• U.S. Treasury moves to protect identities of 'dark money' political donors
    64 replies, posted
Papadapolous (campaign foreign policy chair), Gates (Papa's second in command), Flynn (national security advisor), van der Zwaan (Manafort's lawyer) confessed to lying under oath; meanwhile Richard Pinedo confessed to selling Russian agents the fake identities they used to contact the campaign under. Now stop trolling.
Nigga this guy isn't even on the campaign and I just explained that those other charges aren't related to ultimate question of did Trump's campaign deliberately work with the Kremlin to hack the DNC? You said you have the evidence, show me
Yes, because anyone here, or even yourself, can speak with the authority you have here in regards to secret testimonies of people who have confessed their side of this story and narrative to the FBI. We don't know, you don't know, and you're banking on the side that has a considerable number of turncoats already. Why is that? I don't know if Trump hacked the DNC, but telling Russia in an open invitation like he did is, was, and will always be an outright invitation to help him. Whether he was aware they would or not is irrelevant, he asked for it, presumably meant it, and got it. If Trump was entirely ignorant of all that Russia did to help him(Which I strongly believe the Mueller investigation will indicate was not the case) does that really make him any more legitimate in your eyes?
You demand evidence, then move the goalposts when it's provided. You'll probably say it was all a setup if he ends up rotting in jail.
Pappadopalous literally gave his side of the story on radio. explain. He didn't ask for it. Also, I too believe the Mueller investigation will "indicate" that Trump was not ignorant of the "Russian help", sanctioned or not by the Kremlin. I just have my doubts about whether they will actually prove it. And as for whether or not that makes him legitimate? I'll wait and see what comes out of the voting machine story first.
Trump literally asked Russia, live on national television, to hack the DNC and release stolen emails. Within hours of him making this request, Russian military intelligence launched a massive cyber warfare campaign under the Guccifer2.0 front which targeted the DNC with spear phishing scams. You have now forfeited all right to be taken seriously. It’s quite clear that you are not nearly as naive as you’re pretending to be, and that you are intentionally obscuring the truth. You may be able to hide from the consequences of your words online, but I promise you this: justice is coming for Donald Trump, and it is coming for the people who have turned a blind eye to his treason.
He said he wanted them to release them because the assumption is that Hillary's private server had already been hacked. He even said so right before he called on them to release it. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html Watch the video again, he did not call for Russia to "hack the DNC". the DNC phishing attack was conducted completely unrelated to that and the emails that we do have were recovered as part of domestic investigations. This is all ignoring the fact that at that point the server had already been taken offline so Trump literally couldn't have asked them to hack it and then have them hack it. CBS: Report C This is so melodramatic that I laughed, have a funny x1.
Ok buddy whats your point? Do you think Trump is a 100% squeaky clean and innocent?
Well, not 100%. Do I believe that Trump may have had an affair with Stormy Daniels? Absolutely. Do I believe that Trump conspired with the Russian government to illicitly undermine the DNC? Not at this moment. What's your point in all this? Can't you just wait for actual evidence of the conspiracy before jumping to conclusions?
There has been evidence, we have showed you evidence, we have stated evidence. Yet you ignore it and go "Thats not evidence". Even though the fucking Mueller investigation and FBI have come out and set "We have evidence".
Evidence for a whole host of other stuff like tax-related charges on gates and Manafort (seriously why is this here?), someone lying under oath for a completely unrelated issue, a guy who was entrapped by a Russian acting under the FBI, and evidence that once upon a time Trump Jr. and Manafort met with some Russian lady because they claimed to have damaging information on Hillary Clinton but they actually just wanted to shill policy. We don't have anything that actually shows that the campaign conspired with the Russians to undermine the DNC. I didn't say it wasn't evidence, I just said that it wasn't evidence for the accusation that "Trump colluded with Russia".
This is all you ever really needed to say guy.
Then don't speak of it like it's fact, speak of it like it's speculation. And where did I say I "won't believe them because they'll be manufactured"? Okay then, running with that, where is the evidence that says that Trump colluded with Russia to make this happen? The fundamental accusation of collusion is still unproven.
Okay, so by June 2016, Russian hackers managed to hack into DNC computers. Also in June 2016, Trump Jr. gets contacted by someone from Russia saying "hey, we have incriminating documents on Hillary, want them? It's to show Russia's support for Trump", and he responds "I LOVE IT". He later says "oh, but nothing came out of that, definitely, absolutely totally nothing happened." As proof that nothing came of the meeting, he provided um Anyway, later, right before the election, and RIGHT AFTER a scandal appears where Trump had bragged about sexual assault, surprise, incriminating documents on Hillary appear! Then there's the Steele Dossier, which was proved completely false. And by that, I mean the only thing that hasn't been proven true yet is the piss tape part. The dossier said that one of Russia's largest companies would transfer out a 19% share in stocks to Trump, and surprise, after the election, said company transferred out a 19% share in stocks through shell companies, so we can't tell exactly where they went. But what a coincidence on that percent and company, eh? Oh, and it said Trump would lower sanctions on Russia. But he ended up signing a bill increasing sanctions on Russia! So obviously this proves that wait, no, because it turned out that, once it came time to enact the sanctions, Trump said "eh, no, we're not doing that." And then there's all the guilty pleas from people so far. Oh and also the obvious fact that Trump is a habitual liar, so "but Trump / someone accused of working with Trump said they're innocent!" isn't evidence that they're innocent. You don't see ANY issue there? None? None at all?
Here. "prove" versus prove
If someone came to you saying they had information on your top rival, wouldn't you be inclined to listen? If a Russian official managed to illicitly recover details of a DNC hacking operation that does link Trump to the operation somehow, and then offered to meet with you to discuss it, you would probably say "yes I will listen to what you have to say". Are you now guilty of collusion with Russia? And the burden of proof is on the accusers to prove that "something" happened besides just the diplomat wanting to shill opposition to the Magnitsky act. Yeah, whoever held those documents (and we'll assume it's Russians) obviously is going to choose the right time to release them because they presumably don't like hillary. That still doesn't mean that Trump worked with Russia to do it. Well I decided to look into it and half of that 19 percent was bought by a foreign natural resource company and the other half by a bunch of Qataris, neither of which Trump has ties to. The worst you could say is that someone knew that Rosneft had a 19.5% share package that they were about to sell and this may be the case considering that it's possible that much of the Orbis report was written by a Russian to begin with: The Trump Dossier Is Fake Are you trying to strengthen my argument here? Or are you just alleging that Trump did make a deal of some sort and then went back on it as if you know it happened? From that same article: To offer Trump either the entirety of, or a brokerage commission on, the market value of 19.5% of Rosneft shares—even a 6 percent commission on $12 billion worth of Rosneft shares would amount to an astonishing $720 million—would deplete the cash that Putin desperately needed for military spending and budget deficits, all in return for a promise to lift sanctions if—and what a big “if”—Trump were elected. That's a lot of fucking resources, kind of weird that they would just willynilly release them "right after the election ended" (the election that you're also suggesting the Russians meddled with on Trump's request) instead of you know, waiting until Trump fulfilled his supposed side of this deal you're saying happened. Why would you compensate someone twofold for doing something for you when they haven't even done it yet and there's a high chance that they won't? Guilty pleas that I have shown are unrelated to the actual allegation that Trump conspired with the Russian government. For instance are you really going to use some campaign staffer's tax issues as evidence that the campaign colluded with Russia? Oh make no mistake, I see a huge issue here. We have a shitton of people like you who are claiming Trump has committed treason as if you already have the evidence even though you don't. And you have to grasp for straws to try and support this claim using evidence that isn't even for it. Because the people conducting the investigation are desperate? The only indictments here that make sense are the 12 Russian nationals. That's actually something of concern. Because our intelligence services have literally been shown to be compromised at the highest levels by people with an obvious political agenda pledging to "stop" a politician? Then they come out and dare to say that they have no reason to believe that there was any bias in their investigation?
When Al Gore's Campaign Received Illegal Election Material, He T.. You're not supposed to and if you're a politician with actual ethics, you don't.
Well you don't know what the information is going to be going in. It could just be old dirt from the rival's past. And at the meeting the Russian diplomat didn't even have that, let alone stolen campaign materials like in that article. fair enough. I'd have to read more about his involvement in the clinton email investigation because that's my main point of concern.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-russia-sanctions-trump-no-new-congress-law-election-hacking-intervention-putin-kremlin-a8184866.html
I petition to ignore baitmaster BigFuckingGoofXenophobe-9900 and his trolling
thanks, I'll try to avoid the contributor section in future discussions here.
How have they "Literally" been shown? That isn't the case at all. Are you saying Trump appointed Intelligence Agencies are untrustworthy, therefore Trump is untrustworthy? You can't trust Trump, but not trust agencies he appointed without contradicting yourself guy.
yeah why is collusion bad? i'd collude, so what's the big deal? also, why is arson bad? i love burning down hospitals, it's so fun and it smells good
You are parroting word-for-word Donald Trump Jr's defense -- a defense which is not rooted in any sort of legal basis whatsoever, but rather in misinformation and propaganda. The simple answer is YES. Yes, you would be guilty of violating campaign finance laws. Yes, you would be liable for prosecution under the Magnitsky Act. Yes, you would be, in effect, guilty of treason against the United States of America assuming you were aware of the source of the information, regardless of whether it was obtained legitimately or illegally, and agreed to a meeting anyway. No government official with any shred of sense or common decency would ever do this. It is an absolutely unprecedented violation of our sovereignty and an unfathomable act of betrayal. When Donald Trump Jr. received overtures from the Russian government, he should have immediately gone to the FBI and informed them of a Russian plot to influence the election. Instead, his words speak for themselves: "I love it." The real answer to your bullshit question is that regular people like you and I, who spend time debating these things amongst ourselves on internet forums, are not in any position of power within the United States government. None of us is running for president. If we were, our moral principles would be held to a much higher standard; scrutinized from every possible angle for potential weaknesses. So the question of what we would do in this kind of situation is completely irrelevant, and a dangerous distraction from the facts. Now for the love of God fuck off. You are not contributing to a productive discussion of what we know to be the facts of this case; you are instead spreading misinformation and defending what is increasingly looking like high treason against the United States of America. If you are an American citizen, which I assume you are, you should be ashamed of yourself. Wake up.
I'm not saying that we should not trust intel agencies at all, but people act like there's no reason to doubt them ever. That's not collusion though. Dude, calm down. Nothing even happened at that meeting that would qualify as an "unfathomable act of betrayal". They were literally just there to discuss a policy proposal using the Hillary thing as bait and the staffers were having none of it. Also his words speaking for themselves after the fact: "It was a waste of time".
"if don jr. committed a crime then why did he say he didn't"
Christ, Polidicks has gone down the shitter even further than it had before.
What you get when there are no standards for discussion just about anywhere. If people arent held to some basic standards, they start believing that everything goes and they can just mouth off whatever they feel like.
On the bright side at least it means they quickly out themselves as total morons who shouldn't be taken seriously.
No it wasn't. This is a lie. The information that was hacked by Russian military intelligence (GRU) and distributed by WikiLeaks (a front organization for Russian propaganda) was never publicly available; it wasn't simply waiting to be lying around waiting to be "dug up"; it was spearphished by the Russian government for the specific purpose of undermining public faith in our elections. This is a deliberate violation of the sovereignty of our country. Regardless of what happened during the Trump Tower meeting, and we have strong reason to suspect that illegal negotiations with the Russian government took place with Donald Trump's knowledge, the mere fact that the meeting even took place at all may in itself constitute a criminal offense, specifically because members of the Trump campaign were fully aware, as has been confirmed by their private correspondence, that the source of the damaging information on Hillary Clinton was the Russian government. Lest we forget, political campaigns are specifically forbidden from conducting any sort of negotiations with foreign governments before officially taking office. You're right, it is a serious charge requiring serious evidence. And right now Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are actively attempting to sabotage the investigation and suppress that evidence. (Trump himself ordered Mueller fired, but relented when his counsel threatened to resign.) Meanwhile, Robert Mueller has already convicted multiple members of the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, and has charged Trump's former campaign chairman with conspiracy against the United States and acting as an unregistered foreign again. The special counsel investigation has so far been reluctant to shine the spotlight on Trump, in the interest of avoiding political pressure, but it's clear that things are coming back to Trump - especially in light of Butina's arrest and connections with US Person 1 (likely Paul Erickson). Set aside the investigation for a second and consider the fact that Trump himself has sided with a foreign dictator against his own intelligence agencies, and continues to avoid confronting Russia directly for their electoral cyberwarfare. At the very least he is in violation of his oath of office ("to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies") and at the very worst he has committed high crimes worthy of impeachment. That much is plainly obvious.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.