Again, what does this have to do with anything we're discussing?

What does Bill Browder have to do with anything we're discussing? Are you just losing your mind and spouting out random nonsense? — Michael

It is in the history within the article I have linked which you have not read. The story is entwined with the current twists of US, Russia relations.

Links to those relations and Browder are within article. So the article itself links to other sources.

Why rely on another’s narrative of a source?

Might as well stick to buzzfeed if you do that.

It is in the history within the article I have linked which you have not read. — raza

I did.

The story is entwined with the current twists of US, Russia relations.

Links to those relations and Browder are within article. So the article itself links to other sources. — raza

Again with the nonsense leaps. Are you actually saying that because the Russian lawyer wanted the repeal of the Magnitsky Act which was enacted in response to the testimony of Bill Browder, who you claim is lying (where's your evidence?), then the Trump Tower meeting was entrapment led by the DNC who the Russians didn't actually hack, with the FBI, DHS, and SIC lying to cover it all up?

It would really help if you actually set out your reasoning in nice logical steps rather than spout out conspiracy after conspiracy. You're looking like a crazy person.

Again, what does this have to do with anything we're discussing — Michael

It’s always the entire geopolitics. The Trump/Russia conspiracy theory is not in isolation. It involves Crimea, Ukraine, and all those US neocon politicians along with the corrupt financiers such as Browder.

Obama became intimate with Browder’s story. The Magnitsky Act followed.

Trump-Russia-DNC is not in it’s own vacuum. It is a cover piece.

Again with the nonsense leaps. Are you actually saying that because the Russian lawyer wanted the repeal of the Magnitsky Act which was enacted in response to the testimony of Bill Browder, who you claim is lying (where's your evidence?) — Michael

Evidence supplied. Browder testimony in link provided.

So that is “where” my evidence is. Right in this thread.

If you don’t want to open it, but claim I provided no evidence, then you are disingenuous.

So you have some study to do.


I doubt you will, however.

and in fairness. Our President does a very good job of tossing out accusations as well, and that with the weight of the office of the Presidency of the US behind them.

Not sure why some of y'all are still wasting your time with Raza when he is literally a pigeon.

politics aside, I continue to be fascinated about how different people can view the same thing, and have such passionately different conclusions.

The best example I can remember is the verdict in the OJ trail. Such a sharp divide on that.

informative post. Wasted on raza but at least others can benefit.

You got to remember that for Trump-ets facts don't matter, so argument is pointless.

New title: Everything Trump Touches Dies, Rick Wilson.

No left-winger, Wilson is a lifelong conservative who delivers his withering critique of Trump from the right. A leader of the Never Trump movement, he warns his own party of the political catastrophe that leaves everyone involved with Trump with reputations destroyed and lives in tatters.

Wilson unblinkingly dismantles Trump’s deceptions and the illusions to which his supporters cling, shedding light on the guilty parties who empower and enable Trump in Washington and the news media. He calls out the race-war dead-enders who hitched a ride with Trump, the alt-right basement dwellers who worship him, and the social conservatives who look the other way.

Everything Trump Touches Dies deftly chronicles the tragicomic Trump story from the early campaign days through the shock of election night, to the inconceivable trainwreck of Trump's first year. Wilson provides not only an insightful analysis of the Trump administration, but also an optimistic path forward for the GOP, the conservative movement, and the country.

Combining insider political analysis, blunt truths, and black humor, Everything Trump Touches Dies is perfect for those on either side of the aisle who need a dose of unvarnished reality, a good laugh, a strong cocktail, and a return to sanity in American politics.

I posted this before, but in my drunken state I accidentally deleted it while fixing a quote I attributed to Michael (sorry, I'm new here). Luckily it was still open in Notepad++.



What about George Papadopolous (member of Trump campaign) bragging to an Australian diplomat in a bar that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, then the hacked e-mails were released via Wikileaks, then that Australian diplomat called the FBI?

Do you really think that is not evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of your response to Michael - Michael stated:

I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) — Michael

Your response was:

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

The document I linked you to said:

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments."

The evidence they present:

Starting in March 2016, Russian Government–
linked actors began openly supporting
President-elect Trump’s candidacy in media
aimed at English-speaking audiences. RT and
Sputnik—another government-funded outlet
producing pro-Kremlin radio and online
content in a variety of languages for
international audiences—consistently cast
President-elect Trump as the target of unfair
coverage from traditional US media outlets
that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt
political establishment.

Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s
victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of
global populist movements—the theme of
Putin’s annual conference for Western
academics in October 2016—and the latest
example of Western liberalism’s collapse.

Putin’s chief propagandist Dmitriy Kiselev used
his flagship weekly newsmagazine program
this fall to cast President-elect Trump as an
outsider victimized by a corrupt political
establishment and faulty democratic election
process that aimed to prevent his election
because of his desire to work with Moscow.

Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader
of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia, proclaimed just before the election that
if President-elect Trump won, Russia would
“drink champagne” in anticipation of being
able to advance its positions on Syria and
Ukraine.

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the
US presidential campaign was consistently negative
and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her
of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and
ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials
echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign
that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war
between the United States and Russia.

In August, Kremlin-linked political analysts
suggested avenging negative Western reports
on Putin by airing segments devoted to
Secretary Clinton’s alleged health problems.

On 6 August, RT published an Englishlanguage
video called “Julian Assange Special:
Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put
Clinton in Prison?” and an exclusive interview
with Assange entitled “Clinton and ISIS Funded
by the Same Money.” RT’s most popular video
on Secretary Clinton, “How 100% of the
Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to…Themselves,” had
more than 9 million views on social media
platforms. RT’s most popular English language
video about the President-elect, called “Trump
Will Not Be Permitted To Win,” featured
Assange and had 2.2 million views.

For more on Russia’s past media efforts—
including portraying the 2012 US electoral
process as undemocratic—please see Annex A:
Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence
Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.
Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its
influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
This effort amplified stories on scandals about
Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the
election campaign.

The likely financier of the so-called Internet
Research Agency of professional trolls located
in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties
to Russian intelligence.

A journalist who is a leading expert on the
Internet Research Agency claimed that some
social media accounts that appear to be tied to
Russia’s professional trolls—because they
previously were devoted to supporting Russian
actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for
President-elect Trump as early as December
2015"

And much, much, MUCH, more (but I won't clog up the forum by pasting in literally 15 more pages of evidence. What I pasted in was only 2 pages).

Raza, do you still maintain that the following quote by Michael:

I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) — Michael

Was made:

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

?

Everything everyone knows about Trump is wrong:

Everything everyone knows about Trump is wrong: — Hanover

So, he's not President. Well, that's a relief. :up:

Election was almost 2 years ago bud

Oh, is it one of those, "Nobody thought he'd win but pussy grabbing is more popular than you think, vids?" Yeah, old news.

Besides, plenty of conservative pundits didn't think he would win; he, his wife and many members of his campaign team doubted he would win.

Yeah I mean who would have thought 63 million Americans would be that stupid.

Everything Trump knew about Trump was wrong. And still is.

I get it now. This is Hansover's way of apologizing for his huuuuge mistake in voting for this nut. Aw, cute. :hearts:

Everything everyone knows about Trump is wrong: — Hanover

Hanover, but do you agree, or disagree, with the idea that US intelligence agencies are more reliable than the private sector pollsters?

Because those polls are what had most of us anti-Trumpers laughing (including those TV hosts).

There is a key point to be made here, IMO.

It does strike me as suspicious that if the Kremlin had voiced its support for Trump and tries to establish a narrative of a corrupt Clinton and the FBI was aware of clandestine Russian operations, that Comey nevertheless brought up Clinton's emails right before the election. Comey is Republican. Obviously a deep state conspiracy to steal the election from the Democrats.

From a European perspective it was only 63 million. That gives you a rough idea what we think of Americans in general. :naughty:

Comey did a lot of mea culpa, mea maxima culpa since he resigned. He explained it, from a prosecutor point of view, since new facts were available which would have mattered in an investigation closed only shortly before, for him, not reopening the case would be against the spirit of his profession.

The one thing that I think strikes out against his regrets is how goddamn identical each of his interviews are on the subject. He seems to have memorized a line from a crisis consultant or something... But that only speaks to his character, not his implication in a conspiracy...

However, he did not need to be part of the conspiracy to be a pawn of it. With a bit of character study, one could supposed it was predictable that he would reopen a case in the event that new relevant information would surface shortly after it was closed. Yes, perhaps the agency's normal policy of leaving the Legislative branch alone might prevail, but on the other hand, that line had already been crossed on both sides. So perhaps all that it took to steal the Presidency was to release part of the hacked data later to be caught only after the first investigation was close, coupled with some bad but predictable choices on Comey's part.

You're so gullible. That's what they want you to believe but where's the evidence Comey didn't do this for bad faith reasons? And let's apply your standard to other areas: the suspect of murder can't be guilty because he went out is his way to apologise! Really?!

Do you think it will ever cross Giulianni's mind to do the liberal pundit run and apologize for his many mistakes? No, these guys dont care.

Comey did. He clearly wanted people to stop thinking he had reopened the case for optics only.

In the very vast majority of cases, when a prosecutor receives material which would warrant the reopening of a case, we would want them to act on it rather than not. In this case it was not possible to act without influencing the elections. In a way, thats not so much on Comey as it is on the American political circus which allows both of the runners to campaign while being under federal investigation.

In regards to your murderer analogy ;

The suspect claims it was accidental, the evidence at least dont contradict his account, and many who have interacted with him have testified that he has showed terrible regrets at the whole event.

Theres at least no reason yet to assume the guy likes to make skin suit out of people.

It does strike me as suspicious that if the Kremlin had voiced its support for Trump and tries to establish a narrative of a corrupt Clinton and the FBI was aware of clandestine Russian operations, that Comey nevertheless brought up Clinton's emails right before the election. Comey is Republican. Obviously a deep state conspiracy to steal the election from the Democrats. — Benkei

Actually, the Cold War was a Deep State conspiracy to set the stage for Russia being the enemy which could then be used to fabricate a hoax implicating Trump in massive wrongdoing and have him removed from office and thrown in Guantanamo.

Putin, of course, being Clinton in drag.

Actually, the Cold War was a Deep State conspiracy to set the stage for Russia being the enemy which could then be used to fabricate a hoax implicating Trump in massive wrongdoing and have him removed from office and thrown in Guantanamo. — Michael

You have no idea. It stems much further back than that. The real reason why the Russian Empire switched sides during the Seven Years War in 1762 wasn't because Peter III was a Prussophile, but because he was warned by a time traveler from the future that if he did not switch sides, then it would alter the timeline such that Trump would never be born, let alone become President of the USA, and a puppet of a future leader of Russia. Peter III was of course assassinated that same year, by a rival undercover time traveller who supported Clinton, but by then it was too late.

You're not going back far enough. When the Devil rebelled against God, it was actually Hillary/Obama (they're the same person) rebelling against Trump. Today's "politics" in the U.S. is actually a secret war being waged between heaven (the Republicans) and hell (the Democrats), played out by meat puppets.