Why Big Lies Work in Propaganda
-
Here is one from Forbes, a pretty respectable source.
Here is one where the author of the dossier admits his charges are unverified.
Here is one where one the banks implicated is suing the author of the dossier
Here is another with interesting background information on the links between the author(s) of the dossier and the Democratic Party.
Need more?
-
@JayHawkFanToo thanks.
The Forbes piece is an op-ed piece of well reasoned speculation, and a decent read. The rest of the cited sources I’m not too keen on and don’t seem to add much. In the case of who funded the report, my understanding is that it initially was opposition Republicans, then the Democrats. The bank sued BuzzFeed, who leaked the report, not the author as you indicated, which is an important distinction. The author said that parts of the report were unverified and not meant for MSM. Was it leaked intentionally? Probably?
Anyway, I don’t see this as debunked, just unverified, and there is certainly cause for doubt. I am assuming that if any of this information has merit to it, it would be vetted fully before brought forth as evidence. I get that it is damaging to the president’s image and it is very frustrating for those who believe it’s bogus.
-
I know this wont change your mind. Yet I thought it was an interesting read. As I’ve been told, " if you isn’t got anything to hide then just share it"
-
Could it be that Hillary and the Dems colluded with the Russians?
-
This might get ugly for the Dems. We shall see.
-
While the information was made public in January, it has been available to insiders since long before the election. If the information was good, don’t you think Hillary would have had it front and center? Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and still working for the ultra liberal Washington Post called the dossier a “garbage document.” Enough said.
-
@DoubleDD I haven’t had the opportunity to try to find sources regarding conspiracy around the lawyer that Donald Trump Jr met with and Clinton. I have been meaning to. Do you have a starting place on that angle with a source that doesn’t have a strong bias on this? I’ve admittedly been blind to that angle but would be open minded to a source that didn’t smell funny from the gate.
-
@approxinfinity According to one report last week, she has close ties to both the Russian mob and the government. Russia “experts” say that you can’t talk about Russia wiithout understanding how intricately entertwined business and criminal organizations are with the government. I want to read more on the inner workings. It sounds sort of like Tamany Hall or a combo of Mayor Daley and Capone.
One thing we know: journalists don’t enjoy the freedom to investigate over there that they do here. They tend, along with government reformers, to get taken out or locked up on spurious charges.
-
I’m afraid I really don’t have much accept a bunch or right leaning sites. Some better than others.
Time did a piece on it. It’s kind of interesting. It tells a little of the story about her. Yet the interesting part is Time says she set up the meeting. Hear Say? I don’t know. Really don’t have anything concrete to stand on.
-
@DoubleDD thanks. I read the piece you linked to. It didn’t look like they said anything about Clinton being involved with orchestrating the meeting, as you said.
There is certainly the question of what the Russian attorneys motives were. I get that there could be an agenda here that was possibly trying to harm or get leverage on Trump. But seriously, why did they walk into this trap in the first place? Be it chaos, lack of understanding, or deliberately doing things that are going to get themselves in trouble, it feels like this administration is taking daily jogs through spider webs. This doesn’t feel like being fresh and original in their approach. Why can’t they avoid these mistakes?
And it seems like maybe the narrative has been shifted to try to incriminate Clinton in being behind the attorney, because it would be more socially acceptable that the Trump cabinet was careless if it was entrapment by Clinton. What if it was entrapment but by Russia instead of Clinton. Doesn’t that become a problem when they walk right into it?
-
I don’t remember saying Clinton set up the meeting? I did say Obama and Lynch went out of their way to let this lawyer in.
And this isn’t an administration fault. This was before Trump was elected. Remember this wasn’t Trump senior.
I’m afraid this was a son thinking he could do something good for his father.
So sad that Trump Jr. is going to be fried for his actions. While Hillary and her actions walks away scot free?
-
You are forgetting that except for some consultants that were eventually hired, basically the entire Trunp campaign team was new to politics including Trump Jr. and his brother in law; competent business men, no doubt, but complete newbies when it came to politics. They probably saw an opportunity to get some oppo research and jumped to it and did not realize they were being setup until the meeting got underway and the topic was not what they were expecting.
When the full story is told, the Democrats might end up regretting having pushed it when it comes back to bite them in the butt.
-
@DoubleDD sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was that as you said, it wasn’t possible to verify an association beyond that, but I mistakenly said Clinton instead of Obama.
@JayHawkFanToo I get that they’re new to politics but it’s hard to believe that alarms weren’t going off when they were contacted. I’m not a politician but I would know to proceed with extreme caution in that situation. If this was even a reflection of their business acumen it seems to point to carelessness. Not a quality you want in a presidential advisor.
-
@DoubleDD I read the Forbes article…thanks for that. Good read. One thing I’m curious about is the claim that Fusion was already collecting material on Trump for a republican super PAC. I found this in Steele’s Wikipedia page. When I attempted to verify it what I found was that Paul Wood for BBC had reported that it was Jeb Bush’s PAC Right to Rise that funded it. The PAC denied it and BBC retracted the story.
I understand where you guys are coming from regarding frustration around the origin, credibility, and intent behind this document.
-
For an individual new to politics getting info on the other party would obviously seem like good news. Keep in mind that there is nothing illegal with what they did; unwise? yes, illegal? No.
-
And then lying about it is?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 …over and over and over again.
-
@mayjay judge, is that illegal or if you are new just count that as unwise? I didn’t know I was lying, I swear!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Sort of like the excuse that you accidentally shot someone 12 times with a six-shooter.
-
What exactly was the lie?
-
@JayHawkFanToo https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/donald-trump-russia-timeline-campaign-denials
The lies were various forms of denial regarding contact with Russia, and I think mostly the person denying it was Trump himself. The Trump team took the easier road to electability by denying all contact, but they persisted with that lie up to the point of undeniable proof to the contrary.
Legally the line is drawn if one testifies and purjures oneself. I don’t understand why Kuschner, Jr, and Manifort were allowed to testify in private and not under oath this week, but lying in such a format is still purjury. The transcripts also could be released by Congress with classified information redacted. They should be.
When you so forcibly deny the truth on social media platforms you use to conduct other business, such as executive orders banning transgender people from military service, the legal lines get a little blurry as to the criminality of those false claims. Regardless, a case can be made that no legal lines were crossed, provided that the testimonies of those three admitted contact with Russia, refuting all their prior statements on the matter.
Either way, the president and his team have clearly repeatedly lied to date.
-
@approxinfinity Tweets have no legal effect whatsoever except as evidence used to show the intent of a later-issued executive order, as has been done with the travel ban(s). The Supremes will be deciding whether that use is okay, but they have used extraneous comments by legislators in the past to void legislation passed with bad motives (e.g., NC voter restrictions) so the same principle might apply.
There are other legal issues, chiefly Jared’s security clearance forms that have had to be amended 3 times, I believe, to add these contacts, change dozens of answers, and include over 100 people he had omitted initially. Might be excused as the work of a neophyte, but any ordinary federal employee would be cashiered for those. Obviously, Jared had no way of knowing how to answer and presumably with a net worth of 400 to 600 million, no assets to hire legal help.
-
@mayjay is that a legal issue? The initial omission of facts on a security clearance, then amendment? Should he have been denied clearance and is the granting of clearance despite these omissions something that can be scrutinized regarding legality? Or is this just really bad form, possibly unethical, but technically not illegal?
-
What contacts with Russia? There is zero evidence of any contact with rusians, which is implied to be the Russian government. There was one contact with one Russian attorney who is it and was not a member of the Russian government and who was personally authorized to enter our country by former AG Loretta Lynch after she was denied entry and led to nowhere.
By your definition, Kim Jon Un, the leader of North Korea must also be colluding with the American government, after all he met with Dennis Rodmam who is a friend of Trump.
-
@JayHawkFanToo i see what you’re saying here, but Trump’s language went beyond just dealing with the Russian government in his denials. No deals in Russia, fake news etc. Regardless, being truthful would be to explain the truth not just deny some partial truth by playing word games while going on the offensive espousing your innocence. The whole thing stinks. Illegal? I don’t think so with evidence to date. Untruthful? Yes.
-
His disclosure forms clearly outline the level of business involvement he had/has in Russia and by all indications is very limited and I have not seen any evidence that indicates his disclosure forms are incorrect.
Mark my words, when it is all said and done, the democrats will end up regretting opening the “Russian” can of worms because it it is becoming more obvious that they had a much greater involvement with the Russian than Trump did; many democrats have already indicated -of the record, of course - that they need to drop the Russian narrative as it leads to nowhere and it will likely backfire. Time will tell.
-
-
If you’re a little short on integrity you’ll be a lot short on ability to lead. – Steve Keating
-
From the article you cited:
Jamie Gorelick, Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, said that the questionnaire was submitted prematurely on Jan. 18, and that the next day, Mr. Kushner’s office told the F.B.I. that he would provide supplemental information.
Mr. Kushner’s aides said he was compiling that material and would share it when the F.B.I. interviewed him. For now, they said, he has an interim security clearance.
In a statement, Ms. Gorelick said that after learning of the error, Mr. Kushner told the F.B.I.: “During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. … I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.” No names were disclosed in that correspondence.
So, he made a mistake in his form and the NEXT DAY he told the FBI that he would provide the additional information. When did he have time to lie?
I have seen the form in question and I have visited with FBI agents personally when they were checking the form submitted by a colleague who had worked with me in the past and whose new firm was doing work that required clearance. Based on the questions they asked I can see why it would be so easy to miss details from years back and this is why the forms is routinely amended to include information previously omitted.
-
@JayHawkFanToo You and Double DD seem to think that the Democrats are leading the investigations. Which Congressional committees exactly do the Dems chair?
-
@JayHawkFanToo oops I forgot! Sorry!!
-
@JayHawkFanToo Yes, it is easy to have trouble remembering things from years back. How you can overlook an entire page on which you are expressly required to divulge that meeting you had with the Russian ambassador a whopping one month ago seems to be stretching it just a teensy weensy bit.
Okay, you believe him. A lot of well-meaning people don’t. Including a number of conservatives, a point made many times here but to which you consistently fail to respond.
-
@approxinfinity According to a variety of Trump supporters, if the President does it, it is not illegal because he can pardon people.
-
@mayjay here’s a podcast about it (episode 3):
-
Please read my post where I quoted from the link @Crimsonorblue22 posyed. The form was submitted prematurely and the next day…yes, the next day they notified the FBI that the missing nformation would be forthcoming; not really a big deal and something that is done routinely. Now, you know that the information on those forms is confidential, right? and leaking it is illegal, right?Any outrage over that?
-
mayjay said:
@approxinfinity According to a variety of Trump supporters, if the President does it, it is not illegal because he can pardon people.
People that think that are idiots, regardless of affiliation and no person with half a brain would agree with that. However, it is not nearly as idiotic as Maxine Waters, a US Congressman saying that Trump would be impeached and Hillary Clinton would be appointed President since she won the election…really? And I mean REALLY??? Has this loon not heard of the Electoral College and the US Comstitution and the line of succession?..and she is a US congressman. Both sides have their share of morons.
-
@JayHawkFanToo agreed. Nutjobs fly many different flags. Question though, if (and I’m asking you to answer this hypothetically, strictly hypothetically) a candidate were to tamper with an election and win because of it, what would be the fairest solution? His running mate would have benefited as well, so no go there, so you’ve already gone to uncharted waters. What is to stop then at the speaker of the house, if they are of the same party, if you’ve already broken form on the designed line of succession?
-
I see where you are going but that is not what the constitution calls for.,and we are still a country of laws and the Constitution still is the final word. The only election rigging that we know was done by the democrats to eliminate Bernie Sanders…who is not even a democrat but was running as one.
BTW, if there was election rigging or foreign meddling it all happened under the Obama administration watch who did absolutely nothing about it and had the ultimate responsibility to have a fair election.
You heard the expression…If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Likewise, if election rigging happened and the administration did nothing about it, did it really happened? Or…if election rigging happened and the administration did nothing about it, who should shoulder the blame? Neither scenario bides well for the democrats.
-
@JayHawkFanToo if you live in that forest, better come out and see what’s going on. Pretty sure nobody can tell you anything.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I am not saying Trump rigged the election but I’m trying to explain the mind of someone who is coming from that premise.
So what you are saying is that if Clinton had won, and it came to light that she had actively participated in rigging the election, Tim Kaine should become President because the Constitution says that is the line of succession.
-
I live in the real world where facts count and unproven allegations and rumors don’t.
Apparently you have an issue with me having opinions of my own and standing by them even (or particularly) when they are at odds with others. I do not tell other posters what to think, I encourage everybody to read up and form their own opinions even if they are different than mine.
-
If Clinton would have rigged the election chances are the VP would have been involved as well and both would be disqualified. Had he not been involved he would be the next in line…this is what the law says or at least my understanding of it. Of course this assumes the results were certified by the electoral college otherwise the process moves to congress who elects the new president, something that I don’t believe has happened before.
Too many hypotheticals for election results that are not in doubt except for a few fringe individuals.
-
“I live in the real world where facts count and unproven allegations and rumors don’t.” @JayHawkFanToo
“I’m right fallacy” violation.
