Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Trump Tower Wiretapped?

2,038 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Einsteinium
4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

If he did, why hasn’t that investigation already happened?  Why wasn’t it initiated before the inauguration?  At least a leak of the information or the content of the communications?  Saying that Trump’s transition team members were talking with Russian officials is not proof or evidence of collusion.  They were doing what they were supposed to do.  So let’s see some real evidence.  The only real evidence we have is that of felonies committed, perhaps by Farkas and Rice??  Let’s get to the bottom of all of this.  I will not be surprised when this expands to others, even Graham and McCain.  This is going to drain the swamp.

According to Comey's testimony the investigation started before the election and is still ongoing, but they are definitely investigating.

I agree, we need to get to the bottom of this, follow the information wherever it leads, it has to be done by an impartial investigating team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

According to Comey's testimony the investigation started before the election and is still ongoing, but they are definitely investigating.

So they say.  If they have evidence of collusion, they should have had enough time to confirm it by now, especially if they have the communications.  Let’s see it (and in context)!  Someone had no problems leaking names, let’s see substance now.

 

I agree, we need to get to the bottom of this, follow the information wherever it leads, it has to be done by an impartial investigating team.

That would be great except for one thing.  There is no one impartial.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Now Crowdstrike is retracting their report on the DNC hack and is refusing to testify before congress.  Unfortunately for congress and the FBI Crowdstrike is the only forensic evidence available for this hack.  Even worse, Crowdstrike is very closely affiliated with the DNC and may have reported what they wanted to be true rather than what they had really found.   So what we have is a hack on DNC servers that may have been committed by anyone with basic hacking skills and, literally, no evidence of any kind that the Russian government was involved!

I also found that an interesting development. But hadn't CrowdStrike published extensive parts of its forensic analysis? Why would they retract it?

Edit: If this story is indeed true, my guess is that CrowdStrike fears their analysis won't stand up to scrutiny.

Edited by Claire.
Answered my own question.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
36 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

What if Trump's team really did collude with Russia? Shouldn't we investigate that? If he did, that is Treason, and people could literally be hung for that still. That is serious news, and EVERY stone should be upturned as the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Either they colluded, or Russia wanted to make it look as though they colluded.

I don't know of any circumstantial evidence indicating collusion so not sure what you are talking about? 

1.  We now know that US Intel was closely following all Trump team member's conversations with Russians and they apparently found nothing because they didn't even unmask the names.

2.  We now know that Obama's team was closely following all Trump team member's conversations with Russians and even unmasked names and they apparently found nothing.

3. The FBI said they have been investigating this collusion charge and have found nothing.

4. We now don't know who actually hacked the DNC servers because the firm that investigated the hack, Crowdstrike, has been roundly criticized for their findings that the Russians did it and are now retracting their report and refusing to testify in front of congress. 

So what overwhelming circumstantial evidence are you alluding to?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
9 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I don't know of any circumstantial evidence indicating collusion so not sure what you are talking about? 

1.  We now know that US Intel was closely following all Trump team member's conversations with Russians and they apparently found nothing because they didn't even unmask the names.

2.  We now know that Obama's team was closely following all Trump team member's conversations with Russians and even unmasked names and they apparently found nothing.

3. The FBI said they have been investigating this collusion charge and have found nothing.

4. We now don't know who actually hacked the DNC servers because the firm that investigated the hack, Crowdstrike, has been roundly criticized for their findings that the Russians did it and are now retracting their report and refusing to testify in front of congress. 

So what overwhelming circumstantial evidence are you alluding to?

Here it is, not all of it but most, going back longer than needed, but this is a great list if you read through it to understand why so so many people see the circumstantial evidence as overwhelming. Far too many 'coincidences' and lies.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline

 

I bet you will not even read through it all and just dismiss it as left wing nonsense or something like that. Doesn't matter, people with real power and very interested in this and Rep. Adam Schiff just recently stated that the evidence is now 'more than circumstantial' which is a bombshell revelation and means they have more than what we know about indicating collusion at some level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
17 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

Here it is, not all of it but most, going back longer than needed, but this is a great list if you read through it to understand why so so many people see the circumstantial evidence as overwhelming. Far too many 'coincidences' and lies.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline

 

I bet you will not even read through it all and just dismiss it as left wing nonsense or something like that. Doesn't matter, people with real power and very interested in this and Rep. Adam Schiff just recently stated that the evidence is now 'more than circumstantial' which is a bombshell revelation and means they have more than what we know about indicating collusion at some level.

It's not even circumstantial evidence. It is evidence of a US businessman doing business, which isn't a criminal act.

Do you even know what circumstantial evidence is? 

Maybe this will help: 

Quote

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved.

Indirect evidence:

Quote

Probative matter that does not proximately relate to an issue but that establishes a hypothesis by showing various consistent facts.

The Mother Jones article is not circumstantial or indirect evidence if collusion in hacking the DNC or stealing the election (this idea is similar to guilt by association, which is absurd and in no way makes one guilty).

Direct evidence:

Quote

Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect.

Quote

so many people see the circumstantial evidence

No, people aren't seeing circumstantial evidence, they are being lied to. Someone tells you this stuff is circumstantial evidence, knowing most people have no idea what that actually means, and pay more attention to the word "evidence". 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
1 hour ago, Claire. said:

I also found that an interesting development. But hadn't CrowdStrike published extensive parts of its forensic analysis? Why would they retract it?

Edit: If this story is indeed true, my guess is that CrowdStrike fears their analysis won't stand up to scrutiny.

Take your pick of either of these articles:

Daily Mail New questions claim Russia hacked election

VOA cyber firm rewrites part disputed russian hacking report

Seems parts of the retractions came after part of their "analysis" came from a pro-Russian propaganda blogger. There's more, but why spoil the fun of reading it yourself?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
32 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I also found that an interesting development. But hadn't CrowdStrike published extensive parts of its forensic analysis? Why would they retract it?

Edit: If this story is indeed true, my guess is that CrowdStrike fears their analysis won't stand up to scrutiny.

I have been reading about this for a couple days but didn't want to post it until I had a link to a "reputable" source.   From what I read there is no forensic evidence except what Crowdstrike had, the FBI simply went by their report.  Crowdstrike based the assertion that the Russian government hacked the DNC servers because the software that was used was also used to attack Ukranian artillery and successfully disabled/.destroyed 80% of it.  Crowdstrike used a report by a very reputable British defense analysis firm to back up their assertions. 

Unfortunately for Crowdstrike , that firm never said that the Ukraine had lost 80% of its artillery nor did they say it was even attacked and Crowdstrike was forced to retract that report which means the Russian hacking report is no less unreliable.  Why?   Jeffrey Carr describes here why Crowdstrike's findings are so faulty https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/we-blame-russia-because-we-cant-blame-russians-3de58bc11cc4   but basically it boils down to the fact that the software used has been out in the wild for a while now and has been coopted by other hackers and therefore is in no way an indicator of official government participation.  In other words, any Russian hacker could've done this based on Crowdstrike's evidence. 

So Crowdstrike knows their report is ludicrous on the face of it and is backing off the case.  Could the hackers have been Official Russian hackers?  Maybe but the evidence Crowdstrike presented in no way makes that case and since the FBI has nothing but Crowdstrikes reputation to back up this report, the entire case falls apart.   The facts that Crowdstrike is closely allied with the DNC and also bitterly opposed to Putin and Russia doesn't help their case. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
15 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

Take your pick of either of these articles:

Daily Mail New questions claim Russia hacked election

VOA cyber firm rewrites part disputed russian hacking report

Seems parts of the retractions came after part of their "analysis" came from a pro-Russian propaganda blogger. There's more, but why spoil the fun of reading it yourself?

I've read those articles, thanks. I've looked for other sources as well, but there doesn't seem to be much else by way of information on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I've read those articles, thanks. I've looked for other sources as well, but there doesn't seem to be much else by way of information on this.

Not that you asked for it but Jeffrey Carr also had something to say about the "Russian hacks" of the Arizona and Illinois voter registration servers.   https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/az-and-il-state-board-of-elections-were-attacked-by-english-speaking-hackers-82c0528de9ee

Makes you wonder how serious our intelligence services really are in getting to the bottom of all this? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
7 minutes ago, Claire. said:

I've read those articles, thanks. I've looked for other sources as well, but there doesn't seem to be much else by way of information on this.

Most of the ones I could find either sourced The Daily Mail or VOA or both. There were plenty of right leaning sources, but I try to find more moderate ones.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Not that you asked for it but Jeffrey Carr also had something to say about the "Russian hacks" of the Arizona and Illinois voter registration servers.   https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/az-and-il-state-board-of-elections-were-attacked-by-english-speaking-hackers-82c0528de9ee

Makes you wonder how serious our intelligence services really are in getting to the bottom of all this? 

Thanks Merc, I appreciate the additional information. Just goes to show that no one should be quick to jump to conclusions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
3 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

Most of the ones I could find either sourced The Daily Mail or VOA or both. There were plenty of right leaning sources, but I try to find more moderate ones.

it always helps to get all perspectives. no matter how biased. i appreciate your help in finding additional articles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
Just now, Claire. said:

it always helps to get all perspectives. no matter how biased. i appreciate your help in finding additional articles.

I'm pretty conservative, but many of the right leaning news sites give me a migraine.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
Just now, MstrMsn said:

I'm pretty conservative, but many of the right leaning news sites give me a migraine.

Likewise. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
1 hour ago, MstrMsn said:

It's not even circumstantial evidence. It is evidence of a US businessman doing business, which isn't a criminal act.

Do you even know what circumstantial evidence is? 

Maybe this will help: 

Indirect evidence:

The Mother Jones article is not circumstantial or indirect evidence if collusion in hacking the DNC or stealing the election (this idea is similar to guilt by association, which is absurd and in no way makes one guilty).

Direct evidence:

No, people aren't seeing circumstantial evidence, they are being lied to. Someone tells you this stuff is circumstantial evidence, knowing most people have no idea what that actually means, and pay more attention to the word "evidence". 

Clearly you did not read anything in the article I posted from the election years. They had a bunch of previous year stuff that probably is totally unrelated and is just a businessman doing what a businessman does I agree.

 

But the stuff relating to Manaford, the suspicious Cypress bank transactions, the way Devin Nunes received information from the White House itself and then ran to the white house to share information he got from the white house with the white house (clearly a tactic to make a new story where there was none), 

 

This little snippet here raises huge red flags:

March 22: The Associated Press reports that, starting in the mid-2000s, Manafort worked on behalf of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to "influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government." The news service quotes a 2005 strategy memo authored by Manafort, who writes, "We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success."

 

This:

 

- Alex Oronov, a Ukrainian billionaire businessman who was connected by marriage to Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime lawyer and associate, dies unexpectedly. Oronov's daughter was married to Cohen's brother. Oronov reportedly set up a January 2017 meeting between Cohen and Russian officials to discuss a possible "peace plan" between Russia and Ukraine that would have formalized Putin's control over Crimea. The New York Times reported that this peace proposal was hand-delivered to Michael Flynn prior to his forced resignation.

- The White House acknowledges that Jared Kushner and Flynn met with Sergey Kislyak at Trump Tower in December. The meeting was first reported by The New Yorker.

- The Wall Street Journal reports that Donald Trump Jr. was paid at least $50,000 for his October 2016 appearance before a French think tank run by a couple allied with Russia on ending Syrian conflict.

 

This:

February 17: FBI Director James Comey meets with members of the Senate intelligence committee. That same day, the committee sends letters to more than a dozen agencies, groups, and individuals, asking them to preserve all communications related to the committee's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

This:

January (date unknown): Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney, meets at a Manhattan hotel with Felix Sater and a pro-Putin Ukrainian lawmaker to discuss a potential peace plan for Ukraine and Russia. The New York Times reports that Cohen delivered this plan to Flynn. Cohen confirms he met with Sater and the Ukrainian lawmaker, but denies that they discussed a Ukraine-Russia peace plan or that he delivered such a plan to Flynn or the White House.

 

And before he was elected:

This:

January 19: The New York Times reports that the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, and the Treasury Department's financial crimes unit are investigating Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone for their possible contacts with Russia during the campaign. As part of their investigation, the Times reports, these agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions.

 

 

December 29: Obama announces sanctions against Russia for the country's alleged interference in the presidential election. The measure includes the ejection of 35 Russian diplomats from the United States; the closure of Cold War-era Russian compounds in Long Island, New York, and in Maryland; and sanctions against the GRU and the FSB (Russian intelligence agencies), four employees of those agencies, and three companies that worked with the GRU.

- Michael Flynn holds five phone calls with Kislyak, during which they at some point discuss US sanctions on Russia. (White House press secretary Sean Spicer later claims falsely that they held just one call, in which they merely discussed "logistical information.")

 

 

 

None of these things in and of themselves could be legitimate circumstantial evidence of collusion, but taken in totality, and with the context of the timeline of events it is beyond any doubt that this take together is very strong circumstantial evidence of either collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, or illegal backroom financial deals involving Trump campaign associates and top Russian oligarchs and/or officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
1 minute ago, Einsteinium said:

*SNIP* incessant drivel 

None of these things in and of themselves could be legitimate circumstantial evidence of collusion, but taken in totality, and with the context of the timeline of events it is beyond any doubt that this take together is very strong circumstantial evidence of either collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, or illegal backroom financial deals involving Trump campaign associates and top Russian oligarchs and/or officials.

You really still have no idea what you are talking about. This is NOT - I say again - NOT circumstantial nor indirect evidence of anything. You really need to stop regurgitating the garbage from extreme left "media", it's wrong and someone with at least 3 working braincells and an internet connection can figure this out.

I get it, you don't want to believe that you are being lied to by those that you obviously cherish, and that you'd rather think that there is something there that isn't, because the truth will shatter your perceived reality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
12 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

You really still have no idea what you are talking about. This is NOT - I say again - NOT circumstantial nor indirect evidence of anything. You really need to stop regurgitating the garbage from extreme left "media", it's wrong and someone with at least 3 working braincells and an internet connection can figure this out.

I get it, you don't want to believe that you are being lied to by those that you obviously cherish, and that you'd rather think that there is something there that isn't, because the truth will shatter your perceived reality. 

Flip this around, imagine Hillary Clinton had won, and exactly everything was as it is now, only she was in office.

 

Would you be saying the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
17 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

You really still have no idea what you are talking about. This is NOT - I say again - NOT circumstantial nor indirect evidence of anything. You really need to stop regurgitating the garbage from extreme left "media", it's wrong and someone with at least 3 working braincells and an internet connection can figure this out.

I get it, you don't want to believe that you are being lied to by those that you obviously cherish, and that you'd rather think that there is something there that isn't, because the truth will shatter your perceived reality. 

I just want to know the truth. Trump clearly wants to create his own truth and make it appear as though there is no such thing as objective reality.

Any lawyer would look at that timeline of events and say that in a court of law it would be allowed to be admitted as circumstantial evidence of some form of collusion or under the table deal between people associated with Trump and people associated with Putin. Period.

Even James Comey and top level senior govt. officials are saying there is circumstantial evidence. My god, what it is going to take for you people to admit that Trump is not God?

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
3 minutes ago, Einsteinium said:

Flip this around, imagine Hillary Clinton had won, and exactly everything was as it is now, only she was in office.

 

Would you be saying the same thing?

Yeah.

I'm not a Trump supporter. Nor did I support Hillary. Facts are facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

Here it is, not all of it but most, going back longer than needed, but this is a great list if you read through it to understand why so so many people see the circumstantial evidence as overwhelming. Far too many 'coincidences' and lies.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/03/exhaustive-history-donald-trump-russia-scandal-timeline

 

I bet you will not even read through it all and just dismiss it as left wing nonsense or something like that. Doesn't matter, people with real power and very interested in this and Rep. Adam Schiff just recently stated that the evidence is now 'more than circumstantial' which is a bombshell revelation and means they have more than what we know about indicating collusion at some level.

That is not evidence of Russia hacking the election, it is Trump doing a lot of business with Russia.  Mother Jones is a ridiculous rag of a magazine and I am surprised you'd present it here as some kind of authoritative journal when they have done so many shady things in the past to further their far left radical agenda.   Doing business with Russia is not illegal and you should ask yourself why Mother Jones didn't do a similar piece on Hillary and her dealings with Russians.   I'll put an excerpt from a NYTs report as shown in the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillarys-russia-connection/article/2004790

Quote

That report discussed the key roles apparently played by both the Clinton Foundation and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Russia's successful acquisition of 20 percent of United States uranium reserves.

In a piece entitled, "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal" (or, in the print version, "The Clintons, The Russians, and Uranium"), the Times wrote of events that "brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain":

 

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock….

The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom's [the Russian atomic energy agency's] chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves," Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin….

Hillary may still be prosecuted for the above and many other shady deals as she seemed to be selling influence for donations on her way to $250M packed away in the Clinton Foundation. 

Public corruption

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
2 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

That is not evidence of Russia hacking the election, it is Trump doing a lot of business with Russia.  Mother Jones is a ridiculous rag of a magazine and I am surprised you'd present it here as some kind of authoritative journal when they have done so many shady things in the past to further their far left radical agenda.   Doing business with Russia is not illegal and you should ask yourself why Mother Jones didn't do a similar piece on Hillary and her dealings with Russians.   I'll put an excerpt from a NYTs report as shown in the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillarys-russia-connection/article/2004790

Hillary may still be prosecuted for the above and many other shady deals as she seemed to be selling influence for donations on her way to $250M packed away in the Clinton Foundation. 

Public corruption

Public corruption involves a breach of public trust and/or abuse of position by federal, state, or local officials and their private sector accomplices. By broad definition, a government official, whether elected, appointed or hired, may violate federal law when he/she asks, demands, solicits, accepts, or agrees to receive anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of their official duties.

motherjones in that case simply put together a nice timeline of events. An objective, easy to verify, timeline of events.

Trump's white house is a freaking chaotic disaster! Heads are going to roll, he has so far has had the most failures in the history of a modern president in the first 100 days. He couldn't even get healthcare passed!

What a joke he is!

 

Now watch us to go war to distract from Trumps domestic failures so he can claim some kind of victory somewhere, somehow, by any means.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
3 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

I just want to know the truth. Trump clearly wants to create his own truth and make it appear as though there is no such thing as objective reality.

Any lawyer would look at that timeline of events and say that in a court of law it would be allowed to be admitted as circumstantial evidence of some form of collusion or under the table deal between people associated with Trump and people associated with Putin. Period.

Even James Comey and top level senior govt. officials are saying there is circumstantial evidence. My god, what it is going to take for you people to admit that Trump is not God?

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your fifth point of contact.

Trump did business in Russia. So did Ford, Boeing, Pfizer, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, GM, GE, Proctor & Gamble, McDonald's... all of them must be guilty of collusion - according to you.

If a lawyer brought this type of circumstantial evidence to court, all he/she will be able to prove with it is that (lawful) business between Trump and Russia happened. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove a crime - even if you word it however you want to attempt to show a connection, you will be unable to prove one. 

Again, your understanding of what circumstantial evidence means is non existent. In criminal matters you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and you just can not do that without direct evidence.

What will it take for YOU to admit you know nothing about reality, and finally stop listening to progressive propaganda? 

Edited by MstrMsn
Spelling
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
9 hours ago, Lilly said:

Naturally, but like they used to say when I was a kid, "the jig is up" if it can't be proven (via some actual evidence) that a Trump/Russia collusion threw the election. If it comes out that Ms Rice and others high up in the prior administration were abusing power to spy on their political opposition it's not going to look good.  One can only put a spin on things so far before the tide of public opinion begins to turn. Now, if there actually is proof that a Trump/Russia collusion threw the election then I don't think the unmasking (legal or not) will matter much at all.

IMO this all hinges on if the Trump/Russia collusion is real or just a political construct designed to attack the Trump administration.

I don't share your optimism. I'm almost certain that the claims, about Russia, are a charade and a facade. They would have shouted from the rooftops if there was any definitive proof. It seems like it's just a tool to bludgeon Trump, and it's doubtful that there will be any smoking guns. There's also the fact that Russia meddles with us in all kinds of ways, and this includes the political sphere. This time, if the charge is true, is seized upon by Trump's opposition to cast constant doubt upon him and his actions. It's a diabolical scheme to hurt his administration, one that was concocted by desperate fanatics. It's also one that's designed to trick naive people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
34 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your fifth point of contact.

Trump did business in Russia. So did Ford, Boeing, Pfizer, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, GM, GE, Proctor & Gamble, McDonald's...

And if ANY of those folks did the wrong thing, they should have been prosecuted..  don't you think?  So why didn't those others get prosecuted - could it possibly be that there was no evidence?  Or that heaven forbid, they didn't do anything wrong or illegal?  If that applies here, then Mr T has nothing to worry about.  Just as an aside though, tell me, MstrMsn, has Trump done illegal stuff in the past?  Would you like some examples?

Quote

 all of them must be guilty of collusion - according to you.

??? That's not what I read. Where did he specifically say that?

Quote

If a lawyer brought this type of circumstantial evidence to court, all he/she will be able to prove with it is that (lawful) business between Trump and Russia happened. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove a crime - even if you word it however you want to attempt to show a connection, you will be unable to prove one.

Well, gee golly gosh, maybe that's why it has not YET been brought to court, and won't be until further investigation...  And if wrongdoing has been done, Trump should be prosecuted, right?  If it hasn't, he won't - in fact it likely won't get to court.  Gee, just like them other examples you gave above - why didn't they go to court?  Maybe because they didn't involve wrongdoing or there was no evidence...  It's not really that difficult to understand - as everyone here knows (except you?), circumstantial evidence is just part of a case.  Obviously it is admissible if a case goes ahead, and if it helps to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then so be it...

Thing is, up until an investigation is completed, you can whine all you like, but are you seriously suggesting circumstantial evidence should be ignored and investigation should stop?  Simply on the basis of "Well look at those folks, they never got prosecuted?"  (Yes, I can play 'according to you' games too..)

As if going this far offtopic wasn't bad enough..  this thread is a trainwreck.

Oh and BTW, any chance you guys/gals, instead of casting derision on each other's links and NOT actually quoting specific content and debating it.... umm... how about dropping the ad-hominem / poison-the-well approaches and (duh) .. quote the specific content and debate what is untrue/true.

Maybe it's just me who is sick of hearing this right-biased/left-biased accusation over and over and over and over.  It seems to be a substitute for debate...

Anyways, you needn't tell me - I'll go!  I'll drop back when something actually happens.

 

Something ONtopic.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.