Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
ETA: Although, I believe Grizzly Bear is trying to create a semantic deflection using the word "directly".
Click to expand...

“We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper said. “There was no evidence of that included in our report.”..... “at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.”

-Clapper

No semantics. Just going by what former heads of intel have stated.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
“We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper said. “There was no evidence of that included in our report.”..... “at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.”

-Clapper

No semantics. Just going by what former heads of intel have stated.
Click to expand...

That's entirely unrelated to the post that uke2se was responding to. We were talking about you saying that Russian influence on the election was fantasy, not that collusion was fantasy.
 
Argumemnon said:
That's entirely unrelated to the post that uke2se was responding to. We were talking about you saying that Russian influence on the election was fantasy, not that collusion was fantasy.
Click to expand...

It is directly related. The accusation is that the Russian government influenced the election results and that the Trump campaign was in collusion. Its fantasy because the democrat party has yet to provide solid evidence of this occuring... yet they push it as a matter of historical record despite having this pointed out.

I do not assume the russians didnt try or had aspirations. But youre dealing with accusations that the election resylts WERE impacted. There remains no such evidence at this point. and they are only hurting their own cause by pushing the issue in spite of that
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
It is directly related. The accusation is that the Russian government influenced the election results and that the Trump campaign was in collusion.
Click to expand...

Those are two separate claims. When asked why the first was fantasy you switched to the second.

Its fantasy because the democrat party has yet to provide solid evidence of this occuring...
Click to expand...

First of all, it's called the Democratic party. Second, perhaps you haven't followed the news in the last few months, but there's an ongoing investigation in the matter, one in which the various intelligence agencies have said that they have evidence of this occuring, and there's been quite a few news reports showing Russian officials boasting about such an incoming attack on American power, and an incredible number of links between people in the Trump administration and Russian oligarchs or Putin himself.

If you don't call that evidence, I have no idea what would make you raise your eyebrow aside from a signed confession from the would-be Czar of Russia himself.

I do not assume the russians didnt try or had aspirations. But youre dealing with accusations that the election resylts WERE impacted.
Click to expand...

The wikileaks release was a result of Russian hacking and was specifically targetted against Clinton. It's pretty naive to think that it didn't change at least a few minds about the election. And again, it's using a pretty narrow definition of the word "influence".
 
Grizzly Bear said:
“We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper said. “There was no evidence of that included in our report.”..... “at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.”

-Clapper

No semantics. Just going by what former heads of intel have stated.
Click to expand...
Er, your original claim was that Russia directly influencing the US elections was a fantasy:
Grizzly Bear said:
And do you want to explain why democrats focus not on this, but on a fantasy they concocted about Russia directly influencing the US elections?
Click to expand...

Your latest quote says the heads of intel didn't include any evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with the Russians. That is different than, and does not support, your first claim.


eta: D'oh! Ninja'd! Shoulda hit preview
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
The wikileaks release was a result of Russian hacking and was specifically targetted against Clinton. It's pretty naive to think that it didn't change at least a few minds about the election. And again, it's using a pretty narrow definition of the word "influence".
Click to expand...

It's not like Trump mentioned WikiLeaks everyday for the last month of the campaign. Oh... wait! GRUccifer's work seemed to come in handy for him.
 
The sleaze bags known as the National Republican Congressional Committee are fund-raising based on Nunes supposed vindication of Trump's lie. link

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is claiming that allegations that former President Barack Obama ordered surveillance of President Trump were "confirmed" Wednesday by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

In an email to supporters on Thursday, the NRCC wrote that Obama was accused of surveilling Trump, as well as members of his transition team, leading with the subject line, "Confirmed: Obama spied on Trump."
"Former President Obama is accused of spying on Donald Trump in his final days in office," reads the email, which described it as "disturbing news."
Click to expand...
The only thing they omitted is "Sad!".
 
wareyin said:
Er, your original claim was that Russia directly influencing the US elections was a fantasy:
Click to expand...

Yes. Because democrats have yet to provide concrete evidence that Russian interference influenced the outcome of the elections. Like I said. My claim stands until clickbait headlines and political posturing stops jumping the gun.

If the party doesnt want Trumps childish claims to merit weight. They need to start acting like adults themselves

If the pending investigations reveal more. I will retract this to the extent that their findings justify
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Yes. Because democrats have yet to provide concrete evidence that Russian interference influenced the outcome of the elections. Like I said. My claim stands until clickbait headlines and political posturing stops jumping the gun.
Click to expand...

Provide a description of how that could be proven to your satisfaction.

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. Trump won Pennsylvania by 68,000 votes. Turnout was very low. Democrats were bitter after a testy primary, and then emails are released to make it seem like one of the candidates got the shaft.

How many people stayed home or voted third party because of that release? Impossible to know for sure, but of course it influenced the election. Absent that hack, it's very possible Hillary would have won the electoral college. It would have taken less than a half million people to vote differently in certain states.

Before I go digging up opinion polls, please let me know what you're looking for. I get the feeling that I'm about to go on a snipe hunt.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
The sleaze bags known as the National Republican Congressional Committee are fund-raising based on Nunes supposed vindication of Trump's lie. link

The only thing they omitted is "Sad!".
Click to expand...

Wow.

No wonder the gullible and / or stupid buy into this crap.

At some point, someone has to stop lying all the time.
 
Here's an interesting piece about the credibility of the CrowdStrike partisan hacks that brought you the "DNC was hacked by Putin" dreck. It's on Voice of America which the evil Trump has transformed into another Putinbot outlet as you can read in the comments.

I SO look forward to the next bubble that blows up in the face of the obnoxious fake news peddlers who dare to still pollute this subforum with their nonsense after their hilarious pre-election musings spectacularly collided with reality. Friday? :)
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
Yes. Because democrats have yet to provide concrete evidence that Russian interference influenced the outcome of the elections. Like I said. My claim stands until clickbait headlines and political posturing stops jumping the gun.
Click to expand...

Have you been deliberately avoiding seeing the information the rest of us have seen? How can you claim that there is no evidence?

And do you think that the intelligence agencies are making this stuff up?
 
Well this is a bold claim from Rep Schiff.

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee is claiming that he has been presented with new information on collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and Russia that would merit a grand jury investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff told CNN Thursday that he had seen additional evidence, but would not specify what it was.

"We continue to get new information that, I think, paints a more complete picture of at least what we know at the outset of our investigation," Schiff said.

Asked to explain his comments earlier in the week when he said there was more than just "circumstantial evidence of collusion," Schiff said, "I do think that it's appropriate to say that it's the kind of evidence that you would submit to a grand jury at the beginning of an investigation.

"It's not the kind of evidence that you take to a trial jury when you're trying to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. But we're at the beginning of an investigation, and given the gravity of the subject matter, I think that the evidence certainly warrants us doing a thorough investigation."
Click to expand...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
“We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper said. “There was no evidence of that included in our report.”..... “at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.”

-Clapper

No semantics. Just going by what former heads of intel have stated.
Click to expand...

You DO notice that Clapper spoke in the past tense, and carefully spoke only of evidence that they DID not have during his tenure. His phrasing does NOT exclude suspicion, investigation, surveillance, and the existence of evidence even at the time of his statement.
 
Trump is throwing Flynn under the bus using his go to news outlet.

Before we begin, don’t tell me the National Enquirer isn’t reputable — that is not the point of this story. The National Enquirer has an umbilical cord tethered*to Team Trump, and only writes what*Trump wants them to write. So the big question this morning is why Team Trump wants to smear Michael Flynn.

Now, the big news: The*National Enquirer is accusing former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn of being a “Russian spy.”
Click to expand...
 
elgarak said:
You DO notice that Clapper spoke in the past tense, and carefully spoke only of evidence that they DID not have during his tenure. His phrasing does NOT exclude suspicion, investigation, surveillance, and the existence of evidence even at the time of his statement.
Click to expand...

I haven't reviewed the interview since it was fresh news, but that was my recollection of it as well. Nice to see I wasn't imagining it. In fact, I thought it rather stood out as a very well-parsed, impeccable performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom