President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

BabyCheeses

I think people could take hanks complaints of the lack of evidence somewhat seriously if he wasn't posting Seth rich and spying microwave conspiracies.

His demands for evidence seem to only be for one topic.

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I think people could take hanks complaints of the lack of evidence somewhat seriously if he wasn't posting Seth rich and spying microwave conspiracies.

His demands for evidence seem to only be for one topic.

:pac:

Go on so, what would constitute collusion in regards to a Political campaign. We all know it boils down to the Wikileaks stuff.

So did someone from Trump's campaign tell the Russian Government to hack the DNC and John Podesta? Is what they're looking for?

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's taker a minute to remind ourselves of the definitions of the words 'proof' and evidence:

Merely repeating what Senator Feinstein and others on the Intel committees have been saying.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What did I say that's incorrect? Still no evidence of collusion. Talking to Russians isn't a crime.

You put some other Political figure in the chair and search for Russian connections you'll find them.

You keep posting that video even though you know that it doesn't say what you think it says. Now, I'm not trying to suggest that you are trying to deceive people, but it sure looks like you're trying to deceive people.

Anyway, if you want to keep posting a video of Feinstein saying that she didn't see any evidence of collusion in unclassified info, here's the republican-appointed ex CIA director saying that there was enough of a concern about the contacts between Russians and Trump staff to alert the FBI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GRjWBdS4E0

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

You keep posting that video even though you know that it doesn't say what you think it says. Now, I'm not trying to suggest that you are trying to deceive people, but it sure looks like you're trying to deceive people.

Anyway, if you want to keep posting a video of Feinstein saying that she didn't see any evidence of collusion in unclassified info, here's the republican-appointed ex CIA director saying that there was enough of a concern about the contacts between Russians and Trump staff to alert the FBI.

I've watched it, it doesn't change my opinion.

The FBI opened their investigation in July of last year.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Merely repeating what Senator Feinstein and others on the Intel committees have been saying.

How about you tell us what she said and explain how those words mean that there is no collusion?

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

How about you tell us what she said and explain how those words mean that there is no collusion?

She was asked twice on CNN in recent weeks if there's evidence of collusion, the first time she was asked was there evidence and she replied "not at this time" and the more recent interview I posted she said nothing has changed. The same echo is coming out from others, well bar Maxine Waters maybe.

What else is there to say. I think it's a possibility something fishy went on, and I think Trump acting the eejit is reason enough to be sceptical, but I also think it's likely if there was something damning or a smoking gun they would have found it already. It's 11 months and counting.

Calina

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

She was asked twice on CNN in recent weeks if there's evidence of collusion, the first time she was asked was there evidence and she replied "not at this time" and the more recent interview I posted she said nothing has changed.

What else is there to say. I think it's a possibility something fishy went on, and I think Trump acting the eejit is reason enough to be sceptical, but I also think it's likely if there was something damning or a smoking gun they would have found it already. It's 11 months and counting.

I think she is possibly intelligent enough to know not to prejudice any subsequent legal cases which might arise. You don't seem to be so wise, however.

Hank Scorpio

Calina wrote: »

I think she is possibly intelligent enough to know not to prejudice any subsequent legal cases which might arise. You don't seem to be so wise, however.

Projection on your part, why not say I can't talk about it, has she gone ahead and misinformed the entire world... twice? Thanks for the insult though.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As a senator in Obama's administration meeting formally, ohh you got him.

If he met with Russians he must not DENY it, which he did under oath.
The fact that he can't remember the specific REASON and CONVERSATIONS are indicative of further issues but are not a crime in themselves.

The little man from Alabama must be having sleepless nights.

Oh, he will be don't worry!

You know why they went after Sessions? It was the day after Trumps congress speech and they needed something to distract from it. Sessions was asked questions in relation to the dossier and his meetings were public knowledge, end of story.

A daft conspiracy that even Sessions himself doesn't believe given that he recused himself from the Russia/Trump investigation as a result.

Calina

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Projection on your part, why not say I can't talk about it, has she gone ahead and misinformed the entire world... twice? Thanks for the insult though.

Your response demonstrates that you did not understand what my point is.

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

A daft conspiracy that even Sessions himself doesn't believe: given that he recused himself from the Russia/Trump investigation as a result.

Not a conspiracy, it was the day after Trump's speech and well after Sessions testimony. Clearly timed. Have to agree to disagree.

If someone in Trumps circle was involved in the hacks Sessions is the last person I would suspect.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Not a conspiracy, it was the day after Trump's speech and well after Sessions testimony. Clearly timed. Have to agree to disagree.

If someone in Trumps circle was involved in the hacks Sessions is the last person I would suspect.

Again, you are deliberately tying this thread up wasting peoples time with falsehoods to divert from proper discussion on this presidency.

demfad

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I think people could take hanks complaints of the lack of evidence somewhat seriously if he wasn't posting Seth rich and spying microwave conspiracies.

His demands for evidence seem to only be for one topic.

I disagree. Even minus the Seth Rich stuff he would still have the mountain of evidence that he deliberately ignores which means people would continue to take him as seriously only as a Trump/Russia stooge and thread derailer.

Hank Scorpio

Calina wrote: »

Your response demonstrates that you did not understand what my point is.

So she should answer the anchor and say there's no evidence, instead of declining to answer the question?

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

Again, you are deliberately tying this thread up wasting peoples time with falsehoods to divert from proper discussion on this presidency.

It's not a falsehood, it was the day after Trumps congress speech the media and Dems went nuts on Sessions. That's how they play the game, it's Politics.

Your falsehoods shíte gets old fast after spouting that nonsense about Russian Politicians being killed over Trump.

Kitsunegari

Billy86 wrote: »

Let's taker a minute to remind ourselves of the definitions of the words 'proof' and evidence:

proof
pruːf/Submit
noun
1. evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament; More

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More


Evidence is used to establish proof. There is abundant evidence out there hence the number of investigations, not least of all the actions of Trump in recent weeks such as firing the guy investigating him, however the investigation is ongoing and proof is typically the end point of any such investigation. Continuing an investigation after proving in the eyes of the the relevant body that the proof exists would be like searching for the TV remote after having found the TV remote.

If there is 'abundant evidence' then why hasn't Trump or anyone with his campaign been charged and why are senior Democratic Senators still telling us there is still no evidence of Russian collusion? Whether you like it or not no tangible evidence to date has been presented to date that suggests that Trump colluded with the Russians.

The evidence currently is highly circumstantial and largely based on previous business deals from members of the Trump campaign had with Russia before the election started.

You would be best reminding people of the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty, which seems to have been wildly forgotten on this thread and in the media at large.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's not a falsehood, it was the day after Trumps congress speech the media and Dems went nuts on Sessions. That's how they play the game, it's Politics.

The furore over Sessions lying under oath was to do with....Sessions lying under oath. You know this is a serious crime?

Your falsehoods shíte gets old fast after spouting that nonsense about Russian Politicians being killed over Trump.

Do you mean these guys who were FSB (Russian Intelligence Agents) arrested for treason for passing on Info related to Russian hacking in the US and other States?

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents arrested for treason and illegal hacking reportedly passed confidential information to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, sources close to the investigation told the news agency Interfax.

Sergei Mikhailov, a top cybersecurity specialist in the FSB, and his deputy Dmitry Dokuchaev are being accused of “breaking their oath and working with the CIA,” Interfax reported, citing an anonymous source that did not specify if Mikhailov and Dokuchaev worked directly with the CIA or through intermediaries.

“Four people have been arrested in this case, and eight individuals in total have been identified as accomplices. Only four suspects have been charged, and the others could get off as witnesses,” the source told Interfax.

According to Novaya Gazeta, the FSB believes Mikhailov tipped off U.S. officials to information about Vladimir Fomenko and his server rental company “King Servers,” which the American cybersecurity company ThreatConnect identified last September as “an information nexus” that was used by hackers suspected of working for Russian state security in cyberattacks.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-federal-agents-suspected-of-treason-are-reportedly-being-charged-with-passing-secrets-to-the-cia-56994

ALSO: Testimony under oath at senate Intel committee for Trump/Russia from former FBI agent Clint Watts

'Follow the trail of dead Russians', security expert tells intelligence hearing on Trump-Kremlin links

demfad

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If there is 'abundant evidence' then why hasn't Trump or anyone with his campaign been charged

Because the investigations are not over.

and why are senior Democratic Senators still telling us there is still no evidence of Russian collusion?

Please quote the Dem Senator who said what you said they said?

A democratic Senator said she saw no (unclassified) evidence of collusion. This does not mean that she saw no classified evidence, it does not mean that she was not TOLD of the existence of unclassified or classified and it certainly does not mean that they believe this evidence does not exist as you falsely allege.

Whether you like it or not no tangible evidence to date has been presented to date that suggests that Trump colluded with the Russians.

The evidence currently is highly circumstantial and largely based on previous business deals from members of the Trump campaign had with Russia before the election started.

You would be best reminding people of the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty, which seems to have been wildly forgotten on this thread and in the media at large.

No-one is saying there is proof of collusion, they are saying there is abundant evidence of collusion which you either ignore or misrepresent as above.

demfad wrote: »

I'm getting sick of this!

• Please note evidence does not equal proof.
• Also note all investigations still ongoing.
• Also note sources for media are ALWAYS anonymous. That is because often the act of leaking can get a whistleblower in trouble. The pertinent question is are the leaks DENIED.

There has been more than substantial evidence shown here to YOU specifically every time you make this claim. When it is presented to you you make little or no attempt to refute it, just returning again later to repeat the same baseless claim. So here we go, last time a non exhaustive list which was already put to you:

Trump associates who lied about meetings/contacts with Ambassador Kislyak:

Attorney General-Jeff Sessions
Mike Flynn-Fired NSA
Trump Campaign Manager: Paul Manafort
Carter Page
Jared Kushner
JD Gordon
Roger Stone
Michael Cohen

People who lied about these meetings:
Donald Trump and anyone in the Trump admin who commented on it.

Other meetings with Russians:
Flynn met Putin and the Russian secret service at a dinner in 2015
Flynn contacts with a younger female Russian spy in Cambridge in 2014. She called him 'General Misha'.
Manafort campaigned for Putin Puppet Yanukovitz, got 12 million in back money from there, worked with pro Russian billionaire Firtash, and his partner was in Russian SS.
Worked for Depriska for 10 million a year from 2006 to further Russian interests internationally.

Kushner:
Met with Sanctioned head of sanctioned VEB bank in secret. This man was in Russian SS. VEB bank bankrolled TRump partner who Financed Trump tower Toronto.
Page: Met sanctioned head (Sechin) of Rosneft in Moscow.

Trump:

Many Russian contacts through his business including Felix Sater conencted to Russian boss of boss Mogilevich.
Bailed out by Russian banks in 2000's according to ex MI6 chief
Sater and Bayrock being prosecuted for money laundering in several Trump tower projects.
Trump Taj Mahal charged with 10 million in money laundering offenses largest ever.
Many, many more contacts

Lets just go recent, last week:


Trump/Pence let compromised Flynn be NSA for 18 days.
Trump fires Comey because of Russian probe (said so himself)
Trump gives coded classified information to Russia in the Oval Office.
Speaker of the House revealed as agreeing Trump was being paid by Putin.
Comey reveals that Trump tried to obstruct Flynn investigation.
Revealed Flynn and Manafort under criminal investigation for 6 months. Trump/Pence knew and went with him anyway..

Not to mention that many parts of Steele dossier, Russian on Russian conversations and more have been verified.
Leaked extensive and continuous contacts between team Trump and Russian Intel.
British media leaked that more than 1 salubrious recording existed.
Also leaked more than circumstantial evidence and strong evidence of collusion.
Schiff also said that he had seen this.

This is just a selection of evidence

Please address it. If you dont and come back with the 'no evidence' mallarkey again later I will have to report you quoting this post.

Enough is enough.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And just to add to Demfad's post, the fact that the DOJ has now appointed a Special Counsel to oversee the investigation, and left the terms of that investigation open is a very strong signal that there is something very serious to look into. They don't appoint SC based on rumours and MSM bias. Recall as well that Comey had moved from a weekly debrief on the case to a daily debrief, hardly a point to nothing being uncovered.

The Democrats have been looking for an independent investigation from the off. Chavez, Ryan and especially Nunes have done everything they can to try to avoid that. Even with that they couldn't stop it.

You need to ask yourself why the DOJ would go this route. It has already been looking into this for some time and if there was nothing there why would they be going this route? It makes no sense. The only sensible conclusion is that they feel that this investigation needs specific resources and non-partisan work with no threat of involvement from the WH.

Trump has lost control over this, his AG is not able to be involved, his Ex NSA is at the very centre of it and he seems very concerned about a man he hardly knew even 18 months ago Given Trumps clear disdain for anyone he believes offers him nothing (Guiliani, Christie) etc) there is a clear contradiction of why is he going to bat for Flynn in a such a way. What does he care? The damage to the WH has already been done, let Flynn deal with his own problems, away from the WH. It would have been much easier to simply let him off and claim that they hired him on the best of intentions but it didn't work out and allow the legal system to take its course blah blah. It goes against every piece of common sense to think that it is out of any loyalty or care for Flynn, so the only conclusion one can make is that Flynn has something that Trump feels could damage Trump.

Why did Trump ask everyone else to leave the room when he allegedly asked Comey to let it go? Why not say it in front of others if there was nothing untoward?
Why has the WH not given its version of the meeting yet? All they seem to have said is that Comey is wrong. Given Trumps recent claim that with so much going on his press corp can be expected to know everything, why are we supposed to believe they know the truth about this? Has Trump given them the full version, and if so why not present it to cut this off?

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

The furore over Sessions lying under oath was to do with....Sessions lying under oath. You know this is a serious crime?

Oh, very serious. After Mr Clapper was punished so severely I'm sure everyone is in fear of making a mistake.

The other garbage, nothing to do with Trump and a conspiracy theory, stuff that I'd get called out for.

Kitsunegari

It's hard to believe that the Iraq war has largely been forgotten about and we're back at the stage where a lack of critical thinking and a sheep mentality has brought us back to the stage where the masses will unquestionably accept whatever narrative the media and the intelligence services present to us.

The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.

The clincher, as it had to be, was not a single satellite photo or the intercept of one Iraqi official talking to another. And it was not, as it never could be, the assertion that some spy or Iraqi deserter had made this or that charge -- because, of course, who can prove any of that? It was the totality of the material and the fact that Powell himself had presented it. In this case, the messenger may have been more important than the message

That's an extract from an article written by Richard Cohen in The Washington Post on the 19th of March 2003. I can find 100's of more on both sides.

Yet here we are again, not a shred of tangible evidence has been produced yet the mob mentality has already taken over and they say Trump's fans are dumb?

mcmoustache

According to the New York Times,

WASHINGTON — American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.

The conversations focused on Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman at the time, and Michael T. Flynn, a retired general who was advising Mr. Trump, the officials said. Both men had indirect ties to Russian officials, who appeared confident that each could be used to help shape Mr. Trump’s opinions on Russia.

Some Russians boasted about how well they knew Mr. Flynn. Others discussed leveraging their ties to Viktor F. Yanukovych, the deposed president of Ukraine living in exile in Russia, who at one time had worked closely with Mr. Manafort.

If this is confirmed, it would show that there was at least an intent on the part of Russians to influence Trump. It would also show what they believed that Manafort and Flynn could be persuaded to achieve this.

I know that this is the NYT and this report is not proof of collusion between Trump and the campaign but it suggests to me that there is a lot of strategic leaking going on from the Intelligence Community. I'm starting to think that maybe they don't like him for some reason(s).

InTheTrees

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Whether you like it or not no tangible evidence to date has been presented to date that suggests that Trump colluded with the Russians.

Except I'm absolutely certain they're not sharing the progress of the investigations with you, so your statement is curious.

What is it that you want from the investigation?

Kitsunegari

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it's not. I get that it has become fashionable to invent new definitions of words to prop up feeble arguments, but that doesn't make those arguments less feeble.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is the basis of freedom of speech in US law.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

That's the prohibition on censorship in its entirety. Nothing about listing sponsors; nothing about being able to lie without consequence.

If Congress were to pass a law preventing Hannity from lying on air, that would be censorship. This - no matter how you dress it up - isn't.

Again, another strawman argument from you. Can you point out where I stated that Hannity was being censored under the definition of the US constitution?

Im getting really tired of your continual misrepresentation of my arguments on this forum.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Oh, very serious. After Mr Clapper was punished so severely I'm sure everyone is in fear of making a mistake.

The other garbage, nothing to do with Trump and a conspiracy theory, stuff that I'd get called out for.

One person forgetting to mention a meeting with Russian officials could be overlooked. Multiple people forgetting multiple meetings with Russian officials looks a little suspicious. Those same people denying any contacts with Russians only to play down the contacts once they are confirmed is very shady, don't you think?

Kitsunegari

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except I'm absolutely certain they're not sharing the progress of the investigations with you, so your statement is curious.

What is it that you want from the investigation?

What sort of a silly comment is that? If there is evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians then that information should be presented to him and he should have the right to defend himself.

What do you want from the investigation?

Zubeneschamali

Kitsunegari wrote: »

ACan you point out where I stated that Hannity was being censored under the definition of the US constitution?

Can you tell us what meaning of "censored" you are using?

Because all I see is someone publicising a list of commercial sponsors of a show, hoping that public pressure will cause the sponsors to withdraw or threaten to withdraw sponsorship of that show in hopes of changing the editorial direction of that show.

No censorship there at all - just market forces at work.

mcmoustache

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except I'm absolutely certain they're not sharing the progress of the investigations with you, so your statement is curious.

What is it that you want from the investigation?

This person thinks that investigations work like TV shows. In an ongoing, active investigation, there is no way in hell that we are going to be presented with the undeniable proof that Trump and/or his campaign, colluded with the Russians until the time comes to present it.

What we will see, is more and more circumstantial evidence either leaked or unearthed by journalists. Each of these pieces of circumstantial evidence, taken on their own, can be dismissed as not being proof. But, when we have more and more circumstantial evidence appearing daily and confirming other pieces of circumstantial evidence, it's going to be hard to dismiss it all as "Fake News".

Billy86

Kitsunegari wrote: »

If there is 'abundant evidence' then why hasn't Trump or anyone with his campaign been charged and why are senior Democratic Senators still telling us there is still no evidence of Russian collusion? Whether you like it or not no tangible evidence to date has been presented to date that suggests that Trump colluded with the Russians.

The evidence currently is highly circumstantial and largely based on previous business deals from members of the Trump campaign had with Russia before the election started.

You would be best reminding people of the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty, which seems to have been wildly forgotten on this thread and in the media at large.

The answer is in the post you quoted. In fact the majority of this post is rebutted in the post it quoted.

mcmoustache

Kitsunegari wrote: »

What sort of a silly comment is that? If there is evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians then that information should be presented to him and he should have the right to defend himself.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.