search results matching tag: leaked

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (406)     Sift Talk (17)     Blogs (46)     Comments (1000)   

No Good Dead

No Good Dead

No Good Dead

No Good Dead

Shooting Stars Compilation

This Administration Is Running Like A Fine Tuned Machine

dannym3141 says...

What, did he promise to increase youtube's revenue?

Promised to build a wall and have mexicans pay for it - failed.
Promised to travel ban muslims - failed.
Promised to prosecute Clinton - failed.
Promised to get rid of Obamacare - now he's not sure.
Promised to deport all illegal immigrants - failed.
Promised climate change was a hoax and legislation would be rolled back - failed.
Promised to repeal same sex marriage - failed.
Said leaks were good and he hoped russia would leak against Clinton to the media. Then said leaks were terrible and all media was fake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37982000

Hasn't he reneged on or at least backed away from almost every single cornerstone promise he made? Or if you want to say he didn't mean those things literally, well then he can never 'deliver what he said' by definition.

Republicans need to start asking themselves what it would take for them to even consider the possibility that they've been lied to and manipulated.

Edit: If you want to say it's not fair to judge Trump's promises because he has been opposed, then you admit that it is not fair to judge Obamacare because Obama was opposed.

bobknight33 said:

His Florida event tonight had about 9000 attendees and about 50 thousand on you tube live streaming.


Trump may brag but he is delivering what he said.

Keanu Reeves reveals plot details of Bill & Ted 3

poolcleaner says...

I have watched Keanu's reaction to there being a role for Whoopi over and over, and I think as he says "Oh God" he catches himself accidentally giving it away that her role will be as GOD.

Edit: I think it unnerves him so much so that he can't stop thinking about his accidental leak, thus does a poor air guitar in the end. In the past, accidental leaks have been pretty bad for actors -- David Prowse suggested Darth Vader could be Luke's father at a conference before Empire.

MilkmanDan said:

I'm down. Strangely, particularly if Whoopi plays, uh, Rufusina.

Trump Calls Obama To Discuss His Refugee Ban

radx (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Unheard of, yes, and no dissent, curious, but an indicator that it's a political ploy by the heads of those 17 agencies, not to me, because many of them (most famously the head of the FBI) are firmly and unapologetically Trump supporters. They would not produce or agree with such damming conclusions about their guy, imo, without clear evidence. It is more than unfortunate that we won't see that evidence, if it exists, during this administration. I expect it to stay classified by presidential order so he can deny it's existence.

I do agree, what we've seen in the redacted public report is far from proof, and the intelligence community as a whole has a terrible record of lies and misdirection. I think the recent need for public attention and political involvement has only made that worse. With such a horrendous reputation, it behooves them to make public their proof as quickly as possible.....leak it?

radx said:

Nope, me neither.

Which is sort of the point. It's unheard of that all of these agencies came to the same conclusion on a specific matter. Some may take this as an indicator of how damning the evidence really is, others see this as an indicator that the "assessments" were made on hierarchical levels reserved for political appointees.

The absence of dissent supports the second point of view. No group of analysts in their right mind would create a report without also strongly pointing out contradictory facts, inconsistencies, and separating fact from interpretation. That's what Hersh is referring to. This is not an NIE, it's an opinion piece. This memo by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (wierd name) goes down the same route:

As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Now, an opinion piece might be sufficient if it came from credible institutions and had a moderatly important subject. But this is throwing serious accusations at a sovereign nation in times when diplomatic relations are stressed as it is. And that's not going into the credibility problem of many of these agencies, who have a very dubious track record on these issues.

Ian Welsh had a piece the other day on the CIA vs Trump, and his take on intelligence agencies is pretty close to what mine has been since I learned about the Stasi some 20 years ago:
The CIA and NSA are not the friend of any left-wing worth having: they are innately anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-rights. Secret agencies are anathema to any open government. At an existential level, intelligence agencies are at best a double edged sword, and by their nature, they always wind up serving the interests of the few, against the interests of the people.

Trump won't release his tax returns because...

glenn greenwald-no evidence of russian hacking

MilkmanDan says...

I found one thing extremely interesting in *2* separate interviews with Assange when he was asked whether or not there was any Russian involvement -- including the one with Hannity shown early in the video here:

Hannity: Did Russia give you this information? Or anyone associated with Russia?
Assange: Our source is not a state party.

Very close to verbatim that exchange appeared in a print interview a week or two ago. The resulting headlines: "Assange denies Russian Involvement in the Leaks", etc.

But look at that answer. It is very carefully worded, but it doesn't directly answer the question. "Our source is not a state party" doesn't rule out that the source is Russian. It sort of rules out a source with known associations with the government (of Russia or anywhere else), but it could be an independent / private individual at face value that got the information from state parties.

I find it odd that nobody (as far as I've seen) has brought up that carefully worded answer, when it stuck out like a sore thumb to me the first time I saw it in print.


That being said, I 100% agree with Greenwald when he suggests that accusations are not proof. And the CIA and other agencies have a massive track record of shady dealings done in the name of "national security", as defined by whoever is in charge. Taking them at their word seems pretty hopelessly naive at this point.


But beyond all of that, I honestly don't care who did the hacking and what their motivations were. The government seems happy to record and analyze everything we say and do, and to claim that people like Edward Snowden are traitors for simply telling us about it. Well, get used to some of your own goddamn medicine. If you are running for public office, you should expect that your rights to privacy are going to be challenged much more strongly than those of Joe Average. You're a person of interest -- for pretty legitimate reasons.

Assume that absolutely everything you've ever said on the record (and lots OFF the record) is going to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. If you've got any skeletons in your closet, expect that there is a good chance they will get exposed. And probably at the worst possible time.

What should both parties take away from this? Gee, it might be a good idea to choose candidates that can stand up to at least a basic level of scrutiny. Backing slimy weasels that look great and charismatic after a quick once-over might come back to bite you in the ass.

Gratefulmom (Member Profile)

Cavuto: How does it feel to be dismissed, CNN?

newtboy says...

They are not me me team. I'm not a democrat.
Faux is so far beyond biased that, for over a decade, it's repeatedly been proven that watching Faux makes you LESS informed.
CNN is far from perfect, but Fox is the grand champion of fake scandals....birth certificate, Vince Foster, WMDs, Benghazi, .....nothing else need be said.
If he ran as a democrat, he would probably have been screwed just as hard or harder than Sanders, he would absolutely not have won, democrats don't believe any insane thing their leader tells them like republicans will, because democrats are more likely to be college educated (22% more) so they know better.

I lost before the election started when Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

Trump bashing will go on for his lifetime, he has ensured it with his bat shit crazy rhetoric. You might note that Faux was leading the charge against him, calling him an idiot, a liar, and completely unqualified to hold office until it started looking like he would win, then they changed their tune.

Fake news and biased media are FAR worse from the republicans, just look at the myriad of fake stories about Clinton in the last 6 months, then compare with the fake Trump stories, and there's no comparison, no one has accused him of running child slavery rings, or of murdering numerous close allies over some made up secrets, or of intentionally abandoning diplomats and military personell in hostile foreign countries, but Clinton has dealt with fake news since the 90's (dealt with it poorly, granted).

I am adult, Bob. Ask your president elect to grow up, he won the electoral college (not the electorate by 3 million votes though) but he's still acting like a spoiled 2 year old.

Edit: You might notice that the story that set Trump, and therefore you, off was NOT a fake story, it was a piece about a real report on what MAY or may not be a fake accusation about a foreign government having blackmailed the president elect (that they helped get elected), a report produced by the intelligence community for, and given to Trump (who may well be the one that leaked it, in order to distract from it with his outrage, knowing it would come out eventually). Maybe that's a good reason a president elect might want to not throw a tantrum at the intelligence community, they can destroy him with no effort if they choose just by reporting claims they've heard....like he does. Not good....sad.

bobknight33 said:

You just bent because you you team is finally getting called out for what they are. Biased and fake .

Look Fox is bias but the other promote FAKE news at any cost. to keep their team (democrats) in power.

If Trump ran as a democrat he still would have beat Hillary but there would be no Trump sex allegations and no Trump buss tape. It would not be published.

Grow up you lost and this Trump bashing will go on for 8 years. This fake news bashing will/ has occur for any republican president. The media is biased and pushes fake news.

Trump's microphone feed from the press conference

TheFreak says...

Also funny that they weren't worried about intelligence leaks when it was the NY branch of the FBI leaking intelligence to their election staff and Rudy Giuliani.

Glenn Greenwald on Russian Hacking (Zero Evidence)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists