Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
Talk about a dishonest misrepresentation of something. Do you even read the links you post? The money was paid, not for dirt on Trump, but for delivery of stolen NSA cyberweapons.
From the New York Times story:
Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian, who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. Instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.
In fact, American intelligence officials ended the operation when the began to suspect that the true purpose of the Russians was to incite discord among Americans.
From the New York times story:
But his apparent eagerness to sell the Trump “kompromat” — a Russian term for information used to gain leverage over someone — to American spies raised suspicions among officials that he was part of an operation to feed the information to United States intelligence agencies and pit them against Mr. Trump. Early in the negotiations, for instance, he dropped his asking price from about $10 million to just over $1 million. Then, a few months later, he showed the American businessman a 15-second clip of a video showing a man in a room talking to two women.
Quite the opposite of what you claim, American Intelligence official were negotiating with the Russian for the return of NSA cyber weapons, not dirt on Trump.
And the money was not paid by Dems it was paid by NSA.
|
I know, that's why the story keeps mentioning the "Trump dirt." Because it was so unimportant and so uninteresting...and there was NO WAY the NSA wanted anything to do with that UNIMPORTANT stuff...
You're always a trip and a half.