First blood to Trump

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

However, we know that the world of the spy and intelligence services, deal in amongst other things rumour and innuendo and perceived risk. 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.

I think Trump has made a huge error of judgement (amongst many) in attacking his own intelligence services, particularly using the language he did. But that is Trump.

What comes of these tapes remains to be seen.

It does not however end there. There are still the allegations of disruption to the election process, and most of Trumps team appear now to accept the voracity of these allegations.

The more serious allegations are those which suggest that there are links between members of Trumps team and Russian officials. I am sure that the CIA are actively pursuing these allegations.

And another: "Trump is a walking talking lesson in why you want to limit executive branch power". Said by an American 'libertarian' who thinks that too much power is invested in the presidential office. Apparently he has had discussions with 'progressives' who are saying/wondering the same thing now that there will no longer be a liberal president in office.

It's a good argument, based on the premise "Power corrupts". If, when a person you don't want in that position of power has too much with which to cause change or damage to society, then it follows logically that no-one should have that amount of power.

Something I heard this morning that I think is worth bearing in mind with respect to Obama's government, Trump's, and Theresa May's (all governments actually but those especially right now): government fails all the time so there are teachable moments every time people take part in politico-philosophic discussions (paraphrased).

The Buzzfeed and CNN stories are uncorroborated reports/stories.

That in itself is concerning.
When news becomes tittle tattle, especially with what I assume has been a previously reputable news channel,something may be going badly wrong.

No, dj, it isn't.

Anyway, moving on re dastardly deeds during the US presidential election, I see that due process begins, and is reported by the BBC.

Circular argument, bags.

I don't think I'll base my defence of and support for due process of law for everyone, even the baddies, on anything Mr Trump does, dj.

Just been reading about Trumps association with the WHite Supremacists and the Birther debacle. Blimey he's an unpleasant individual.

Sorry but I will stick with my post 12.12

The Buzzfeed and CNN stories are uncorroborated reports/stories.

The varacity of the report AND it's sourcing cannot be verified.

Other journalists have said they knew of this story but refused to publish due to the fact it could not be verified, they had tried to establish it's factual content.

WW says

'The allegations are not from a Russian source but from at least 2 British intelligence officer.'

Christopher Steele is 'ex' M16 and is a partner in Orbis Business Intelligence, a corporate intelligence consultancy firm. A financially lucrative business one would assume..

His research has reportedly been financially backed I initially by anti Trump Republicans and later by the Democratic Party. In other words to 'smear' Trumps reputation.

I do not like Trump. I am not defending Trump but I'm blowed if I will follow the pack without hard, factual evidence. If and when that turns up then I will believe this story/report.

Lewlew you said this.

'The main issue at the moment is that it was not leaked by the US intelligence agencies, but came to them via a British former intelligence officer. So that makes the source creditable. Whether this actually took place... time will tell perhaps.'

You cannot declare it as credible and then go on to say only time will tell. Something is either true/credible or it is not.

This report may well prove to be true, I accept that.

I am however asking those of you who accept the report/story as a fact, where is the hard evidence? Steele has gone into hiding , some say for his safety, others so he does not have to justify his report. Respected journalists say they cannot find any hard evidence and therefore elected NOT to publish this story. Respected media outlets are asking if this is a credible story because they too cannot bottom what the truth is.

theconversation.com/the-trump-dossier-and-verification-in-the-era-of-fake-news-71175

President Trump's Dirty Secrets on channel four on Monday.

He's not asking for due process with his tax returns, though, he's just saying that only the press care any more, which is not true.

I agree with your view about Trump, iam, but I still defend his right to due process as much as I would defend anyone else's. I don't think we're disagreeing.

Anyone heard or seen anything lately about the Tory party election fraud?

My point: the US has peaceful transfers, this time needs not be different.

Yes MazieD. I confess to having had a larf when the DM suggested our "unelected judiciary" had no right commenting when asked to, on Brexit.

But they don't have an independent judiciary. The 'top' judicial appointments are political.

I haven'r suggested that electoral fraud was practised, with or without T's blessing. My view has been stated (probably over stated) that there is enough evidence to support my very personal view that this man is not fit to be POTUS. He is unstable, totally self centred and brings so many risks with him that any positives, for me, are over ruled.

America does have decent laws, not to mention a written constitution. That's got to stand them in good stead.

Yes, I fully agree people have the right to express their feelings and thoughts on the matter, as they are doing, but that's not the same as trying to sabotage the inauguraton or claiming without sufficient evidence that electoral fraud was practised with Trump's blessing.

Oh I see, thanks Elegran.

Until there is convincing evidence that the US presidential electiion was "fiddled", yes, we do have to accept the result. If undemocratic "fiddling" is seriously suspected it must be investigated with due procedure, as I'm sure it will be.

It was their jumble, ana. I just removed some words where the "... s" are in my post to make it shorter. It is a transcription of what those on the programme actually said, and they did repeat themselves and burble a bit.

My ^^s to make it into italics don't seem to have worked though, that won't help.

I'm not suggesting we/the US citizen's don't accept T is the president elect. My point is that people have the right to protest, as they are doing.
x posted with you ww

To fiddle the election? That's what the CIA and FBI are suggesting.