Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
Wed Jan 11, 2017, 09:22 AM Jan 2017

I suspect this supposed report on Trump was fabricated in order to discredit the media and left [View all]

I want it to be true. I really do. I want to see something like this bring him down. But I fear this is a staged attempt to discredit anyone who runs with it.

There are many, many issues with this document.

There is no such classification as "Confidential/Sensitive Source" in US or British intelligence. There is Confidential in US and Official is the Brit equivalent, however what is in this document is way, way more sensitive than what would be classified at that low a level. It is possible that the private company used that classification, but highly, highly doubtful. The private agencies like that work hand in and with the government agencies and hire people from them, and if a person has 20 years of understanding one meaning of "Confidential" a private company staffed with them isn't going to use it in a very different way. Not only that, but the headers suddenly stop after a few documents despite the following ones having info of just as sensitive nature, if not more. Why?

The documents conveniently use "source A, B, C etc" in an attempt to appear they are keeping the identities of the sources secret, but then reference enough detail that any Russian counterintelligence agents could easily figure out who they are from the detail given- like saying the "female employee of the hotel" where the female part is totally irrelevant to the document but would make identifying that source easier by eliminated all the male staff with access to that info. No professional analyst would do that. It also presents all those identities in a convenient way that only involves the existence of the story line in this document. That is not how it is done, the world is much bigger than this story and the work with sources is far older, so the idea that the identities of the people involved conveniently start with "source A,B, C" just as this story starts is not how sources are listed. And the first documents give you background on those sources just like the start of a book, as if the whole story starts right there. In reality they wouldn't give the background on those sources but would have actual designators for those sources from the moment they were cultivated and they wouldn't be "A, B, C" directly in line with just this one story because they would have much more history with them. They way this is constructed it stands alone with background on the players in the first leaked piece conveniently starting with "source A" right at that point. Way too convenient, like a short story more than a handful series of leaked documents from a much larger source.

The document has several things that read more like a Tom Clancy novel like how it uses the term "komprmant" then defines it for the reader- the target audience of this document is supposedly intelligence professionals and the source is supposedly intelligence professionals, they won't use the Russian term just for color in the reading and they won't define such a basic term. That is written like something intended to educate or entertain the reader, not like a professional document meant for professionals. This repeats in several other places where very basic stuff is explained that wouldn't be in a document intended for intelligence professionals.

The document switches between British English and American English, giving the indication it was created by the speaker of one or the other trying to pretend to be the opposite. In this case there is a HUGE giveaway that this document was authored by an American on page 2 where is references the "World Cup Soccer Tournament". Only Americans call it soccer, and only an American would feel the need to add "soccer tournament" after World Cup. If this document was actually of British origin it would most likely just say "World Cup" because that is perfectly understood, and if they felt the need to add more it would be described as a "football tournament". That was the part that tipped me toward this being a fabrication when I saw it, there is nobody in the UK who would describe the World Cup as a "soccer tournament" and this document is claimed to be of British origin.

There are other things that just don't seem right too, and the whole thing wraps up way too cleanly. Leaked documents never are such a clean picture with an earliest one giving all the background on players like this, this looks more like someone started trying to tell the story and make it look like leaked documents.

I may be very wrong. I hope I am. But I see enough red flags to say that we need to move very carefully on how we push this until there is more information that can back this up, because there are a lot of red flags. And if this turns out to be a fabrication it could stand to harm the credibility of those who run with it and will be a tool for Trump to discredit any further bad news that comes out about him by saying "sure, you people reported that fake golden shower story too, this is just as fake".

I know some people want to believe this despite anything and will attack me for posting this- all I am saying is tread with caution until we get more information that backs this up, because your credibility is on the line and I see lots of red flags in this.

67 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
D*mn, I know you're right.........it's just so good. eom a kennedy Jan 2017 #1
If tRump can say Obama was born in Africa Canoe52 Jan 2017 #2
Exactly, Canoe Cha Jan 2017 #4
Boom berni_mccoy Jan 2017 #25
Bullseye. (nt) Paladin Jan 2017 #23
Exactly MFM008 Jan 2017 #57
You may very well be right, but... Girard442 Jan 2017 #3
Excellent points.. and there's this.. Cha Jan 2017 #6
I agree. Actual facts are important but in this case - screw it underpants Jan 2017 #7
This is perfect karma for predatory liar.. I tend to believe it's Cha Jan 2017 #47
The problem is that if its a setup they will bring out something to discredit everyone pushed it Lee-Lee Jan 2017 #9
they'll try to do that whether it's true or not 0rganism Jan 2017 #64
a Dan rather take down lapfog_1 Jan 2017 #5
Exactly what I am afraid is happening Freethinker65 Jan 2017 #16
Even if it is false, it keeps the narrative in the news. louis-t Jan 2017 #52
sexual assault as in "grabbing them by the pussy" lapfog_1 Jan 2017 #61
I don't care ismnotwasm Jan 2017 #8
It does illustrate the power of fake news though. n/t delisen Jan 2017 #10
Honestly...I have zero effs to give about whether this is true or not Docreed2003 Jan 2017 #11
Unless it is a setup by them to discredit the media and the left Lee-Lee Jan 2017 #13
Many media sources say it's been shown around for months muriel_volestrangler Jan 2017 #17
Yep. and Donald can attack the dishonest media and tell "us" to trust him to save America Freethinker65 Jan 2017 #18
But they were going to do that either way, that was set when the "fake news" reporting began Docreed2003 Jan 2017 #42
Oh I agree with you....but why make it easier to discredit the true media/journalists? Freethinker65 Jan 2017 #55
Maybe it will push tRump into trying Canoe52 Jan 2017 #62
I'm pretty sure hells Jan 2017 #12
No. Not fake... Raster Jan 2017 #27
Russia monitors people that come and go radical noodle Jan 2017 #53
How did that staff meeting go? Island Blue Jan 2017 #14
You're thinking the same way I am. There are plenty of other fake stories they could Solomon Jan 2017 #49
According to Malcolm Nance, this wouldn't have gone into Intel briefing Dream Girl Jan 2017 #15
Malcolm Nance... jannyd65 Jan 2017 #48
Except there are far more allegations from various sources about his ties to Russia. NYC Liberal Jan 2017 #19
I suspect someone took those allegations and made this document Lee-Lee Jan 2017 #20
Then why would they fabricate the sexual stuff? tinrobot Jan 2017 #21
Sorry, Trump is saying US Intelligence leaked this report emulatorloo Jan 2017 #22
If it really is a false flag, then Trump probably leaked it himself HoneyBadger Jan 2017 #28
Ha ha! emulatorloo Jan 2017 #30
Several elements have been previously confirmed- Manafort and Page's contacts with Russia wishstar Jan 2017 #24
When you're dealing with someone like Trump, you use the weapons available. Paladin Jan 2017 #26
If he actually is inaugurated (I wouldn't be surprised to see him step aside before 1/20) mnhtnbb Jan 2017 #36
I hope captain pissgums does exactly that. (nt) Paladin Jan 2017 #44
So what if it isnt true libtodeath Jan 2017 #29
I don't give a hoot if the details aren't true because I do believe the Russians have mnhtnbb Jan 2017 #38
That's the point to stick to. They have kompromat on him. Multiple intel sources around the WORLD KittyWampus Jan 2017 #54
Very interesting analysis. pangaia Jan 2017 #31
I disagree cyclonefence Jan 2017 #32
Thank you for this, cyclonefence. You make good sense Cha Jan 2017 #40
I think so too! flamingdem Jan 2017 #43
So why is the author's identity not being revealed? FarCenter Jan 2017 #50
It probably will be cyclonefence Jan 2017 #60
+1 Cattledog Jan 2017 #51
Clarification. It was JEB! who paid for it and then apparently passed it to McCain afterwards. KittyWampus Jan 2017 #56
I basically agree with you here. herding cats Jan 2017 #66
I'm very concerned about this madokie Jan 2017 #33
Seems as if McCain fell for it GusBob Jan 2017 #34
LOL, when the screenplay is written flamingdem Jan 2017 #45
The reports were initially commissioned as opposition research by neverTrump octoberlib Jan 2017 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author JTFrog Jan 2017 #37
Who cares? AngryAmish Jan 2017 #39
The Guardian says it is real, and is from a respected source: emulatorloo Jan 2017 #41
Even if it's not true, it'll always be true in my heart. ileus Jan 2017 #46
Whether it's true or not Phoenix61 Jan 2017 #58
Past gop behavior: If they ever admit to anything, the full truth about the wiggs Jan 2017 #59
That is a possibility but... kentuck Jan 2017 #63
We're all over thinking this. This is a 35-page compilation of memos.. herding cats Jan 2017 #65
I'd just point out that this document was not written for an audience of pnwmom Jan 2017 #67
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I suspect this supposed r...