Russians accused of interfering in election to get Trump elected

[Wilber]

This administration is shooting ducks in a barrel for Russian intelligence agencies. People who actually know what they are doing.

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Forget it man, you will justify any behaviour from this bunch.

 

Actually, I wont.  However, there does need to be more.  What kind of society are we building that it becomes a crime to go to a meeting where nothing is said?  I knw, you want to play the "if Hillary did it" card, but no, even if Hillary or her people did it, I would still need more than that.  In fact, i've always assumed that they all have meetings and all get info from many sources.  I'm sure there are many countries that whispered in the ears of compaigns.  We know Russia is not an ally, but they're not actually the enemy either.  You can't be outraged at every piece of news you hear - it's unhealthy.

[Wilber]

Just now, Hal 9000 said:

Actually, I wont.  However, there does need to be more.  What kind of society are we building that it becomes a crime to go to a meeting where nothing is said?  I knw, you want to play the "if Hillary did it" card, but no, even if Hillary or her people did it, I would still need more than that.  In fact, i've always assumed that they all have meetings and all get info from many sources.  I'm sure there are many countries that whispered in the ears of compaigns.  We know Russia is not an ally, but they're not actually the enemy either.  You can't be outraged at every piece of news you hear - it's unhealthy.

I've never used what Hillary did do, didn't do, would have done or might have done in any discussion about what Trump has done. But, but Hillary, but but Obama is the Trump supporters game. Trump isn't responsible for anything and can never be. If Trump takes us into a nuclear war in 2023 it would still be Hillary's fault even though she hadn't been in government for 11 years.

[Hal 9000]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I've never used what Hillary did do, didn't do, would have done or might have done in any discussion about what Trump has done. But, but Hillary, but but Obama is the Trump supporters game. Trump isn't responsible for anything and can never be. If Trump takes us into a nuclear war in 2023 it would still be Hillary's fault even though she hadn't been in government for 11 years.

WTF, did you read my post.

[Wilber]

Just now, Hal 9000 said:

WTF, did you read my post.

You bet I read it. You said, "I knw, you want to play "the if Hillary did it" card. Hillary is nowhere. Trump is wearing the big boy pants now. Too bad they don't fit.

You say that Junior was just guilty of being naive, nothing more. What about Kushner and Manafort, were they just being naive as well?

[Hal 9000]

What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong and certainly nothing illegal about that meeting.  If anything, there is evidence that junior thought the Russia might be helping Hillary.  And, why would junior, after the meeting think that Russia was interferring with anything?  Indications are, that they went to the meeting to hear something, and realized that there was nothing except a possible a scam.  They left it at that and thought nothing more of the issue.

I'm sure the Trumps deal with people lying to get a few minutes in the boardroom all the time. 

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

 If anything, there is evidence that junior thought the Russia might be helping Hillary

I'd like to see that evidence. Putin hates Hillary.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, sharkman said:

Uh, Russia is a country.  It's a thing that doesn't actually speak at all.  I don't support Putin.  I think he's eventually going to ally with Iran against Israel and start a war.  Did he try to get a win for warmonger Trump, when Hilary the peacenik would let Russia do anything? 

Clearly. Obviously. The US government accepts it. The US congress accepts it, including the Republicans. Virtually everyone on the planet accepts that now, and every government, except for the Russians, and the Trump family and their cult-like following.

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Actually, I wont.  However, there does need to be more.  What kind of society are we building that it becomes a crime to go to a meeting where nothing is said?

Most of us realize that the Trumps lie about anything they can. He couldn't lie about the meeting or the email because the media had them. But he's lying about what happened at the meeting. What probably happened at that meeting is that the Russian agent laid out what they would do on Trump's behalf, and what they expected from Trump in return, and the Trump people agreed to it. Shortly thereafter, the Russians started releasing information about Clinton they had hacked, and began their fake news campaign against her.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Argus

[Wilber]

21 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong and certainly nothing illegal about that meeting.  If anything, there is evidence that junior thought the Russia might be helping Hillary.  And, why would junior, after the meeting think that Russia was interferring with anything?  Indications are, that they went to the meeting to hear something, and realized that there was nothing except a possible a scam.  They left it at that and thought nothing more of the issue.

I'm sure the Trumps deal with people lying to get a few minutes in the boardroom all the time. 

It probably was illegal but I doubt it was treasonous. 

 

Quote

President Donald Trump previewed a 'major speech' attacking Hillary Clinton last June, just hours after his son, Donald Trump Jr, set up a meeting with a Russian lawyer he was told had damaging information about the Democratic candidate.

In a speech on June 7, 2016, Trump said that 'probably Monday of next week' he would deliver a 'major speech' featuring a discussion of 'all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons'. 

The speech came just four days after Trump Jr was contacted by publicist Rob Goldstone, who claims that he has information obtained by the Russian government that he said would incriminate Clinton.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4688608/Trump-teased-Clinton-speech-Trump-Jr-set-meeting.html#ixzz4meIFzDT4 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Now a person with just a single critical bone in their body would wonder if The Donald knew all about this meeting.

[sharkman]

 

 

8 hours ago, Argus said:

 

What difference does it make? Clearly you'll always believe whatever Russia says

 

 

I asked you to name the fake news 17 Government agencies that all agreed that Russia hacked the election.  You can't name them because it's fake news that was passed around like a joint by lefties getting a buzz.  The New York Times, that bastion of Leftist thought and the one leading the charge against Trump, finally crumbled.  They recanted their lies about 17 agencies almost 2 weeks ago, and now admit it was only 4, not 17.  

But like I said, to the left, the facts don't matter.  It's going to be torture for them the rest of the term, and they deserve it.  I'm sure the SCOTUS recent decision freaked them out.  I'm sure the Syrian ceasefire freaked them out.  I'm sure the recent good jobs report freaked them out.  Here's  a stock tip.  Buy into the drug company that makes valium.

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, sharkman said:

They recanted their lies about 17 agencies almost 2 weeks ago, and now admit it was only 4, not 17.  

No they did not. You're just wishful thinking and not doing very much reading. Why do you guys do that all the time?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

[sharkman]

The New York Times.

Quote

referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

 

Edited July 13, 2017 by sharkman

[sharkman]

6 hours ago, Omni said:

I'd like to see that evidence. Putin hates Hillary.

Oh, really?  What's his favorite colour?  

[Wilber]

23 minutes ago, Omni said:

No they did not. You're just wishful thinking and not doing very much reading. Why do you guys do that all the time?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

No surprise, their idol doesn't read either.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

No surprise, their idol doesn't read either.

I guess I should have pasted this particular paragraph from the article for those non readers.

 

But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community.

 

[sharkman]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess I should have pasted this particular paragraph from the article for those non readers.

 

But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community.

 

What I said was, The New York Times.  Recanted their story.  

Here's the problem.  You're an ideologue, so the simple truth that the New York Times recanted their story illudes you and you can't see the reality here.  I mean, I can look at Trump, and say, he's an idiot.  His vocabulary is shockingly small.  I have biases, but I still can think critically and reason and perceive reality.  But the person who can't read the New York Times' own correction that recants the story about 17 news agencies, and realize that the New York Times recanted their story, that person is an ideologue.  

I'm not going to debate another ideologue. Truth is not debatable, it's either true or it isn't.  Either The New York Times recanted or they didn't.  

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, sharkman said:

What I said was, The New York Times.  Recanted their story

Oh I thought somebody tried to say there were only 4 papers sticking to their guns on Trump. I hope you're straight on that fallacy now.

[sharkman]

I actually feel sorry for you.

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, sharkman said:

What I said was, The New York Times.  Recanted their story.  

Here's the problem.  You're an ideologue, so the simple truth that the New York Times recanted their story illudes you and you can't see the reality here.  I mean, I can look at Trump, and say, he's an idiot.  His vocabulary is shockingly small.  I have biases, but I still can think critically and reason and perceive reality.  But the person who can't read the New York Times' own correction that recants the story about 17 news agencies, and realize that the New York Times recanted their story, that person is an ideologue.  

I'm not going to debate another ideologue. Truth is not debatable, it's either true or it isn't.  Either The New York Times recanted or they didn't.  

Just so you know, sane people noticed what you said and understood the link you provided. Some others here continue to prattle on, as if nothing was said. For some, facing reality is probably more painful than the shame of being perceived as an asshat.

[Hal 9000]

I heard somewhere that there is evidence of the Democrats colluding with Ukraine during the election.  Haven't seen it on CNN yet.  Anyone else hear this?

[Omni]

2 hours ago, sharkman said:

I actually feel sorry for you.

You should feel sorry for yourself. I'm fine.

[sharkman]

9 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I heard somewhere that there is evidence of the Democrats colluding with Ukraine during the election.  Haven't seen it on CNN yet.  Anyone else hear this?

If Trump was involved, all the major networks would be sending their troops to the Ukraine to start digging.  But since it was only the Dems, you won't hear anything from the MSM.  It doesn't fit the narrative. 

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, sharkman said:

If Trump was involved...

Just like the birther issue, CNN really didn't give it the attention that Trump wanted.  The Kenyan birth certificate was NEVER FOUND, no thanks to CNN.

[Wilber]

10 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

I heard somewhere that there is evidence of the Democrats colluding with Ukraine during the election.  Haven't seen it on CNN yet.  Anyone else hear this?

Are you and Topaz the same person? Don't despair, someone on the internet will have said it.