Originally Posted by Ennewi[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Thorny response from a grim person.
Ok I'll bite
1) Your link doesn't mention collusion. Just that Putin wanted to put Trump in power, hence no proof of collusion. Just an effort by a discredited hack to keep the fantasy alive. You're off in conspiracy theory land and it's sad to witness. I feel bad for you.
2) The 'leaked paper" in question has about as much credibility as WMD in Iraq
3) The guy who wrote the article, Luke Harding, is the same hack that wrote the ridiculously false article that Manafort met with Assange before the 2016 election
In what has been described as potentially the biggest story of the year, the Guardian’s Luke Harding reported on Nov. 27 that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held a series of secret talks with WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange. These meetings were said to have occurred inside the Ecuadorian embassy between 2013 and 2016. The report also mentions that unspecified “Russians” were also among Assange’s visitors. The scoop, according to the newspaper, could “shed new light” on the role of WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic Party emails in the 2016 presidential election.
The story was picked up across the U.S., including by USA Today (11/27/18), the Washington Post (11/27/18), Bloomberg (11/27/18), Yahoo! News (11/27/18), The Hill (11/27/18) and Rolling Stone (11/27/18). One CNN analyst (11/27/18) excitedly commented that the news was “hugely significant” and “could be one of the two missing links to show real interference and knowledge of Russian involvement” in the election.
However, there were serious problems with the report. Firstly, the entire story was based upon anonymous intelligence sources, sources that could not tell the newspaper exactly when the meetings took place.
Harding also has a history of publishing deeply inflammatory claims without being able to back them up. His book, "Collusion," on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election was a New York Times No. 1 bestseller, and yet he could not give any evidence of collusion when asked in a now-infamous interview with Aaron Maté of The Real News, unable to defend even the title of his book, let alone his thesis. After being pressed harder by Maté, he simply disconnected the interview prematurely.
Originally Posted by Thorgrimm[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ok I'll bite
2) The 'leaked paper" in question has about as much credibility as WMD in Iraq
"Leaked" is indeed a funny way of saying "published by the Russian state". No bearing on the truth of it. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Originally Posted by Pulgasari[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"Leaked" is indeed a funny way of saying "published by the Russian state". No bearing on the truth of it. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you read that joke of an article it's riddled with qualifiers like "appears", "seems", "suggests" ect.
Previously Harding wrote an entire book entitled "Collusion" which was centered around the Steele Dossier, which has been confirmed to be utter nonsensical trash that only gullible stupid people believed was true.
You see this type of misdirection or obfuscation taking place across the entire media spectrum. And a real driving force for me in writing the book was taking on the Steele dossier as a case study in how reporters can get manipulated or allow themselves to be manipulated and the havoc that results from that.
Originally Posted by Thorgrimm[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you read that joke of an article it's riddled with qualifiers like "appears", "seems", "suggests" ect.
Previously Harding wrote an entire book entitled "Collusion" which was centered around the Steele Dossier, which has been confirmed to be utter nonsensical trash that only gullible stupid people believed was true.
Originally Posted by Pulgasari[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"Leaked" is indeed a funny way of saying "published by the Russian state". No bearing on the truth of it. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I believe the rule of thumb was not to believe the russian state.
Originally Posted by Thorgrimm[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ok I'll bite
1) Your link doesn't mention collusion. Just that Putin wanted to put Trump in power, hence no proof of collusion. Just an effort by a discredited hack to keep the fantasy alive. You're off in conspiracy theory land and it's sad to witness. I feel bad for you.
2) The 'leaked paper" in question has about as much credibility as WMD in Iraq
3) The guy who wrote the article, Luke Harding, is the same hack that wrote the ridiculously false article that Manafort met with Assange before the 2016 election
It's know Salon, boo, hiss, hiss
I'll only say that it's interesting, the articles coming out now, on the heels of the ransomware attacks recently. What we need though is a poll to see how many actually read or listened to a reading of the Mueller report. I haven't, not in its entirety, but even that's probably more than a majority of the country.
07-19-2021, 08:46 PM
Linear Mode
