naw these dudes are cool man.”
A Bruce Springsteen cover band is playing Trump’s inaugural ball. The group (who are the second most successful Bruce cover band, contrary to that articles statement) has deep ties to Ball Chair Chris Christie, who Bruce has refused to speak to since shortly after Hurricane Sandy and who he openly mocked on Fallon. So my question is, could Bruce stop them from playing his music for this?
Oh come on, that’s petty.
What are you trying to accomplish here.
- Will this make it less likely that Trump will get re-elected in 4 years?
- Will this make the lives of any Americans better?
If no to both, why cancel a cover-band from playing at the inauguration?
No, it’s Springsteen. Tom Petty might be okay with Trump.
An artist has a right to keep their music from being appropriated into contexts that oppose their beliefs. It’s not about stopping Trump from doing something, it’s about Springsteen’s image and how he lets himself be associated. He has been an opponent of Republicans since 1972 and he should be able to protect his art from being used by his enemies.
2 Likes
If they have the appropriate licenses to the songs I don’t think he can do anything.