Re: US Election 2016
 

It would seem that the allegations are all true judging by the meltdown he had at the press conference yesterday ,he seems far too upset by something he says can be easily disproven,is this how it's going to be from now on ? whenever a story about him emerges it's going to be 'fake news' .
Also his refusal to offload his business interests will without doubt be a major sticking point and cause him problems in future .

Re: US Election 2016
 

Good article here about the whole thing with new information: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01...ian-influence/

The most interesting part is that the FBI seem to be seriously looking into allegations of money going into the Trump campaign from Russian banks.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I don't think they are doing anything remotely serious about it Damien, the FBI have made no such announcement that they are doing anything 'serious' about it, if there were, they would be raising it to a formal investigation and they have not announced that they are or intend doing, they are only reviewing allegations that have been made and that is only the level it is at.

http://www.snopes.com/manafort-ties-to-russia/

Also, I don't think anybody would be so stupid on the campaign team, who dealt with the funding of it, to want to blindly accept funding and have it traceable right back to Russian banks, that is just stupid crazy, leaving oneself to big holes, the inquiries started months ago, so I am sure the FBI would have announced they have found something by now and act accordingly.

Re: US Election 2016
 

Not talking about Paul Manafort. According to that article they only got permission to continue their investigation in October and they weren't going to announce it pre-election.

I don't accept blindly they've been taking money and nor does the article. Just that the FBI are investigating and we'll see where all these investigations go.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But that is just it, it is not a formal investigation, it is an inquiry in to allegations that have been made and the FBI does not discuss what actions it is doing, they are not looking at this seriously at all and have announced no such wording to that effect, as you put it in your post above.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

They have offices around the World and have very little dealings with Russia itself, despite being labeled 'Russian Law firm of the year' by Chambers and Partners.

Just for the record. Hillary Clinton used Morgan Lewis services during her Presidential campaign, not that long ago. ;)

Re: US Election 2016
 

I think you're spot-on on both points. I did wonder if Trump's comments about the security report were a typical "dead cat" comment to distract the American public from his continuing direct ownership of his business interests but it seems worse even than that.

It's concerning that Trump blames the US intelligence forces for the leak of the document when James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, told Trump on Wednesday evening that the intelligence community had not been responsible for the leak. “I emphasised that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC,”
This just makes for a dysfunctional country if Trump strives to blame the intelligence services when they have clearly told him that they did not leak the documents. No wonder Putin aided and then toasted Trump's electoral success!

Ron Ryden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee describes the dangers of the current situation very well.
“The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community, or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous,” Wyden said.

Quotes from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...p-dossier-leak

Re: US Election 2016
 

How is simply saying "I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC" anything like proof or evidence? :confused:

Re: US Election 2016
 

Let me assist. Firstly, I've not stated that this is proof or evidence. My concern is that Trump still blames the US intelligence forces for the leak of the document when James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, told him on Wednesday evening that the intelligence community had not been responsible for the leak.

Re: US Election 2016
 

But James Clapper is also ADMITTING that he has no evidence that they didn't, therefore he is in NO position to say that weren't responsible. You have to know unequivocally one way or another in order for a statement to be accepted as true.

Re: US Election 2016
 

So does that mean Trump should not have said that the IC did leak it, as he does not know unequivocally one way or another that it is true, and he has no evidence that it is?

Re: US Election 2016
 

I'm sure you must know by now that the onus is on the person making the allegation (Trump) to prove it and not on the person defending the organisation (Clapper). The concept of innocent until proved guilty applies here.

Re: US Election 2016
 

He suggested it as a possibility. Nobody is claiming what he said as proof. On the other hand, there are many people stating that it was "likely" that Russia was involved in ONE attempted hack at ONE individual is conclusive proof.
From your post.
The 2 BiB are contradictory in nature. It still officially leaves open the possibility that the intelligence community where responsible, is Trump's suggestion might be correct.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Must've have missed the bit where Buzzfeed and whoever provided any proof of anything.

Re: US Election 2016
 

I'm sure it's all still available online.

Re: US Election 2016
 

"Sure" as in I have no idea whatsoever and whatever might or might not be there, it is nothing remotely resembling proof.

Whereas there is huge amounts of proof of what the Clintons and the Democrats got up to, but revealing that proof seems to be the crime and not what was done.

Re: US Election 2016
 

There is no proof of anything online. Hence the term "unverified".