If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?

[barbos]

I know I am not a shill, hence you are wrong about that. And since you are wrong about one thing you could be wrong about others as well.

You aren't a shill, but you seem to be blinded by anti-Americanism.

Where you get this idea? I am not anti-american, I am merely anti-anti-russian.

You somehow see no relevance in an FBI Director being fired over an investigation of Russian meddling,

Again, where did you get this idea? I am all for investigation, But I am for independent investigation, and I am against assigning blame on Russia before any investigation concluded. Clinton assigned blame without investigation and I don't like that.

the NSA to the President resigning because of undisclosed contacts with Russia,
the Attorney General lying about having no contacts with Russia during the campaign or transition, and a private citizen trying to broker a private channel through the Russian embassy with Moscow.

I am not disputing any of that, I am merely pointing out that russians did not initiate any of these contacts and even more, it seems they were surprised by that. I think it's an important fact which you ignore.

That's a whole lot of Russia in there and the conspiracy may now date back to April 2016.

My opinion it's not a conspiracy but an idiocy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well context would be become important, and looking at a bunch of events as a whole.

Why do you think you are given right context when you watch the news about some topic you really don't know much about?
You have no way to check anything you are told.

Flynn resigned because of undisclosed Russian contacts, Comey was fired while investigating Russian meddling, Kuschner tried to set up a Russian run back channel to Moscow, AG lied about Russian contacts.

These are facts. Or do you dispute that?

That is a whole lot of Russia in 4 months. Sure a lot of the other info is from sources, but it all falls around a certain narrative very cleanly with the known facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You aren't a shill, but you seem to be blinded by anti-Americanism.

Where you get this idea? I am not anti-american, I am merely anti-anti-russian.

Sure.

You somehow see no relevance in an FBI Director being fired over an investigation of Russian meddling,

Again, where did you get this idea?

He asked the FBI Director to drop the investigation into Flynn. He then fired the FBI Director who didn't drop the investigation into Flynn.

the NSA to the President resigning because of undisclosed contacts with Russia,
the Attorney General lying about having no contacts with Russia during the campaign or transition, and a private citizen trying to broker a private channel through the Russian embassy with Moscow.

I am not disputing any of that...

Odd how much Russia is involved with Trump?

...I am merely pointing out that russians did not initiate any of these contacts...

That is unsubstantiated.

...and even more, it seems they were surprised by that. I think it's an important fact which you ignore.

Allegedly surprised, about the Kuschner request. There was more above than just the Kuschner request.

That's a whole lot of Russia in there and the conspiracy may now date back to April 2016.

My opinion it's not a conspiracy but an idiocy.

No. The timeline of actions doesn't fit with just merely idiocy. That they'll be caught was partly from idiocy.

 

[barbos]

Why do you think you are given right context when you watch the news about some topic you really don't know much about?
You have no way to check anything you are told.

Flynn resigned because of undisclosed Russian contacts, Comey was fired while investigating Russian meddling, Kuschner tried to set up a Russian run back channel to Moscow, AG lied about Russian contacts.

These are facts. Or do you dispute that?

Yes, these are facts and I don't dispute that.
But there are also other facts you keep ignoring.

That is a whole lot of Russia in 4 months. Sure a lot of the other info is from sources, but it all falls around a certain narrative very cleanly with the known facts.

Well, If Russia were Germany around 1943 I would agree, that's a whole lot of Germany. The only reason why all these idiots are getting hard time is because there is this "Russian hacked the elections" hysteria. If you had normal elections nobody would give a fuck about team which won going around and talking to other governments, even though it is strictly speaking is illegal. I bet Flynn talked to Israelis too, right, I know they are allies, but it is still illegals and nobody gives a fuck.

 

[barbos]

Where you get this idea? I am not anti-american, I am merely anti-anti-russian.

Sure.

Sarcasm?

You somehow see no relevance in an FBI Director being fired over an investigation of Russian meddling,

Again, where did you get this idea?

He asked the FBI Director to drop the investigation into Flynn. He then fired the FBI Director who didn't drop the investigation into Flynn.

I know that. and it's bad. But it does not mean Trump&Co are guilty.

the NSA to the President resigning because of undisclosed contacts with Russia,
the Attorney General lying about having no contacts with Russia during the campaign or transition, and a private citizen trying to broker a private channel through the Russian embassy with Moscow.

I am not disputing any of that...

Odd how much Russia is involved with Trump?

...I am merely pointing out that russians did not initiate any of these contacts...

That is unsubstantiated.

I don't have to substantiate negative. The current facts DO NOT suggest that russians initiated anything or even participated in any nefarious activities Trump suggested.

...and even more, it seems they were surprised by that. I think it's an important fact which you ignore.

Allegedly surprised, about the Kuschner request. There was more above than just the Kuschner request.

That's a whole lot of Russia in there and the conspiracy may now date back to April 2016.

My opinion it's not a conspiracy but an idiocy.

No. The timeline of actions doesn't fit with just merely idiocy. That they'll be caught was partly from idiocy.

Elaborate. Timeline so far seems that everything what happened happened after the elections which is consistent with simply the team which won going around and trying to set things up and running.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know that. and it's bad. But it does not mean Trump&Co are guilty.

Actually, it is strong evidence for obstruction of Justice. And we haven't even talked about the obstruction of the House investigation.

I don't have to substantiate negative.

But you claimed it that Russians didn't initiate contacts. It simply isn't known who started what.

The current facts DO NOT suggest that russians initiated anything or even participated in any nefarious activities Trump suggested.

The current facts are inconclusive about the origin of Russia becoming entangled.

Elaborate. Timeline so far seems that everything what happened happened after the elections...

No. The email hacking happens before the election, the leaking of the emails occurs before the elections, Trump turning heel and siding with a Russian happy campaign team and statements happens well before the elections, around the same time the Russian Ambassador and Sen. Sessions may have met in April 2016. The investigation into Russian meddling starts nearly 6 months before the election and is allegedly happening because of intelligence chatter our European allies are receiving from Russian assets or taps.

 

[barbos]

Actually, it is strong evidence for obstruction of Justice. And we haven't even talked about the obstruction of the House investigation.

Oh, he is certainly guilty of that, no question about that. I meant "guilty of colluding with russians"

I don't have to substantiate negative.

But you claimed it that Russians didn't initiate contacts. It simply isn't known who started what.

I think we know that Kushner initiated that talk with russian ambassador. And same can be said about Flynn who simply called him and told him not to retaliate to Obama kicking russian diplomats out. And yes, Flynn lied to FBI about his contacts, there is no need to remind me that.

The current facts DO NOT suggest that russians initiated anything or even participated in any nefarious activities Trump suggested.

The current facts are inconclusive about the origin of Russia becoming entangled.

Elaborate. Timeline so far seems that everything what happened happened after the elections...

No. The email hacking happens before the election, the leaking of the emails occurs before the elections,

Yes, But no phone calls before elections.

Trump turning heel and siding with a Russian happy campaign team and statements happens well before the elections, around the same time the Russian Ambassador and Sen. Sessions may have met in April 2016.

You mean bumped into each other?

The investigation into Russian meddling starts nearly 6 months before the election and is allegedly happening because of intelligence chatter our European allies are receiving from Russian assets or taps.

Keyword "allegedly", But that would be interesting if true.

 

[Elixir]

I meant "guilty of colluding with russians"

Under what statute would that be a crime?

(Hint: There is no such statute)

 

[barbos]

I meant "guilty of colluding with russians"

Under what statute would that be a crime?

(Hint: There is no such statute)

You are guilty of torturing English language. It's not a crime but you are still guilty.

 

[Elixir]

Under what statute would that be a crime?

(Hint: There is no such statute)

You are guilty of torturing English language. It's not a crime but you [trump] are still guilty.

In the same sense that YOU are "guilty" of being a Russian shill, yes, Trump is guilty of that. But he doesn't necessarily experience guilt - I think he believes he's simply protecting himself from the consequences that would arise if Uncle Vlad were to release the damaging information and documentation that he almost certainly holds over Cheato's head.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You are guilty of torturing English language. It's not a crime but you [trump] are still guilty.

In the same sense that YOU are "guilty" of being a Russian shill, yes, Trump is guilty of that. But he doesn't necessarily experience guilt - I think he believes he's simply protecting himself from the consequences that would arise if Uncle Vlad were to release the damaging information and documentation that he almost certainly holds over Cheato's head.

Perhaps you are suggesting the sealed their vow to secrecy with a Russian Kiss.

 

[Elixir]

In the same sense that YOU are "guilty" of being a Russian shill, yes, Trump is guilty of that. But he doesn't necessarily experience guilt - I think he believes he's simply protecting himself from the consequences that would arise if Uncle Vlad were to release the damaging information and documentation that he almost certainly holds over Cheato's head.

Perhaps you are suggesting the sealed their vow to secrecy with a Russian Kiss.

I wasn't, but now I'm curious. How does a Russian kiss vary from say, a French one?

 

[Deepak]

Perhaps you are suggesting the sealed their vow to secrecy with a Russian Kiss.

I wasn't, but now I'm curious. How does a Russian kiss vary from say, a French one?

It involves a horse

 

[whichphilosophy]

I wasn't, but now I'm curious. How does a Russian kiss vary from say, a French one?

It involves a horse

It must be hard to do it with a horse.
Perhaps it would work with a Shetland Pony or other mini one.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Perhaps you are suggesting the sealed their vow to secrecy with a Russian Kiss.

I wasn't, but now I'm curious. How does a Russian kiss vary from say, a French one?

69

 

[blastula]

Unless the statements are false, hacking seems to have taken place.

For the zillionth time, yes, there were hacks, that's what the Russian hacking story is about, but the hacks were not of Clinton's server. The hacks were of the DNC and somebody else's emails and from those hacks, documents were given to Wikileaks. Just realize that the hack was last year, and that email server was no longer running at the time. It's impossible that it was her server that is the subject of the Russian hacking story. It's simply not the source. Yet, you keep saying Russia hacked Clinton's emails, and you are wrong every time. Sadly, I can guarantee you will repeat the same lie again even though you have been corrected numerous times. I do not know why you want spew bullshit all day long everyday, but that's what you do.

The leaks are pretty boring and certainly insufficient to seriously discredit anyone.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...ourage-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-n2240856

That article actually does say she was hacked, but that was from a Fox News story that was later retracted. Try to keep up. And even if it hadn't been retracted, Clinton's server is not the source of the hack that was shared with Wikileaks during the election. Get the basic facts straight for once.

FBI Sources: Clinton Server Hacked By 'At Least Five' Foreign Intel Agencies, Two Major Federal Probes Ongoing
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/11/hillary-clinton-server-continues-to-haunt-her/

Hillary’s server continues to haunt her

As has been established many times already, you can't read. That article is talking about emails she sent to someone who was hacked. It does not say her email server was hacked. But those weren't even the Wikileaks material.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/02/fbi-an-account-on-clintons-private-email-server-was-hacked/
Did that system ever get hacked? On Friday, the FBI revealed that a hacker broke into an email account on that system.

That one's about someone else's email that was hacked into one day, and it was actually on her server, but still that is not the hacks we are looking for.

Here are 18 lacklustre statements from the BBC. Could any of these have been doctored?? Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37639370
18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails

If you read beyond the headline, the very first line is "Wikileaks has been releasing hacked emails from the account of Hillary Clinton's campaign boss." Again, not Clinton's email.

The above could be true of false but what I have seen (unless these are fake emails) is there is nothing dramatic enough to change things.

Fake emails? I have no idea what you mean.

The Impeachment Trial is analogous to a court trial, but in a different setting and a limitation of powers once the person is found guilt.

Right, it's only analogous, because it's a political process. Try to read your own words and your own links. And also note that the trial is not the the actual impeachment. Impeachment occurs before the trial, it's like the indictment. If you think congressmen are voting objectively as if trial jurors, just go look up impeachment vote totals for past impeachments. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is undefined (probably purposely) and is ultimately whatever Congress wants it to be.

None of this is to say that the current Congress is likely to impeach Trump, regardless of what the accusation is. But they could have done so already if they wanted to.

There is a continuing disparity as to the following positions:

<snip>

Everything else you posted agrees more with me than with you.

Please read your own sources, so I don't have to explain them to you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

For the zillionth time, yes, there were hacks, that's what the Russian hacking story is about, but the hacks were not of Clinton's server. The hacks were of the DNC and somebody else's emails and from those hacks, documents were given to Wikileaks. Just realize that the hack was last year, and that email server was no longer running at the time. It's impossible that it was her server that is the subject of the Russian hacking story. It's simply not the source. Yet, you keep saying Russia hacked Clinton's emails, and you are wrong every time. Sadly, I can guarantee you will repeat the same lie again even though you have been corrected numerous times. I do not know why you want spew bullshit all day long everyday, but that's what you do.

The leaks are pretty boring and certainly insufficient to seriously discredit anyone.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...ourage-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-n2240856

That article actually does say she was hacked, but that was from a Fox News story that was later retracted. Try to keep up. And even if it hadn't been retracted, Clinton's server is not the source of the hack that was shared with Wikileaks during the election. Get the basic facts straight for once.

FBI Sources: Clinton Server Hacked By 'At Least Five' Foreign Intel Agencies, Two Major Federal Probes Ongoing
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/11/hillary-clinton-server-continues-to-haunt-her/

Hillary’s server continues to haunt her

As has been established many times already, you can't read. That article is talking about emails she sent to someone who was hacked. It does not say her email server was hacked. But those weren't even the Wikileaks material.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/02/fbi-an-account-on-clintons-private-email-server-was-hacked/
Did that system ever get hacked? On Friday, the FBI revealed that a hacker broke into an email account on that system.

That one's about someone else's email that was hacked into one day, and it was actually on her server, but still that is not the hacks we are looking for.

Here are 18 lacklustre statements from the BBC. Could any of these have been doctored?? Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37639370
18 revelations from Wikileaks' hacked Clinton emails

If you read beyond the headline, the very first line is "Wikileaks has been releasing hacked emails from the account of Hillary Clinton's campaign boss." Again, not Clinton's email.

The above could be true of false but what I have seen (unless these are fake emails) is there is nothing dramatic enough to change things.

Fake emails? I have no idea what you mean.

The Impeachment Trial is analogous to a court trial, but in a different setting and a limitation of powers once the person is found guilt.

Right, it's only analogous, because it's a political process. Try to read your own words and your own links. And also note that the trial is not the the actual impeachment. Impeachment occurs before the trial, it's like the indictment. If you think congressmen are voting objectively as if trial jurors, just go look up impeachment vote totals for past impeachments. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is undefined (probably purposely) and is ultimately whatever Congress wants it to be.

None of this is to say that the current Congress is likely to impeach Trump, regardless of what the accusation is. But they could have done so already if they wanted to.

There is a continuing disparity as to the following positions:

<snip>

Everything else you posted agrees more with me than with you.

Please read your own sources, so I don't have to explain them to you.

What I did say is Unless the statements are false, hacking seems to have taken place. Since what I saw was rather lacklustre (though some may disagree) I didn't feel an enemy could get a lot of mileage out what was released.