The Evidens
POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2022 07:11
VIEWED: 159178
PAGE 70 of 121
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Sumwun new here reading this thred from the start woud probably think that Sig, KIKI and 6 are FSB operativez. They woud see how they defend Putin, distract with unrelated stuff and divert the conversation away from the orijinal topic.
Count how many posts there are about the election. Derailment seksesful!
Yep, you got that right JO. The proof lies in thread after thread here.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump Team Was in Routine Communication With Moscow in 2016
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/03/jane-mayer-trump-team-was-in-ro
utine-communication-with-moscow-in-2016/
Jane Mayer reports today in the New Yorker on the events of August 2016, three months before the election:
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behin
d-the-trump-dossier
According to an article by the Washington Post, that month the C.I.A. sent what the paper described as “an intelligence bombshell” to President Obama, warning him that Putin was directly involved in a Russian cyber campaign aimed at disrupting the Presidential election—and helping Trump win. Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.’s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted. (The content of these intercepts has not become public.)
Um, what? A “stream of illicit communications”? Between “Trump’s team and Moscow”? I would like to know more about that! I’ll bet everyone would like to know more about that. When did this happen? Who, precisely, is “Moscow”? Is this shorthand for people in government, or just some private citizens who live in Moscow? And what exactly does “illicit” mean?
This is almost certainly the single most interesting sentence published today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which sentence? I count 9 of them.
I agree though. A year later and now we supposedly have some real evidence, but they're not showing it to us.
#ReleaseTheMemo2
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which sentence? This sentence:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Which sentence? I count 9 of them.
I agree though. A year later and now we supposedly have some real evidence, but they're not showing it to us.
#ReleaseTheMemo2
Quote:Mueller is not showing you the real evidence because Trump and his lawyers would then know and then their new strategy would be to destroy evidence. Trump can order assassinations and Mueller probably doesn't want Trump killing his witnesses. Mueller is treating Trump as if Trump is the head of an organized crime family.
Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.’s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted.
In more ordinary situations, prosecutors never share their evidence with the defendant's attorney until the last moment that the judge will allow.
Sharing evidence with 6ixStringJack would screw-up Mueller's investigation by tipping off Trump's lawyers. It’s not just Russia — Mueller is digging into Trump associates’ potentially corrupt foreign ties. He’s looking at Trump associates’ dealings with investors or governments in Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and China.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/5/17080302/trump-russia-news-ku
shner-mueller
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Tick tock JO.
The ticks hav run out and there arent many tocks left. This week? Next week?
I'm feelin a major inditement rumbling down the chute, probably Kushner. Maybe Don Jr. Maybe both!
After that, Trump Sr haz to giv up the gost.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Former Trump Campaign Aide Now Says He'll Likely Cooperate With the Russia Probe
(WASHINGTON) — A former Trump campaign aide spent much of Monday promising to defy a subpoena from special counsel Robert Mueller, even throwing down the challenge to “arrest me,” then backed off his defiance by saying he would probably cooperate in the end.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sam Nunberg said he was angry over Mueller’s request to have him appear in front of a grand jury and turn over thousands of emails and other communications with other ex-officials, among them his mentor Roger Stone. But he predicted that, in the end, he’d find a way to comply.
http://time.com/5187176/sam-nunberg-trump-robert-mueller/
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Instead of going on ... and on ... and on ... about what OTHER people say about the dossier, why not look for yourself?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-All
egations.html
Some things don't make sense to me.
Quote:Putin courted Trump for at least 5 years before the campaign as a political influence? What crystal ball was Putin using? I want it, too! Aside from finding amusement, this is a ridiculous premise. Russia was feeding Trump dirt on Hillary for YEARS before either ran in the primaries or was a presidential candidate? Anything related to that claim needs a whole lot of explaining, which it never gets. As does the fact that Trump never, according to Steele, took up any of Russia's business offers.
2015 Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.
Quote:That means that there should be evidence of this in OUR records. And that means, either our 'intelligence' services are insufficiently non-partisan and diligent, or the dossier is bunk.
A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by Russian Intelligence Services over many years and comprises mainly bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia ...
Quote:This section is nearly completely comprised of the unverified claims of Source E. And that requires a lot of trust in whoever that source is, their position to acquire knowledge, and their ability to transmit it without embellishment or bombast.
2016 Source E
The rest of the document reads like a lurid diary. It makes many, many, many claims of contacts between Trump's people and various Russians, and documents the supposed Russian/ wikileaks efforts (but managed to not notice the 13 Russians in social media efforts).
Items of interest are that at least THREE secret overseas meetings between Trump's representatives and Russian government officials are alleged to have occurred. Trips should be easy enough to document.
Finally, one of Steele's sources claimed Russia attempted to curry favor with Jill Stein and others by arranging to have their visit to Russia paid for. I thought Stein being questioned was bizarre. But that's one thing in the dossier that can be definitively crossed off the list as completely bogus. Stein paid for the trip herself. And that means, the OTHER thing that can be crossed off the list as bogus is the claim that nothing in the dossier has been disproven.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Instead of going on ... and on ... and on ... about what OTHER people say about the dossier, why not look for yourself?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-All
egations.html
Some things don't make sense to me.Quote:Putin courted Trump for at least 5 years before the campaign as a political influence? What crystal ball was Putin using? I want it, too! Aside from finding amusement, this is a ridiculous premise. Russia was feeding Trump dirt on Hillary for YEARS before either ran in the primaries or was a presidential candidate? Anything related to that claim needs a whole lot of explaining, which it never gets. As does the fact that Trump never, according to Steele, took up any of Russia's business offers.
2015 Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.Quote:That means that there should be evidence of this in OUR records. And that means, either our 'intelligence' services are insufficiently non-partisan and diligent, or the dossier is bunk.
A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by Russian Intelligence Services over many years and comprises mainly bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia ...Quote:This section is nearly completely comprised of the unverified claims of Source E. And that requires a lot of trust in whoever that source is, their position to acquire knowledge, and their ability to transmit it without embellishment or bombast.
2016 Source E
The rest of the document reads like a lurid diary. It makes many, many, many claims of contacts between Trump's people and various Russians, and documents the supposed Russian/ wikileaks efforts (but managed to not notice the 13 Russians in social media efforts).
Items of interest are that at least THREE secret meetings between Trump's representatives and Russian government officials are alleged to have occurred. Trips should be easy enough to document.
Finally, one of Steele's sources claimed Russia attempted to curry favor with Jill Stein and others by arranging to have their visit to Russia paid for. I thought Stein being questioned was bizarre. But that's one thing in the dossier that can be definitively crossed off the list as completely bogus, as is the claim that nothing in the dossier has been disproven.
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
Oops...
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61377&mid=10488
76#1048876
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll be looking for those indictments against Kushner and/ or Trump Jr. this week and next week.
Originally posted by JO753:
The ticks hav run out and there arent many tocks left. This week? Next week?
I'm feelin a major inditement rumbling down the chute, probably Kushner. Maybe Don Jr. Maybe both!
After that, Trump Sr haz to giv up the gost.
If you're wrong, will you admit it?
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You mean a lady of the evening is trying to get out of a Thai jail and avoid extradition to Belarus by claiming unspecified information about unnamed people? I'm smelling a lot of if coming off of that.
Originally posted by THGRRI:Oops...
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61377&mid=10488
76#104887
And considering this is a thread about 'evidens', do you suppose you could bring evidence to the table - ever?
So anyway ... anyone up for a rational, fact-based, and civil discussion about the topic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME