Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
BobTheCoward said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
FBI plans to "surge" Russia probe.

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.
Click to expand...
 
IIRC, 30 went to jail for Watergate.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
More Russian connections from Rachel Maddow.



Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Shocking Claim by Texas Representative and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Joaquín Castro (D).



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.”
 
BobTheCoward said:
The Pentagon papers and Snowden leaks are examples of reporters gaining access to primary documents. ....
Click to expand...
Bob001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
trustbutverify said:
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.
Click to expand...


Just seemed like these posts needed to be seen together.:thumbsup:
 
BobTheCoward said:
How would you feel if it really​ came out that nothing untoward was done by anybody?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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. :rolleyes:

"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 said:
How and why did formerly sane and logical skeptics in this thread.............snip...........
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
intlman said:
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. :rolleyes:

"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
uke2se said:
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.
Click to expand...

Try again-

intlman said:
There's a lot to look at and it should be looked at
Click to expand...

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.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Your denial does not impress anyone in a skeptics forum.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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

Still no evidence of Russia collusion.

Turn off Rachel Maddow perhaps.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom