Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal and the true nature of Republicans

[brycejones]

WTF are you talking about? Anonymous source? Black Cube issued a public statement denying the allegation.

Well I guess we're done here then. Nothing to see here folks. The organization who could suffer if they admitted they were involved has denied involvement.

With bullet proof logic like this we should stop investigating crimes as soon as someone says they didn't do it.

Move along!

DSF still the king "Who me?"

 

[zinfamous]

WTF are you talking about? Single anonymous source? Black Cube issued a public statement denying the allegation.

"Spy network issues public statement refuting claims of spy network's activity."

And your mind is now permanently shut to anything beyond that claim being true.

well, that's your problem, my friend.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"Spy network issues public statement refuting claims of spy network's activity."

And your mind is now permanently shut to anything beyond that claim being true.

well, that's your problem, my friend.

These unnamed sources need to come forward so we can take a look at their credibility...there is no reason for them to hide.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

These unnamed sources need to come forward so we can take a look at their credibility...there is no reason for them to hide.

Wait, so “People are saying” is not valid today? I heard that often during the election. When will it be safe to use again?

 

[Thebobo]

So that information that nettinyahoo receley waved around was actually from the americans given to the israelis to make it looks like they got it?

 

[Victorian Gray]

spy company says:

“It is Black Cube’s policy to never discuss its clients with any third party, and to never confirm or deny any speculation made with regard to the company’s work,” the company said."

and then spy company says:

“Referencing Black Cube has become an international sport during 2018,” it added. “Black Cube has no relation whatsoever to the Trump administration, to Trump aides, to anyone close to the administration, or to the Iran nuclear deal. Anyone who claims otherwise is misleading their readers and viewers."

Huh.

 

[brycejones]

Wait, so “People are saying” is not valid today? I heard that often during the election. When will it be safe to use again?

People are saying isn't valid when it is negative towards a conservative. As long as the rule is followed its still completely valid today.

 

[Younigue]

F*ck the horse's mouth....I prefer unnamed sources as well. /s

Stop fu*king horse's mouths Doc. It's dangerous!

 

[Amused]

F*ck the horse's mouth....I prefer unnamed sources as well. /s

Cool. Then I take it you believed OJ was innocent because he said he was, right?

Straight from the horse's mouth motherfucker!

 

[ch33zw1z]

Wait, so “People are saying” is not valid today? I heard that often during the election. When will it be safe to use again?

It's only for Conmen.

 

[UNCjigga]

"Spy network issues public statement refuting claims of spy network's activity."

And your mind is now permanently shut to anything beyond that claim being true.

well, that's your problem, my friend.

I guess by that logic, there really was no collusion with Russia either! Show's over folks, everyone can go home!

 

[outriding]

Stop fu*king horse's mouths Doc. It's dangerous!

So you should look a gift horse in the mouth?

 

[Younigue]

So you should look a gift horse in the mouth?

Better to look than put your penis in it in this instance I think. So yes, yes look that damn gift horse in the mouth @Doc Savage Fan . Horses are majestic creatures maybe you'll learn a thing or two <--- that would be the gift... to you and to us all.

 

[realibrad]

So is it the case that when Trump and or his administration is accused by unnamed sources it must be true until it's proven to be false? If that is the case then Bush did 9/11, Hillary is a murderer, Mark Z is a lizard man, and frogs are being turned gay. I can find multiple unammed sources for each of those claims.

We need evidence beyond unnamed claims.

 

[Moonbeam]

spy company says:

“It is Black Cube’s policy to never discuss its clients with any third party, and to never confirm or deny any speculation made with regard to the company’s work,” the company said."

and then spy company says:

“Referencing Black Cube has become an international sport during 2018,” it added. “Black Cube has no relation whatsoever to the Trump administration, to Trump aides, to anyone close to the administration, or to the Iran nuclear deal. Anyone who claims otherwise is misleading their readers and viewers."

Huh.

Exactly what jumped out at me.

 

[ivwshane]

So is it the case that when Trump and or his administration is accused by unnamed sources it must be true until it's proven to be false? If that is the case then Bush did 9/11, Hillary is a murderer, Mark Z is a lizard man, and frogs are being turned gay. I can find multiple unammed sources for each of those claims.

We need evidence beyond unnamed claims.

Another insightful post from you highlighting just how freaking stupid you are.

You know what makes a claim from an unnamed source more credible than another? The journalist behind the claim who has a reputation for fact checking their sources before publishing. Find me a credible journalist behind the examples you used and you might have a point.

Dismissing claims because the source is unnamed is lazy at best and idiotic at worst.

 

[Younigue]

He's gotcha by the short curlies @realibrad . Own it and move on.

 

[realibrad]

Another insightful post from you highlighting just how freaking stupid you are.

You know what makes a claim from an unnamed source more credible than another? The journalist behind the claim who has a reputation for fact checking their sources before publishing. Find me a credible journalist behind the examples you used and you might have a point.

Dismissing claims because the source is unnamed is lazy at best and idiotic at worst.

Man, I sure seem to be under your skin.

This all may be true, but, let's not forget how the media was played by Bush. It was one guy claiming wmd's and everyone ran with it. I would like more than unnamed sources.

 

[ivwshane]

Man, I sure seem to be under your skin.

This all may be true, but, let's not forget how the media was played by Bush. It was one guy claiming wmd's and everyone ran with it. I would like more than unnamed sources.

That one guy claiming wmd's was Cheney and he referenced a story he put out to the press. The good journalists were those who ran stories from intelligence officials who were saying the claims were false. So no, not everyone ran with it.

I think I see what your problem is. You aren't very good at evaluating what good journalism is.

 

[zinfamous]

So is it the case that when Trump and or his administration is accused by unnamed sources it must be true until it's proven to be false? If that is the case then Bush did 9/11, Hillary is a murderer, Mark Z is a lizard man, and frogs are being turned gay. I can find multiple unammed sources for each of those claims.

We need evidence beyond unnamed claims.

why do you wish to dismantle the core of journalistic integrity that has inarguably worked so well for centuries up until now? Why are republican snowflakes of the modern mood so thoroughly dismayed with the work of actual journalists, all so suddenly?

what gives?

 

[fskimospy]

So is it the case that when Trump and or his administration is accused by unnamed sources it must be true until it's proven to be false? If that is the case then Bush did 9/11, Hillary is a murderer, Mark Z is a lizard man, and frogs are being turned gay. I can find multiple unammed sources for each of those claims.

We need evidence beyond unnamed claims.

This is silliness. While unnamed sources are far from ideal the organizations doing the reporting have established their credibility or lack thereof and therefore the likelihood of the story being true can be evaluated on those terms. I’m baffled how you or really anyone could not know this.

 

[realibrad]

That one guy claiming wmd's was Cheney and he referenced a story he put out to the press. The good journalists were those who ran stories from intelligence officials who were saying the claims were false. So no, not everyone ran with it.

I think I see what your problem is. You aren't very good at evaluating what good journalism is.

That is wrong. No surprise you do not know what you are talking about again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

The administration then used him as their source and the media ran with it. It was not until later that it was realized that the information came from only one person. Good journalists were all swept up in the march to war. So, if its just unnamed sources, then I would like more. Its Trump of course so its more than 50/50 possible with him and bad things, so I can at least give you that.

 

[realibrad]

why do you wish to dismantle the core of journalistic integrity that has inarguably worked so well for centuries up until now? Why are republican snowflakes of the modern mood so thoroughly dismayed with the work of actual journalists, all so suddenly?

what gives?

Who says I want to dismantle anything? They make mistakes and get things wrong sometimes. Those mistakes are sometimes huge. The media has been used multiple times. Gulf war was another time when the media was used for misinformation. Swaying public opinion for the Iraq war was another. It comes out later and that is what is ultimately important, but, it does not change that in the short run they get things wrong. That is why for me I would like more than just the unnamed sources. There is smoke and I'm sure there are people looking for fire, but, to claim that there is always fire when there has not been in the past I think is a mistake.

You for example have made mistakes about things that I find surprising given your education and professional background. I question you when it conflicts with what I believe, but only after I first research it. For others, I will disagree before doing research, because, in my opinion you have credibility others do not have. Nobody should be above questioning though.

 

[realibrad]

This is silliness. While unnamed sources are far from ideal the organizations doing the reporting have established their credibility or lack thereof and therefore the likelihood of the story being true can be evaluated on those terms. I’m baffled how you or really anyone could not know this.

I agree that there is more weight behind those with credibility. I can also understand why the source would want to be unnamed. I would not expect those sources to give up their identity. What I would like is something more than just claims though.

Example is how this company has responded in a way that is counter to how they usually do things. They say they never confirm or deny their clients, yet, they will flat out say it was not Trump. Trump will do anything to get what he wants, so that is possible too. Multiple sources is also important. So, my unscientific position is probably something like 70/30 split right now.

So, what are you baffled about?

 

[fskimospy]

That is wrong. No surprise you do not know what you are talking about again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

The administration then used him as their source and the media ran with it. It was not until later that it was realized that the information came from only one person. Good journalists were all swept up in the march to war. So, if its just unnamed sources, then I would like more. Its Trump of course so its more than 50/50 possible with him and bad things, so I can at least give you that.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. His claims were only one part of a much wider effort by Cheney and others. From your own link Curveball was only talking about one of the three prongs of WMD programs that the Bush White House used to justify the war.

He was right and you were wrong. I would suggest reading the October 2002 NIE to get a better understanding of this.