Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

    32,559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. I just addressed the FBI and dossier in the previous post. If Obama had wanted to weaponize this investigation, he could have released/declassified a ton of information that we didn't find out about until after the election. Can you provide a link to Schiff being the one blocking Page and Stone from testifying? My understanding was that Republicans were terrified of them testifying at the committee hearing. Also, the email about "going to far" by Lynch...that was a fake document planted by Russians. The story is that Comey knew it was fake but feared the political damage if he didn't go public with the FBI findings because he thought that would leak. That said, Comey also called a lot of the story about that "nonsense" at his hearing. But the point is that the reporting I've seen said that the email from Lynch was fake and planted by Russian intel.
  2. It doesn't bother me regarding the FBI because they wanted to pay him for continuing his work (until it became public and his sources dried up). The FBI never actually paid Steele, by the way. The FBI doesn't chase gossip and rumor-mongering and that wasn't what was going on here. They were able to confirm that parts of the dossier were true, by the way. But they realized (and the media reported months ago) that the salacious parts could be Russians bragging and making things up. In other words, the dossier was true...Russians were sayng those things about Trump and his people. But what they were saying was false. That doesn't make the dossier worthless in terms of intelligence, it just means we have to analyze it through the proper lens and recognize some parts could be Russians lying and other parts could be true. So the FBI likely relied on the verified parts of the dossier when asking for a FISA warrant. And they wanted to continue hearing what Russians were telling Steele and others, so they offered to pay him to continue his work. [Steele gave the FBI the dossier for free, according to the reports.]. Also, the FBI did not begin the investigation after Steele's dossier was given to them. It began months before that and Steele's dossier was additional intelligence in that investigation.
  3. Also, I found reporting that the FBI did use parts of the dossier to get a FISA warrant. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/donald-trump-spy-dossier/index.html CNN reported that almost two months ago (and I forgot about it). But importantly, it says "parts", which probably didn't include the salacious and unverified parts of it.
  4. The NYTimes, WaPost, CNN, and most major media outlets reported months ago that the dossier was originally funded by anti-Trump Republican groups and later by anti-Trump Democratic groups. That's been part of the reporting of the story since the media first started talking about it. And the fact that it was funded by anti-Trump groups is one reason why the credible media has refused to report on the specifics and details of the dossier, especially the salacious stuff. Edit: Also, here is an interesting question. You're just now bringing up the fact that the FBI offered to pay Steele. The Washington Post reported that back in February, so why are you bringing it up like it's a new facet to the story recently?
  5. Do you have any evidence that the dossier was the justification for getting the FISA warrants? The large number of contacts between Trump campaign officials, and the long history of business ties to Russia by those people, has been firmly established. That would seem to be a good enough basis for a FISA warrant, as well as intercepted surveillance of those Russian officials that was routine at the time.
  6. It's perfectly fair to tell people who post clickbait from Reddit (which often links to leftwing propaganda sources) to get bent when they raise credibility issues. No problem with that at all. For myself, I'm just not going to waste time on sources that have a history of posting flat out false information, again whichever side it comes from. Okay, I'm going to hang out with my friends now. I have to say that being in the largest Muslim country in the world during Eid Al Fitr is pretty amazing. Imagine Christmas, July 4th, Thanksgiving, and New Year's Eve combined into a single holiday.
  7. That was one of many examples regarding TruePundit, and it's such an obvious and simple mistake that one questions their intentions. CNN has plenty of journalistic integrity if we're talking about their news division. Again, they still refuse to discuss the contents of the dossier on air or online because they can't independently verify it. They have made some mistakes, egregious ones, but they have a journalistic process that works the overwhelming majority of the time. Places like the NYPost and TruePundit don't. That's why they're not very credible.
  8. You're allowed to post whatever you like. But don't be surprised when people point out that it's not from a credible source and/or doesn't take the article seriously. National Review and the Economist also are good sources, though the former has gotten kind of goofy with its online "The Corner" content (see their article about Obama as a "red diaper baby" for an example). There are plenty out there. Again, we don't need to fall for the clickbait from unreputable sources.
  9. Refusing to retract false stories doesn't give them a better credibility rating than sources that do retract them on occasion. That's what makes them propaganda. A credible source cares about the accuracy of their reporting and will retract when they get something wrong. Propaganda sources will post whatever promotes their agenda, whether true or not, and will not retract it even after it's been debunked. Again, I have no problem with FoxNews or Wall Street Journal or other credible conservative outlets. And no, BuzzFeed isn't an okay source with me, either. I wish that everybody would stop falling for the interweb clickbait stuff from both sides. I've jumped on people in the past for posting stuff from BuzzFeed and PalmerReport precisely because they don't have the same journalistic process and credibility as other sources.
  10. I would think that former FBI and law enforcement officials would be able to get the content of a simple video correct, but alas... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/09/true-pundit/no-coretta-scott-king-didnt-thank-jeff-sessions-vi/
  11. The sources we rely upon actually did not publish the details of the dossier even though they had it in their possession for month...precisely because they could not independently verify the information. To this day, CNN will still not air details of the dossier that have not been confirmed by intelligence sources. I have no problem with people posting stuff from the Wall Street Journal or FoxNews.com. They have a journalistic process that they use to verify information. If you think that Foxnews and WSJ are anti-Trump and just making stuff up...well...
  12. No, I didn't. I don't bother with sources like that because they are a waste of time. I've looked at so many stories from them and found them false that I'll wait until a credible outlet publishes it. It's unfortunate that you're "done with the sources argument" because that concept quickly descends into "I believe anything from anyone as long as I want to believe it." Credible sources are crucial to getting facts right and the credible sources will publish retractions when they get something wrong. Places like True Pundit and NYPost have zero journalistic standards. They are propaganda and, with the former, do not even care if what they publish are accurate. We have got to start working on the same set of facts. There are plenty of credible conservative sources out there to choose from. We don't need to bother with places that frequently publish outright false information. And there is a difference between a credible outlet that uses a journalistic process to verify things that anonymous sources told them, but which might be wrong and is later retracted...on the one hand...and places that just publish any falsehood without any journalistic process involved and without any concern about the truthfulness of the information. Again, if you don't rely on credible sources then the standard for deciding what is true versus false quickly becomes, "I believe anything from anyone because I want it to be true."
  13. I trust things from the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, etc on the conservative side.
  14. Thought we could use a thread about the special elections that'll be happening in the next weeks and months. First up, the Kansas 4th District. Live results are here: http://www.sos.ks.gov/ent/kssos_ent.html The Democratic candidate is winning, but it's only 1% of the precincts reporting so it doesn't mean anything this early.
  15. Ironic given that "TruePundit" has published so many actually fake stories. Between them and the WashPost, I'll trust the WashPost until a credible source proves otherwise. That also goes for the New York Post, which is essentially a conservative tabloid. You're putting your faith in some very, very dubious sources.
  16. The other countries did not directly interfere in our elections. Russia did. That's the difference. And that is a direct threat to our democracy.
  17. They’ve been doing this for an awfully long time. And we are decades into the Russians trying to undermine American democracy,” he said. “So in some ways, there’s no news, but it certainly puts a heightened emphasis on our ability to figure out how to stop them.”
  18. In August, we didn't know the full extent of the problem. The intelligence community had not gathered enough evidence to say that Putin had directed it and that his goal was to help Trump directly. They didn't realize the scope of the fake news and other propaganda that Russia was flooding on facebook. Now we have a clearer view.
  19. They're not unreasonable questions. But virtually every member of Trump's campaign has acknowledged that Russia interfered in our election. Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, etc. The problem is that the evidence in this case is highly classified, understandably so. If that evidence were released to the public then our spies in Russia would be killed and our ability to gather new intelligence would be destroyed. We'll never know the names of the spies, the methods used for surveillance, or the actual intelligence itself for more than a decade, if at all. But when every single person, Republican and Democrat, who has seen that raw intelligence comes to the same conclusion...I think we're safe in making the assertion.
  20. I posted a story about the government in August having solid intelligence that Putin himself directed his government to attempt to hurt Clinton and help Trump get elected. The "nothing to see here, just speculation" line has gone cold. The entire intelligence community has said that Russia was involved with those hacks with the expressed intent of electing Donald Trump. That's not CNN. That's the entire intelligence community.
  21. Abso-freaking-lutely they need to acknowledge their role in creating this environment. And so do their supporters. I'm just saying that the opposite of their reckless and irresponsible behavior is not reckless and irresponsible behavior from the other side.
  22. And lest there be any doubt that the presidential election represented one of the most dangerous attacks on our democracy in recent history... Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides. Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race. But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump. ^^^This is not something that shouldn't be a partisan issue. But too many people turn a blind eye just because their side benefited.
  23. It's not about feeling sorry for them, it's about a political environment that has been spinning out of control for at least 10 years. The violence, death threats, and so forth cannot be part of our everyday discourse. That ends in very dark places for everyone. Yeah, they fed the beast with the Tea Party "town hall protests" that were largely a mirror of what we're starting to see from the left now. It's a delegitimization of the entire system...the president and Congress are not legitimate unless they are on "our" side. It's the politics of "means justify the ends"...it's frankly an authoritarian mentality that is very dangerous to democratic values. The answer to the reckless and irresponsible behavior of Republicans these past 10 years is not to engage in the exact same reckless and irresponsible behavior on our side. I get the "comeuppance" mentality. I do. But that attitude has no conclusion. "Well, they filibustered our SCOTUS so we're going to not even have a hearing on their SCOTUS." Response: "Yeah, that's what Democrats get!" "Well, they didn't have a hearing on Gorsuch so we're going to do...." Response: "Yeah, that's what Republicans get!" It's not sustainable and there has to be a breaking point somewhere. We do not have a functioning democracy right now. People need to take off the partisan blinders and start recognizing the problems with the system are much, much worse than which party is in charge.
  24. And yet Comey told the truth while Trump admitted that he was lying through his teeth...yet again.
  25. Disregard the previous email. This said it was Thursday. What do you think this proves, even if he did visit the news office? It's long after he was fired and he has every right to speak to the press if he wants, like every other citizen. Not sure what the story is here.