TrumPutinGate

#752
#752
volprof said:
Till this day, I'm still taken aback by Americans who will believe foreign intelligence leaks, like Wikileaks, but not the claims and/or leaks of our own intelligence community.

A sign of the times, I suppose.
Click to expand...

The Wikileaks were NEVER disputed, were from verified email accounts and weren't opinions or adulterated. So when the IC leaks something close I'll give them consideration.
 
#753
#753
volprof said:
So, basically, as I've said a half-dozen times already, there is no evidence that will suffice for you, outside of perhaps witnessing something with your own eyes.

This is essentially chasing a unicorn, and I won't be a party.

But, I've given you the tools, should you ever change your narrow definition of evidence.
Click to expand...

You've literally told me that I have to have faith in the IC and media to believe TrumPutin gate. That is the exact opposite of "evidence".
 
#754
#754
hog88 said:
The Wikileaks were NEVER disputed, were from verified email accounts and weren't opinions or adulterated. So when the IC leaks something close I'll give them consideration.
Click to expand...

How do you know everything in them was real?

How do you know what RIS is capable of?
 
#755
#755
Orange_Crush said:
You've literally told me that I have to have faith in the IC and media to believe TrumPutin gate. That is the exact opposite of "evidence".
Click to expand...

So, where do you get evidence from if not reported to you through sources (i.e., the media)?

Are you wanting leaks?

You've had leaks. You still don't believe them.

What other source of information do you want?

Trump himself personally telling you?
 
#756
#756
volprof said:
Till this day, I'm still taken aback by Americans who will believe foreign intelligence leaks, like Wikileaks, but not the claims and/or leaks of our own intelligence community.

A sign of the times, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Wikileaks actually released the emails. They didn't talk about an internal agreement of opinions about the emails. You seriously don't see the difference?

And the targets of the leaks (the Dems) never claimed the leaks were untrue (they couldn't; they were caught dead to rights). Instead, in defense against the evidence in them, they diverted with a story about Russian hacking...

...that somehow became a bigger, unsubstantiated narrative against Trump after Trump won the white house. A narrative put out by the media that the evidence of the Wikileaks proved is in the Dems' pocket.

And you seriously don't see why we won't swallow it hook, line and sinker?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#758
#758
volprof said:
So, where do you get evidence from if not reported to you through sources (i.e., the media)?

Are you wanting leaks?

You've had leaks. You still don't believe them.

What other source of information do you want?

Trump himself personally telling you?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm asking you for. What's been leaked? Besides word of mouth?
 
#759
#759
volprof said:
How do you know everything in them was real?

How do you know what RIS is capable of?
Click to expand...

The Dems admitted they were real when they came out with the narrative that Russia hacked them and released them. The Dems knew there was no way to deny, so we got this Russia narrative as a diversion. And it would seem they conveniently used that Russian diversion as a way to undermine Trump's presidency after he won.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#760
#760
Orange_Crush said:
That's what I'm asking you for. What's been leaked? Besides word of mouth?
Click to expand...

Admittedly, thus far we have no "October suprises" in this investigation (likely because GRU isn't adding us...yet) and we're a nation of laws (Flynn's transcripts haven't even been leaked). No direct documents (not "word of mouth," as you say) other than Trump's '95 tax returns.

So, yes, if this is all you will grant status as "concrete evidence," we don't have that yet.
 
#761
#761
volprof said:
Best name I could think of, although it's still a pretty dumb one.

So, two motivations for creating this thread:

1. I get asked often what my proof and/or argument is, and I can't regurgitate an entire essay in response. So, this thread can now become a nice, tidy repository of circumstantial evidence and claims concerning Trump's ties to the Kremlin.

2. Potentially the biggest story in the entire history of American presidential politics doesn't even have a specific thread here, so I will create it. It's past due.

All of you by now know how I think about Trump, unless you've been living under a rock. I think he is a traitor, and I think that, in time, if the right people do their patriotic duty, then we will know the truth.

So, let me just begin the thread by posting the following (which is in no shape or form the extent of my claims or argument):

Six agencies — including FBI, CIA, Treasury — probing possible Russian aid to Trump's campaign: sources - Chicago Tribune

Finally, let me just go ahead and add that, should the evidence come together in a certain way, this has the potential not only to take down Trump but also to take down high-ranking FBI officials (including Comey) and possible even the Republican Party. Those are big "ifs," of course, but it will all be determined by who knew what and when, and by who buried what and when.

This has the potential to completely change our entire political system. It's important, no matter how you feel on the matter right now, and it needs to be given proper treatment.
Click to expand...

What we have here is the epitome of repub hypocrisy. An independent committee like was used in the 9/11 investigation should be appointed. The repubs spent four years and $7M on the Benghazi witch hunt that included twelve hours of public grilling and found no wrong doing, its purpose was to demonize and damage Clinton politically.
The repubs say the senate intelligence commitee will investigate one of the greatest scandals in the world behind closed doors, that means no public disclosure. To beat it all they're dragging their feet, Hypocrites!
 
#763
#763
volprof said:
Admittedly, thus far we have no "October suprises" in this investigation (likely because GRU isn't adding us...yet) and we're a nation of laws (Flynn's transcripts haven't even been leaked). No direct documents (not "word of mouth," as you say) other than Trump's '95 tax returns.

So, yes, if this is all you will grant status as "concrete evidence," we don't have that yet.
Click to expand...

The captain of the Titanic is whining about leaks, guess he doesn't know leaks have been typical in every admin. Call in the plumbers!
 
#764
#764
orangeluvr said:
What we have here is the epitome of repub hypocrisy. An independent committee like was used in the 9/11 investigation should be appointed. The repubs spent four years and $7M on the Benghazi witch hunt that included twelve hours of public grilling and found no wrong doing, its purpose was to demonize and damage Clinton politically.
The repubs say the senate intelligence commitee will investigate one of the greatest scandals in the world behind closed doors, that means no public disclosure. To beat it all they're dragging their feet, Hypocrites!
Click to expand...

But we don't have any leaked documents that verify the hacking, leaking, and interference, so we shouldn't pursue an investigation.

All just a liberal attempt to delegitimize an individual who delegitimizes himself constantly.
 
#765
#765
orangeluvr said:
The captain of the Titanic is whining about leaks, guess he doesn't know leaks have been typical in every admin. Call in the plumbers!
Click to expand...

After rambling on for dozens of posts, he has finally stumbled upon his definition of "concrete evidence," which is evidently leaked documents direct from the horse's mouth. Oddly enough, I had to do this for him.

I suppose I now somewhat understand his highly relativistic perspective, but I think it a very dangerous one.

If leaked documents direct from the horse's mouth are all that now qualify as "concrete evidence," we are establishing a very dangerous precedent as a democratic society.
 
#766
#766
volprof said:
CAUTION! CAUTION!

No actual leaked document provided; just "word of mouth."

May only be fake news.

Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's comments on Russia-Ukraine peace plan have diverged - Business Insider

CAUTION! CAUTION!
Click to expand...

You're reporting old news. As of 2/20, this was the breaking news:

According to the Times’ reporting, Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, claims he received a sealed envelope from Felix Sater, a controversial figure in Trump’s orbit, and Cohen delivered the envelope to Michael Flynn before his resignation.

According to the Washington Post’s reporting, however, Cohen had a different version of events: he met with the president at the White House, but never dropped off any documents.

The Times stands by its reporting. Why Cohen would tell two very different stories to two different newspapers is unclear.

Trump's Russia scandal takes an unexpected turn | MSNBC
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion on the whole matter, even within the MSM.
 
#767
#767
volprof said:
How do you know everything in them was real?

How do you know what RIS is capable of?
Click to expand...

If anything in them were false the effected parties wouldn't have missed the chance to discredit them. Simple logic.
 
#768
#768
Both sides speculate a lot right now about everything from the true content of Flynn's conversations with the Russians, whether it was done at the behest of Trump, whether Trump is in some way indebted to the Russians, and whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives or representatives.

My gut tells me that there is more to it than Trump admits (he claims there is zero communication or connection), but less than the hysterical left would like to believe (blackmail tapes).

We have to count on the Senate intelligence committee to do the right thing, politics aside. And I have to say, if the committee turned up evidence of anything actually connecting the two, I don't think they would hold back. While Trump is in the view of the establishment a better alternative than Hillary, they are in no sense enthralled with him being in the WH.

I do think, if it comes to that, they will have their ducks in a row. It will be incontrovertible proof. And if it turns out that Trump had direct contact, or ordered that there be contact, I don't see how he can survive it, given his comments in the last 2 weeks.
 
#769
#769
#770
#770
hog88 said:
If anything in them were false the effected parties wouldn't have missed the chance to discredit them. Simple logic.
Click to expand...

Ah, so by this logic, Donny and the gang's twisted and convoluted attempts at discrediting allegations is proof they are innocent.
 
#772
#772
hog88 said:
Oh hell no! Trump and his associates better not be looking for a way to bring peace to Ukraine, as a matter of fact we need to be planning on military action to remove Russia from Crimea. Hell, who doesn't think Crimea is worth starting WW III?
Click to expand...

Do you know what the peace plan in question involved?

Involved lifting of sanctions and a blackmail plot against Poroshenko.
 
#774
#774
volprof said:
But we don't have any leaked documents that verify the hacking, leaking, and interference, so we shouldn't pursue an investigation.

All just a liberal attempt to delegitimize an individual who delegitimizes himself constantly.
Click to expand...

The FBI has recordings of Flynn's conversations.
 
#775
#775
volprof said:
Just following hog logic and doing it very well, I might add.
Click to expand...

You were following false logic.

The affirmation by the victims credited the leaks. There is no such affirmation from Trump/group, as they are denying the claims.

Your leap was not logical at all.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top