ROFL… Dear heart, you asked which was the “most compelling.” I said “none of them” because none of them is more compelling than the rest. They are all “compelling.” They all add up to more than enough data to warrant a full and complete investigation. That you continue to duck that question tells us all we need to know about you.
Do feel free to come back any time you’d like another lesson in reading comprehension. Always happy to school you.
Re the 17 agencies, you’re obviously not aware, but they were talking about a different issue. If you read the CIA report, you’ll see they admit to not actually knowing if Russia was involved. (as an aside, I find it both hilarious and tragic you have 17 different intelligence agencies.)
As to the investigation point, I’m not sure where you got the impression I’m concerned. There are multiple investigations going on, which I think is perfectly reasonable and look forward to seeing the result. In the meantime, given the total absence of any compelling evidence (which even a hack like @kumquat16 admits), what is in fact a serious issue has devolved into a media circus where unsubstantiated rumours are treated like facts to give the impression something nefarious is going on when the evidence doesn’t allow any such conclusions to be drawn.
Imagine your fantasy scenario, where Hillary is appointed a special investigator and spends a year with full access to everything Trump, from tax returns to emails, campaign phone records etc etc. If she were to find there was zero collusion or link between trump and Russia, wouldn’t you feel like the whole country had been taken for a ride? And who by and for what purpose? There’s a reason the law presumes innocence.
Actually, that’s not true. What they didn’t admit to, because that wasn’t the thrust of the investigation, is whether or not the Russian interference actually managed to affect the outcome of the election. There was unanimous agreement that not only was Russia involved, it was authorized at the highest levels of the Russian leadership.
As to the investigation point, I’m not sure where you got the impression I’m concerned.
Of course you’re not. You’d rather play silly games.
In the meantime, given the total absence of any compelling evidence (which even a hack like @kumquat16 admits)
ROFL… Still lying, I see. It’s hilarious that you think you can blatantly lie and get away with it. And equally hilarious that you have to lie because you can’t face reality.
what is in fact a serious issue has devolved into a media circus where unsubstantiated rumours are treated like facts
No, dear, they’re not, which is why you can’t point to any actual examples of this. Instead, you have to make shit up and try desperately to continue evading. As I said, it’s all rather transparent, not to mention pathetic.
Imagine your fantasy scenario, where Hillary is appointed a special investigator
Why would that be anyone’s “fantasy scenario?” Again, you’re simply making shit up.
If she were to find there was zero collusion or link between trump and Russia, wouldn’t you feel like the whole country had been taken for a ride?
Shrug Personally, I’d be delighted to find that there’s nothing there.
And who by and for what purpose?
Presumably, that would be part of the investigation. Seems like it might be worth finding out, don’t you think?
There’s a reason the law presumes innocence.
Nice non sequitur, since nobody has said otherwise. One doesn’t need presumption of guilt or innocence to launch an investigation.
Jeez, I don’t know where to begin.
For starters, the presumption of innocense is just that. No one has declared Trump guily of anything, but it also cannot be used to deny the need for an investigation.
And as far as a presumption of innocence, that sure did not hold when you guys cheered Speaker Boehner when he darkly asked when an IRS official would be arrested for merely invoking the Fifth Amendment at the prospect of a witch hunt over false accusations that the Obama administration used the IRS to unfairly target Tea Party-affiliated political groups that were trying to receive tax-exempt status as non profit social welfare organizations.
And as far as a presumption of innocence, that sure did not hold when the head of Judicial Watch went to the White House and, speaking into a bullhorn before the media onlookers, ordered President Obama to “come out with your hands up.”
And as far as a presumption of innocence, that sure did not hold when you guys called for numerous repeat investigations into the Ben Ghazi tragedy after initial investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing – investigations, by the way, that had the sole purpose of damaging Hillary Clinton politically.
And as far as a fantasy scenario, that presumption of innocence sure did not apply when you guys chanted “Lock her up!” at the Republican National Convention – a chant led, ironically, by Michael Flynn, Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor, and a man who was fired for, among other matters, revealing classified information without authorization. And despite the fact that the FBI director, after a thorough investigation, said that there were no grounds to charge Hillary with in regards to her email usage.
I’m going to leave it that that since you are sounding ridiculous.
Of course he is. He has to, since we called his bluff and he knows damn well it’s “checkmate.”
Feel free to laugh at the silliness and mock the pathetic assertions and personal attacks but don’t make the mistake of taking him seriously or going along with his attempts to re-frame the argument or derail the discussion. His comment about the presumption of innocence was self-evidently stupid. Flag it as a strawman argument, a complete non sequitur, and move on.
Personally, I loved his vaguely sinister hints about “wouldn’t you feel like the whole country had been taken for a ride? And who by and for what purpose?” This isn’t the first time he’s tried to pretend something like this. The problem with this, aside from the fact that there is zero evidence to support this, is that it assumes that our intelligence agencies and our news organizations are complete morons.
Eh? “You guys”? You have me confused with someone else. The whole point I’ve been making is that you’re no better than the rabid wing of the Republican Party when Obama was president.
Hahaha. Lying again, or perhaps just ignorance this time, but it amounts to the same thing. The CIA report made clear there was merely suspicion, to varying levels of ‘confidence’, none of which were absolute. Talk about alternative facts - you’re an idiot.
I say “you guys” because you are cynically trying to deflect and to conflate a nothingburger like the Ben Ghazi witch hunt with the Trump-Russia affair. Your entire argument convinces me that you are nothing but a partisan Republican trying to deflect criticism of Trump by portraying it as politically driven by a bunch of sore losers.
I’m through arguing this with you. I wil let the investigation proceed. Maybe in another week there will be more developments or announcements, and if so then we can talk again.
Sorry, cupcake, but you were the one who was lying. This is what you wrote: “you’ll see they admit to not actually knowing if Russia was involved.” That phrase is complete bullshit, which you know, of course.
The CIA report made clear there was merely suspicion, to varying levels of ‘confidence’,
Dear heart, that is par for the course for an intelligence report. What, do you think they had Putin in an interrogation cell? There was high confidence in the conclusions that matter, particularly the one about Russian involvement. For you to claim that bullshit about “not actually knowing” is just that: bullshit. Just give it up; even for you, this was pathetic.
Too bad that you can’t back that up any more than you can the rest of your assertions. What you conveniently fail to note is that birtherism was backed up by … nothing. The Russian involvement with the Trump campaign, on the other hand, is backed up by reliable investigative reporting, by the admissions of the Trump campaign, by the resignations of two of the principals in the matter, and by the investigations of our intelligence agencies, some of which are ongoing. Dishonestly pretending that these are the same confirms everything that we know about you and your tactics.
You should talk to the FBI, by the way, since it has been widely reported that their investigation is ongoing. Since it’s just oh so clear that there is nothing there, I’m sure that they will be ever so grateful for your intervention to stop them just wasting their time, since clearly they are “no better than the rabid wing of the Republican Party when Obama was president.” Why just think of the time and effort you will have saved them; they’ll probably recommend you for a medal!
Oh, and while you’re at it, you should probably talk to the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Time magazine, Newsweek magazine, and Politico, among others, since it has also been widely reported that there are other stories in progress on these matters. I’m sure that they, too, will be grateful for your judgment on these issues and how they have “devolved into a media circus where unsubstantiated rumors are treated like facts.”
“We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.”
And so on, citing chapter and verse about the GRU, the hacks, the agents who participated in those hacks, how the information was shared with WikiLeaks, and so on. I’ll leave it to the reader as to whether your restatement of this as “they admit to not actually knowing if Russia was involved” is a reasonable paraphrase of the report. Free clue: it’s not even close and you know it.
Oh, and the reason that this matters, more than just because of the past election?
“We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts in the United States and worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. We assess the Russian intelligence services would have seen their influence campaign as at least a qualified success because of their perceived ability to impact public discussion.”
“Putin’s public views of the disclosures suggest the Kremlin and the intelligence services will continue to consider using cyber-enabled disclosure operations because of their belief that these can accomplish Russian goals relatively easily without significant damage to Russian interests.”
It seems like an investigation is in order to make damn sure that this doesn’t happen again, wouldn’t you say?
Oh, and three more data points to add to the list above:
the NSA intercepted Russian officials congratulating themselves after Trump won the election.
the report detailed cyberattacks not just against the DNC but also against the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the RNC, and various American corporations.
And the classified version of the above report actually gave the names of the Russians who delivered the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.
But, hey, this is just like birtherism, clearly!
Oh, and just one more excerpt for our dear little friend from across the sea:
Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations – such as cyberactivity – with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries and paid social media users or ‘trolls.’"
Time will tell if it’s a nothingburger or not. Initially lots of people thought Benghazi wasn’t a nothingburger either, remember (some crazies still don’t; I hope you don’t become like them). There’s not yet any evidence to indicate it’s anything other than a nothingburger, but I agree something may come to light in the future that pushes one way or the other. Talk to you about it then.
Well, according to you, we’re “no better than the rabid wing of the Republican Party when Obama was president,” so apparently you’ve already made up your mind, despite the ongoing investigation. Funny how that works.
Initially lots of people thought Benghazi wasn’t a nothingburger either, remember (some crazies still don’t;
And so we had investigations, eight of them in Congress alone, which established that it was, in fact, a “nothingburger.” Funny how that works.
I hope you don’t become like them). There’s not yet any evidence to indicate it’s anything other than a nothingburger
Other than the data provided above (that you have no answer for other than evasions) that indicate that there is something worth investigating. Funny how that works.
but I agree something may come to light in the future that pushes one way or the other.
Oh, you mean like something coming to light because we have an investigation? Funny how that works.
Seeing all these posts and your flailing about, the desperation is unbelievable.
Why are you so invested in refuting absolutely any linkage between Russia and Trump in an online comment section, even after being presented with a ream of solid investigative reporting?
Or is this the definition of “trolling” and we be just “feeding the troll” who argues for arguments sake, a devil’s advocate.
There’s no end to you, is there?
The comparisons with Benghazi and Birtherism are particularly hilarious in this case, because the unifying factor there is that the proponents of those theories refuse to look at the actual data and they remain in denial, stubbornly closing their eyes to what is right in front of them.
Now who on this forum does that describe?
I’m not refuting there’s a link, I’m refuting there’s any good evidence of a link. Until there is good evidence, I’m not going to pretend like the rest of you that there’s something wrong or nefarious here to try and stop Trump and Putin reaching a detente. You’re playing into the hands of people that want to keep the West and Russia at each other’s throats. I’d like to see tensions decrease, it seems democrats want a return to the cold (or perhaps a hot) war. No doubt in part because they’ve become almost irrelevant in national politics (not much better on a state and local level), and are looking for a boogeyman to distract and energise their supporters. Seems to be working, too.
Excellent compilation! Thank you so much.
A lot of this valid suspicion could be cleared up by Trump’s tax returns. Clearly, he’s not still hiding them because he hasn’t paid any taxes. Conservatives would cheer that.
No, we don’t want a new cold war.
We imposed sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We oppose their human rights violations of gay people, their jailing and worse of dissidents, political opponents and journalists, the indiscriminate bombing in Syria.
True, we have worked with them at times and got their cooperation to uphold our ideals and when it aided our interests. We both agreed to the START II nuclear arms reduction agreement several years ago. When we called out Syria’s use of outlawed chemical weapons, Russia cooperated and intervened to get Assad to turn them over for their destruction. They cooperated in the talks that led to an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program. We cooperate on the International Space Station.
This is not about the Democrats seeking relevance. We were attacked and our electoral system was interfered with.