• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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