Trump Advisor Chump of Russian Spies

[whichphilosophy]

I take by material you mean a body of evidence to form a case. Or do you mean evidence to proceed further. Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

How would you possibly know this? Where's your evidence?

Are you saying a body of evidence was presented to the court and a trial is in process? By all accounts it seems an investigation is in progress not a trial.

I haven't seen any case presented yet. I don't even know whether any collusion took place but there is nothing so far presented to suggest this. If this is wrong you may correct it with evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm just saying before any case is presented to the courts/impeachment a proper case needs to be presented. One is not available yet. We shouldn't assume that any unsupported statements or supposed evidence exists until it is presented.

Sounds like the investigation is still plodding along.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges. This is inferred by the fact the investigation is still ongoing and that no clear links with anyone to anyone have been established.

I see, you believe that because you base it on the idiotic premise that the FBI has made public all their evidence and that once they have a single piece of prosecutable evidence on anyone they must proceed to prosecution. Your wide variety of peculiar delusions continues to amaze.

Where did I say that? There are possibly the equivalent of hundreds of boxes of if evidence but so for nothing has been forwarded to present a case. If the investigation is still going on then there is nothing to conclude.

FFS. "Nothing has been forwarded to present a case" ≠ "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

Is spewing bullshit fun for you?

if this is wrong what is the correct statement??

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm just saying before any case is presented to the courts/impeachment

Courts don't do impeachment proceedings. Sheesh. Add it to the list of things of which you are unaware I suppose.

Sounds like the investigation is still plodding along.

Yeah it took more than 780 days for Nixon to resign... and it would have taken longer if his impeachment had proceeded.

I was referring to courts/impeachments. In both cases there is still a proper investigation procedure.

After the impeachment comes the trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding over 100 senators.

 

[blastula]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

 

[whichphilosophy]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

As I often mention, the Russians have been spying and attempting to hack USA government and political organisations. If the FBI has not completed its investigation then half baked conclusions would not be beneficial distorted by the media.

The FBI has given briefings and updates but it should really only do so when it has something of value.

What do you think is needed to conclude the investigation to show there was collusion?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

As I often mention, the Russians have been spying and attempting to hack USA government and political organisations. If the FBI has not completed its investigation then half baked conclusions would not be beneficial distorted by the media.

The FBI has given briefings and updates but it should really only do so when it has something of value.

What do you think is needed to conclude the investigation to show there was collusion?

We have a pretty good idea that there was collusion. The evidence? Just look at how much investigation has happened since an apparent threshold was passed upon discovery in the House investigation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

There are so many smoking guns here, you'd think it was the aftermath of the Omaha Beach invasion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

I would go further to say that we would be surprised if Russia and others were not attempting to hack the US government

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...berattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.

In my opinion (stress opinion only) there is a strong likelihood that the Russians, Chinese and others are at it 24/7 and trying all sorts of things. Why would they not do so?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summe er and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

Establishing hacking attempts is easy. Finding out who out of 10 million per day is more difficult.
Establishing collusion is even more difficult, let alone discovering something concrete that this could have happened. Therefore any meetings for any reasons between US officials, or businessmen and Russians would be one of the first places to start.

More difficult is to understand how the Russians influenced the elections. That is to say even knowing what methods could have been used to do this. I'm sure the investigation is not looking at Russian TV as the culprit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

I would go further to say that we would be surprised if Russia and others were not attempting to hack the US government

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...berattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.

In my opinion (stress opinion only) there is a strong likelihood that the Russians, Chinese and others are at it 24/7 and trying all sorts of things. Why would they not do so?

There is a difference between viruses randomly scanning IPs to infect computers and steal data and specific cracking attempts to steal specific information to use to influence an election. An entity hacked the DNC. An entity released the hacked material to a group that would publicly release the data (Wikileaks). The release of the data from Wikileaks was clearly political in origin due to the manner of leaking, especially the panic leak almost immediately after the Trump tape/audio on the "grab them by the pussy" came out.

The emails release was political in origin, clearly designed to harm Clinton's chances at the election, or to cause issues for her Presidency. Some random cracker doesn't do those sorts of things. So this means a nation-state agenda.

 

[blastula]

Those statements aren't equivalent. The public status of the case is this: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign regarding collusion with Russia and related matters. That's a fact. The FBI has already concluded that Russia did hack the DNC and apparently they also had enough other information to warrant further investigation into the Trump campaign. The investigation started last summer and is ongoing. It involves multiple parties and multiple potential crimes. It's a complicated investigation with no known end date. The FBI conducts its investigations in secrecy. They do not release updates.

None of the above is equivalent to "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

As I often mention, the Russians have been spying and attempting to hack USA government and political organisations. If the FBI has not completed its investigation then half baked conclusions would not be beneficial distorted by the media.

The FBI has given briefings and updates but it should really only do so when it has something of value.

No it hasn't. Other than the Comey hearing that only confirmed there was an investigation, the only news we get on the FBI investigation are from leaks. You are very confused and should stop talking about things you know nothing about. Assuming this isn't some twisted game for you.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As I often mention, the Russians have been spying and attempting to hack USA government and political organisations. If the FBI has not completed its investigation then half baked conclusions would not be beneficial distorted by the media.

The FBI has given briefings and updates but it should really only do so when it has something of value.

No it hasn't. Other than the Comey hearing that only confirmed there was an investigation, the only news we get on the FBI investigation are from leaks. You are very confused and should stop talking about things you know nothing about. Assuming this isn't some twisted game for you.

So House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said nothing? James Hacker said nothing either.

Democrats were not irked with FBI director earlier in January 2017, James Comey after briefing on Russian hacking of election because it did not take place.

Top US Intelligence Officials DID NOT Brief Obama, Senate on Russia Hacking on 05 January 2017.
Republicans DID NOT lose patience with FBI on Russia, Trump campaign ties information during briefing 16 March 2017

There have been briefings unless these were all fake news reports.
So given the briefings this year started in January 2017 there have been at least 4 briefings but perhaps I can search to see if there ar any more.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would go further to say that we would be surprised if Russia and others were not attempting to hack the US government

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...berattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.

In my opinion (stress opinion only) there is a strong likelihood that the Russians, Chinese and others are at it 24/7 and trying all sorts of things. Why would they not do so?

There is a difference between viruses randomly scanning IPs to infect computers and steal data and specific cracking attempts to steal specific information to use to influence an election. An entity hacked the DNC. An entity released the hacked material to a group that would publicly release the data (Wikileaks). The release of the data from Wikileaks was clearly political in origin due to the manner of leaking, especially the panic leak almost immediately after the Trump tape/audio on the "grab them by the pussy" came out.

The emails release was political in origin, clearly designed to harm Clinton's chances at the election, or to cause issues for her Presidency. Some random cracker doesn't do those sorts of things. So this means a nation-state agenda.

By that reasoning, Trump should have lost as I saw more negativity and leaks about him in the press than Hilary. Here in the UK, the BBC, MNSBC, CNN and others were more biased against Trump Faux News did generally support Trump.

 

[barbos]

I would go further to say that we would be surprised if Russia and others were not attempting to hack the US government

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...berattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.

The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.

In my opinion (stress opinion only) there is a strong likelihood that the Russians, Chinese and others are at it 24/7 and trying all sorts of things. Why would they not do so?

There is a difference between viruses randomly scanning IPs to infect computers and steal data and specific cracking attempts to steal specific information to use to influence an election. An entity hacked the DNC. An entity released the hacked material to a group that would publicly release the data (Wikileaks). The release of the data from Wikileaks was clearly political in origin due to the manner of leaking, especially the panic leak almost immediately after the Trump tape/audio on the "grab them by the pussy" came out.

The emails release was political in origin, clearly designed to harm Clinton's chances at the election, or to cause issues for her Presidency. Some random cracker doesn't do those sorts of things. So this means a nation-state agenda.

I am glad you understand the difference, but many don't. So when some government critters say "Hackers tried to hack US power plants" these rednecks believe their goal was a power plant and these hackers clearly were russian government. When in reality these hackers (which probably WERE russians) were trying to increase number of bots in order to increase ads revenue from their fake websites.

 

[KeepTalking]

No it hasn't. Other than the Comey hearing that only confirmed there was an investigation, the only news we get on the FBI investigation are from leaks. You are very confused and should stop talking about things you know nothing about. Assuming this isn't some twisted game for you.

So House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said nothing?

Nunes is a member of the House of Representatives, and is not affiliated with the FBI.

James Hacker said nothing either.

I can only assume you mean James Clapper. He is the former DNI for the Obama administration, and not a representative of the FBI.

Democrats were not irked with FBI director earlier in January 2017, James Comey after briefing on Russian hacking of election because it did not take place.

The event to which you refer was a closed door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committe. Any information released to the public regarding the content of the briefing would be either speculation, or a leak.

Top US Intelligence Officials DID NOT Brief Obama, Senate on Russia Hacking on 05 January 2017.

This is either the same exact event as above, or qualifies equally as a closed door briefing to which the public was not privvy. Also "Top US Intelligence Officials" is not the same as "The FBI".

Republicans DID NOT lose patience with FBI on Russia, Trump campaign ties information during briefing 16 March 2017

This was a briefing to the Senate Judiciary Committee, once again behind closed doors.

There have been briefings unless these were all fake news reports.
So given the briefings this year started in January 2017 there have been at least 4 briefings but perhaps I can search to see if there ar any more.

And they were either not done by the FBI, or done behind closed doors for the President, or select members of Congress. We, the public, were not the audience for these briefings, and whether or not they contained anything of value regarding the ongoing investigation could only be a matter of speculation for any of us.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said nothing?

Nunes is a member of the House of Representatives, and is not affiliated with the FBI.

James Hacker said nothing either.

I can only assume you mean James Clapper. He is the former DNI for the Obama administration, and not a representative of the FBI.

Democrats were not irked with FBI director earlier in January 2017, James Comey after briefing on Russian hacking of election because it did not take place.

The event to which you refer was a closed door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committe. Any information released to the public regarding the content of the briefing would be either speculation, or a leak.

Top US Intelligence Officials DID NOT Brief Obama, Senate on Russia Hacking on 05 January 2017.

This is either the same exact event as above, or qualifies equally as a closed door briefing to which the public was not privvy. Also "Top US Intelligence Officials" is not the same as "The FBI".

Republicans DID NOT lose patience with FBI on Russia, Trump campaign ties information during briefing 16 March 2017

This was a briefing to the Senate Judiciary Committee, once again behind closed doors.

There have been briefings unless these were all fake news reports.
So given the briefings this year started in January 2017 there have been at least 4 briefings but perhaps I can search to see if there ar any more.

And they were either not done by the FBI, or done behind closed doors for the President, or select members of Congress. We, the public, were not the audience for these briefings, and whether or not they contained anything of value regarding the ongoing investigation could only be a matter of speculation for any of us.

That's my point; your last point. We can't do more than speculate (or not) at this time.

 

[Elixir]

We can't do more than speculate (or not) at this time.

Then why do you make flat statements such as "there is no evidence"? Is that your way of trying to get attention?

 

[bilby]

James Hacker said nothing either.

I can only assume you mean James Clapper. He is the former DNI for the Obama administration, and not a representative of the FBI.

James Hacker (aka The Right Honorable James George "Jim" Hacker, Baron Hacker of Islington, KG, PC, BSc (Lond.), Hon. DCL (Oxon.)) is a fictional British politician, and the title character of the excellent satirical comedy series 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister', in which his role was played by the late, great, Paul Eddington.

It seems unlikely that he would have had any comment on the internal affairs of the United States government, both because to comment on such matters would be uncharacteristically brave, and because he doesn't actually exist.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We can't do more than speculate (or not) at this time.

Then why do you make flat statements such as "there is no evidence"? Is that your way of trying to get attention?

As I said there is always evidence by way of records, electronic mail even photos and recordings but validity is another thing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I can only assume you mean James Clapper. He is the former DNI for the Obama administration, and not a representative of the FBI.

James Hacker (aka The Right Honorable James George "Jim" Hacker, Baron Hacker of Islington, KG, PC, BSc (Lond.), Hon. DCL (Oxon.)) is a fictional British politician, and the title character of the excellent satirical comedy series 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister', in which his role was played by the late, great, Paul Eddington.

It seems unlikely that he would have had any comment on the internal affairs of the United States government, both because to comment on such matters would be uncharacteristically brave, and because he doesn't actually exist.

That's my dyslexia catching up with me.

 

[Elixir]

Then why do you make flat statements such as "there is no evidence"? Is that your way of trying to get attention?

As I said there is always evidence by way of records, electronic mail even photos and recordings but validity is another thing.

And that warrants saying there is no evidence? Pffft!