Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it goes back to the original report:

Is there evidence that it was a hoax, made up, a complete invention? No, not that I'm aware of.

Are there grounds for thinking it was at least produced by usual channel, oxymoron alert, 'reputable spooks'? Cautiously, yes.

Does that make it 'true'? No, of course not - but neither is it evidence that it isn't.
I refer you to the Craig Murray article linked to earlier which outlines many reasons for considering it a work of fiction
The Steele Dossier or the Hitler Diaries Mark II - Craig Murray

and in particular the ALREADY disproven claim that Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, was involved in a meeting in Prague
Witnesses say Michael Cohen was not in Prague for Kremlin meeting following passport tweet | Daily Mail Online
 
In some ways I think urban's discussions of Trump need to move on. There's been a long corrective going on, entirely necessary in my view, against those who invested liberal and 'progressive' hopes in Clinton. Those people were wrong and the Democrats were even more wrong with their abandonment of the working class and of whole communities. But... it's Trump. Whatever madness arises from his 'unpresidential' personality and psychopathy, there's going to be an intensified agenda of deregulation and inequality.
 
my Christmas tree got 10.

I just love Xmas trees. But I only mentioned my five generously given likes because I had been told that it was "fact" I had posted nothing of any worth on this thread.

OTOH you seem to be contributing Xmas trees.

Good for you.
 
All this
I think it goes back to the original report:

Is there evidence that it was a hoax, made up, a complete invention? No, not that I'm aware of.

Are there grounds for thinking it was at least produced by usual channel, oxymoron alert, 'reputable spooks'? Cautiously, yes.

Does that make it 'true'? No, of course not - but neither is it evidence that it isn't.


As I mentioned (then deleted as is my SOP on this thread) , This is more James Wormald than Peter Wright, but even Wormalds vacuum cleaner based reports were based on nuggets of known and verifiable information. the joining up of these nuggets into a dossier made them if not wholly credible, at least had enough truth in them to ensure they could not be dismissed out of hand. Much of the joining up stuff is never likely to be disproven in public.
 
Successful SIS operatives usually relish placing a flourish in their report writings - this can make or break the reception of their work*. It is no surprise that imagination assists in an industry that likes itself to be portrayed as drone like civil servicery. Where the boundary exists between fact and supposition is one to carefully tread if yer job depends upon it

* this is why I could never be one of them. and the drug habit and record of random violence obviously.
 
In an extraordinary move, Office of Government Ethics Director Walter Shaub publicly stated on Wednesday that President-elect Donald Trump did not consult with his office to formulate his plan to hand his billion-dollar real estate and licensing company off to his two adult sons.


Shaub said in an online livestream conducted by the Brookings Institution that Trump’s plan “doesn’t meet the standard that the best of nominees are meeting and that every president of the past four decades has met.”

“OGE’s primary recommendation is that he divest his conflicting assets,” he said. “Nothing short of divestiture will resolve these conflicts.” He added, “I don’t think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the United States of America.”

Head Of Ethics Office Says Donald Trump's Conflict-Of-Interest Plan Is 'Meaningless' | The Huffington Post
 
I don't really know what you are waiting for. The propagandists are tying themselves in knots because Trump's lawyer was never where they claimed he was, and it's like you are asking to me disprove the claim that the dog ate someone's else's homework because it was muddled
no, it's like i'm asking you to say which parts of the article you disagree with.
 
Why? If you tell me the dog ate your homework and I prove that you never had a dog how should I treat your refined claim that the chicken ate your homework?
Well, you certainly can't talk about it because that would be 'fake news' - under your logic.

So, why are you peddling fake news?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom