The Evidens

POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2022 07:11
VIEWED: 159178
PAGE 57 of 121

PREV PAGE 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NEXT PAGE

SECOND

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Which is why I keep asking what you think AMERICA's interests are. This laser-like focus on "Russia" just keeps you from focusing on what's REALLY important ... like our phenomenal debt in $USD and lack of manufacturing base.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS SHOULD DO NEXT, ASIDE FROM RUSSIA?

The USA is very close to having all the technologies to eliminate 90 percent of its fossil fuel use: cheap solar, cheap wind power, and cheap battery storage. That kind of infrastructure buildout would be a huge economic stimulus. And it would damage the oil-exporting economies of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Rex Tillerson's ExxonMobil. It's all good.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/our-approach-to-climate-change-
isnt-working-lets-try-something-else/

But what are the odds that the GOP is going to leave $10 trillion worth of USA fossil fuels in the ground, not in the air? How likely is the GOP to admit that the Greenhouse gas effect is real? I place the odds at zero.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:16 PM

In 2020 we will start seeing a large drop in car ownership. There is a lot of research that has gone into why. I post this because all Russia has is gas and hot air.

I have to add, our highways will be more than sufficient and the amount of lanes needed will dissipate.

Here's one study on gas consumption by cars.

In early May, Anti-Media reported on a new study published by a Stanford professor claiming vehicle ownership will drop 80 percent by 2030. That study, as The Telegraph wrote this week, has been making the rounds in environmental circles and in the board rooms of companies with a stake in the fossil fuel game.

https://popularresistance.org/gas-powered-cars-will-vanish-in-8-years-
big-oil-will-collapse-stanford-study/

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Which is why I keep asking what you think AMERICA's interests are. This laser-like focus on "Russia" just keeps you from focusing on what's REALLY important ... like our phenomenal debt in $USD and lack of manufacturing base.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS SHOULD DO NEXT, ASIDE FROM RUSSIA?
The USA is very close to having all the technologies to eliminate 90 percent of its fossil fuel use: cheap solar, cheap wind power, and cheap battery storage. That kind of infrastructure buildout would be a huge economic stimulus. And it would damage the oil-exporting economies of Russia and Saudi Arabia.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/07/our-approach-to-climate-change-
isnt-working-lets-try-something-else/

What are the odds that the GOP is going to leave $10 trillion worth of fossil fuels in the ground, not in the air? How likely is the GOP to admit that the Greenhouse gas effect is real? I place the odds at zero.

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

1KIKI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:44 PM

Quote:
There is a problem with how you formulated the difference between Mueller and the CIA. Mueller goes to court and Congress. The CIA goes to war for the President.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The question isn't 'what kind of report' are we looking for, it's IS THERE EVIDENCE. Now, as I've pointed out, EITHER there already is evidence in the hands of our intelligence agencies and it's the basis for all their anonymous leaks, OR there is none, so we'll have to wait a long time for any evidence at all (and our 'intelligence' agencies have been making things up all along).
You seem to believe both.
So, which is it? It can only be one or the other. Does evidence already exist or are we going to have to wait for any?
As for our 'intelligence' agencies going 'to war for the president' - are you implying that they should be and are political agencies? Because, wasn't that the problem with the Iraq war? When the raw intelligence got corrupted for political purposes?

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Stop for once and read https://qz.com/1024135
Was there enough "evidence" to convict Trump in Congress? No. Was there enough "evidence" for every single intelligence official testifying before Congress? Yes.

WHAT EVIDENCE? Better yet, since you seem to have missed the question every single time
WHAT EVIDENCE?

You keep avoiding that point. You go around and around and around it, but you never answer the question.

Quote:
I'd give you an analog of why the same "evidence" in one situation leads to a No from Congress and a Yes from intelligence officials, but I know 1kiki would twist it. 1kiki argues in bad faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

You mean because I ask a question YOU CAN'T ANSWER? That's your problem, not mine.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
AHA!!

Something that purports to be actual evidence!

At first blush. I'd say I don't think there's any such thing as a "Crown Prosecutor" in Russia, so I would be wary of the Russian contact's bona fides. But I'll look into it.

This is typical. You argue and call anything negative about Russia lies and fake news. Then as time goes bye the proof comes out and shows you to be what you are. A Russian troll.

During these exchanges and separately, you post all manner of negative information about America, Europe and all countries not allied with Russia. Most of which is twisted truths and outright falsehoods.

1KIKI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:59 PM

I'm not seeing a 'there' there. I'm sure Trump Jr. is used to people claiming to be what they are not, to have connections they don't have, and to be able to provide things they can't provide. The only thing you can do in those cases is play it out and see what transpires. In this case, it was nothing.

This is the entire email chain posted by Trump Jr. on Twitter, republished by the NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trum
p-jr-email-text.html

Read the Emails on Donald Trump Jr.’s Russia Meeting

JULY 11, 2017

On Tuesday morning, after being told that The Times was about to publish the content of emails setting up a meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer, Donald J. Trump Jr. posted the email chain on Twitter, along with a comment.

The emails were posted as images and were not in the order that they were written. The text of the emails is presented here, in chronological order.

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

This iphone speaks many languages

This e-mail message, and any attachments to it, are for the sole use of the intended recipients, and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this email message or its attachments is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Finally, while the company uses virus protection, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

Sent from my iPhone

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 12:40 PM

To: Donald Trump J

Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

Hi Don

Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info - you had mentioned early this week so wanted to try to schedule a time and day Best to you and family Rob Goldstone

This iphone speaks many languages

On Jun 6, 2016, at 15:03, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Rob could we speak now?

d

Donald J. Trump Jr.

Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization

725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY | 10022 | trump.com

From: Rob Goldstone

Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 3:37 PM

To: Donald Trump Jr.

Subject: Re: Russia - Clinton - private and confidential

Let me track him down in Moscow

What number he could call?

This iphone speaks many languages

On Jun 6, 2016, at 15:38, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

My cell [REDACTED] thanks

d

Donald J. Trump Jr.

Executive Vice President of Development and Acquisitions The Trump Organization

725 Fifth Avenue | New York, NY 10022 | t

THGRRI

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I'm not seeing a 'there' there. I'm sure Trump Jr. is used to people claiming to be what they are not, to have connections they don't have, and to be able to provide things they can't provide. The only thing you can do in those cases is play it out and see what transpires. In this case, it was nothing.

We know who she, the Russian lawyer is. I'll say it again. We know who she is. Your suggesting the Russian government wasn't behind this is telling. It's telling us once again, you're a troll who trolls on behalf of Russia. It also tells us you haven't learned and therefore will never learn, you can't sell it here comrade.

I'll give you a hint. Think money laundering, blackmail, lifting sanctions, collusion, Russia and Trump.

1KIKI

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
We know who she, the Russian lawyer is. I'll say it again. We know who she is.

Apparently we DON'T know who the government lawyer is. Because the person who showed up is not a government lawyer.

Natalia Veselnitskaya. A lawyer who has reported links to the Kremlin. It’s not clear whether Veselnitskaya is the “Russian government attorney” who Goldstone suggests will participate in the meeting, but she is the person that attended. (In that NBC interview, she denied having ties to the government.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/11/whos-who-in
-the-stunning-russia-conspiracy-emails-released-by-donald-trump-jr/

Aras Agalarov. Agalarov is the president of the Crocus Group, a Moscow-based real estate development firm that licensed the Miss Universe pageant from the Trump Organization in 2013 to host its pageant in the Russian capital. This is the point at which Agalarov and his son, Emin, became associated with the Trumps.

Agalarov is mentioned on Page 4 in an email from Goldstone as having met with the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” who offered to provide incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.

“Crown prosecutor.” See Yuri Chaika.

Donald Trump. Trump is mentioned on Page 4 of the email chain when Goldstone suggests that he wanted to discuss the matter with Trump Jr. before the then-candidate.

Donald Trump Jr. The president’s son coordinates the meeting with Goldstone, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner.

Emin Agalarov. The son of Aras Agalarov. He is a vice president of the Crocus Group and a pop music star in Russia. (In 2013, Trump appeared in one of his videos.)

Hillary Clinton. Then the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. She’s mentioned on Page 4.

Jared Kushner. Trump Jr.’s brother-in-law is mentioned on Page 2 when Trump Jr. explains who he expects to attend the meeting. Kushner does attend. According to an NBC interview with Natalia Veselnitskaya on Tuesday, he leaves after about 10 minutes.

Natalia Veselnitskaya. A lawyer who has reported links to the Kremlin. It’s not clear whether Veselnitskaya is the “Russian government attorney” who Goldstone suggests will participate in the meeting, but she is the person that attended. (In that NBC interview, she denied having ties to the government.)

Goldstone’s emails suggest that the attorney — presumably Veselnitskaya — flew in from Moscow for the meeting and was scheduled to be in court the same afternoon as the meeting.

Paul Manafort. The Trump campaign chairman. Attended the June 9 meeting. According to the NBC interview with Veselnitskaya on Tuesday, he spent the entire meeting looking at his phone. He’s mentioned on Page 2.

Rhona Graff. Trump’s longtime assistant. Goldstone suggests that he could contact the candidate through Graff but chose to contact Trump Jr. first. She is mentioned on Page 4 of the emails.

Rob Goldstone. A British-born promoter who represents Emin Agalarov. Along with the Agalarovs, Goldstone was involved in the 2013 Miss Universe pageant planning, which is how he came into contact with the Trumps. He’s the individual driving the conversation with Trump Jr., but, a publicist through-and-through, he reminds Trump Jr. that the meeting is a result of the Agalarovs’s efforts.

“Russian government attorney.” See Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Chaika (AP)

Yuri Yakovlevich Chaika. There is no “Crown prosecutor” in Russia, because Russia isn’t a monarchy. (This is perhaps a function of Goldstone’s country of origin.) The Times reports that the reference on Page 4 is to Chaika, Russia’s prosecutor general. Chaika has been in that position since June 2006, when he was first nominated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. (He is in his second term, being renominated by then-President Dmitry Medvedev in 2011.)

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have con

SECOND

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:55 AM

The evidence is Trump's business is not in a blind trust. He promised he would put it into trust. Once he won, he changed his story. Every transaction Trump's business makes is as secretive today as it was ten years ago. That is evidence Trump is hiding.

The evidence is Trump's tax returns. He promised he'd share. Once he won, he changed his story, but that doesn't change that those returns are evidence. He is going to Federal Prison for tax evasion unless President Pence pardons him. Mike Pence finds Trump's reluctance to reveal his taxes incomprehensible. Do you doubt me? Sorry I can't give you my copies of Trump's returns because that would be illegal. I don't want to be Trump's cellmate.
www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/us/politics/mike-pence-tax-returns.html

If Trump supporters want to claim Trump is innocent than they need Trump's evidence to prove he is. There is no reason for Trump to object with claims he should not be required to incriminate himself because he already promised to give that evidence to the public. He never turned over the evidence proving he is an honest man with impeccable ethics because he hadn't planned on winning.

I expect Mueller will subpoena Trump's evidence. I expect Trump to fight to keep his evidence secret. How desperately Trump fights will be more evidence of how guilty Trump is.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
There is a problem with how you formulated the difference between Mueller and the CIA. Mueller goes to court and Congress. The CIA goes to war for the President.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The question isn't 'what kind of report' are we looking for, it's IS THERE EVIDENCE. Now, as I've pointed out, EITHER there already is evidence in the hands of our intelligence agencies and it's the basis for all their anonymous leaks, OR there is none, so we'll have to wait a long time for any evidence at all (and our 'intelligence' agencies have been making things up all along).
You seem to believe both.
So, which is it? It can only be one or the other. Does evidence already exist or are we going to have to wait for any?
As for our 'intelligence' agencies going 'to war for the president' - are you implying that they should be and are political agencies? Because, wasn't that the problem with the Iraq war? When the raw intelligence got corrupted for political purposes?

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Stop for once and read https://qz.com/1024135
Was there enough "evidence" to convict Trump in Congress? No. Was there enough "evidence" for every single intelligence official testifying before Congress? Yes.
WHAT EVIDENCE? Better yet, since you seem to have missed the question every single time
WHAT EVIDENCE?

You keep avoiding that point. You go around and around and around it, but you never answer the question.
Quote:
I'd give you an analog of why the same "evidence" in one situation leads to a No from Congress and a Yes from intelligence officials, but I know 1kiki would twist it. 1kiki argues in bad faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
You mean because I ask a question YOU CAN'T ANSWER? That's your problem, not mine.

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:06 AM

Right on SECOND. The good news is that Mueller has and is still hiring the best people that know how to follow the money.