Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cl1mh4224rd said:
"As noted by the subpoena filed today by the Attorney General’s Office, the data and information that was on the server in question has been and is still in the possession of the FBI and will remain available to the parties in the event it is determined to be relevant in the pending litigation."
Click to expand...
Without the original to compare it to, how can we know the FBI haven't doctored the version they're holding? Are we just going to trust the FBI or are we going to be sceptics?
 
CapelDodger said:
Without the original to compare it to, how can we know the FBI haven't doctored the version they're holding? Are we just going to trust the FBI or are we going to be sceptics?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. The FBI are not scientists and do no adhere to principles of skepticism and presentation of evidence.
 
NoahFence said:
CSIs aren't scientists? Good to know.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, they are not, and it has been extremely problematic.

Last week tonight did a piece on this a few weeks ago.

In September 2016, a presidential commission examining forensic science went as far to say of bite mark analysis in particular that it "does not meet the scientific standards of foundational validity."

That isn't even getting to the issue of bias to the prosecution in the industry undermining the science.

Here is the link

https://youtu.be/ScmJvmzDcG0

And here is a dynamite thesis statement from a popular mechanics article
Forensic science was not developed by scientists. It was mostly created by cops, who were guided by little more than common sense. And as hundreds of criminal cases begin to unravel, many established forensic practices are coming under fire. PM takes an in-depth look at the shaky science that has put innocent people behind bars.
Click to expand...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a4535/4325774/
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm confused. Why is it new news that the DNC and the Clinton camp paid for the dossier? I thought that was known from the beginning? First the DNC commissioned the investigation then withdrew or something and the Clinton camp picked up the ball.

How is it new news who paid for the investigation?
Click to expand...

It's the transitive property of guilt.

See, liberals hold a negative charge and conservatives hold a positive charge. A positive charge repels guilt and sometimes money can act as a catalyst making it vanish entirely. A negative charge attracts and often multiplies guilt, especially when compounded by senate hearings and sexism.

Take an issue like sexual harassment.

If you've indulged in sexual harassment and you're conservative, the guilt of sexual harassment has a hard time sticking to you because your positive charge makes it really her fault for dressing that way and also she's lying about consensual activities because she wants to shake you down for a big payday. Obviously.

Often this process of guilt expulsion needs to be facilitation by large amounts of money and a court order, allowing big name conservative media figures to resume their careers as though nothing happened, which it definitely didn't.

If you're a liberal, then you're negative charge attracts guilt.

Hillary Clinton has built up a huge negative charge because of the compounding factor of how her double-X chromosomes interacts with the pressure applied against the invisible barrier of the public office she sought because that office had never held a pair of double-X chromosomes before. This caused her to attract and hold guilt from associates and associates of associates such as Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Because of the intensity of her negative charge, she is actually more guilty than these figures whose guilt she absorbed. When you add the guilt from questionable e-mail servers and congressional hearings on Benghazi, a critical mass developed that is so strong, that it pulls the guilt out of the Russian Dossier that might otherwise have attached to Trump, you know for having such strong ties to Russia, and attaches to Hillary Clinton, who is now guilty of collusion with Russia to swing the 2016 US election away from her to Donald Trump. It’s quite possible this accumulated guilt will reach a critical mass where Hillary Clinton will absorb all the guilt from everyone on Earth, and vanish from our space time continuum.
 
Mycroft said:
It's the transitive property of guilt.

See, liberals hold a negative charge and conservatives hold a positive charge. A positive charge repels guilt and sometimes money can act as a catalyst making it vanish entirely. A negative charge attracts and often multiplies guilt, especially when compounded by senate hearings and sexism.

Take an issue like sexual harassment.

If you've indulged in sexual harassment and you're conservative, the guilt of sexual harassment has a hard time sticking to you because your positive charge makes it really her fault for dressing that way and also she's lying about consensual activities because she wants to shake you down for a big payday. Obviously.

Often this process of guilt expulsion needs to be facilitation by large amounts of money and a court order, allowing big name conservative media figures to resume their careers as though nothing happened, which it definitely didn't.

If you're a liberal, then you're negative charge attracts guilt.

Hillary Clinton has built up a huge negative charge because of the compounding factor of how her double-X chromosomes interacts with the pressure applied against the invisible barrier of the public office she sought because that office had never held a pair of double-X chromosomes before. This caused her to attract and hold guilt from associates and associates of associates such as Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Because of the intensity of her negative charge, she is actually more guilty than these figures whose guilt she absorbed. When you add the guilt from questionable e-mail servers and congressional hearings on Benghazi, a critical mass developed that is so strong, that it pulls the guilt out of the Russian Dossier that might otherwise have attached to Trump, you know for having such strong ties to Russia, and attaches to Hillary Clinton, who is now guilty of collusion with Russia to swing the 2016 US election away from her to Donald Trump. It’s quite possible this accumulated guilt will reach a critical mass where Hillary Clinton will absorb all the guilt from everyone on Earth, and vanish from our space time continuum.
Click to expand...

By Jove, I think you have it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No evidence it was wiped on purpose therefore not evidence of obstruction.
Click to expand...

The timing is utterly suspicious, esp with it publicly known that the regime and it's allies are destroying information right left and sideways and arguing they are legally entitled to do so.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...review-justice-department-tells-court-1046929

Then there's the case of EPA chief Scott Pruitt, who is keeping his activities ultra-secret so no record is generated in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/pruitt-sound-proof-booth/index.html

Then there's Wisconsin. A couple of wekends ago, investigator Mike Farb of unhackthevote.com posted extensive data about voting irregularities in WI. WITHIN HOURS the source data was removed from the WI state website. In the middle of the night. On Sunday morning.

https://twitter.com/mikefarb1/status/924039855423873024

https://twitter.com/CyrusToulabi/status/919434078088257536

FEMA attempted to sanitize its website of data on Puerto Rico's suffering. They had to put it back up after a huge outcry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...n-puerto-rico-access-to-water-and-electricity

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ter-electricity-puerto-rico-article-1.3545425

Pattern of behavior. GAs SoS has got some 'splainin to do.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
They managed to spin a cover story...hoorays for them...
Click to expand...


I don't think that scenario is very likely. The current FBI director may be a Trump toadie (Troadie?), but remember how quickly a statement was released to "clarify" the director's uhh... misguided statement about the Russia investigation.

Also keep in mind that the statement I quoted came from Kennesaw State University, not the FBI. If you want to subscribe to this conspiracy theory, you not only have to assume the FBI is significantly compromised, but that this university is also in on it.
 
Mycroft said:
It's the transitive property of guilt.

See, liberals hold a negative charge and conservatives hold a positive charge. A positive charge repels guilt and sometimes money can act as a catalyst making it vanish entirely. A negative charge attracts and often multiplies guilt, especially when compounded by senate hearings and sexism.

Take an issue like sexual harassment.

If you've indulged in sexual harassment and you're conservative, the guilt of sexual harassment has a hard time sticking to you because your positive charge makes it really her fault for dressing that way and also she's lying about consensual activities because she wants to shake you down for a big payday. Obviously.

Often this process of guilt expulsion needs to be facilitation by large amounts of money and a court order, allowing big name conservative media figures to resume their careers as though nothing happened, which it definitely didn't.

If you're a liberal, then you're negative charge attracts guilt.

Hillary Clinton has built up a huge negative charge because of the compounding factor of how her double-X chromosomes interacts with the pressure applied against the invisible barrier of the public office she sought because that office had never held a pair of double-X chromosomes before. This caused her to attract and hold guilt from associates and associates of associates such as Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein. Because of the intensity of her negative charge, she is actually more guilty than these figures whose guilt she absorbed. When you add the guilt from questionable e-mail servers and congressional hearings on Benghazi, a critical mass developed that is so strong, that it pulls the guilt out of the Russian Dossier that might otherwise have attached to Trump, you know for having such strong ties to Russia, and attaches to Hillary Clinton, who is now guilty of collusion with Russia to swing the 2016 US election away from her to Donald Trump. It’s quite possible this accumulated guilt will reach a critical mass where Hillary Clinton will absorb all the guilt from everyone on Earth, and vanish from our space time continuum.
Click to expand...
:sdl:
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I don't think that scenario is very likely. The current FBI director may be a Trump toadie (Troadie?), but remember how quickly a statement was released to "clarify" the director's uhh... misguided statement about the Russia investigation.

Also keep in mind that the statement I quoted came from Kennesaw State University, not the FBI. If you want to subscribe to this conspiracy theory, you not only have to assume the FBI is significantly compromised, but that this university is also in on it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But this regime and its allies have shown such a consistent pattern of deception and game playing that outside observers are cetainly entitlled to presume their unreliability and demand they affirmatively prove things.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Perhaps. But this regime and its allies have shown such a consistent pattern of deception and game playing that outside observers are cetainly entitlled to presume their unreliability and demand they affirmatively prove things.
Click to expand...

A position that strikes me as very similar to sunmaster14's. Although replace regime with dems.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Perhaps. But this regime and its allies have shown such a consistent pattern of deception and game playing that outside observers are cetainly entitlled to presume their unreliability and demand they affirmatively prove things.
Click to expand...

Never. I will never accept an entitlement to presumption on something so unnecessary.
 
@Mycroft
It’s quite possible this accumulated guilt will reach a critical mass where Hillary Clinton will absorb all the guilt from everyone on Earth, and vanish from our space time continuum.
Click to expand...
That's just the Jesus story re-gendered, but what the heck, if Dr Who can come back as a woman, why not?
 
phiwum said:
Perhaps I am unclear what you meant when you said this:

Aside from logger, I haven't seen any speculation treated as fact. Even Sunmaster, with whom I disagree and who I think has too much confidence in his speculations, called his theory "educated extrapolation".

I have not read every post, so it may be that I've missed whatever triggered your criticism.
Click to expand...

Go back about 5 to 10 pages :p My main complaint throughout this entire thread has been that speculation is being treated as fact. A large number of the conclusions reached by posters in this thread have been argued for quite strongly... but those conclusions are frequently based on articles with phrasing like "It could be that" and "this might indicate that" or "it is alleged that"... and so on.

Seriously, if you haven't seen me making this complaint, I'd suspect you're not reading my posts :D which is fine, it's not like I'm contributing huge intellectual content here!
 
Emily's Cat said:
Go back about 5 to 10 pages :p My main complaint throughout this entire thread has been that speculation is being treated as fact. A large number of the conclusions reached by posters in this thread have been argued for quite strongly... but those conclusions are frequently based on articles with phrasing like "It could be that" and "this might indicate that" or "it is alleged that"... and so on.

Seriously, if you haven't seen me making this complaint, I'd suspect you're not reading my posts :D which is fine, it's not like I'm contributing huge intellectual content here!
Click to expand...
Would a baseless claim that Trump et al are taking heat for associating with "ordinary Russian citizens" qualify as speculation? Or should that be considered as flat out bs?
 
And as it turns out another Trump advisor lied about his connection to the Russians:

Trump adviser George Papadopoulos lied about Russian links

An election campaign adviser to Donald Trump has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of meetings with alleged go-betweens for Russia.
George Papadopoulos admitted the talks happened while he worked for Mr Trump, not before, court papers show.
He said he had been told the Russians possessed "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

How many members of Trump's campaign have to be caught out before you can conclude this isn't just 'bad luck' on Trump's part?
 
The text of Papadopoulos' guilty plea merely says that he met the "professor" (Russian operative) in Italy. Both of them were living in London at the time. So I've been wondering how they met. What is just a chance occurrence? Did they happen to be sitting next to each other in a bar and the conversation turned to "What do you do for a living?" "I'm a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. And you?" "I'm a professor who's a good friend of Putin."?
 
Facebook says 126 million people may have been exposed to Russian-Internet Research Agency content.

That estimate, which is equivalent to more than half of the total U.S. voting population, offers a new understanding of the scope of Russia's use of social media to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and in American society generally.

In written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, a copy of which was obtained by CNN, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch says that 29 million people were served content directly from the Internet Research Agency, and that after sharing among users is accounted for, a total of "approximately 126 million people" may have seen it.

Facebook does not know, however, how many of those 126 million people actually saw one of those posts, or how many may have scrolled past it or simply not logged in on the day that one of the posts was being served in their News Feed.
Click to expand...
 
A very relevant read: How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier’

George Szamuely said:
The Trump-Russia collusion story was a joint invention of the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign. It enabled the Obama administration to make use of the nation’s security and intelligence services to spy on Trump and his associates and to use whatever information they thereby gleaned to try to get Hillary into the White House. The failure of the scheme didn’t stop either Obama or the Clintons. Following the election debacle, an enraged Obama administration sought vengeance by disseminating the dossier as widely as possible with a view to undermining the incoming Trump administration and to ensuring that no rapprochement with Russia would be possible. In doing so, Obama and Clinton have thrown American politics into turmoil and have perhaps pushed the United States and Russia toward armed confrontation.

We have known the basic outlines of the Steele dossier story since January. The Steele dossier, we have been told, started off as a piece of opposition research prepared by Fusion GPS and financed by a Republican rival of Trump’s or perhaps a GOP NeverTrumper. Following Trump’s victory in the GOP primaries, the Democrats took over its funding. Fusion hired Christopher Steele, a former head of the Russia desk at MI6 who now ran his own corporate intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence. Using the leads Steele had developed during his years at MI6, he reported back to his paymasters his shocking discovery: The Russians had been cultivating Trump for years in preparation for his run for the presidency. So shocked was Steele by this that he rushed to alert the FBI, MI6 and even select reporters.

Most of this story is pure fiction. [...]
Click to expand...
 
logger said:
Lol

“May have seen it”

Seen What? I’ve yet to read about one of these elusive adds. I might see Bigfoot before we see what the Russians spent $100,000 on. Though I’d rather see why they gave the Clintons $140 million.
Click to expand...

"I don't understand what you're talking about. I've been avoiding inconvenient information about this and I'm yet to see anything that would convince me that I'm wrong!"
 
sunmaster14 said:
However, given the enormous number of articles with anonymous sources whom journalists claim to have knowledge of the investigation, it is reasonable to believe that some of them are legitimate and that therefore Mueller's ship is leaking. In any case, Emily only said that she's not sure that d4m10n's completely baseless claim of the tightness of Mueller's ship was correct.
Click to expand...

Ah, here it is. Mueller's ship is leaking. Written on September 12, some time before Papadopoulos's guilty plea and a long time before it was made public.

Evidently, that leaky ship metaphor was inaccurate. A guilty plea was huge, yet it didn't get out. Maybe Damion (sorry, the name is too complicated) had a point.
 
logger said:
Lol

“May have seen it”

Seen What? I’ve yet to read about one of these elusive adds. I might see Bigfoot before we see what the Russians spent $100,000 on. Though I’d rather see why they gave the Clintons $140 million.
Click to expand...

Did they?

I know that Trump regards his charities as a means to buy stuff and to pay his own clubs, but the Clintons have not been accused of self-dealing, far as I know. To give money to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as giving money to the Clintons.
 
phiwum said:
Evidently, that leaky ship metaphor was inaccurate. A guilty plea was huge, yet it didn't get out. Maybe Damion (sorry, the name is too complicated) had a point.
Click to expand...

No problem. I'm not exactly hiding behind a pseudonym here.

And Mueller's ship is watertight by D.C. standards.

We've barely gotten hints of what was happening until after it has happened.

The only obvious exception is that we were warned about Manafort's impending indictment somewhat in advance.
 
d4m10n said:
No problem. I'm not exactly hiding behind a pseudonym here.

And Mueller's ship is watertight by D.C. standards.
Click to expand...

It really does seem that way. Papadopoulos's guilty plea was not even hinted at by the press prior to its announcement.
 
phiwum said:
Did they?

I know that Trump regards his charities as a means to buy stuff and to pay his own clubs, but the Clintons have not been accused of self-dealing, far as I know. To give money to the Clinton Foundation is not the same as giving money to the Clintons.
Click to expand...

Well, it’s a rumor that the Clintons use the charity for the generous perks they they need to live their ordinary couple of the people lives. And $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech? Really? Of course that doesn’t cause you concern.

They’re the most corrupt family in politics for decades.
 
phiwum said:
Ah, here it is. Mueller's ship is leaking. Written on September 12, some time before Papadopoulos's guilty plea and a long time before it was made public.

Evidently, that leaky ship metaphor was inaccurate. A guilty plea was huge, yet it didn't get out. Maybe Damion (sorry, the name is too complicated) had a point.
Click to expand...

:confused: Are you assuming that because this one item wasn't leaked, there were no leaks at all?

Wouldn't that then imply that all of the "unnamed source" material was BS and not legitimate?
 
logger said:
Well, it’s a rumor that the Clintons use the charity for the generous perks they they need to live their ordinary couple of the people lives. And $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech? Really? Of course that doesn’t cause you concern.

They’re the most corrupt family in politics for decades.
Click to expand...

You'll have to tell me: did Bill get paid $500,000 from the foundation for that speech? If not, it's irrelevant.

So are mere rumors about how the money from the foundation is used. The fact is that auditors give the Clinton Foundation high marks. This is different from the Trump Foundation, which has engaged in explicit and well-documented self-dealing (unlike the rumors you cite).

Do come back when you have evidence that the Clintons profit from their foundation. If the $500,000 honorarium came from the foundation, I'll be happy to eat my words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom