You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we__sure ago

For starter, let's be clear here, the smear against Roy Moore is obviously 100% fake news. Not a single shred of evidence, a forged yearbook signature.....

Actually you have several witnesses worth of evidence. Which is far more than you have against Podesta or Alefantis.

And those witnesses are backed up by supporting and contemporaneous evidence.

newworldahead ago

Lol, I knew I would see your name in this thread. Here you are trying to give credence to the hit job on Moore... exactly like you did in the past when you defended the fake Trump dossier.

By the way, Nelson just admitted to have forged the yearbook signature, woopsy! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/08/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-yearbook/

Are_we_sure ago

Fox News updates story after inaccurately reporting Moore accuser forged yearbook entry http://hill.cm/rL6T2i0

But Nelson does not claim she tampered with Moore’s actual signature. She said she added a time and location below the signature. Nelson still attributes the note and signature to Moore.

We rate the statement Pants on Fire.

newworldahead ago

You are being dishonest, a real libtard. if you were honest you would admit that she lied about the signature. Go apply for a job at CNN or MSNBC, they love people like you.

Are_we_sure ago

She admitted that? Should make for a interesting press conference today.

Inbox: Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson and her attorney Gloria Allred will hold a press conference in Atlanta, Georgia today to present expert evidence that Roy Moore signed Beverly’s yearbook.

The Trump dossier is fake? Russia doesn't seem to think so.

We tried to reach Oleg Erovinkin for comments about his appearance in the dossier, but he was unavailable.

newworldahead ago

Dude believes Pizzagate is a ridiculous conspiracy theory yet think Pee-Pee gate has credibility.

Are_we_sure ago

You don't know how an intelligence dossier works. Raw intelligence always needs to be evaluated with other evidence to reach a determination.

What Christopher Steele was reporting was what he had been told by his sources. To determine truth you need to evaluate if the the sources are telling the truth. Are they claiming first hand knowledge or just repeating something they heard. If they are claiming firsthand knowledge, are they in a position to have this knowledge normally? If they are talking about a conversation between two people at the Mayflower hotel on a certain date, can you find out if those people were actually in the hotel that day? Are they lying? Are they telling the truth, but repeating lies that were told to them. Is this just gossip. An example, a guy in Texas who said "I think Obama spent $65,000" on pizza and hot dogs. Is that true or is that gossip?

A lot in the dossier has checked out including details a large scale cyber campaign against the US and possession of damaging material on Clinton...just like Don Jr was promised. This before it was revealed the DNC emails were hacked. Also included, details of a massive sale of part of Rosneft, Russian state oil company, he said 19% was to be sold. 19.5% was sold and people think the half percent was the brokerage fee. The number two guy at the oil company was found dead in his car. Heart attack they said. However, he was in the trunk of his car. Carter Page told Congress that went to Moscow and met with high government officials and an official as Rosneft.

He talking about a Russian diplomat in Florida was actually a spy. Russian pulled him home super quick.

Regarding the kompromat on Trump. Here's what we do know of that night.

Trump had just pulled off a big business deal for a tower in Moscow and was celebrating.

He was offered prostitutes. Trump's bodyguard said someone wanted to send 5 prostitutes up to room, but he prevented it. He watched Trump's door for a while and then he went to sleep.

The BBC reported in January of witnesses who saw someone arguing with hotel security over the prositutes (to keep them from having to sign in apparently ) “There are, though, reports of witnesses in the hotel who corroborate Steele’s reporting. These include an American who’s said to have seen a row with the hotel security over whether the hookers would be allowed up to Trump’s suite. "

newworldahead ago

Priceless. You talk about the pizza/dogs email being just gossip... then you turn all serious with the "Kompromat on Trump" as it was somehow backed by evidence. You write a lot of words but doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't have a clue about how an intelligent dossier work yourself. Stop pretending you care about the truth, it is not working.

Are_we_sure ago

The kompromat on Trump is backed by evidence. But it's not at all conclusive. I don't think the kompromat is proven at all. The dossier itself look better all the time.

The pizza/dogs email is not backed up by anything. And it's clearly secondhand.

newworldahead ago

The pizza/dogs email is real evidence. It is an authentic email leaked by WL. While it's true that there MIGHT exist an innocent explanation for the following:

I think Obama spent about $65,000 of the tax-payers money flying in pizza/dogs from Chicago for a private party at the White House not long ago, assume we are using the same channels?

... as long as the sender and recipient of this email refuse to provide a proper explanation, it cannot be discarded, even less "debunked". It remains a suspicious email, and a piece of evidence.

Are_we_sure ago

I know it's a real email. My point is it's obvious in the email itself, it's secondhand information.
"I think."

... as long as the sender and recipient of this email refuse to provide a proper explanation, it cannot be discarded, even less "debunked". It remains a suspicious email, and a piece of evidence.

Yeah, your evidence is suspicion backed up by nothing else. You think people who had their emails hacked need to answer your suspicions.

newworldahead ago

Therefore even the guy in the email can't say this is actually true. That's why I say it's gossip.

What are you talking about? Did you speak with the guy in the email to affirm something like that? If this is all so innocent, it should not be too hard to answer the question: "Hey Stratfor guy, what did you mean in this pizza/dogs email?". If you don't know the answer to this question, you cannot say it is "secondhand information".

Yeah, your evidence is suspicion backed up by nothing else. You think people who had their emails hacked need to answer your suspicions.

There are enough reasons to believe that these people are involved in some really troubling stuff. Yes, we deserve answers, whether you like it or not.

Seriously man, I really don't know what you are doing in this forum. You've been trolling here since PIZZAGATE broke (I wrote PIZZAGATE in CAPS just for my buddy @FuckUredditFuckuSpez). What are you trying to achieve? If Pizzagate is fake in your eyes, what are you doing here day after day?

Are_we_sure ago

It's absolutely secondhand information. It's obvious from his words that he uses that he is repeating something he was told.

newworldahead ago

Even if he was repeating something he was told as you said (the fact that he said 'I think' doesn't prove anything but let's disregard this for now), what difference does it make? What is your point? It doesn't mean the information itself is not important.

Are_we_sure ago

My point is that there's no way to tell if the information is true. It's no more than gossip.

newworldahead ago

"No way to tell if the information is true" ? How about questioning the sender and receiver of this email about it?

Are_we_sure ago

Knock yourself out.

See if that advances our knowledge. Or if he's pissed about getting his emails stolen and decides to ignore you.

newworldahead ago

Haha... you cannot be for real. I've heard enough, have a great day.