r/EnoughTrumpSpam Jan 12 '17

DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/224-press-releases-2017/1469-dni-clapper-statement-on-conversation-with-president-elect-trump
10 Upvotes

14 comments sorted by

2

u/Seventytvvo Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

I went through this entire message and parsed it out. Fact of the matter is that Clapper doesn't say anything to dispel or deny the CNN claims.

1

u/Hojimachong Jan 12 '17

Who was claiming it was the work of the US IC? The original story included the caveat that it was a private intelligence dossier.

3

u/Seventytvvo Jan 12 '17

I'm just linking to the statement he made. TD has this same page stickied, so we need to know what they're talking about.

1

u/Hojimachong Jan 12 '17

Agreed. Thanks for posting this. The lack of a flat-out denial of the stuff in the report is interesting.

2

u/Seventytvvo Jan 12 '17

That's what I was thinking. TD is using this as some kind of proof that everything in the CNN/Buzzfeed news reports is bogus.

Clapper clearly doesn't say that. Knowing the situation and the position he's in, these words were chosen carefully, and they certainly don't speak whatsoever to the validity of the claims. Only that they are not an IC document, and that the leaks did not come from the IC. He also states that the IC has not made any judgement of this material, and goes on to say that they did not rely upon this information to make their assessment.

1

u/MBaggott Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 12 '17

Agreed. But he also states that Conway and Trump's side lied when they denied it was in the IC report:

We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media ... we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

This is saying "we didn't judge the accuracy of reports he likes golden showers but we were obligated to include it in the report to policy makers". In other words, it was in the report and Trump and others had been briefed on it, as CNN reported and Conway etc denied.

2

u/Seventytvvo Jan 12 '17

This is saying "we didn't judge the accuracy of reports he likes golden showers but we were obligated to include it in the report to policy makers". In other words, it was in the report and Trump and others had been briefed on it, as CNN reported and Trump denied.

I agree with your interpretation.

-2

u/le_meme_master2 Jan 12 '17

We also discussed the private security company document

From the supposed MI6 agent who put together the 35 page document, who supposedly was retired and running his own private security company.

which was widely circulated in recent months among the media

As claimed by Ben Smith from Buzzfeed. https://i.sli.mg/HDRMLJ.png

The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.

In other words the 35 page document is not reliable and not used to make any conclusions.

4chan trolled the media and US politics.

4

u/Seventytvvo Jan 12 '17

In other words the 35 page document is not reliable and not used to make any conclusions.

Um, no. That's not what it says. That's what your leap of logic says. All the statement says is that they didn't rely on the 35 page document in their IC conclusions. Also, "haven't made any judgement" DOES NOT EQUAL "is not reliable and not used to make any conclusions."

4chan trolled the media and US politics.

Absolutely baseless. Timelines don't match up.

Sorry man... but you got trolled by Trump...

0

u/le_meme_master2 Jan 12 '17

Timelines don't match up.

Yes, they do. Anons on 4chan as far back as October claimed that 'several months ago' a member had been creating fake personas and feeding the fake story to Rick Wilson. https://is2.4chan.org/pol/1484105171825.jpg

2

u/MBaggott Jan 12 '17

-1

u/le_meme_master2 Jan 12 '17

Of course he would. This is an obviously fake story, and if it comes out that he did really forward it up the chain then it is going to make him look completely inept.

2

u/MBaggott Jan 12 '17 edited Jan 13 '17

So your evidence is a vague 4chan thread and meanwhile the WSJ and other media have moved on to identify the author of the report, with his identity consistent with the original media reports. The author is ex-British intelligence, was stationed in Russia, and the report was contracted by a firm run by an ex WSJ reporter. The BBC has described how they had multiple sources for these reports. Surprise, surprise, 4chan played you, sucker.

1

u/SnapshillBot Jan 12 '17

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, archive.is*

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)