US corroborates some aspects of the Russia dossier

[imind]

we'll have to see where this goes...

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

link

 

[lasthero]

I still remain highly skeptical. I'm not Trump fan, but this...

It is interesting to imagine what it would be like if it was completely true. Is it an impeachable offense?

 

[Rion]

It's scary how much like the first days of Obama this is. Even have a Birther movement. Maybe we should call them the Wizzer movement.

 

[lasthero]

It's scary how much like the first days of Obama this is. Even have a Birther movement. Maybe we should call them the Wizzer movement.

The difference being, of course, that the Birther movement never have the FBI and other organizations looking into any of their claims. To the best of my knowledge.

I don't buy it, myself, but comparing it to the Birther movement seems like a far reach.

 

[Rion]

The difference being, of course, that the Birther movement never have the FBI and other organizations looking into any of their claims. To the best of my knowledge.

I don't buy it, myself, but comparing it to the Birther movement seems like a far reach.

Obama didn't go out of his way to antagonize the intelligence agencies either.

 

[lasthero]

Obama didn't go out of his way to antagonize the intelligence agencies either.

...and?

 

[JGG]

I'm pretty sure that the story here is going to be that Russia (Putin) sought out material on the President with which to blackmail him.

 

[Armoured]

I'm pretty sure that the story here is going to be that Russia (Putin) sought out material on the President with which to blackmail him.

For blackmail to be effective, the target has to have a sense of shame.

 

[Albion]

It probably doesn't faze anyone, given the current atmosphere we live in of fake news and slanted reporting, but there's no "US corroborates...."

As the link/article stated it (last month), "allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details...."

and that's according to CNN!

 

[Armoured]

It probably doesn't faze anyone, given the current atmosphere we live in of fake news and slanted reporting, but there's no "US corroborates...."

As the link/article stated it (last month), "allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details...."

and that's according to CNN!

Now follow the link at the bottom of the OP.

Or here; US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Albion]

If it were possible to jam any more qualifiers, evasive terms, gray areas, implied findings, provisional conclusions, hearsay, and so on into these two articles...

it would probably set some kind of record.

 

[JGG]

It probably doesn't faze anyone, given the current atmosphere we live in of fake news and slanted reporting, but there's no "US corroborates...."

As the link/article stated it (last month), "allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details...."

and that's according to CNN!

Based on what I've been reading, the more salacious parts of the story are not corroborated. What has been, is the network of intelligence operatives and agencies involved in gathering the material, and it seems to lead right to Putin.

 

[DaisyDay]

Based on what I've been reading, the more salacious parts of the story are not corroborated.

Yes, CNN stated that more than once, just to be sure.

What has been, is the network of intelligence operatives and agencies involved in gathering the material, and it seems to lead right to Putin.

Also that some of the events and people involved were corroborated.

If it were possible to jam any more qualifiers, evasive terms, gray areas, implied findings, provisional conclusions, hearsay, and so on into these two articles...

it would probably set some kind of record.

You may prefer black and white with no nuances, but information doesn't always come that way. They are trying to be careful about facts and what is and is not known.

 

[Albion]

You may prefer black and white with no nuances, but information doesn't always come that way. They are trying to be careful about facts and what is and is not known.

All right, but then let's return to the title of this thread. That's where this discussion started. Sure, CNN said what it said. That's not the point so much as what we here were told to think about it. No nuances there. No.

The articles bent over backwards in their choice of words, despite those sources being fervently anti-Trump, for the very reason that they don't have much to go on other than hints and maybes. They made as much out of relatively little information as they could. BUT that doesn't deter a CF member from rushing out a thread that claims "US corroborates..."

There hasn't been corroboration of anything but possibly a tiny corner of this news, and it's certainly not the "U.S." having "corroborated."

 

[DaisyDay]

All right, but then let's return to the title of this thread. That's where this discussion started. Sure, CNN said what it said. That's not the point so much as what we here were told about it.

Told about it by whom? CNN is the source - did you read the link? What the OP quoted, "For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN." Is that inaccurate in your opinion? If so, in what way exactly?

No nuances there. No.

Well, yes, objectively so - "hints and maybes" are nuances.

The articles bent over backwards in their choice of words, despite those sources being fervently anti-Trump, for the very reason that they don't have much to go on other than hints and maybes.

Which sources do you mean? The British spy or the US intelligence sources?

They made as much out of relatively little information as they could. BUT that doesn't deter a CF member from rushing out a thread that claims "US corroborates..."

And? Corroborates some, not all, and not the giggly bits - and the title of the thread left off "Investigators" which the CNN headline had. This is news because, before now, the entire dossier was uncorroborated.

There hasn't been corroboration of anything but possibly a tiny corner of this news, and it's certainly not the "U.S." having "corroborated."

I don't know that "some" is necessarily "tiny", but it is actual corroboration of "some" whether you like where that leads or not. This does mean that the entire dossier is not hokum, but that does not mean that the uncorroborated parts aren't. We just don't know how much yet. It's possible that the whole thing is true, but it's also possible that only some of it is true, thrown in to falsely lend credibility to the entirety. CNN is pretty clear that we don't know close to everything - just more than we used to know:

But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.​

I guess I don't understand why you're so upset about this.

 

[Albion]

Told about it by whom?

Read over the postings in this thread.

CNN is the source - did you read the link? What the OP quoted, "For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN."

I quoted almost the whole of that earlier in the thread, so you're not telling me much here.

 

[DaisyDay]

Read over the postings in this thread.

I have, but that doesn't tell me exactly who you're referring to right then. Why reply without answering?

I quoted almost the whole of that earlier in the thread, so you're not telling me much here.

Okay, so?

 

[Albion]

I have, but that doesn't tell me exactly who you're referring to right then. Why reply without answering?

?? I explained (and fairly carefully, I thought) what I was referring to in the post immediately preceding the one in which you asked me this. You can understand, then, why I didn't think I was being obscure or evasive in my answer by directing you back to it.

 

[JGG]

All right, but then let's return to the title of this thread. That's where this discussion started. Sure, CNN said what it said. That's not the point so much as what we here were told to think about it.

What were we told to think about it? By whom?

No nuances there. No.

I'd have to know whom you are speaking of, and what this person specifically said.

The articles bent over backwards in their choice of words, despite those sources being fervently anti-Trump, for the very reason that they don't have much to go on other than hints and maybes. They made as much out of relatively little information as they could. BUT that doesn't deter a CF member from rushing out a thread that claims "US corroborates..."

Yes. US Corroborates...some of aspects of the Russian dossier. Hey look, that's the title of the thread.

There hasn't been corroboration of anything but possibly a tiny corner of this news, and it's certainly not the "U.S." having "corroborated."

Actually, it's a pretty big deal. What they've basically corroborated is that Russia has been gathering information in an attempt to blackmail the President for their own purposes. That's international espionage. That's a nation trying to leverage our nation's leaders at the highest levels. Honestly, that's a pretty big news story, not some tiny corner.

 

[Albion]

Yes. US Corroborates...some of aspects of the Russian dossier. Hey look, that's the title of the thread.

As sarcasm, that would be exactly what I was getting at.

"US" did not corroborate even some elements of the story, and the links don't use that wording. But we here, reading the thread's title were supposed to think it was so.