[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 9 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!



File: 90[1].jpg (68 KB, 1160x629)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/12/obama-russia-trump-transition-405823

>Former President Barack Obama suggested in January 2017 that information related to a federal probe of Russian election interference might have to be withheld from aides to then-President-elect Donald Trump, according to an internal White House email released Monday by two senior GOP senators.

>The warning Obama delivered on Jan. 5, 2017, came during an Oval Office conversation shortly after senior intelligence officials briefed him on Russian cyber-meddling in the 2016 election. It was documented in an email then-national security adviser Susan Rice sent to herself on Jan. 20, the day of Trump's inauguration.

>Portions of the email were released Monday by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who called the missive "odd" and "unusual."

>Grassley and Graham seized on Rice's decision to email herself a summary of the Jan. 5 meeting at 12:15 p.m. on Inauguration Day, "presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time." The move appears to have been intended to create a permanent official record of the conversation.

>Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Graham asked Rice a series of questions about the conversation, including what she might have known about a private intelligence dossier alleging Kremlin influence over Trump's campaign. The letter notes that multiple news reports have said Obama was briefed on the dossier — which includes unverified and salacious allegations about Trump — at the Jan. 5 meeting with intelligence officials.
...
>>
>The Oval Office conversation Rice described in her email included then-FBI Director James Comey and then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, as well as former Vice President Joe Biden. In the portion of the email the Republicans released, Rice recounted Obama making explicitly clear that he was not attempting to influence an ongoing federal probe into Russian election disruption.

>"The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book," Rice wrote.

>"From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming [Trump] team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia."

>It is unclear what the officials might have said in response. Grassley and Graham said the subsequent part of Rice's email is classified. The passage after that states that Obama asked Comey to let him know "if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team."

>But Obama's concern about the potential need to shield Russia material from Trump aides — including Michael Flynn, then Trump's incoming national security adviser, who is now cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller — was not previously known before the Republicans released Rice's email. Obama warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his national security adviser, current and former officials have said.

>The New York Times reported in March that Obama administration officials have sought to leave a trail of information in government records documenting their concern that the Trump campaign may have coordinated efforts with Russia.
>>
>>229596
>>229597
I'd be worried too if I authorized the IC to spy on my friend's political rival based on what I knew was disinformation created by my friend paying a British spy with Russian informants and used it to fudge surveillance warrants. Almost like I was counting on my friend getting elected so no one would ever know about what really happened.
>>
>>229613
It's a good thing it was based on probable cause instead because of all the collusion going on.
>>
When is Grassley and Graham going to jail for obstructing justice? Are they seriously trying to blame Obama now after they got humiliated with their lying about Steele?
>>
>>229614
>It's a good thing it was based on probable cause instead because of all the collusion going on.
>Collusion we have yet to find any evidence of despite all cries to the contrary
>"Probable cause" we withheld from congress for months like the dismissal of an agent for bias
Anyone who's not a private IT firm under contract by the DNC check the DNC's server yet? No? K.
>>
>>229616
>Grassley and Graham humiliated with their lying about Steele
[citation needed]
>>
>>229617
The Washington Free Beacon, who started the memo, is hardly the DNC.
>>
>>229619
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
>>
>>229622
You have to actually extrapolate data friend, posting a link and expecting everyone else to do your work for you isn't going to work.

So me where and what in that article supports your statement or gtfo.

>>229621
>The Washington Free Beacon, who started the memo
You seem to be confused.
That memo, and the post-DNC and Fusion GPS/Steele memo, are entirely different entities.

For example, the Free Beacon's memo didn't contract a foreign spy who contracted Russian sources with US dollars from a political campaign to generate a dossier partially comprised of literal 4chan humor.
>>
>>229624
>You have to actually extrapolate data friend
Sources are cited at the bottom of the page.

>are entirely different entities.
No, no they aren't. See >>229622
>>
>>229628
>Show me where and what in that article supports your statement or gtfo.
So you can't then?
>>
>>229630
Do you know what a citation is? Feigned ignorance is a poor argument.
>>
>>229633
Remember how the guy said that you couldn't extrapolate data? Not being able to find a proper quote is a symptom of that. I'm not looking through a long article just to find evidence to support your views you retard, go do that yourself.
>>
>>229635
You should read it, then you will know how ridiculous you sound when you start parroting all of Sean Hannity's talking points about the "failed vile DNC propaganda memo" that Trump is so afraid of.
>>
>>229628
>Sources are cited at the bottom of the page.
Sources to what? To which specific piece of information are you refusing to point out?

>No, no they aren't
Yes, yes they are. That memo, and the post-DNC and Fusion GPS/Steele memo, are again different entities. The memo as it exists now is now the same form as it existed with the Free Beacon.
Istanbul used to be Constantinople, doesn't mean Istanbul is the same now as Constantinople was then. Do you understand? Is this too complicated? Should we move down to a more elementary level?

>>229630
>So you can't then?
Of course they can't. These people have a go-to spreadsheet with instructions on how to respond, and posting a wikipedia article without specifics pointed out is a way of trying to force whoever they're arguing against to waste time combing through a multitude of information, much of it with topical no contextual relevancy, to hide that they can't provide an actual refutation.

Further replies will likely net a multitude of "it's not my job to educate you/it's not my job to read the article for you" responses. Watch.
>>
>>229637
>You should read it
Read what specifically? Why can't you be specific? Why are you still intentionally obfuscating by being vague?

Also, when you attempt to throw this line back at me in a few posts by accusing me of obfuscating (as you are trained to do), I'm going to call you a monglord.

>Sean Hannity's talking points about the "failed vile DNC propaganda memo" that Trump is so afraid of.

Called it
>>229623
>Only if you ignore everything brought up on the email investigation or Stryzok or the texts or Uranium one. Which you will do. "Stop watching [insert low hanging fruit aka well known right-wing media host] and get educated by this major left leaning MSM outlet relying on anonymous sources."

You people are becoming way too predictable. Time for a new SOP spreadsheet I think.
>>
>>229639
When you start living in reality then maybe we can start having a conversation about current events. Until then, I'm sure ignorance is bliss in your bubbleworld. When you want to read the entire article so you have clue#1 what you are talking about I'll be here waiting.
>>
>>229640
>When you start living in reality then maybe we can start having a conversation about current events.
We're both living in reality and having a conversation about current events, except only one of us wants to talk about stuff that actually happened, instead of made up media narratives supported by nothing but anonymous hearsay.

>Until then, I'm sure ignorance is bliss in your bubbleworld. When you want to read the entire article so you have clue#1 what you are talking about I'll be here waiting.
Post another Wikipedia article without going into specifics of how it applies to either my argument or your own.
Or, oh! How about a "bombshell" article with an anonymous source, so you can derail the thread arguing about anonymous sources and media integrity! Come on! I know that's on your SOP somewhere, bust that tactic out! Lets go!

Side question: how many pharmaceuticals does it take to keep you going instead of ending it all at this point?
>>
>>229643
You honestly believe the media made up the narrative then there is nothing to say. Like I said, ignorance must be bliss for you. Nice adhoms though, classic signs of a man without a valid argument.
>>
>>229644
>You honestly believe the media made up the narrative then there is nothing to say.
There's lots to say, like anything anyone has asked you to extrapolate or expand on in this thread for example, without hiding behind an intentionally vague wiki link.

>Like I said, ignorance must be bliss for you. Nice adhoms though, classic signs of a man without a valid argument.
My argument is concise, can be traced throughout this thread, and doesn't hide behind vague wiki links.

It's okay though, run away. Nothing on your SOP spreadsheet is helping, I understand.
>>
>>229619
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fusion-gps-transcript_us_5a550912e4b003133ecd0358

For months Grassley an Graham were lying about what Fusion GPS told them and refused to release the transcript. Even after Fusion GPS said they should release the transcripts and Grassley refused too. Then after they did Trump's bidding to try and demand Steele be prosecuted for the bold act of warning America of a threat against them. Feinstein releases the transcript that not only contradicts the criminal complaint, but proved that Grassley and Graham were intentionally lying for months about it. Plus they got really pissed at Feinstein for calling them out.

But since Republicans are in charge, they don't get punished.
>>
How awesome that the first black president will also be the first president hanged for treason.
>>
>>229647
Nah that's going to be Trump.
>>
>>229645
>vague wiki links
What's vague about it? Why do you want me to copypaste it here so badly? Can you not refute one single thing it says without calling it vague and/or discredited when it isn't?
>>
>>229638
Above all, "instructions" are to delay, divert and distract. Anything that acomplishes those goals are going to work as a strategy. The counter-strategy is to double bind them and/or take away their photoshop.
>>
>>229644
I believe my own narrative, you ass. The press helps present ideas which I then evaluate as true or false...using a variety of critical thinking techniques. You and those you work for want to remove any narrative presented by others and replace it with your own so you can control the conversation yet another day. To do this, you and those you support are OK with twisting the truth by presenting your fabricated visions as reality. The truth twisting is why your nuts will be twisted off, eventually.

In reality, most of you are likely classified as "insane". Trouble with that is, at this moment, is that you are sneezing that insanity all over everyone else (which is probably a strategy given your "base"). Trouble is with that later, a lot of you will be going to go to jail for lying, manipulation and obstruction...through computational propaganda means. Just because something isn't explicitly illegal doesn't mean it's not illegal. (And contrary to the Insane's narrative, yes it is illegal even if you don't get caught).

The truth will win out and when it does, it won't be presented as some bullshit narrative easily digested by the simple minded or presented by those who remove choices to gain more power and control. It will be razor sharp, obvious and supported in full by those who were dutily elected to protect us from such idiocracy. When it comes for you, it will cut deep and wide swaths through your "support".

Truth evaluated by self is what matters most. Lies and deception are always outed. Even with computational power behind it.
>>
>>229647
Still seeing strange visions in your head. See a doctor about it!
>>
>>229646
>For months Grassley an Graham were lying about what Fusion GPS told them and refused to release the transcript.
What specifically did Grassley and Graham lie about? The article you linked fails to mention any of that.

>Then after they did Trump's bidding to try and demand Steele be prosecuted for the bold act of warning America of a threat against them.
That's not what they said. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/senators-refer-christopher-steele-trump-dossier-author-for-possible-criminal-charges
>Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham say they’ve referred former British spy Christopher Steele to the Justice Department for investigation about false statements he may have made about “the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.”

>Feinstein releases the transcript that not only contradicts the criminal complaint, but proved that Grassley and Graham were intentionally lying for months about it.
How does it contradict the criminal complaint, or prove that "Grassley and Graham were intentionally lying for months about it"? Please be specific.

>Plus they got really pissed at Feinstein for calling them out.
A lot of people got pissed at Feinstein, and she seemed to realized she fucked up, since she said it was a bad decision and blamed her release of the transcripts on a "bad cold".
https://www.westernjournal.com/california-sen-dianne-feinstein-blames-poor-judgement-bad-cold/
>Democrat California Sen. Dianne Feinstein blamed her “bad cold” for her poor judgement of releasing Glenn Simpson’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
>“The one regret I have is that I should have spoke with Senator Grassley before,” she said to NBC News. “And I don’t make an excuse but I’ve had a bad cold and maybe that slowed down my mental facilities a little bit.”

Senility is a bitch.
>>
>>229651
>What's vague about it?
It doesn't address my argument or your refutation of it. It's just there. No specifics, no delineation.

>Why do you want me to copypaste it here so badly?
I don't, I just want to to be specific, and point out what parts of it are supposed to. again:
>"address my argument or your refutation of it"

>Can you not refute one single thing it says without calling it vague and/or discredited when it isn't?
What specifically does it say that's relevant to this thread? How does it apply to what I said? Or what you said?
>>
>>229628

Wait, did you really just link to wikipedia as some source? The same "unbiased news outlet" that says white pride is "racist," but black pride, hispanic pride, gay pride, etc. are all "positive things?" Because only a retarded faggot (read: the entire left side of the political spectrum) would see that and think "yep, seems unbiased herp derp."
>>
>>229676
The proof.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/baloney-joy-reid-lays-out-why-fusion-gps-founders-testimony-destroys-the-conspiracy-theory-peddled-by-the-right/

They knew they were peddling lies, and didn't care. And then did everything to block the transcripts release and even tried to pull bullshit maneuvers like demand the head of Fusion GPS come back and do a public hearing when the closed session contained everything necessary and didn't breach national security.

>>229676
Nice job putting words in her mouth, the only thing she said she should have done was tell Grassley she was going to do it, not that exposing him was a mistake.

You tried. And failed. Again.
>>
>>229719

>joy reid

LOL

That dumb affirmative action hire thinks the media in general has a Republican bias.

https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/955513198517637120
>>
>>229614
It wasn't we know that now.
>>
>>229733
>Can't refute her argument so grasp at straws to attack her personally
Typical

>>229715
You can always go back to /pol/ if you don't like mainstream news sources. They are kind of the point of this board.

>>229743
According to whom? Sean Hannity?
>>
>>229643
I know this will be semi-non-relevant, but k ocking anonymous sources makes you seem like an ignorant douchebag. Anon sources are a good a valid part of journalism. Attack them some other way, just call them lie machines, but fuck stop giving anonymous sources shit. Be less of a tyrant, please.
>>
>>229719
>The proof.
Thats... not proof anon. That's some middling celebrity's opinion.

>They knew they were peddling lies, and didn't care.
What lies? Can you enumerate them and provide evidence?

>Nice job putting words in her mouth
The article quotes her directly anon.

You know you can't pick and choose what bits of reality are relevant according to your tastes, right?

>>229753
>According to whom? Sean Hannity?
Please pick another Straw Man. Use your resource sheet, it's stapled to your SOP.

>>229856
>Anon sources are a good a valid part of journalism.
If your grasp of journalism is anywhere near your grasp of English, your opinion isn't worth much here.
>>
>>229881
Look we're here discussing the memo and the letter. If you aren't up to speed then you can leave. We aren't here to spoonfeed you.
>>
>>229886
>We aren't here to spoonfeed you.
There's spoonfeeding and there's what you're doing- obfuscating, dodging, and derailing the thread.

You haven't been able to back up anything you've said. Stop deflecting or stop posting.
>>
>>229894
It's because I live in the real world and you live in a bubbleworld where the dossier is made by the DNC.
>>
>>229614

To this day, the only "collusion" we have actual evidence of is between Hillary, a British national, and Russians. Time and time again, the saying is brought up because it's true.

"Whenever a degenerate faggot on the left accuses you of something, it's because they're already doing it."
>>
>>229900
That collusion is imaginary. The British National was hired by The Washington Examiner, a conservative newsrag. The Russians only confirmed what the CIA and MI6 were telling Steele what Trump was up to. Keep trying to reframe it as though. Maybe it will work for you if you parrot it enough.

Meanwhile, Don Jr.'s meeting with the Russians is the textbook definition of collusion in this case. Mueller's investigation is just getting started. Manafort's trial starts in April, Gates's in October. When the facts of those cases come out good luck keeping the Dems out of the majority in Congress. Trump's impeachment for not only collusion but trying to obstruct justice in investigiating his collusion will be shortly thereafter.
>>
>>229719
Watch the video and show me how anything shown is wrong.
>>
>>229907
>The Washington Examiner
It was the Washington Free Beacon actually
>>
>>229907
>The British National was hired by The Washington Examiner, a conservative newsrag
It was the Free Beacon who originally started the dossier, but Steele wasn't brought on until Fusion GPS and the DNC took the dossier over.

You're going to jail.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.