[Merged] All things Trump + Russia - Page 10

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd April 2017, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by MrFliop

The majority of the claims of Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election have been debunked!!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I'll save people some time, nothing new here. Nor does it debunk Trump collusion.

TraneWreck · 3rd April 2017, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll save people some time, nothing new here. Nor does it debunk Trump collusion.

Whew, I was pretty worried when I saw those three exclamation points.

fagin · 3rd April 2017, 11:38 AM

If it was words, I'd read them.

Random YT videos I don't have time for.

MrFliop · 3rd April 2017, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll save people some time, nothing new here. Nor does it debunk Trump collusion.

Based on your quick response I wont be surprised if you didn't even watch them

Stacko · 3rd April 2017, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by fagin

If it was words, I'd read them.

Random YT videos I don't have time for.

They're out of date news segments from when the dossier on Trump's Russia connection was first released by Buzzfeed. Apparently we're to believe nothing has happened in the world since mid January that would change any analysis of this information.

varwoche · 3rd April 2017, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by MrFliop

The majority of the claims of Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election have been debunked!!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I never click bare naked youtube links. I would ask you to summarize the key points, however I suspect the summaries posted by others tell me all I need to know. Still, if you want to take a crack at it, be my guest.

Stacko · 3rd April 2017, 01:57 PM

Ohhhhkayyyyyy.

Quote:

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi*mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would likely require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions.

Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

Trebuchet · 3rd April 2017, 02:03 PM

The hilarious thing about the mutual admiration between Rump and Trussia is that it's made it absolutely impossible for Rump to get away with doing anything that would favor his buddy Vlad. I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots.

Beelzebuddy · 3rd April 2017, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots.

Nyet. He is making Yankees look like fools. Is always good thing for neo-Soviet Uni-Iiii mean, eh, modern day Russian State.

Bob001 · 3rd April 2017, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

The hilarious thing about the mutual admiration between Rump and Trussia is that it's made it absolutely impossible for Rump to get away with doing anything that would favor his buddy Vlad. I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots.

Many commentators have made the point that Putin's goal was primarily not to elect Trump or extract concessions, but to undercut Clinton and to disrupt the U.S. political process so Americans would lose confidence in their leaders. Getting an idiot in the White House was a bonus.

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd April 2017, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by MrFliop

Based on your quick response I wont be surprised if you didn't even watch them

Skimmed 'em actually, all three. It's easy when it's old news I'm very familiar with.

Care to point out anything new or something that actually debunks Trump-camp collusion other than pointing out there is no absolute proof yet?

You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right? Because more than a few Trumper pundits in the news panels think we can't tell the difference. Oh wait...

portlandatheist · 3rd April 2017, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Ohhhhkayyyyyy.

What a tangled slimy swampy cast of characters

Stacko · 3rd April 2017, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

What a tangled slimy swampy cast of characters

You have to love a place that honestly says, “The Seychelles is the kind of place where you can have a good time away from the eyes of the media."

Stacko · 3rd April 2017, 03:56 PM

A Russian spy had previously attempted to recruit Carter Page.

Quote:

A former campaign adviser for Donald Trump met with and passed documents to a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013.

The adviser, Carter Page, met with a Russian intelligence operative named Victor Podobnyy, who was later charged by the US government alongside two others for acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The charges, filed in January 2015, came after federal investigators busted a Russian spy ring that was seeking information on US sanctions as well as efforts to develop alternative energy. Page is an energy consultant.

A court filing by the US government contains a transcript of a recorded conversation in which Podobnyy speaks with one of the other men busted in the spy ring, Igor Sporyshev, about trying to recruit someone identified as “Male-1.” BuzzFeed News has confirmed that “Male-1” is Page.

Cl1mh4224rd · 3rd April 2017, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I wish I was watching more closely this morning to see who it was on CNN saying he hoped the Senate committee would get to the bottom of why Russia was favoring Clinton. And he said it repeatedly.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Google knows all.

‘Just a point of fact’: CNN’s Poppy Harlow squashes GOP intel official who says Russia ‘favored’ Clinton

Originally Posted by varwoche

Spicer is in rare form... The Real Russian Collusion^tm was perpetrated by Obama/Hillary.

Bizarro world.

I'm telling you... They've gone from "alt-right" to "alt-reality".

trustbutverify · 3rd April 2017, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by MrFliop

The majority of the claims of Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election have been debunked!!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Nope.

BobTheCoward · 3rd April 2017, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

Ohhhhkayyyyyy.

This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once?

Skeptic Ginger · 3rd April 2017, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once?

Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already.

skyeagle409 · 3rd April 2017, 08:12 PM

It seems that not a day goes by when something new is revealed.

Quote:

Trump campaign advisor Carter Page targeted by Russian spies

Two years before joining the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser, New York business consultant Carter Page was targeted for recruitment as an intelligence source by Russian spies promising favors for business opportunities in Russia, according to a sealed FBI complaint.
Page confirmed to ABC News that he is the individual identified as "Male-1" in a 2015 court document submitted in a case involving the Russian spies.

Page told ABC News he cooperated in the case, and felt the Feds "unmasked" him by describing him in January 2015 in a manner that would be known to energy insiders.

"I didn't want to be a spy," he said in an interview early Monday afternoon. "I'm not a spy."

According to the document, the FBI interviewed Page as part of the investigation stemming from the indictment of three Russian men identified as agents of the Russian overseas intelligence agency, the SVR. One of them, Evgeny Buryakov, was operating undercover as an executive in the New York office of a Russian development bank. The Buryakov case resurfaced in headlines last week when President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner revealed he had met with the head of the same bank. Buryakov was sentenced to 30 months in prison as part of a plea agreement, but he was released from prison over the weekend and is awaiting deportation to Russia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=46557506

Bob001 · 4th April 2017, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once?

What? Do you think a journalist just shows up at the CIA and says "I'm working on a story. Lemme see all your files about Trump." And do you even think there would actually be any documents about something like this? The linked story quotes "U.S., European and Arab officials." The four reporters know who the officials are and believe them, the reporters -- one of whom won a Pulitzer -- have put their own names on the story, and it was published by a leading paper whose reputation rests on its investigations of government misconduct. That's about as good as it gets.

Argumemnon · 4th April 2017, 03:27 AM

More Russian connections from Rachel Maddow.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

BobTheCoward · 4th April 2017, 04:53 AM

Originally Posted by Bob001

What? Do you think a journalist just shows up at the CIA and says "I'm working on a story. Lemme see all your files about Trump." And do you even think there would actually be any documents about something like this? The linked story quotes "U.S., European and Arab officials." The four reporters know who the officials are and believe them, the reporters -- one of whom won a Pulitzer -- have put their own names on the story, and it was published by a leading paper whose reputation rests on its investigations of government misconduct. That's about as good as it gets.

The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. Heck, let's take that movie spotlight and the importance of actually sourcing documents in that story (I have a 19 month old so I am just so excited to talk about a movie I have seen).

Bob001 · 4th April 2017, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. Heck, let's take that movie spotlight and the importance of actually sourcing documents in that story (I have a 19 month old so I am just so excited to talk about a movie I have seen).

And Watergate coverage was heavily based on private conversations with anonymous sources. When somebody's actively trying to do something wrong, he's not going to create much documentation.

Stacko · 4th April 2017, 11:35 AM

FBI plans to "surge" Russia probe.

Quote:

The FBI is planning to create a special section based at its Washington headquarters to co-ordinate its investigation of Russian activities designed to influence the 2016 presidential election, according to a person familiar with the plan.

The move, a sign of how seriously the bureau is taking allegations of Russian meddling in American politics, is also aimed at giving FBI director James Comey greater visibility into the investigation’s granular details. “It’s meant to surge resources,” said one FBI agent.

Creation of the temporary unit mirrors the bureau’s approach to other sensitive investigations, including the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified US government documents and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.

Stacko · 4th April 2017, 04:32 PM

IIRC, 30 went to jail for Watergate.

Quote:

Pressed by Blitzer as to whether he has seen “hard evidence of collusion” or could confirm the people in question advised Trump during the campaign or currently work for the administration, Castro said he couldn’t comment further, but reiterated his previous prediction. “As you can imagine, Wolf, I’ll have to comment on that later. But again… my impression is that people will probably be charged and I think people will probably go to jail,” the congressman said.

Trebuchet · 4th April 2017, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Stacko

IIRC, 30 went to jail for Watergate.

From the article:

Quote:

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has agreed to appear only if he receives criminal immunity.

I hope they subpoena his ass and make him take the fifth. It would be delicious. But unlikely.

trustbutverify · 4th April 2017, 06:26 PM

Skeptical, but hoping.

trustbutverify · 4th April 2017, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

More Russian connections from Rachel Maddow.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I mean, just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin doesn't mean actual copulation occurred. Haven't any of you McCarthyists ever heard of cuddling?? Sad.

BobTheCoward · 4th April 2017, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Skeptical, but hoping.

How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody?

PhantomWolf · 4th April 2017, 07:23 PM

Shocking Claim by Texas Representative and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Joaquín Castro (D).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

About 4 mins in.....

“I guess I would say this: My impression is, I wouldn’t be surprised after all of this is said and done, that some people end up in jail.”

Skeptic Ginger · 4th April 2017, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. ....

Originally Posted by Bob001

And Watergate coverage was heavily based on private conversations with anonymous sources. When somebody's actively trying to do something wrong, he's not going to create much documentation.

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

I mean, just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin doesn't mean actual copulation occurred. Haven't any of you McCarthyists ever heard of cuddling?? Sad.

Just seemed like these posts needed to be seen together.

thaiboxerken · 4th April 2017, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody?

I would be satisfied if such a thing came out by an independent investigation. Of course, the fact that Trump and the Republicans do not want an independent investigation sends a message that there is something to hide. I could understand a case against an investigation led by Democrats (like the Republicans did with Benghazi), but that's not was Democrats are calling for.

It is telling how Republicans like investigations led by Republicans and Democrats like investigations led by independent bodies. Why is that so?

BobTheCoward · 4th April 2017, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I would be satisfied

Cool

trustbutverify · 4th April 2017, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody?

"Came out" to my satisfaction or the investigation stalled out while the congressional PTB declared unqualified victory?

a_unique_person · 4th April 2017, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Cool

Are you expecting a Hilary Clinton style not stone unturned investigation or an investigation lite?

intlman · 5th April 2017, 12:49 AM

How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread - many who I've read for years tearing down nonsense - fall victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome?

"..just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin.."

Never before on this forum, in any other section, have I seen so many unsupported, outlandish, baseless or simply delusional assertions. On any other topic in any other section the very same people here would be rightfully jumping all over a poster who made such unsupported statements. Evidence would be demanded, logic bombs would be dropped, poster of nonsense would be exposed, retreat or feel like a fool.

"You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right?

Ah, so now that's how it works here. Not any other previous topic, ever, anywhere on the forum- but now it is up to someone to disprove your guesses/hopes/imagination/evidence-free ideas. It is apparently no longer up to the person making the claim to provide the supporting evidence. And, until it is disproven (as it must be now in this apparently special circumstance), all outcomes are equal and evidence-free ideas are equally valid. Yep, makes sense, always how it's been here.

"Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already."

And if/when the investigation is concluded and there is still no basis for the "collusion" CT you will simply claim Trump snuffed it out/pressured the FBI and that it still a totally valid and real accusation.

There is no scenario where some of you will be satisfied there was no collusion. It will just turn in to more sad version of 911 Truth, where only you know what "really" happened but everyone is covering it up. I wish I could find some of Gingers past posts on people starting with a conclusion and then finding "evidence" to support it.

There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at, it's just a shame emotions and political leanings have taken the place of logic for some here. Your dislike of many aspects of the guy has shaken the smarts right out of you. Not a good look.

thaiboxerken · 5th April 2017, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by intlman

How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread.............snip...........

Your denial does not impress anyone in a skeptics forum.

Trump has, and continues to, try to snuff out investigations into the Russian affair and there is plenty of evidence of this. It is strange that you think you can actually trick people into disbelieving their lying eyes.

uke2se · 5th April 2017, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by intlman

How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread - many who I've read for years tearing down nonsense - fall victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome?

"..just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin.."

Never before on this forum, in any other section, have I seen so many unsupported, outlandish, baseless or simply delusional assertions. On any other topic in any other section the very same people here would be rightfully jumping all over a poster who made such unsupported statements. Evidence would be demanded, logic bombs would be dropped, poster of nonsense would be exposed, retreat or feel like a fool.

"You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right?

Ah, so now that's how it works here. Not any other previous topic, ever, anywhere on the forum- but now it is up to someone to disprove your guesses/hopes/imagination/evidence-free ideas. It is apparently no longer up to the person making the claim to provide the supporting evidence. And, until it is disproven (as it must be now in this apparently special circumstance), all outcomes are equal and evidence-free ideas are equally valid. Yep, makes sense, always how it's been here.

"Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already."

And if/when the investigation is concluded and there is still no basis for the "collusion" CT you will simply claim Trump snuffed it out/pressured the FBI and that it still a totally valid and real accusation.

There is no scenario where some of you will be satisfied there was no collusion. It will just turn in to more sad version of 911 Truth, where only you know what "really" happened but everyone is covering it up. I wish I could find some of Gingers past posts on people starting with a conclusion and then finding "evidence" to support it.

There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at, it's just a shame emotions and political leanings have taken the place of logic for some here. Your dislike of many aspects of the guy has shaken the smarts right out of you. Not a good look.

You're right, we should just drop it. I mean, who cares if the Trump campaign really conspired with Russia, as evidence suggests? You don't want it to be true, so therefore we can safely disregard the evidence that points to it, and simply forget about the many incidents. That's the skeptical thing to do.

intlman · 5th April 2017, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

You're right, we should just drop it. I mean, who cares if the Trump campaign really conspired with Russia, as evidence suggests? You don't want it to be true, so therefore we can safely disregard the evidence that points to it, and simply forget about the many incidents. That's the skeptical thing to do.

Try again-

Originally Posted by intlman

There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at

The emotional reaction is so strong that you completely fabricate what "I want", because anyone who isn't actively bashing Trump must surely be in full support of him and want to put fingers in ears.

And, evidence doesn't "suggest" a Trump conspiracy with Russia - not even a little.

See? this is what I mean. It is now taken as fact, despite zero actual evidence or anything approaching it. Zero.

intlman · 5th April 2017, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Your denial does not impress anyone in a skeptics forum.

I don't know what this is in reply to.

What am I "denying"? There is nothing here to deny, and I haven't denied anything in my post.

Quote:

Trump has, and continues to, try to snuff out investigations into the Russian affair and there is plenty of evidence of this. It is strange that you think you can actually trick people into disbelieving their lying eyes.

Nope, still no evidence of "snuffing out investigations".

Still no evidence of Russia collusion.

Turn off Rachel Maddow perhaps.

3rd April 2017, 11:38 AM	#362
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 7,929	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'll save people some time, nothing new here. Nor does it debunk Trump collusion. Whew, I was pretty worried when I saw those three exclamation points.
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 7,929

3rd April 2017, 11:38 AM	#363
fagin Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 4,133	If it was words, I'd read them. Random YT videos I don't have time for.
	__________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

3rd April 2017, 11:40 AM	#364
MrFliop Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 95	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I'll save people some time, nothing new here. Nor does it debunk Trump collusion. Based on your quick response I wont be surprised if you didn't even watch them
MrFliop Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 95

3rd April 2017, 11:41 AM	#365
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	Originally Posted by fagin If it was words, I'd read them. Random YT videos I don't have time for. They're out of date news segments from when the dossier on Trump's Russia connection was first released by Buzzfeed. Apparently we're to believe nothing has happened in the world since mid January that would change any analysis of this information.
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

3rd April 2017, 01:57 PM	#367
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	Ohhhhkayyyyyy. Quote: The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi*mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would likely require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions. Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

3rd April 2017, 02:03 PM	#368
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 11,993	The hilarious thing about the mutual admiration between Rump and Trussia is that it's made it absolutely impossible for Rump to get away with doing anything that would favor his buddy Vlad. I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

3rd April 2017, 02:10 PM	#369
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,304	Originally Posted by Trebuchet I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots. Nyet. He is making Yankees look like fools. Is always good thing for neo-Soviet Uni-Iiii mean, eh, modern day Russian State.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,304

3rd April 2017, 02:15 PM	#370
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183	Originally Posted by Trebuchet The hilarious thing about the mutual admiration between Rump and Trussia is that it's made it absolutely impossible for Rump to get away with doing anything that would favor his buddy Vlad. I expect Vlad is very much regretting hooking up with such an gang of idiots. Many commentators have made the point that Putin's goal was primarily not to elect Trump or extract concessions, but to undercut Clinton and to disrupt the U.S. political process so Americans would lose confidence in their leaders. Getting an idiot in the White House was a bonus.
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183

3rd April 2017, 02:17 PM	#371
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 61,417	Originally Posted by MrFliop Based on your quick response I wont be surprised if you didn't even watch them Skimmed 'em actually, all three. It's easy when it's old news I'm very familiar with. Care to point out anything new or something that actually debunks Trump-camp collusion other than pointing out there is no absolute proof yet? You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right? Because more than a few Trumper pundits in the news panels think we can't tell the difference. Oh wait...
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 3rd April 2017 at 02:19 PM.

3rd April 2017, 03:10 PM	#372
portlandatheist Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,614	Originally Posted by Stacko Ohhhhkayyyyyy. What a tangled slimy swampy cast of characters

3rd April 2017, 03:40 PM	#373
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	Originally Posted by portlandatheist What a tangled slimy swampy cast of characters You have to love a place that honestly says, “The Seychelles is the kind of place where you can have a good time away from the eyes of the media."
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

3rd April 2017, 03:56 PM	#374
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	A Russian spy had previously attempted to recruit Carter Page. Quote: A former campaign adviser for Donald Trump met with and passed documents to a Russian intelligence operative in New York City in 2013. The adviser, Carter Page, met with a Russian intelligence operative named Victor Podobnyy, who was later charged by the US government alongside two others for acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The charges, filed in January 2015, came after federal investigators busted a Russian spy ring that was seeking information on US sanctions as well as efforts to develop alternative energy. Page is an energy consultant. A court filing by the US government contains a transcript of a recorded conversation in which Podobnyy speaks with one of the other men busted in the spy ring, Igor Sporyshev, about trying to recruit someone identified as “Male-1.” BuzzFeed News has confirmed that “Male-1” is Page.
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

3rd April 2017, 04:34 PM	#375
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,160	Originally Posted by Trebuchet I wish I was watching more closely this morning to see who it was on CNN saying he hoped the Senate committee would get to the bottom of why Russia was favoring Clinton. And he said it repeatedly. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Google knows all. ‘Just a point of fact’: CNN’s Poppy Harlow squashes GOP intel official who says Russia ‘favored’ Clinton Originally Posted by varwoche Spicer is in rare form... The Real Russian Collusion^tm was perpetrated by Obama/Hillary. Bizarro world. I'm telling you... They've gone from "alt-right" to "alt-reality".
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 9,160

3rd April 2017, 06:29 PM	#377
BobTheCoward Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,914	Originally Posted by Stacko Ohhhhkayyyyyy. This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once?

3rd April 2017, 06:38 PM	#378
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 61,417	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once? Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already.

3rd April 2017, 08:12 PM	#379
skyeagle409 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2016 Posts: 2,059	It seems that not a day goes by when something new is revealed. Quote: Trump campaign advisor Carter Page targeted by Russian spies Two years before joining the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser, New York business consultant Carter Page was targeted for recruitment as an intelligence source by Russian spies promising favors for business opportunities in Russia, according to a sealed FBI complaint. Page confirmed to ABC News that he is the individual identified as "Male-1" in a 2015 court document submitted in a case involving the Russian spies. Page told ABC News he cooperated in the case, and felt the Feds "unmasked" him by describing him in January 2015 in a manner that would be known to energy insiders. "I didn't want to be a spy," he said in an interview early Monday afternoon. "I'm not a spy." According to the document, the FBI interviewed Page as part of the investigation stemming from the indictment of three Russian men identified as agents of the Russian overseas intelligence agency, the SVR. One of them, Evgeny Buryakov, was operating undercover as an executive in the New York office of a Russian development bank. The Buryakov case resurfaced in headlines last week when President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner revealed he had met with the head of the same bank. Buryakov was sentenced to 30 months in prison as part of a plea agreement, but he was released from prison over the weekend and is awaiting deportation to Russia. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=46557506

4th April 2017, 12:09 AM	#380
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward This is good but I am getting exhausted by anonymous sources. Can a journalist actually review a primary document for once? What? Do you think a journalist just shows up at the CIA and says "I'm working on a story. Lemme see all your files about Trump." And do you even think there would actually be any documents about something like this? The linked story quotes "U.S., European and Arab officials." The four reporters know who the officials are and believe them, the reporters -- one of whom won a Pulitzer -- have put their own names on the story, and it was published by a leading paper whose reputation rests on its investigations of government misconduct. That's about as good as it gets.
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183	Last edited by Bob001; 4th April 2017 at 12:11 AM.

4th April 2017, 04:53 AM	#382
BobTheCoward Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,914	Originally Posted by Bob001 What? Do you think a journalist just shows up at the CIA and says "I'm working on a story. Lemme see all your files about Trump." And do you even think there would actually be any documents about something like this? The linked story quotes "U.S., European and Arab officials." The four reporters know who the officials are and believe them, the reporters -- one of whom won a Pulitzer -- have put their own names on the story, and it was published by a leading paper whose reputation rests on its investigations of government misconduct. That's about as good as it gets. The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. Heck, let's take that movie spotlight and the importance of actually sourcing documents in that story (I have a 19 month old so I am just so excited to talk about a movie I have seen).

4th April 2017, 07:54 AM	#383
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. Heck, let's take that movie spotlight and the importance of actually sourcing documents in that story (I have a 19 month old so I am just so excited to talk about a movie I have seen). And Watergate coverage was heavily based on private conversations with anonymous sources. When somebody's actively trying to do something wrong, he's not going to create much documentation.
Bob001 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,183

4th April 2017, 11:35 AM	#384
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	FBI plans to "surge" Russia probe. Quote: The FBI is planning to create a special section based at its Washington headquarters to co-ordinate its investigation of Russian activities designed to influence the 2016 presidential election, according to a person familiar with the plan. The move, a sign of how seriously the bureau is taking allegations of Russian meddling in American politics, is also aimed at giving FBI director James Comey greater visibility into the investigation’s granular details. “It’s meant to surge resources,” said one FBI agent. Creation of the temporary unit mirrors the bureau’s approach to other sensitive investigations, including the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified US government documents and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state.
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

4th April 2017, 04:32 PM	#385
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787	IIRC, 30 went to jail for Watergate. Quote: Pressed by Blitzer as to whether he has seen “hard evidence of collusion” or could confirm the people in question advised Trump during the campaign or currently work for the administration, Castro said he couldn’t comment further, but reiterated his previous prediction. “As you can imagine, Wolf, I’ll have to comment on that later. But again… my impression is that people will probably be charged and I think people will probably go to jail,” the congressman said.
Stacko Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,787

4th April 2017, 04:51 PM	#386
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwet Posts: 11,993	Originally Posted by Stacko IIRC, 30 went to jail for Watergate. From the article: Quote: Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has agreed to appear only if he receives criminal immunity. I hope they subpoena his ass and make him take the fifth. It would be delicious. But unlikely.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

4th April 2017, 06:26 PM	#387
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,830	Skeptical, but hoping.
	__________________ "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage

4th April 2017, 07:06 PM	#389
BobTheCoward Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,914	Originally Posted by trustbutverify Skeptical, but hoping. How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody?

4th April 2017, 07:26 PM	#391
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 61,417	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. .... Originally Posted by Bob001 And Watergate coverage was heavily based on private conversations with anonymous sources. When somebody's actively trying to do something wrong, he's not going to create much documentation. Originally Posted by trustbutverify I mean, just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin doesn't mean actual copulation occurred. Haven't any of you McCarthyists ever heard of cuddling?? Sad. Just seemed like these posts needed to be seen together.

4th April 2017, 07:59 PM	#392
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 27,845	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody? I would be satisfied if such a thing came out by an independent investigation. Of course, the fact that Trump and the Republicans do not want an independent investigation sends a message that there is something to hide. I could understand a case against an investigation led by Democrats (like the Republicans did with Benghazi), but that's not was Democrats are calling for. It is telling how Republicans like investigations led by Republicans and Democrats like investigations led by independent bodies. Why is that so?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine Last edited by thaiboxerken; 4th April 2017 at 08:01 PM.

4th April 2017, 08:10 PM	#393
BobTheCoward Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 7,914	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I would be satisfied Cool

4th April 2017, 10:17 PM	#394
trustbutverify Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 6,830	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward How would you feel if it really came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody? "Came out" to my satisfaction or the investigation stalled out while the congressional PTB declared unqualified victory?
	__________________ "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi Wollen owns the stage

4th April 2017, 10:30 PM	#395
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 37,879	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Cool Are you expecting a Hilary Clinton style not stone unturned investigation or an investigation lite?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

5th April 2017, 12:49 AM	#396
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27	How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread - many who I've read for years tearing down nonsense - fall victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome? "..just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin.." Never before on this forum, in any other section, have I seen so many unsupported, outlandish, baseless or simply delusional assertions. On any other topic in any other section the very same people here would be rightfully jumping all over a poster who made such unsupported statements. Evidence would be demanded, logic bombs would be dropped, poster of nonsense would be exposed, retreat or feel like a fool. "You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right? Ah, so now that's how it works here. Not any other previous topic, ever, anywhere on the forum- but now it is up to someone to disprove your guesses/hopes/imagination/evidence-free ideas. It is apparently no longer up to the person making the claim to provide the supporting evidence. And, until it is disproven (as it must be now in this apparently special circumstance), all outcomes are equal and evidence-free ideas are equally valid. Yep, makes sense, always how it's been here. "Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already." And if/when the investigation is concluded and there is still no basis for the "collusion" CT you will simply claim Trump snuffed it out/pressured the FBI and that it still a totally valid and real accusation. There is no scenario where some of you will be satisfied there was no collusion. It will just turn in to more sad version of 911 Truth, where only you know what "really" happened but everyone is covering it up. I wish I could find some of Gingers past posts on people starting with a conclusion and then finding "evidence" to support it. There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at, it's just a shame emotions and political leanings have taken the place of logic for some here. Your dislike of many aspects of the guy has shaken the smarts right out of you. Not a good look.
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27

5th April 2017, 01:08 AM	#397
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 27,845	Originally Posted by intlman How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread.............snip........... Your denial does not impress anyone in a skeptics forum. Trump has, and continues to, try to snuff out investigations into the Russian affair and there is plenty of evidence of this. It is strange that you think you can actually trick people into disbelieving their lying eyes.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine Last edited by thaiboxerken; 5th April 2017 at 01:09 AM.

5th April 2017, 01:10 AM	#398
uke2se Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 10,275	Originally Posted by intlman How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread - many who I've read for years tearing down nonsense - fall victim to Trump Derangement Syndrome? "..just because an entire US administration is in bed with Putin.." Never before on this forum, in any other section, have I seen so many unsupported, outlandish, baseless or simply delusional assertions. On any other topic in any other section the very same people here would be rightfully jumping all over a poster who made such unsupported statements. Evidence would be demanded, logic bombs would be dropped, poster of nonsense would be exposed, retreat or feel like a fool. "You wouldn't be the first person putting out the false narrative that collusion has been disproved because it has yet to be proved. You do know the difference, right? Ah, so now that's how it works here. Not any other previous topic, ever, anywhere on the forum- but now it is up to someone to disprove your guesses/hopes/imagination/evidence-free ideas. It is apparently no longer up to the person making the claim to provide the supporting evidence. And, until it is disproven (as it must be now in this apparently special circumstance), all outcomes are equal and evidence-free ideas are equally valid. Yep, makes sense, always how it's been here. "Guess you'll have to wait for the FBI to complete their investigation, that is if Trump doesn't try to snuff out the investigation. And I'm surprised he hasn't already." And if/when the investigation is concluded and there is still no basis for the "collusion" CT you will simply claim Trump snuffed it out/pressured the FBI and that it still a totally valid and real accusation. There is no scenario where some of you will be satisfied there was no collusion. It will just turn in to more sad version of 911 Truth, where only you know what "really" happened but everyone is covering it up. I wish I could find some of Gingers past posts on people starting with a conclusion and then finding "evidence" to support it. There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at, it's just a shame emotions and political leanings have taken the place of logic for some here. Your dislike of many aspects of the guy has shaken the smarts right out of you. Not a good look. You're right, we should just drop it. I mean, who cares if the Trump campaign really conspired with Russia, as evidence suggests? You don't want it to be true, so therefore we can safely disregard the evidence that points to it, and simply forget about the many incidents. That's the skeptical thing to do.
	__________________ Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

5th April 2017, 01:29 AM	#399
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27	Originally Posted by uke2se You're right, we should just drop it. I mean, who cares if the Trump campaign really conspired with Russia, as evidence suggests? You don't want it to be true, so therefore we can safely disregard the evidence that points to it, and simply forget about the many incidents. That's the skeptical thing to do. Try again- Originally Posted by intlman There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at The emotional reaction is so strong that you completely fabricate what "I want", because anyone who isn't actively bashing Trump must surely be in full support of him and want to put fingers in ears. And, evidence doesn't "suggest" a Trump conspiracy with Russia - not even a little. See? this is what I mean. It is now taken as fact, despite zero actual evidence or anything approaching it. Zero.
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27

5th April 2017, 01:32 AM	#400
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Your denial does not impress anyone in a skeptics forum. I don't know what this is in reply to. What am I "denying"? There is nothing here to deny, and I haven't denied anything in my post. Quote: Trump has, and continues to, try to snuff out investigations into the Russian affair and there is plenty of evidence of this. It is strange that you think you can actually trick people into disbelieving their lying eyes. Nope, still no evidence of "snuffing out investigations". Still no evidence of Russia collusion. Turn off Rachel Maddow perhaps.
intlman Student Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 27	Last edited by intlman; 5th April 2017 at 01:33 AM.