Trump and Russia

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

C'mon genius.  You honestly claim that you see no holes in DR's tale?  Try being honest

 

He refuted the one example you used to claim DR's theories were full of holes.

 

"Do you honestly not see the logical leaps that you make?  For example you claim, 'Don Jr has not been charged with perjury so nothing illegal happened at Trump Tower and no lies were told.'  Please, tell me you can see that you have made a leap there."

[Tiberius]

59 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Funny...he never does that with people who engage him substantively.  

That's a complete lie. You mean the people that point out Trump's misdeeds don't do it substantively. This is why you get called a simple Trumpbot 

Meanwhile, its kind of clear why Trump refused to put the bi-partisan sanctions that passed both houses of congress with huge majorities: 

 

The Post reports:

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said that Russia will continue using propaganda, false personas and social media to undermine the upcoming elections.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts” to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign “as a success,” and it “views the 2018 midterm elections” as another opportunity to conduct an attack, said Coats, testifying at the committee’s annual worldwide threats hearing.

His assessment was echoed by all five other intelligence agency heads present at the hearing, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who two weeks ago stated publicly he had “every expectation” that Russia will try to influence the coming elections.

[Bob in Mich]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He refuted the one example you used to claim DR's theories were full of holes.

 

"Do you honestly not see the logical leaps that you make?  For example you claim, 'Don Jr has not been charged with perjury so nothing illegal happened at Trump Tower and no lies were told.'  Please, tell me you can see that you have made a leap there."

 

Horseshit!  He refuted nothing by saying, 'it's a safe bet' ?  Put your setting back to 'bot', 3rd.  You looked smarter before.

 

I can see humoring your online friend but if you are being honest and tell me you see no logical flaws or leaps in DR's tale, you both are a whole lot dumber than i imagined.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Horseshit!  He refuted nothing by saying, 'it's a safe bet' ?  Put your setting back to 'bot', 3rd.  You looked smarter before.

 

I can see humoring your online friend but if you are being honest and tell me you see no logical flaws or leaps in DR's tale, you both are a whole lot dumber than i imagined.

So, what is the use of discussing anything here if all you want to do is wait until all of the facts are in and every "t" has been crossed? DR has provided us with a tremendous amount of information and facts and also has sprinkled in a dose of supposition gleamed from the old "smell test".  You on the other hand, refuse to believe anything until there are convictions.

 

Stop the bot crap. You would do better using your time to try to find the right strain to use to keep you from getting so asswholey when coming down.

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

C'mon genius.  You honestly claim that you see no holes in DR's tale?  Try being honest

 

Bear in mind I say this as a man who started his journey down Greg's rabbit hole as a very well documented "Never Trump" libertarian.  I have had many lengthy conversations, both publicly and in PMs, with Greg about his assertions.

 

He's never shied away, lied, or claimed to have information he didn't have.  He is very careful to differentiate between verifiable facts directly provable with evidence, and things he holds to be speculations where direct non-circumstantial evidence is currently unavailable.  He is engaging, and has never, not even one time, failed to respond to any questions I have asked him, no matter how hard, or where they might lead.

 

I work with creating and refining logical processes, spending large portions of my day breaking down data and business processes, searching for inefficiencies or inaccuracies in order to correct them; and while I have absolutely found instances where Greg believes something to be true which has yet to be proven with hard evidence, I have not found any single one of them to be logically inconsistent with the chain of evidence he presents.  In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided.

 

Your problem is that you haven't read the case he is laying out in it's entirety.  You're "spot checking", which invariably leads to incomplete understanding, unreviewed evidence, and an incomplete diagram of events.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, what is the use of discussing anything here if all you want to do is wait until all of the facts are in and every "t" has been crossed? DR has provided us with a tremendous amount of information and facts and also has sprinkled in a dose of supposition gleamed from the old "smell test".  You on the other hand, refuse to believe anything until there are convictions.

 

Stop the bot crap. You would do better using your time to try to find the right strain to use to keep you from getting so asswholey when coming down.

 

 

 

asswholey, eh?   Well at least when you asked me to quit insulting you, you might have tried not insulting me. 

 

Tweak your program.  You should be 'learning' from interaction with real posters.   That might be a bigger upgrade than you can afford though.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

At this point, you jump up and down and post some facts interlaced with some logical flaws. 

 

And yet - you can't point to any logical flaws. If you could, you would engage in an actual conversation instead of plugging your ears when I take time to offer a thorough explanation, with sources (primary and secondary) which you can read and verify for yourself. 

 

You don't do that. You walk back into a thread (that had been dormant for awhile now) spouting nonsensical talking points which were debunked months ago. That you're unaware that they've been debunked is fine. Or would be if you bothered to be honest when you step onto your soapbox. But you aren't honest about it, instead you either ignore the points I raise, or shoot back that I'm a Trump lawyer. 

 

That's why you are getting pummeled in this thread, and will continue to get pummeled. If you want to have a REAL conversation we can. I've tried several times now, taking the time to write up lengthy replies to your posts. But you've shown no interest in having a real conversation, or having your own views challenged. 

 

Why? 

 

Because you're intellectually dishonest.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

asswholey, eh?   Well at least when you asked me to quit insulting you, you might have tried not insulting me. 

 

Tweak your program.  You should be 'learning' from interaction with real posters.   That might be a bigger upgrade than you can afford though.

Did you ever notice that when you're losing an argument you fall back on calling other posters bots? Is that part of your safe place?

[Bob in Mich]

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And yet - you can't point to any logical flaws. If you could, you would engage in an actual conversation instead of plugging your ears when I take time to offer a thorough explanation, with sources (primary and secondary) which you can read and verify for yourself. 

 

You don't do that. You walk back into a thread (that had been dormant for awhile now) spouting nonsensical talking points which were debunked months ago. That you're unaware that they've been debunked is fine. Or would be if you bothered to be honest when you step onto your soapbox. But you aren't honest about it, instead you either ignore the points I raise, or shoot back that I'm a Trump lawyer. 

 

That's why you are getting pummeled in this thread, and will continue to get pummeled. If you want to have a REAL conversation we can. I've tried several times now, taking the time to write up lengthy replies to your posts. But you've shown no interest in having a real conversation, or having your own views challenged. 

 

Why? 

 

Because you're intellectually dishonest.

 

DR, send me some of that smoke dude.  You are nearly tripping.   You friggin stoners!  You disgust me   lol

 

You claimed that I called you a Trump lawyer.  I did not.  You claimed earlier that I called you a Trump disciple.  I did not call you that either but I guess you assumed that title fit you and decided it was meant for you.  I guess if the shoe fits, eh?

 

I have not avoided your posts until recently as I am tired of you insulting me because I am thinking for myself and picking apart your logic.  And yes, your replies are way more detailed than necessary.  The logical flaws cause my eyes to glaze over and all the facts are not that valuable because of those logical flaws. 

 

I just pointed out a huge flaw in your Don Jr Trump Tower meeting.  You seriously don't see a problem there? 

 

OK....are any of the following possible...not probable, but possible?

 

1) He may yet be charged for known lying but the charges have not been made yet because Mueller wants to make a giant splash by announcing all the big charges at the investigation conclusion

2) He may be charged for as yet undiscovered lying.  The investigation is continuing.

3) Mueller knows something you don't that definitively proves perjury but is withholding the charge as he wants to use Don Jr or his possible indictment in some future transaction?  Like Flynn Jr and Flynn.  Recall that Flynn was supposedly facing 60 years before he got a single charge and no charges (yet) for Flynn Jr.?

4) His future cooperation is already guaranteed by Mueller due to his lies.

 

If I felt like typing more I could list more possibilities....not necessarily probabilities, but possibilities.   So, if looking critically one would have to say you have made a logical leap to assume that no lies and nothing illegal from the Trump Tower meeting.  Is that true or still unrecognized?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[Nanker]

 

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

That's a complete lie. You mean the people that point out Trump's misdeeds don't do it substantively. This is why you get called a simple Trumpbot 

Meanwhile, its kind of clear why Trump refused to put the bi-partisan sanctions that passed both houses of congress with huge majorities: 

 

The Post reports:

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said that Russia will continue using propaganda, false personas and social media to undermine the upcoming elections.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts” to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign “as a success,” and it “views the 2018 midterm elections” as another opportunity to conduct an attack, said Coats, testifying at the committee’s annual worldwide threats hearing.

His assessment was echoed by all five other intelligence agency heads present at the hearing, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who two weeks ago stated publicly he had “every expectation” that Russia will try to influence the coming elections.

 

Yes, I've seen this testimony and all it does is compel our law enforcement, state department and intelligence agencies to work to eliminate or reduce potential meddling.  Let's not pretend that this is evidence at all of Trump collusion or that it had any material impact on the votes cast or that this meddling is a new occurrence.  Let's also not pretend that this gives cover for the emerging misdeeds of our intelligence and other folks who tried to derail Trump's candidacy and his Presidency.  

[GG]

25 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

 

Is this true?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

OK....are any of the following possible...not probable, but possible?

 

1) He may yet be charged for known lying but the charges have not been made yet because Mueller wants to make a giant splash by announcing all the big charges at the investigation conclusion

2) He may be charged for as yet undiscovered lying.  The investigation is continuing.

3) Mueller knows something you don't that definitively proves perjury but is withholding the charge as he wants to use Don Jr or his possible indictment in some future transaction?  Like Flynn Jr and Flynn.  Recall that Flynn was supposedly facing 60 years before he got a single charge and no charges (yet) for Flynn Jr.?

4) His future cooperation is already guaranteed by Mueller due to his lies.

 

If I felt like typing more I could list more possibilities....not necessarily probabilities, but possibilities.   So, if looking critically one would have to say you have made a logical leap to assume that no lies and nothing illegal from the Trump Tower meeting.  Is that true or still unrecognized?

 

1. It's possible in the same sense that it's possible Cleveland wins the super bowl next season. Can't rule it out completely because no one has a crystal ball, but the odds are infinitesimal. Why? Two reasons you can source yourself: 

 

a) Because anything even slightly damaging (true or not) to the administration has leaked from both Congressional investigations and Mueller's team. If they had even the slightest thing on Junior, Schiffty would have told the world;

 

b) everything about the meeting is known - down to how it was scheduled, who scheduled it, how Junior got involved, what was said in the meeting, what was said/done after the meeting by all parties involved - and has been analyzed by pundits, armchair pundits, and legal experts of all political persuasions and to a person they all say the meeting and how it came together was not illegal or evidence of collusion.  

 

2. Same as above. The odds are tiny. 

 

3. This is a reach for all the reasons listed in #1. And Flynn was not facing 60 years, that's an example of a long debunked talking point. It's unsourced, unverified. Everything you've said to date about Flynn and what he was charged with has been incorrect so far. You're buying headlines and spin rather than looking for yourself. 

 

4. Whose future cooperation is guaranteed? Trump Jr's? Of Flynn's? Because both are wrong. 

 

So again, you've done nothing to poke holes in my argument. Your points in fact reinforce my speculation because they're so shoddy and easy to see through. 

 

The truth is we have FAR MORE evidence that the Russian story was concocted for political purposes by the USIC, FBI, DOJ, DNC and the former administration than we have of Russian/Trump collusion. And I'm talking actual evidence - 14 people within the DOJ and FBI have been either terminated, demoted, or resigned. The one commonality all those resignations, demotions, and resignations have in common is their connection to Mueller's team, the FBI's Russian investigation, and the Clinton email investigation. 

 

No matter how much you try, or how much sticky icky you smoke (and I say that as a compliment because it opens one's mind), you can't deny that reality. Real resignations, real terminations - all connected to this case, and that's excluding the evidence we have in the form of communications between these people, declassified documents from both Congress and the DNI, as well as Congressional Testimony and criminal referrals regarding the creation of the central piece of evidence used to secure the infamous FISA. 

 

Do you admit that the staggering number of "sudden" departures from the DOJ, FBI and USIC are at the very least suspicious in light of what I've been chronicling now for over a year on this site? 

 

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

That's a complete lie. You mean the people that point out Trump's misdeeds don't do it substantively. This is why you get called a simple Trumpbot 

Meanwhile, its kind of clear why Trump refused to put the bi-partisan sanctions that passed both houses of congress with huge majorities: 

 

The Post reports:

Appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats said that Russia will continue using propaganda, false personas and social media to undermine the upcoming elections.

“There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts” to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign “as a success,” and it “views the 2018 midterm elections” as another opportunity to conduct an attack, said Coats, testifying at the committee’s annual worldwide threats hearing.

His assessment was echoed by all five other intelligence agency heads present at the hearing, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who two weeks ago stated publicly he had “every expectation” that Russia will try to influence the coming elections.

6 hours ago, DC Tom said:

So after all this time...do we have any answers for how Russia influenced the election beyond "trolling Facebook?"

 

 

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Yes, I've seen this testimony and all it does is compel our law enforcement, state department and intelligence agencies to work to eliminate or reduce potential meddling.  Let's not pretend that this is evidence at all of Trump collusion or that it had any material impact on the votes cast or that this meddling is a new occurrence.  Let's also not pretend that this gives cover for the emerging misdeeds of our intelligence and other folks who tried to derail Trump's candidacy and his Presidency.  

 

Why'd you have to quote him?  ****, he didn't even understand my post, and it wasn't even that difficult to understand.

[Cinga]

32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

3. This is a reach for all the reasons listed in #1. And Flynn was not facing 60 years, that's an example of a long debunked talking point. It's unsourced, unverified. Everything you've said to date about Flynn and what he was charged with has been incorrect so far. You're buying headlines and spin rather than looking for yourself.

And this charge could be falling apart with the recent allegations that the FBI said he didn't lie, until forced to change the narrative by the DOJ. I know speculation is that Mueller asked to postpone the sentence hearing because something big was coming.

I think it is (my own speculation for the libs out there) more likely Mueller asked for the postponement because of this story. He'll dig deeper, find the truth, and drop charges against Flynn... Face it.... IF the DOJ changed the narrative, or forced the FBI to change it, Flynn is not guilty of anything

Edited February 14, 2018 by Cinga

[Bob in Mich]

9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

1. It's possible in the same sense that it's possible Cleveland wins the super bowl next season. Can't rule it out completely because no one has a crystal ball, but the odds are infinitesimal. Why? Two reasons you can source yourself: 

 

a) Because anything even slightly damaging (true or not) to the administration has leaked from both Congressional investigations and Mueller's team. If they had even the slightest thing on Junior, Schiffty would have told the world;

 

b) everything about the meeting is known - down to how it was scheduled, who scheduled it, how Junior got involved, what was said in the meeting, what was said/done after the meeting by all parties involved - and has been analyzed by pundits, armchair pundits, and legal experts of all political persuasions and to a person they all say the meeting and how it came together was not illegal or evidence of collusion.  

 

2. Same as above. The odds are tiny. 

 

3. This is a reach for all the reasons listed in #1. And Flynn was not facing 60 years, that's an example of a long debunked talking point. It's unsourced, unverified. Everything you've said to date about Flynn and what he was charged with has been incorrect so far. You're buying headlines and spin rather than looking for yourself. 

 

4. Whose future cooperation is guaranteed? Trump Jr's? Of Flynn's? Because both are wrong. 

 

So again, you've done nothing to poke holes in my argument. Your points in fact reinforce my speculation because they're so shoddy and easy to see through. 

 

The truth is we have FAR MORE evidence that the Russian story was concocted for political purposes by the USIC, FBI, DOJ, DNC and the former administration than we have of Russian/Trump collusion. And I'm talking actual evidence - 14 people within the DOJ and FBI have been either terminated, demoted, or resigned. The one commonality all those resignations, demotions, and resignations have in common is their connection to Mueller's team, the FBI's Russian investigation, and the Clinton email investigation. 

 

No matter how much you try, or how much sticky icky you smoke (and I say that as a compliment because it opens one's mind), you can't deny that reality. Real resignations, real terminations - all connected to this case, and that's excluding the evidence we have in the form of communications between these people, declassified documents from both Congress and the DNI, as well as Congressional Testimony and criminal referrals regarding the creation of the central piece of evidence used to secure the infamous FISA. 

 

Do you admit that the staggering number of "sudden" departures from the DOJ, FBI and USIC are at the very least suspicious in light of what I've been chronicling now for over a year on this site? 

 

 

DR, please, please, don't respond point by point to this post.  You have made my attempt at an interesting diversion into a non stop battle.  It is no longer fun for me.  It has become a chore to have to read the same flawed arguments and to feel forced to reply to your torrents of crap again and again.  So, if you are looking to beat back any doubters of your theories, I am done arguing with you.  You win!  You have not convinced me of your theories but have convinced me that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to repeat myself.  I am tired of your same flawed arguments and I have been saying the same thing for at least 10 pages of this thread now. 

 

You have already and will in the future, put way more time investigating than I will.  I don't wish to spend any more time investigating this issue.  As I said before, there are professionals doing that and I will read their reports.  With your arguments however, it is the same thing again and again.  The individual facts may differ but I feel you make enough assumptions in your explanations that what you are left with is far from undeniable. 

 

Your theory may be right.  I don't think it is but you may be on to something.  Keep digging if you wish.  You may turn into a national hero in the end and I will be happy to tell folks that I had it all wrong.  At this time however, I see nothing convincing enough for me to be satisfied aborting the Mueller investigation....as I said 10 pages ago. 

 

If I happen to post on this topic down the road, please don't assume I am posting to you unless you have been quoted.   Thanks and congrats for winning.

 

[3rdnlng]

32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

DR, please, please, don't respond point by point to this post.  You have made my attempt at an interesting diversion into a non stop battle.  It is no longer fun for me.  It has become a chore to have to read the same flawed arguments and to feel forced to reply to your torrents of crap again and again.  So, if you are looking to beat back any doubters of your theories, I am done arguing with you.  You win!  You have not convinced me of your theories but have convinced me that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to repeat myself.  I am tired of your same flawed arguments and I have been saying the same thing for at least 10 pages of this thread now. 

 

You have already and will in the future, put way more time investigating than I will.  I don't wish to spend any more time investigating this issue.  As I said before, there are professionals doing that and I will read their reports.  With your arguments however, it is the same thing again and again.  The individual facts may differ but I feel you make enough assumptions in your explanations that what you are left with is far from undeniable. 

 

Your theory may be right.  I don't think it is but you may be on to something.  Keep digging if you wish.  You may turn into a national hero in the end and I will be happy to tell folks that I had it all wrong.  At this time however, I see nothing convincing enough for me to be satisfied aborting the Mueller investigation....as I said 10 pages ago. 

 

If I happen to post on this topic down the road, please don't assume I am posting to you unless you have been quoted.   Thanks and congrats for winning.

 

DR is a professional as far as research goes and you are a quitter.

[Bob in Mich]

24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

DR is a professional as far as research goes and you are a quitter.

 

...and you are clearly a fool...or a bot.

[Wacka]

Bob in Mich : " My brain hurts.I have a piece of brain lodged in my skull!"

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

...and you are clearly a fool...or a bot.

Wow, you continue to prove the old adage that stoners can't think of anything original. Your surrender to DR is out in the open here for everyone to see. You are truly an underachiever but when you are high, who cares?