Funny, when I come here it's the same old bunch (creative and Wayfarer) grabbing tightly on their pink ponies and crying about Trump :D

You've misattributed meaning and mistakenly presupposed truth somewhere along the line.

8-)

I'm not sad, nor am I complaining. Trump's victory did not surprise me in the least, and I think that it's about time that the inevitable negative results of a long standing history of corruption become undeniable.

Sometimes it takes a Trump to motivate different thinking...

X-)

What more proof do ya need?

We know - verbatim - the Russian operative objective. We know that as a direct result from past investigations(some decades old) that were not focused upon the Trump campaign. We know that Manafort voluntarily signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective. The matching could be no more precise.

The exact same language expressed the exact same objective on two separate occasions.

When one aims to infiltrate America with the clearly expressed written objective to influence and/or effect the American political system in ways that are the most favorable to Russia and her interests, s/he is a Russian operative.

Paul Manafort is one such person.

Remember the meeting?

Manafort attended.

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

Remember the meeting?

It happened while Manafort was still on the campaign team.

Remember the email?

Damning stuff on Hillary was promised.

Jr. says "I love it". He further called out a time frame... the end of the summer...

Remember the meeting?

Manafort was there.

The end of the summer...

Before then though.

Trump, openly - brazenly - called out to Russia on public airwaves asking them - publicly and unapologetically - to release Hillary's emails if they had 'em...

The end of the summer...

We know - verbatim - the Russian operative objective. We know that as a direct result from past investigations(some decades old) that were not focused upon the Trump campaign. We know that Manafort voluntarily signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective. The matching could be no more precise.

First of all, you need to provide a link proving Manafort "signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective"...because we don't all know that.

Secondly, even if Manafort did agree to do that, that's not proof he actually did so. And nobody had provided proof of that.

When one aims to infiltrate America with the clearly expressed written objective to influence and/or effect the American political system in ways that are the most favorable to Russia and her interests, s/he is a Russian operative.

Um, that's an obvious tautology. And the Russians and Americans have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually influenced countries elections, for years. That itself proves nothing.

Paul Manafort is one such person.

No evidence has been given proving that.

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

What change in the platform? You need to provide a link to that--and proof Manafort changed it--or you're just hypothesizing.

Damning stuff on Hillary was promised.]

The only damning stuff on Hillary and (mostly) the DNC came from WikiLeaks, not Manafort. And all that stuff was true things Hillary said and the DNC did, as in shamefully rigging the primary for Hillary.

Trump, openly - brazenly - called out to Russia on public airwaves asking them - publicly and unapologetically - to release Hillary's emails if they had 'em...

I remember him calling on WikiLeaks to do that, so you need to provide a link for that. And even if he did, that's not collusion.

First of all, you need to provide a link proving Manafort "signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective"...because we don't all know that.

I do not need to provide a link in order for that to have happened. It did. Your belief isn't necessary.

Secondly, even if Manafort did agree to do that, that's not proof he actually did so. And nobody had provided proof of that.

His actions prove he did so. Your belief isn't necessary.

I wrote:

When one aims to infiltrate America with the clearly expressed written objective to influence and/or effect the American political system in ways that are the most favorable to Russia and her interests, s/he is a Russian operative.

This followed...

Um, that's an obvious tautology. And the Russians and Americans have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually influenced countries elections, for years. That itself proves nothing.

Tautologies are imperative in this case. Being a tautology isn't inherently negative. I'm not defining something to prove my case. To quite the contrary, I'm arguing that a Russian operative named Paul Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign, and the proof of that is how the Russian government defines the objective in addition to having Manafort sign a contract that clearly expresses the exact same objective.

What you're calling a tautology, I'm calling the only acceptable standard by which to reasonably judge what counts as being a Russian operative. If Russian herself determines that standard, then that's the one we use as a means to judge and/or assess whether or not someone is satisfying that objective.

Regarding the bold assertion that Paul Manafort satisfied Russia's own objective and did so after having signed a contract that clearly included standard...

No evidence has been given proving that.

I've not brought forth evidence proving that. Evidence has been provided, just not to you evidently.

I wrote:

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

What change in the platform? You need to provide a link to that--and proof Manafort changed it--or you're just hypothesizing.

I'm lazy. Look it up yourself. It was the only change in that platform. It happened immediately following Trump's official nomination ceremony, perhaps even the same weekend. The media barely noticed. It removed all the talk about supporting(arming) a certain group of rebels who were/are amidst armed conflict with Russia. Crimea maybe? Ukraine? Can't remember, but that specific doesn't matter.

Proof that Manafort changed it? That's too rich. He quit and/or was dismissed immediately after the republican national convention. He was already known to be acting as a Russian operative. Despite posing numerous questions to the campaign and different people within it - about the change - no clear answer was forthcoming.

Who had the motive? Who had already signed a contract clearly expressing that motive? Who had the ability? Who quit after the platform change and meeting?

Whoever changed it satisfied the exact same objective as any and all other Russian operatives we've known about in the past twenty or so years. Manafort had already given his word to do things just like that.

First of all, you need to provide a link proving Manafort "signed a contract in which he promised to make the world match words clearly expressed within the aforementioned Russian operative objective"...because we don't all know that.

I do not need to provide a link in order for that to have happened. It did. Your belief isn't necessary.

Of course you do, since you're so amazingly biased in all this, nobody has a reason to believe you without one. Thanks for showing you were being mendacious.

Secondly, even if Manafort did agree to do that, that's not proof he actually did so. And nobody had provided proof of that.

His actions prove he did so. Your belief isn't necessary.

You claim his actions prove he did so without providing a shred of evidence backing up your clearly biased canard. Again, you've shown your mendacity.

Um, that's an obvious tautology. And the Russians and Americans have been trying to influence each other's elections, and have actually influenced countries elections, for years. That itself proves nothing.

Tautologies are imperative in this case. Being a tautology isn't inherently negative.

No, tautologies are pointless and prove nothing; they only repeat the original claim.

To quite the contrary, I'm arguing that a Russian operative named Paul Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign, and the proof of that is how the Russian government defines the objective in addition to having Manafort sign a contract that clearly expresses the exact same objective.

Yes, you're arguing it with no evidence whatsoever, and we know how much you want the Russia story to be true. So, again, your outlandish claim has no credibility.

Regarding the bold assertion that Paul Manafort satisfied Russia's own objective and did so after having signed a contract that clearly included standard...

No evidence has been given proving that.

I've not brought forth evidence proving that. Evidence has been provided, just not to you evidently.

Evidence clearly hasn't been provided since you can't even bring it up to back up your outlandish claim, And your trustworthiness declines with every unsupported way-out claim.

I wrote:

Remember the change in the republican platform?

Manafort kept his promise. Manafort made the world match his words.

What change in the platform? You need to provide a link to that--and proof Manafort changed it--or you're just hypothesizing.

I'm lazy. Look it up yourself. It was the only change in that platform.

You may be lazy, but you also clearly can't provide a link supporting your outlandish claim about Manafort and the platform. Thanks for showing you can't. You must expect people to believe everything you say...pretty delusional.

Proof that Manafort changed it? That's too rich. He quit and/or was dismissed immediately after the republican national convention. He was already known to be acting as a Russian operative. Despite posing numerous questions to the campaign and different people within it - about the change - no clear answer was forthcoming.

No, your outlandish claim Manafort changed it is too rich, and you clearly lied again since you can't provide any proof whatsoever. And you also haven't shown in any way Manafort was a Russian operative...except in your fantasy.

Whoever changed it satisfied the exact same objective as any and all other Russian operatives we've known about in the past twenty or so years. Manafort had already given his word to do things just like that.

So, now you don't even know who changed it, and you can't even show it was changed. That's really rich. And you've shown no proof Manafort gave his word to do it. Another fantastical imagining.

So, since you have provided no evidence or proof of any of your erroneous claims, it's clear they are only your wondrous fantasies.

Time will tell media puppet...

Excellent way to show you have no counter, Hillary's finger puppet.

If you choose to not believe my reporting, that's on you. Strictly speaking, you've every right to point out that I have offered no concrete evidence to you. You're right about that.

By the way, Hillary has nothing to do with this.

You know Sand...

I admire much of what you write here. Just so ya know. You help me to be a better philosopher as well.

I appreciate that, Creative. I actually enjoy our engagements as well, and appreciate your passion.

I invite the reader to - just for arguments' sake - imagine that what I've said above is true.

All of it is verifiable/falsifiable, and will be in due time...

Mueller is in no hurry.

It took me a while to figure out that you're one helluva devil's advocate.

X-)

I actually don't believe the Russian conspiracy theory and think it comes from Hillarys camps inability to accept they lost because of a bad candidate and a bad campaign, and the DNC doesn't want to admit progressivism, not centrism, has to be the future of the party. So, if evidence shows Russia interfered with the election and/or Russia helped, we should deal with it sternly then. But until then, it is only a distraction from glaring issues and fixing the broken Democratic Party.

But I'll be your devils advocate anyway...:)

Well, Hillary lovers surely relish the idea... The evidence I've mentioned, however, has nothing to do with Clinton or her supporters. It stands on it's own.

By the way, I've little to no respect for the Clintons.

Few do anymore...:)

I actually don't believe the Russian conspiracy theory and think it comes from Hillarys camps inability to accept they lost because of a bad candidate and a bad campaign — John Harris

Except the accusations came from the Steele Dossier which began to be investigated in June '16, with the FBI paying Steele to continue his work in October.

actually don't believe the Russian conspiracy theory and think it comes from Hillarys camps inability to accept they lost because of a bad candidate and a bad campaign
— John Harris

Except the accusations came from the Steele Dossier which began to be investigated in June '16, with the FBI paying Steele to continue his work in October.

No, nobody knows the accusations originated from the Steele dossier (which is Christopher Steele' claims, not evidence in itself), especially since the deceitful deep stated is and has been involved, as well as the Clinton campaign and DNC's still questionable claim their servers were hacked. They still haven't let the FBI examine them.

No, nobody knows the accusations originated from the Steele dossier (which is not evidence in itself) — John Harris

I'm pretty sure it was Mother Jones and BuzzFeed reporting on and publishing the Steele dossier that kicked the whole thing off (publicly, at least).

Regardless, wherever it originated, the accusations preceded the election, and didn't come from Hillary's camp. The Steele dossier is one source, and GCHQ another (in 2015).

And I'm not claiming that the accusations are true. I'm questioning your claim that the accusations came from Hillary's camp in response to losing the election.

No, nobody knows the accusations originated from the Steele dossier (which is not evidence in itself)
— John Harris

I'm pretty sure it was Mother Jones and BuzzFeed reporting on and publishing the Steele dossier that kicked the whole thing off (publicly, at least).

Even if Mother Jones wasn't a biased publication, they could have no idea the CIA, FBI, or NSA-- not the Steele dossier--didn't actually kick the whole thing off. I'm surprised you don't get that.

And regardless, whether or not accusations--even from a sketchy guy like Michael Steele--preceded the election, that doesn't mean the enterprise to push the Russia conspiracy theory didn't arise to influence the election and/or cover up for Hillary's awful campaign and embarrassing loss.

Even if Mother Jones wasn't a biased publication, they could have no idea the CIA, FBI, or NSA didn't actually kick the whole thing off, not the Steele dossier. I'm surprised you don't get that. — John Harris

I do get that. I even provided an article on GCHQ having alerted the U.S. intelligence agencies of such suspicions in 2015. I was specifically referring to the public accusations (as I explicitly said in that very quote). Besides, I'm not invested in the Steele dossier having been the original source. The point I'm making is that the original source isn't Hillary's post-election camp.

And regardless, whether or not accusations--even from a sketchy guy like Michael Steele--preceded the election, that doesn't mean the enterprise to push the Russia conspiracy theory didn't arise to influence the election and/or cover up for Hillary's awful campaign and embarrassing loss.

I don't even know what you mean by this. The accusations, investigations, and media reporting preceded the election, coming from sources that weren't Hillary's camp.

Even if Mother Jones wasn't a biased publication, they could have no idea the CIA, FBI, or NSA didn't actually kick the whole thing off, not the Steele dossier. I'm surprised you don't get that.
— John Harris

I do get that. I even provided an article on GCHQ having alerted the U.S. intelligence agencies of such suspicions in 2015. I was specifically referring to the public accusations (as I explicitly said in that very quote).

I see that you do get that about the "public alert,' and I missed that. However, your belief the GCHQ alert was the beginning still continues the mistake of not leaving open the distinct possibility the Deep State originated this on their own or in collaboration with the DNC/Hillary camp, with or without any evidence supporting it.

And regardless, whether or not accusations--even from a sketchy guy like Michael Steele--preceded the election, that doesn't mean the enterprise to push the Russia conspiracy theory didn't arise to influence the election and/or cover up for Hillary's awful campaign and embarrassing loss.

I don't even know what you mean by this. The accusations, investigations, and media reporting preceded the election, coming from sources that weren't Hillary's camp.

I don't even know what you mean by this. You have no idea the accusations weren't coming from Hillary's camp. And what I said was clear; you have no reason to not "know what I meant by it," particularly since I never said the Russia conspiracy theory had to come from Hillary's camp or Hillary's camp alone.

I see that you do get that about the "public alert,' and I missed that. However, your belief the GCHQ alert was the beginning still continues the mistake of not leaving open the distinct possibility the Deep State originated this on their own or in collaboration with the DNC/Hillary camp, with or without any evidence supporting it. — John Harris

I see you're pushing a "Hillary and the DNC are the Illuminati" conspiracy theory here.

Yes, it's theoretically possible that Hillary suspected in 2015 that she might lose the election to Donald Trump, and tricked the British intelligence services with false evidence of collusion (or coerced them into fabricating it), and was in secret league with Christopher Steele to produce a fanciful report. And that after the election and out of spite she coordinated the wider media and the intelligence agencies into carrying out wide-ranging investigations and propaganda, all under the nose of President Trump and a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

But, of course, that's lunacy. The far simpler explanation is that Hillary and the DNC aren't some masterful schemers able to undermine the government and manipulate the newspapers, and that there are genuine intelligence reports of suspect activity that have nothing to do with Hillary being angry that she isn't the President.

I never said the Russia conspiracy theory had to come from Hillary's camp or Hillary's camp alone.

If I were to say "the conspiracy theory came from some NYT article yesterday", and you respond by claiming that it's been discussed for months, and then I counter by saying that I didn't say it came only from that article, then it's clear that I'm arguing in bad faith. Which you seem to be doing here. You said you don't believe in the theory, and that it came from Hillary's camp in response to losing the election. My responses are entirely warranted.

I see that you do get that about the "public alert,' and I missed that. However, your belief the GCHQ alert was the beginning still continues the mistake of not leaving open the distinct possibility the Deep State originated this on their own or in collaboration with the DNC/Hillary camp, with or without any evidence supporting it.
— John Harris

I see you're pushing a "Hillary and the DNC are the Illuminati" conspiracy theory here.

I did no such thing; and the only one pushing conspiracies is you. And since that both strawmanned my argument and personally and erroneously insulted me, I didn't and won't read the rest of your post or your future comments on this thread.

Have a good day.

There has long since been ongoing investigations into well-known Russian operatives. All of that is very well-documented, replete with clear video. The dossier isn't all that germane.

Hey Sand...

Just for shits and giggles, define "Deep State" for me, wouldja?

So, we now know that one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016 is Russian, and is well-known for arranging computer hacking. Particularly when the information is later used to present the owners in negative light. We also have this same participant's ongoing correspondence in which it talks in terms of "we can get our boy elected".

Add to this Trump Jr's total and utter lack of surprise given the gravity of what was being offered to him, and... well...

It's only a matter a of time.

Mueller is doing this quite methodically and with no hurry.

That Russia was pushing for Trump was totally clear during campaign, as was the very strange behaviour of Trump toward Putin. The collusion is also obvious, few months ago somebody counted 11 different times the Trump team meeting Russing, but now if after Trump Jr. and Sater e-mails there's no doubt of the collusion. The only one's doubting will never accept any kind of proof. It's all a conspiracy, fake news. They'll believe their alternate Seth Rich universe and believe that there's a widespread conspiracy against Trump.



What is obvious even now that Trump was totally ignorant and clueless of the fact that having help from a country like Russia wouldn't be a same thing if Putin was just your average conservative billionaire supporting the political right. And his Russian handlers likely could treat him so that he didn't have any idea of how deep hole he had dug for himself.