DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Trump news SHOWERS down

That's a rather nice document. It almost looks like I typed it up myself or someone sat down and wrote it at their apartment.

Probably made up by some 600 pound guy sitting on his bed!

Where did this come from and why wasn't it released months ago?

It wasn't released months ago because it took time to find a Smith Corona in a garage sale.

Hmmmm....so that typewriter I have in the basement just might be worth a pretty penny to someone trying to generate 'documents'?

Only if that someone was the heads of the FBI , CIA, NSA, NIA . This is the synopsis of an ongoing investigation started by Republican opposition to Trump and later by democrats . The source was a vetted British spy whose information has been valuable enough for this report to have been generated in the first place . Is it true ? Time will tell but it deserves attention .

I will say that I have never seen the level of brainwashing and division that this man can bring together . I thought of him as a caricature of a man , a joke played on the establishment but time and circumstance has brought him to the highest office in the land . If I cared more I would be scared but as it stands I just want to sit back and watch the fireworks . I ALMOST can't wait till the wheels fall off because it's been coming for a long time .

Originally Posted by Reddit
Summary I came up with:

>8+ years of communication between him and Kremlin, and 5+ year relationship of cultivating/supporting/assisting Trump by Russia.

>They offered him real estate deals IN RUSSIA to further ensnare him, but he declined.

>Russia has dirt on Trump watching Russian prostitutes give golden showers.

>Detailed claims of bilateral intelligence sharing back and forth between Trump and Putin. Trump had DNC moles and used US as well as foreign hackers. Trump got info on his opponents, Putin got info on Russian oligarchs + families living in US.

>They used the pension system that Russian diplomats used to transfer information back and forth to/from each other as well. It mentions tens of thousands of dollars were sent in addition to the money.

>Russia's main goal appears to be driving wedges to cause divisions in the West. They aided Jill Stein, Carter Page and Michael Flynn (the latter two being members of Trump's team) in doing so.

>Main goal of DNC emails appeared to be swinging Sanders voters to Trump.

>Russia and Trump had a mutual agreement on the DNC hack. Russia released the emails to Wikileaks in return for Trump removing mention of Russian invasion of Crimea in favor of talking about NATO financial commitments in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Putin wanted people to stop talking Ukraine while also undermining NATO.

>Trump's most damning financial commitments are actually in China and other emerging markets. He's paid large bribes and kickbacks there that would've destroyed his campaign if made public.

>Hilariously, when Trump said he had few Russian financial investments, that was true, but he has actively sought them out only to be denied. He apparently settled for extensive sexual favors there instead

>Trump lawyer Cohen had clandestine meeting with Kremlin operatives in August, held in Prague to try to make it seem less suspicious.

>Ukrainian President that Putin installed confided to Putin he DID provide ex-campaign manager Manafort w/ kickbacks that were previously reported. Left no paper trail.

>Russia pissed this has gotten so much media coverage. They hoped to push for improved Russian-US relationships regardless of who was elected. Ancillary goal with Clinton was to drive her positions further from Obama's in event she won - they're happy both candidates were anti-TPP because they viewed that as bad for them.

>Trump has bribed Russian business interests but worked diligently to obfuscate and eliminate paper trail. Also engaged in Russian sex parties but has likewise bribed or coerced witnesses to be silent. They do believe a particular Russian businessman was intricately linked to Trump would know details.

>Manafort/Page/Cohen all highly compromised. They/Trump were apparently offered up to 19% stake in a Russian oil company Rosneft by its president if they could successfully get Western Russian sanctions lifted. Page expressed interest in this deal, saying sanctions would be lifted.

>Once the sh*t started to hit the fan, Cohen was heavily involved in trying to cover up the relationship between Carter/Manafort/himself and Russia.

>Mentions that the Trump team AND Russia both paid Romanian hackers to help sabotage Democrats.

>Overall goal of electing Trump was to destabilize Western and world order in Russia's favor since he was anti-establishment and so divisive.

Let me know if something needs added or if I screwed something up.

u/JustDandy07 is the man. Added a bunch of stuff.

u/whiskystoned and u/sylviecerise made sure I had my TPP bit correct - Russia was AGAINST TPP.

u/Adrian_Bock raised a great point. Trump specifically used Presidential Suite in Russian Ritz-Carlton where Obama/Michelle stayed for his golden shower episode(s) to defile the bed. That's some depraved [censored].

u/niknight_ml mentioned that Trump may have helped actually fund the DNC hack itself.

. 1. in light of the fact that we're supposed to be skeptical about the latest #Trump allegations, I want to tell you a story.
2. A long time ago, there was a man named Paul Manafort. Paul Manafort was a GOP operative who exported his political expertise.
3. He and Roger Stone ran what was known in DC as The Torturer's Lobby. They worked with warlords and despots.
4. Paul Manafort even worked closely with Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats with ties to V. Putin.
5. Manafort was one of the operatives who worked in Ukraine to elect a pro-Putin government. This is a verifiable fact.
6. At one point, Manafort went missing for 3 weeks. Roger Stone joked that he had been kidnapped by the Russians. This is about 2010
7. According to some members of the intelligence community, around the same time, Russia began cultivating Donald Trump as an intel asset
8. Timing, I'm sure, is totally coincidental. Just giving you a sense of where we're at in the history.
9. In 2011, Donald Trump starts the birther movement. Remember that whole thing?
10. In 2012, Donald Trump flirts with a run for President, but he doesn't run.
11. At some point, Hillary Rodham Clinton runs afoul of Vladimir Putin. She and Obama both take aggressive stance toward him.
12. Then in 2016, Donald J Trump declares his Presidency. He starts as a long-shot managed by Corey Lewandowski.
13. As Trump grows in prominence, he fires Lewandowski and hires...Paul Manafort. Whose last job was in Ukraine. On behalf of Putin.
14. Paul Manafort, who owned a lobbying firm with Trump confidant Roger Stone.
15. Paul Manafort, who had been kidnapped (presumably) by Russians at one point but survived unharmed.
16. Trump's positions on Russia softened under Manafort (re Ukraine specifically). Manafort's in charge over summer.
17. It comes out that Manafort received 12 millions dollars in an off-books ledger from the pro-Putin party in Ukraine.
18. Wait back up. Before this comes out, the DNC emails are hacked. Wilkileaks releases the hacked emails.
19. Why did Assange do this if it was an intel op by Russia? Possibly for the promise of asylum, but that's speculation on my part.
20. Maybe because he hates Clinton and Obama, but, again, speculating.
21. Regardless, these leaks hurt one party and helped the other.
22. So now Manafort resigns after the Ukraine thing comes out. Trump hires Steve Bannon, ANOTHER one of Stone's friends.
23. Manafort probably keeps advising Trump. Regardless he lives in Trump Tower, so they see each other periodically.
24. Incidentally Roger Stone officially resigned in December 2015. So now Stone and Manafort are unofficial advisors, strictly speaking.
25. Two of Trump's new policy guys are Michael Flynn and Carter Page. Both of whom have ties to Putin and Russia.
26. Galas with Putin, RT dinners, speaking engagements, etc. So Manafort, Flynn, and Page. Remember the names for a bit.
27. Now Wikileaks starts leaking John Podesta's emails. Mostly harmless stuff, but Hillary Clinton and emails is just a bad look.
28. We know they were hacked, we suspect by a state agent, and if you've been paying attention, the answer's pretty clear.
29. So the election happens and Trump wins. Then the intelligence community confirms what most of us knew or suspected.
30. That Putin had launched an intel op specifically to hurt Clinton. Then it came out that he wanted Trump to win.
31. That he was behind the DNC attacks, that he was behind the Podesta hacks, all Putin from the get-go.
32. Curiously PEOTUS refuses to accept the findings of the intel community. Claims it coulda been anybody! Defends Assange. Curious.
33. In response, POTUS Obama kicks out 35 alleged Russian spies posing as diplomats. Pretty big move.
34. The intel community seems pretty certain as to the facts at this point, and Obama is doing stuff he wouldn't do otherwise.
35. So today this new trove of background comes out. BUT IT'S UNVERIFIED. Yeah, so what?
36. What do the documents say? That about 6 years ago (around when Trump started birtherism), they began cultivating him.
37. That they conspired to get leverage over him. That they preferred him to HRC.
38. That they had Russian spies in the US posing as go-betweens.
39. That there was high-level cooperation with Trump's campaign. Via Paul Manafort and Carter Page. Remember them?
40. So we're supposed to SUPER SKEPTICAL about all of this. I mean, I guess so?
41. If you didn't know who Paul Manafort was, or what he did, or who Carter Page was, etc.
42. If you didn't find it odd that Trump's SecState-Elect won the Order of Friendship from Vladimir Putin.
43. If you ignored all of these things, I guess it's healthy to be skeptical about this.
44. I'm not an intelligence professional; I have the benefit of being able to make unqualified claims.
45. I dunno when it started or what the end game was, but Russia wanted Trump and cultivated him for years.
46. Paul Manafort offered Trump the Presidency if he played ball with Putin. That's what Flynn and Carter Page were for.
47. Manafort and Page were the go-betweens. The 35 expelled diplomats were in on it. The IC is clear on exactly how it happened.
48. You can say this is all circumstantial, that Manafort and Putin and Trump and Stone and Page and Flynn all met in a locker room one day.
49. But to me this has been clear as day since Manafort signed up. He was working for Putin on Trump's behalf. Or vice versa.
50. He quit when he became toxic. He didn't GO anywhere.
51. So here we are, a week out from inaugurating a compromised asset of Russian intelligence President of the United States.
52. I don't have some cool conclusion to the story because it's a scary story without a good ending. This is the new reality.
53. Donald Trump appears to be beholden to a foreign power, and now we know the specifics. There's nothing to be skeptical about.
54. This is just filling in the outlines of stuff that people have been saying since last summer. You don't need CIA clearance for this.
55. I dunno who leaked the new info, but very little of it was surprising. And it probably won't matter. Welcome Comrade Trump.

Here's some summaries I've come across the web on this....>Russia has dirt on Trump watching Russian prostitutes give golden showers.

Keep up the good work! Here's a hint....the web is full of unsustantiated rumors. I'm not going to ask where you found this nugget.

1. in light of the fact that we're supposed to be skeptical about the latest #Trump allegations, I want to tell you a story.

And to think you guys cried bitter tears when people said Obama was a Kenyan. Now you cry Trump is a Russian.

I think what you do best is cry.

Ok, time to pick and choose your flavor before the truth is delivered... Fake or Not Fake?

The rules are as usual, don't let any facts get in the way of your choice.

Ok, time to pick and choose your flavor before the truth is delivered... Fake or Not Fake?

The rules are as usual, don't let any facts get in the way of your choice.

Media Hits New Low for [censored] Poor Ethics

Buzzfeed's unsubstantiated report is self-discrediting and libelous

It was once said of the conspiracy-mongering John Birch society that they see Russians under every bed. Today, the mainstream media is determined to see Donald Trump in bed with every Russian.

This particular bit of delusion, however, has been increasingly hard to maintain. The recent release of a declassified intelligence report on Russian hacking in the 2016 election is a case in point. The report, which was supposed to establish beyond a doubt that Russia intervened in order to aid Trump’s election prospects, instead turned out to be only a screed against Russia Today so thin on evidence that Dan Rather would likely pass on it. Granted, the classified version may have better evidence, but the public can hardly be expected to treat an embarrassingly skimpy report by the nation’s premiere intelligence agencies as infallible based purely on faith. Shamefully, the media treated it as infallible before it was even released, thus inviting the inevitable collision of egg and face.

But that bit of humiliation apparently wasn’t enough, because barely more than a weekend after the release of the last evidence-free report, the media has now not only reported on, but actually published a new report just as scant on evidence as the last. The twist is that this new report comes not from the intelligence community, but instead from a former British intelligence official hired to do opposition research on Trump, who apparently thought his findings so disturbing that they were worth passing onto the CIA and (apparently) most of the mainstream media, since the report floated around newsrooms for months before the listicle and quiz site Buzzfeed decided to sacrifice its ethics on the altar of Trump hate and publish it.

And boy, would you have to be willing to sacrifice your ethics to publish this report. Because while it lacks verifiable evidence for any of its charges, that doesn’t stop it from making charges that would embarrass even the nation’s leading conspiracy theorists. For example, the report alleges that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen secretly met with agents of Russian intelligence in Prague to arrange mutual cooperation with the Trump team in late August of last year. Cohen has responded that he’s never been to Prague in his life, and that he was at the time visiting USC to introduce his son to the baseball coach, a fact that the coach in question has confirmed. Further, one reporter has also confirmed that, based on the geolocations of Cohen’s tweets during that period, it would be nearly impossible for him to have made the alleged trip to Prague.

Another section claims the Russians agreed to leak information on Hillary Clinton to Wikileaks in exchange for the Trump camp keeping the GOP from taking a hard line on Russian intervention in Ukraine. The timeline for this is impossible.

And then, of course, there’s the most infamous part of the report—the part which caused terms like “golden showers” and “pissgate” to trend on Twitter. Specifically, the report alleges that the president-elect has, during alleged visits to Russia, engaged prostitutes to urinate on each other in the very room at the Moscow Ritz Carlton used by outgoing president Barack Obama. This allegation is so ludicrous that stories have already appeared suggesting that it might be nothing more than a prank by the infamous image board 4chan, intended to embarrass anti-Trump Republicans. And while the 4chan story is unproven, it is worth noting that it still has more verifiable evidence supporting it than anything mentioned in the report.

All of these holes in the report were discovered mere hours after its publication, which may explain why Buzzfeed’s intro to the document mentions that it can’t verify the charges. Falsehoods usually prove difficult to verify.

Even the reliably Trump-hating mainstream media has been forced into the uncomfortable through-the-looking-glass position of defending Trump and criticizing the media. The Washington Post‘s prickly media scold Erik Wemple called Buzzfeed’s decision to publish a report that everyone else had passed on for months and that Buzzfeed itself said could not be verified “ridiculous.” The New York Times called it ” a break from typical journalistic practice.”

Naturally, the reader may be inclined to wonder why Buzzfeed published a report it had been trying unsuccessfully to verify for months now, of all times. The answer is that yet another anti-Trump propaganda outlet, CNN, recently released a story claiming that the source for this report is now considered credible by the FBI and CIA, and that the allegations in it are being investigated. Not only that, but both President Obama and President-elect Trump have been told as much and briefed on the allegations.

However, for all its Trump hate, CNN at least had the good taste to word its piece carefully, not commenting on which allegations were and weren’t considered credible by the intelligence community, and not detailing those allegations for fear of spreading false information. Buzzfeed apparently had no such compunctions, and has been subsequently raked over the coals by even otherwise hysterically anti-Trump media figures like David Corn and Tom Nichols. Only living vacuums of relevance known such as crank candidate Evan McMullin, bitter failed consultant Rick Wilson, and the unhinged Louise Mensch, are lending the report—and Buzzfeed—credibility.

Buzzfeed editor (and Observer alum) Ben Smith, meanwhile, has been forced to publish an internal email explaining the publication’s rationale for publishing the story, admitting in the process that even he finds it dubious. But apparently, an editorial team that publicly advertises its weeping over President Obama’s exit from office sheds no tears for the besmirched reputation the president-elect.

The Observer itself has had its own strange Russia-based interactions with at least one of the three reporters bylined on the Buzzfeed story. Miriam Elder got it in her head that Observer reporter Mikhail Klikushin was a phantom planted by the Kremlin. She implied that he did did not exist and based her conclusion in a Buzzfeed story on the fact that “Klikushin’s contact information is impossible to find online.” Later, she tweeted at The Washington Post even more boldly that “‘Mikhail Klikushin’ is not a real person.”

Within minutes after that first juicy story appeared, other reporters, including from BusinessInsider, found Klikushin and debunked her story. Furthermore, the Observer’s editor had already told her that Klikushin had attended Observer events and been photographed there. He had met plenty of Observer staffers and even attended the editor’s son’s bar mitzvah with his young family. There were two hundred guests, including Observer reporters and media people from other outlets. Her thesis that Klikushin was a Kremlin invention was simply wrong and silly.

So Buzzfeed sent another reporter out to harass this guy. And wouldn’t you know it—they found him. At his home in New Jersey. Now the story became, ludicrously, about how Klikushin “Won’t Answer Questions.” Buzzfeed was forced to concede in a headline “Also, he exists (and BuzzFeed News tracked him down).” Neither Buzzfeed nor Ms. Elder has apologized or corrected her story or tweet.

As members of the media, this flagrant disregard for journalistic ethics and responsibility both disgusts and worries us. Freedom of the press in the United States is enshrined in the Constitution, but the rights and credibility of journalists are fragile and can be hurt in all sorts of ways that don’t fall afoul of the US Constitution. Gawker, for example, was crucified in court and forced into bankruptcy for publishing something more verified than Buzzfeed.

Tough, critical reporting on the president elect—on all public officials—is a must if our democracy is to survive. But publishing unverified, provably false claims makes it harder on all members of the press to do our jobs.

BuzzFeed and CNN messed up.

So have a few previously respected posters.

How BuzzFeed crossed the line in publishing salacious ‘dossier’ on Trump

Where does transparency meet irresponsibility? Right about at the line that BuzzFeed’s editor Ben Smith approached on Tuesday — and decided to step over in the name of serving citizens’ best interests.

With caveats and explanations aplenty, Smith published a 35-page “dossier” — actually just a bunch of scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump.

Smith said he did so because his, and BuzzFeed’s preference and philosophy is, essentially, “when in doubt, publish.”

In this case, the doubt should have prevailed. News organizations and government officials have known for months that this information, if it can be called that, existed. But despite many attempts, the claims about Trump’s behavior and relationships in Russia could not be verified.

Thus, major newspapers and magazines sat on them. In October, the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones, David Corn, wrote a story based on the file, but stopped well short of publishing the specifics.

Why? Because he couldn’t verify them.

So, what changed, and blew this out into the public eye? Not just BuzzFeed’s data dump, but a series of events. Intelligence agencies summarized the “dossier” and included it in material given to Trump and President Obama.

CNN published a story Tuesday saying that much. And with the door cracked open, BuzzFeed pushed through. In doing so, the digital behemoth — which for years has balanced a tension between its start as a lighthearted click factory and, under Smith and a serious news team, a purveyor of investigative journalism and breaking news.
“Publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017,” Smith wrote. In other words, readers are grown-ups and deserve to be treated as such, not paternalistically protected from information that might upset them. True enough, but it avoids the larger point: It’s a bad idea, and always has been, to published unverified smears.

The decision certainly resulted in clicks. It also brought approval and disapproval, in some cases from unexpected quarters.

Richard Tofel, president of ProPublica, praised the decision: “Kudos to @buzzfeedben and his team for publishing the dossier. Once CNN story out, citizens should have evidence to consider for themselves.”

Vice columnist Michael Tracey wrote that WikiLeaks had been “relentlessly attacked” for publishing verified, authentic information, while BuzzFeed was being “cheered for publishing what appears to be a total sham.”

And in the New York Post, columnist and longtime magazine editor John Podhoretz made a solid point: “In my experience, there is no source of whom you need to be more skeptical, and whose information you need to verify to the letter before you can even begin to think of publishing it, than an ‘intelligence’ source.”

Once BuzzFeed published, of course, the cat was out of the bag. Slate followed, publishing the documents itself, and anyone in the world had access with a few keystrokes.

Trump — due to give his first news conference today — immediately took to Twitter to brand the information “fake news” and to blame a political witch hunt. The publication of the documents does, indeed, give fuel to the notion that the press is out to get him.

Most mainstream outlets, including The Post, even now are staying away from the specifics of the report, said to be prepared by a former British intelligence official. Those media organizations don’t get much credit these days for skepticism and editorial judgment, but for the most part, they have shown it here.

I don’t fault BuzzFeed for lack of skepticism here. Smith was clear with readers that the information he was publishing couldn’t be verified and, indeed, there was no reason to believe that much of it was true. What I fault him for was sliding down a slippery ethical slope from which there is no return.

In an era when trust in the media is already in the gutter, this does absolutely nothing to help. But even that isn’t the core point, which is far simpler:

It’s never been acceptable to publish rumor and innuendo. And none of the circumstances surrounding this episode — not CNN’s story, not Trump’s dubious history with Russia, not the fact that the intelligence community made a report on it — should change that ethical rule.

Agree or not...Fake or not... Nobody is going to stop the fishing for Trump's dealings with Putin, Russia, womanizing, sexual indiscretions, unpaid taxes, and shady financial deals. Probably thinking just like the GOP leaders have. Something is going to stick sooner or later if they follow the GOP model. It's how it's done now.

Trumps first News Conference in just minutes!

before he speaks...