First blood to Trump

I quite like him, he makes me chuckle. He's certainly going to ruffle a few "staid" feathers.

Er...what does? I haven't left GN since I joined in 2012.

Same applies to you Ana!

I also think that his falure to produce his tax returns and the ethics committee focus on the conflict of interest regarding his business is interesting

Wel, your writing style is very familiar, Ankers. Perhaps you are a returning member?

DB. You appear to have a lot of interest in Ankers. If you have the same amount of interest in me as in other posters, then I will be very happy to reply to you.

Interested to read that the CIA are still investigating the dossier obtain from our ex-Mi6 officer

They would have to under the circumstances.

whitewave, you appear to have the utmost trust and faith in some organisations.

Quite thatbags. And not what I had expected of some posters on gransnet at all.

not 'almost', thatbags. I really would like it to be true and I'm not going to deny it.

I can't deny that I would love it to be true, but I doubt if it will ever be proved. I would have thought there's quite enough which is verifiable to show Trump for what he is. My fear is that the verifiable will be discounted along with this latest scandal.

I know Trump came up with some outrageous lies during his campaign, but I would rather his enemies stuck to facts and rose above his fantasy land.

Meanwhile, fingers crossed it doesn't start WW3!

I think that without corroboration, any such story about anyone should make us pause and, as it were, stand back and reserve judgment about the story even if, based on other more solid information we've already come to some conclusions about the person it names.

The main thing about this particular story, apart from its revolting salaciousness, is that there has been no corroboration whatsoever and yet, once it was put out there by Buzzfeed (and not more responsible media), it's almost as if people are wanting it to be true because they dislike Trump so much.

It's an interesting phenomenon to watch.

Elegran

'Innocent until proved guilty, of course, but whether something appears to be a possibly true story about someone is inevitably influenced by their past.'

You mean our opinion of say Rolf Harris who we probably all thought was a decent chap. Or our opinion of say a Tory like Leon Brittan who some even on Gransnet made some terrible/bloody awful comments about.

Sorry but whilst I totally understand your point that does not mean it is the wisest of thought and I say that respectfully not in any way to be aggressive.

POGS I don't assume that he is guilty. At this point in time no-one knows whether the tape is genuine or a fake, or whether it even exists anywhere except in the land of rumour and Chiunese whispers. It is the kind of manufactured accusation that would be dear to the heart of an administration which wanted a lever with which to apply pressure.

But if I mentally move myself into the future, and imagine that it has been investigated and proved to be authenticated and absolutely genuine, then I would not fall over with surprise and say that I was amazed to learn it of him. Now, if I heard that a similar tale about Barack Obama had been authenticated, I WOULD be amazed.

Innocent until proved guilty, of course, but whether something appears to be a possibly true story about someone is inevitably influenced by their past.

Elegran

I am surprised at your post , please accept that as a comp!iment.

Why? The whole premise of that arguement leads to guilty without trial, or as I mentioned the 'Kangaroo Court'. I have no love of Trump I assure you, I am not condemning Christopher Steele but I am saying how can people assume guilt without evidence. Whether it be Donald Trump or say the poor man Christopher Jefferies I care not a jot, condemning somebody because we make 'a judgement on them' is not in my opinion the right thing to do when the story is such a salacious, damming story.

DaphneBroon

'Buzzfeed is certainly not be my media source of choice but most of us read a reputable newspaper.'

This is another pointer as to what I am trying to say.

Buzzfeed printed this story also CNN, other journalists/media outlets of repute have said they did not print/release the story because it could not be corroborated. They are now commentating on this story and asking what is the truth , fiction or lies. They are however smart enough not to put themselves into a possible defamation claim against themse!ves by not confirming this report/story and reiterating at every opportunity this report/story cannot be verified.

Interested to read that the CIA are still investigating the dossier obtain from our ex-Mi6 officer. They must be treating it with some seriousness otherwise why waste their time, one presumes that they know what they are doing, as does our Mi6 -ex or not.

Relieved to understand tha Popeo is not prepared to accept Trump's belief in water boarding " or something worse" and that Mattis rejects Trumps inclination to a certain extent sideline NATO. Mattis said that countries are much stronger when they work together.

I don't necessarily see that that follows., Ankers.
Buzzfeed is certainly not be my media source of choice but most of us read a reputable newspaper. But you don't do you? I vaguely remember you saying you lived miles from any shops

A lot of the posts do not necessarily BELIEVE that the report is absolutely true, but that it does sound like the kind of thing that he might do. There is black "of course it is true", there is white "of course it isn't true" and there is that murky grey area where it is yet to be substantiated but if it is indeed proved to be genuine, it would not come as a surprise, given his past history.

Just as we predict fairly accurately from a poster's past history, even when they have changed their name and post under a completely different one, how they will see an issue that is being discussed.

I naively thought that some posters on here really did research properly, but it is now patently obvious that they dont.

but I am asking why so many are happy to believe all they hear and read without seeing the evidence.

Because it suits their agendas POGS.
Very concerning.

daphnedillSorry just saw your message. People have tried to change the electoral college without success. Our forefathers put it in place for several reasons but one was that they feared people voting who were ill informed as they didn't have access to information about candidates who lived in other states and also because of slavery. If they used the popular vote than the northern states would have the advantage as the southern states had slaves who weren't allowed to vote. So the electoral college was supposed to be a compromise.

Apparently Steele is usually very sound. His firm was the one which investigated and uncovered the corruption in FIFA.

I don't think that logic prevails when dealing with a very public figure , if disliked enough then any old tosh is likely to be believed, simply for the reason that they ARE disliked.Really, although salacious stories could have been found about many Presidents in the past ( JFK and Clinton for starters) they were well liked by a lot of people and therefore likely to be disbelieved.
I dare say Trump may have a few skeletons in the closet, and is pretty awful in all kinds of ways, but that doesn't mean this latest stuff is true, I think, given the way he defended himself from it, that it isn't.If it had been, he would have been so sure of himself.We should all be more worried about what he aims to do politically.

WW

'There is no doubt that the alleged content of the sexual tapes is impossible to disprove or indeed prove unless actual copies are obtained.'

Precisely, hence journalists and respected media outlets refused to print the report/story. Also why this is nothing more than a kangaroo court.

'Our Mi6 chap undoubtedly reported this information doing the rounds to the Republican Party - who had requested this information, and who we assumed passed the information to their intelligence services.'

He is NOT our M16 chap! He is ex M16 running a very lucrative business (Orbis). His remit initially by the Republicans who did not want Trump and then the Democrat Party who despise Trump was to 'find out dirt', 'something to smear him with'.

'What comes of these tapes remains to be seen.'

Have you viewed 'the tapes'? Am I missing something here and somebody has possession of them and has said they are in their possession? If so I will be interested to know who has them, where they are but so far my understanding is this is 'here ay' in Steele's report/story. Hence this is still today, as far as I can see, still an UNCORROBORATED report/story.

I will repeat I do not like Trump, I do not defend Trump but I am asking why so many are happy to believe all they hear and read without seeing the evidence. Even Buzzfeed and CNN I believe have always admitted the report/ story cannot be authenticated, corroborated, or am I mistaken?

See Le Pen was in Trump Towers yesterday