It's not your intelligence agency. I assume you're American. You are welcome to trust foreign intelligence but it makes you a bit naive.
Did you read the bit about the US using the dossier as a "road map"? From the yahoo article earlier in the thread, although you were originally referring to The Guardian piece: (FBI Director James Comey.Thomson Reuters) The FBI reportedly used the explosive, unverified dossier detailing President Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia to bolster its case for a warrant that would allow it to surveil Carter Page, an early foreign-policy adviser to Trump's campaign. It's a key signal that the FBI had enough confidence in the validity of the document to work to corroborate it and present it in court. The FBI has been using the dossier as a "roadmap" for its investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election since last year, the BBC's Paul Wood reported last month. The document itself was not central to the bureau's argument before a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that Page could have been acting as an agent of Russia, according to CNN. But the raw intelligence contained in the 35-page collection of memos — written by the former British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, who spent 20 years spying for MI6 in Moscow — apparently helped the FBI convince the court that Page could be acting as an agent of a foreign power.
You still haven't answered my question. But you don't have to, because at this point it's not even relevant. Also what you're saying is that the document is unverified and was a part of the investigation. So? Honestly that doesn't really add much to the overall public knowledge of what's going on. Roadmap could mean they wanted to verify if this document was true because it's from a foreign source and they don't even say how accurate it is. Also for all you know, the FBI is using the investigation as leverage to continue its own operations. Who really knows what is going on. I'm not saying Trump isn't tied to Russia, but I would like to see some outstanding evidence for such an outstanding claim. Mostly, and I mean this in a friendly way, I'm just saying slow down, and look at the lack of actual details. When details are missing regarding this, it's very easy to jump to conclusions. Intelligence agencies know the kind of response they are going to get, so ask yourself, are you responding to this the way they would like you to? Also keep posting this stuff. It's good to read regardless if I think it provides compelling evidence or not.
Fair enough, I'm not crowing about it being a smoking gun, just more smoke and the smell of gunpowder. If I am to believe that the FBI is using this to increase their influence or act in their own political interests there would need to be something to prove that assertion. Until then, I'll do what I've been doing: wait for the investigation to conclude and mull over anything that comes out in the interim.
Everything aside, here is where I'm coming from so you can understand why I may have asked the initial question. And I apologize if it came off as aggressive. I just think bureaucrats tends to be political by nature so I don't really see much of a reason for trusting them. I would love to hear what they have to say though. I am not some die hard Trump fan as well, which I have a feeling may be the shadow I'm casting with my comments sometimes. I am just curious about everything, and I'm willing to ask questions. I like to challenge both conservative and liberal alike... and most of this Russia business, to be honest, feels murky and a bit too shielded from public light. I can't wait for the investigation to conclude. I would like to think the FBI are acting in our best interest. Again, foreign intelligence, I really don't know about. But yeah I think it's safe to say the FBI may be a bureaucracy, but that's unavoidable. They of all of the groups out there, are the most likely ones to have our backs as Americans.
Well measured response, I didn't think you were agressive and I tried my best not to come across that way myself. it is murky and shielded, I certainly can concede that, but it's to be expected in an ongoing, high level FBI investigation.
The foreign intelligence agency of what is probably our closest ally in the world? One of the Five Eyes that collaborates regularly with our own intelligence agencies? The one whose reports on Trump our own intelligence agencies obviously have trusted. Yes, I'd say that's about as trustworthy as we can get. I'd say it's a bit facile to just be cynical and skeptical about everything. I don't find it persuasive. We're really not in any position to look at evidence and divine the truth. We don't have any access to primary information. We're mostly denied secondary sources too because of the sensitivity of the information. Of what information is left, we have interested parties who are vested in us believing one thing or another. If you think you can look at the details or the lack of details and discern the truth, you're deluding yourself. There isn't enough evidence to go on. In the epistemology of it, we mostly only have authority to go on. It's about who you trust. Some people trust Trump, for reasons I cannot fathom since he doesn't seem to have ever done anything to inspire any trust. Some people, like Trump, want me to doubt the trustworthiness of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI -- they're political, they leak like a sieve, they're deep-state Obamanites trying to undermine the Trump Administration. You want to say they're spinning a narrative for me, carefully crafted to make me believe something and gingerly avoiding details so as not to be caught in outright lies. I choose to trust them (they did leak like crazy though). And they choose to trust British intelligence. And they are all investigating Trump for colluding with the Russians to steal an election. If they are suspicious of Trump, then I'm suspicious of him too.
You don't have an argument. Trusting foreign intel.. Even our intelligence is smart enough to take their intel with a grain of salt. Why do you think it remains unverified? I find it funny you imply that I think we can discern what's going on. My whole point is that you can't! You're awfully trusting as well. Hate to tell you that not everyone is a boy scout at the higher levels of political agencies.
It seems to me that Trump to a big risk legally when he said he has no business dealings in Russia in that press conference a couple of months ago. If he was lying it would seem that could come back to bite in legal proceedings To me that really should have put this subject to rest
No, Trump's good. He has got Presidential immunity. Any crimes before Trump got elected are a different matter.
Foreign Dossiers aren't news reports that really get verified. Certain things in the MI6 dossier have in fact already been proven true. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/ But a Dossier is not ever presented as being 100% correct. It is the merely the collection of talk, and research that the intelligence agent or agency gathers. By definition that is at times nothing more than hearsay. Certain parts can be verified if things spoken of do come true, or somehow other sources confirm it. But an intelligence dossier isn't supposed to be like a news article with independent sources verifying things. That is one of the reasons it's irresponsible for news media to report on the dossier specifics as if they are actually true. Luckily most of the media included in their reporting the fact that the information in the dossier was unverified at the time.
oh please, don't try to pretend. Not an assumption when you use the alt-right avitar and you instantly deflect away from Trump/Russia by playing the hillary card.
You are welcome to tell me what information we are going to glean from this news. We already knew Trump has ties to Russia.
If I was alt-right I would own it. I am actually further left that you probably imagine. I just do not think we are getting good information regarding Russia. I want evidence and all we are given are unverified reports from compromised sources. as for my avatar, you should stick to attacking arguments rather than character assassination. Oh man... Look! You have a frog avatar! Oh no, you must be a nazi! The alt right is trying to coop the frog avatar from simple meme farmers such as myself, but they do not own him. Sounds like you have had too much of the main stream cool aid regarding pepe. Do your research and you will find he is not owned by the right.
Well you keep calling it "foreign intel" when it is way more accurate to call intel from our closet ally.
Why should I bother? What makes you so special that I should repeat things I've already said many times here in the past, as well as post information I've posted before, with all due respect. You've been around since 2008, according to your join date. You should have been paying more attention down here. D&D hasn't gone anywhere and neither have many of us. What's missing are Republicans that resemble the Republicans of the past. Republicans that could work across the aisle and actually pass a budget. We used to have moderate members of the GOP in D&D that were fun to converse with. They've largely disappeared. Bummer.
Yawn. I haven't read the last 10 pages of this thread or so, but I'd just like to laugh at the liberals due to their lack of evidence.
Like with a 4chan avatar that a good % of people associate with the Alt Right. I don't think it's "character assassination." If I put a confederate flag on my bumper, it says something about me, that's all. If I'm not a retrograde fan of the old south (or worse), then it at least means I enjoy making other people (or at least certain people) uncomfortable. Even if it just represented a TV show to me, I'd have to, if I wanted to be an honest broker, own what it means publicly. Whether it's correct or fair or not, Pepe has strong Alt Right linkage at this point, with a special historical link to Trump. But maybe you're in the "take back Pepe" campaign that the artist himself, and the original publisher of the comic, have launched together more recently. Who knows. But it's a controversial 4chan-ish choice, at the very least. I don't really care about it, other than I've always thought it was a piss poor looking frog, and I otherwise like frogs, but anyway, it's weird to criticize people for saying something about it at this point.
Sources: Russia tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate campaign http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/russia-trump-campaign-advisers-infiltrate/
