AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Are you saying government entities don't have a responsibility to ensure foreign financial ties do not affect judgment or any other aspect of a politician's life?

.

They do, but not at the request of the political opponent. In order to score political points and drive a narrative. That's why he is in a trial, for lying and not saying the truth that he was working for Hillary. If he had said the truth the FBI wouldn't have done a thing, because the FBI isn't a political tool to play with at your convenience for a political motive.

Somehow you completely missed the part where the FBI wasn’t relying solely on campaign actors for their investigation, but mmmkay, whatevs.

So we are just glossing over the fact that Hillary was sus of the story and wanted more information so she, or someone in her camp, gave the report to someone who had connections and could fact check? That is just not a thing? Hillary wanted facts is just not worth discussing?

Avatar2go wrote:

It actually starts long before that.

Yet nobody said it was a threat against democracy and a big lie until 2020. Got it.

seb146 wrote:

So we are just glossing over the fact that Hillary was sus of the story and wanted more information so she, or someone in her camp, gave the report to someone who had connections and could fact check? That is just not a thing? Hillary wanted facts is just not worth discussing?

Nice deflection but that is not what happened. She knew it was bogus, she could have fact checked it herself but it wasn't about facts it was about getting it to the media who controls peoples minds and hoping they would believe it.

NIKV69 wrote:

Yet nobody said it was a threat against democracy and a big lie until 2020. Got it.

Stunningly bad take. If you can’t tell the difference between WH advisers planning to stop a Congressional confirmation process (and VP refusing to play along out of principle) and misinformation during campaign season, I don’t think anything positive can really be said.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Garbage what? The FBI saw it as important enough to research it.

That does not play. Sorry.

Sussman went with a made up story. You keep gliding past that. That the FBI investigated is irrelevant to the fact that it was made up.

If your flimsy reasoning was to hold, I could go to the FBI and say casinterest has been making posts on online boards that lead me to think that he could cause harm to a Supreme Court Justice. My accusation would be false, but the FBI would investigate and give you at least a bad day.

What was made up about it?


From the articles:

and i will even quote the dishonorable NY Post.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/fbi-offic ... sman-lied/

According to his indictment, the cybersecurity lawyer was allegedly acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive and client who told him about computer data that purportedly revealed a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

So what bothers you most, that there was data suggesting a back ally communication, that was actually investigated( to some dubious extent), or that the FBI agent in charge can't remember his own details of how things went down?

"Berkowitz confronted Baker with a transcript of a July 2019 interview during which he told investigators from the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office that Sussman got the Alfa Bank data from “some number of people that were his clients.”

Baker said he used that language as a “shorthand way to describe the people with whom he was connected.”

When asked if had lied to the investigators, Baker denied doing so. “I had no intention of deceiving the inspector general in any way, shape or form,” he testified.

Another transcript produced by the defense showed Baker telling Durham in July 2020 that he couldn’t recall taking any action to conceal Sussmann’s identity from other FBI employees.

Berkowitz also asked Baker if it was possible that Sussmann mentioned his “clients” during a 13-minute phone conversation days after the meeting at FBI headquarters.
Baker said he was about 75% sure Sussmann did not mention clients on the call, but couldn’t say definitively one way or the other.

At one point, Berkowitz needled Baker by asking, “It’s hard to remember events of a long time ago, isn’t it?”

“It depends on what you are talking about,” Baker answered."

It seems Baker can't even follow up with his own version o the truth,.

Sussman and Joffe are buds. It was Joffe who approached Sussman with the ping info. Sussman, being a sleazeball sniffs an opportunity. Joffe, a so-called computer expert and Democrat supporter, knows or should know what you have confirmed, namely that the ping stuff is crap. But he doesn't care because he wants a job with the (inevitable) Clinton administration so schmoozing Sussman is part of his job interview. But..

When Clinton campaign in-house techs look at the info, they say it's laughable. So Sussman needs to get his pal Baker on board. Pal? You think some lawyer off the street can just walk into the FBI GC's office? Mook doesn't trust the FBI, but Sussman says to chill. Baker's my boy! He doesn't want to seed any doubts about his motives so he doesn't tell Baker he works for the campaign, (even though being the sleazeball he is, the Clinton campaign is going to see a bill). Baker falls for it (maybe not such a big ask at the FBI), and now it can be leaked to the press that the FBI is on the job. As you say yourself, there's actually no substance to the story, but the lazy press isn't interested in digging into the story that much, because it's negative to Trump. Who cares if it's not true, because after Clinton wins as we all knew she would, nobody's going to follow up.

As to your last point about Baker and his (Bill) Clintonian parsing, well duh. He's another big-time piece of feces.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

That does not play. Sorry.

Sussman went with a made up story. You keep gliding past that. That the FBI investigated is irrelevant to the fact that it was made up.

If your flimsy reasoning was to hold, I could go to the FBI and say casinterest has been making posts on online boards that lead me to think that he could cause harm to a Supreme Court Justice. My accusation would be false, but the FBI would investigate and give you at least a bad day.

What was made up about it?


From the articles:

and i will even quote the dishonorable NY Post.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/19/fbi-offic ... sman-lied/

According to his indictment, the cybersecurity lawyer was allegedly acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and Rodney Joffe, a tech executive and client who told him about computer data that purportedly revealed a secret back channel between a Trump Organization server and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

So what bothers you most, that there was data suggesting a back ally communication, that was actually investigated( to some dubious extent), or that the FBI agent in charge can't remember his own details of how things went down?

"Berkowitz confronted Baker with a transcript of a July 2019 interview during which he told investigators from the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office that Sussman got the Alfa Bank data from “some number of people that were his clients.”

Baker said he used that language as a “shorthand way to describe the people with whom he was connected.”

When asked if had lied to the investigators, Baker denied doing so. “I had no intention of deceiving the inspector general in any way, shape or form,” he testified.

Another transcript produced by the defense showed Baker telling Durham in July 2020 that he couldn’t recall taking any action to conceal Sussmann’s identity from other FBI employees.

Berkowitz also asked Baker if it was possible that Sussmann mentioned his “clients” during a 13-minute phone conversation days after the meeting at FBI headquarters.
Baker said he was about 75% sure Sussmann did not mention clients on the call, but couldn’t say definitively one way or the other.

At one point, Berkowitz needled Baker by asking, “It’s hard to remember events of a long time ago, isn’t it?”

“It depends on what you are talking about,” Baker answered."

It seems Baker can't even follow up with his own version o the truth,.

Sussman and Joffe are buds. It was Joffe who approached Sussman with the ping info. Sussman, being a sleazeball sniffs an opportunity. Joffe, a so-called computer expert and Democrat supporter, knows or should know what you have confirmed, namely that the ping stuff is crap. But he doesn't care because he wants a job with the (inevitable) Clinton administration so schmoozing Sussman is part of his job interview. But..

When Clinton campaign in-house techs look at the info, they say it's laughable. So Sussman needs to get his pal Baker on board. Pal? You think some lawyer off the street can just walk into the FBI GC's office? Mook doesn't trust the FBI, but Sussman says to chill. Baker's my boy! He doesn't want to seed any doubts about his motives so he doesn't tell Baker he works for the campaign, (even though being the sleazeball he is, the Clinton campaign is going to see a bill). Baker falls for it (maybe not such a big ask at the FBI), and now it can be leaked to the press that the FBI is on the job. As you say yourself, there's actually no substance to the story, but the lazy press isn't interested in digging into the story that much, because it's negative to Trump. Who cares if it's not true, because after Clinton wins as we all knew she would, nobody's going to follow up.

As to your last point about Baker and his (Bill) Clintonian parsing, well duh. He's another big-time piece of feces.

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Well, Obama had essentially green-lighted the Russian invasion of Ukraine and walked back the Budapest Memo while Clinton was SECSTATE, so I wonder for how much more the Russians could have asked.

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Well, Obama had essentially green-lighted the Russian invasion of Ukraine and walked back the Budapest Memo while Clinton was SECSTATE, so I wonder for how much more the Russians could have asked.

Really? Do you remember how Russia snuck across the borders giving aid to "Separatists", and then shot down MH 17? All while having a Phony election for control of Crimea?
I think not. Don't blame Obama for it.

And do recall that sanctions were imposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati ... %20Rosneft).


Trump sold out US citizens and officials to Putin in 2017 for those that forget as well.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44852812

US President Donald Trump has defended Russia over claims of interference in the 2016 presidential election.

After face-to-face talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Trump contradicted US intelligence agencies and said there had been no reason for Russia to meddle in the vote.

Mr Putin reiterated that Russia had never interfered in US affairs.

The two men held nearly two hours of closed-door talks in the Finnish capital Helsinki on Monday.

If there had been no reason to meddle. why did Trump ask them to Meddle in 2016?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/t ... r-accounts

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Well, Obama had essentially green-lighted the Russian invasion of Ukraine and walked back the Budapest Memo while Clinton was SECSTATE, so I wonder for how much more the Russians could have asked.

As frustrating as it was to watch Russia's smash-and-grab in 2014 go by as uncontested as it did, I'm not sold on the feasibility of a greater response at the time. At the risk of arguing from a counterfactual, 2014 was a different political moment, and it's hard to see the U.S. being able to pull together nearly as many allies to do nearly as much to Russia at that point. And I don't think the effect of the sanctions imposed then was completely negligible either; Russia certainly wanted them gone, and they may have affected Russia's military industry (admittedly as one factor among many.)

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Oh so now the spin is "it didn't happen in a vacuum". Before, "nothing to see here."

All the other stuff you say about Trump was well covered by Mueller, to no end result. You are right on one thing. We'll see what happens in court. And then where it leads.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Oh so now the spin is "it didn't happen in a vacuum". Before, "nothing to see here."

All the other stuff you say about Trump was well covered by Mueller, to no end result. You are right on one thing. We'll see what happens in court. And then where it leads.

Maybe the Senate will reopen the Mueller report, something that McConnell had no spine to follow up on. Much like the Jan 6 insurrection.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's all in court, and we will see what happens, but it is interesting that it didn't happen in a vaccum. Trump had already kneeled to Putin and put the election at risk by inviting Russia to spy on the election. Trump had already met with the Russians in Trump tower, but all of that is forgotten by Trump loyalists.

Oh so now the spin is "it didn't happen in a vacuum". Before, "nothing to see here."

All the other stuff you say about Trump was well covered by Mueller, to no end result. You are right on one thing. We'll see what happens in court. And then where it leads.

Maybe the Senate will reopen the Mueller report, something that McConnell had no spine to follow up on. Much like the Jan 6 insurrection.

Well Chucky has had the ball for over a year and has done ungatz, like everything else, so I doubt it.

Newark727 wrote:

As frustrating as it was to watch Russia's smash-and-grab in 2014 go by as uncontested as it did, I'm not sold on the feasibility of a greater response at the time. At the risk of arguing from a counterfactual, 2014 was a different political moment, and it's hard to see the U.S. being able to pull together nearly as many allies to do nearly as much to Russia at that point. And I don't think the effect of the sanctions imposed then was completely negligible either; Russia certainly wanted them gone, and they may have affected Russia's military industry (admittedly as one factor among many.)

Indeed...but the Obama Administration did very little, and frankly likely mislead Putin into thinking a further escalation had been green-lighted by past acquiescence. There were likely competing interests at play, as Americans were pursuing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with the Iranians, and absolutely needed Russian cooperation to make it work. Russia was a

Every US Administration since 2000 has tried some level of rapprochement with Russia, and it ultimately came to naught.

One of the issues in 2014 Crimea was that the region was fairly strongly pro-Russian, and thus the locals did not really resist annexation. That's quite different than 2022, where Ukraine at large has resisted strongly..

If Putin had restricted his focus to the eastern provinces declaring independence from Ukraine, that might well have happened again. But he thought Ukraine was like Crimea and would not really resist, which was a strategic blunder.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Oh so now the spin is "it didn't happen in a vacuum". Before, "nothing to see here."

All the other stuff you say about Trump was well covered by Mueller, to no end result. You are right on one thing. We'll see what happens in court. And then where it leads.

Maybe the Senate will reopen the Mueller report, something that McConnell had no spine to follow up on. Much like the Jan 6 insurrection.

Well Chucky has had the ball for over a year and has done ungatz, like everything else, so I doubt it.

What ball? He has Lucy McCoal swiping it at every second to please one of the least educated and poorest states in the country.

Aaron747 wrote:

Stunningly bad take. If you can’t tell the difference between WH advisers planning to stop a Congressional confirmation process (and VP refusing to play along out of principle) and misinformation during campaign season, I don’t think anything positive can really be said.

What are you talking about? Abrams refused to concede and said the election was stolen from her, that is the big lie except it isn't because the media has brainwashed so many people into thinking if you are a Democrat it's heroic. It's not. It's complete and utter lunacy. Just as everyone bought into the crap that Trump stole the election from Hillary with "misinformation"

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Stunningly bad take. If you can’t tell the difference between WH advisers planning to stop a Congressional confirmation process (and VP refusing to play along out of principle) and misinformation during campaign season, I don’t think anything positive can really be said.

What are you talking about? Abrams refused to concede and said the election was stolen from her, that is the big lie except it isn't because the media has brainwashed so many people into thinking if you are a Democrat it's heroic. It's not. It's complete and utter lunacy. Just as everyone bought into the crap that Trump stole the election from Hillary with "misinformation"

The media also reported that nothing came of Abrams's claims and there was no concrete evidence of wrongdoing in the GA gubernatorial race. You're getting confused by your own emotions. The lead-up to and day of Jan 6th with the totally unprecedented scenario of VP refusing to listen to a gaggle of WH advisers insisting Congress could stop confirmation of POTUS results is miles away ridiculous by comparison.

The other notable difference is that in 2016, Abrams claimed minority voters were swept from the registration rolls, prior to the election, by her opponent who served as Secretary of State. But there was no evidence of minorities being singled out.

However Abrams did successfully register many thousands of minority voters by 2020, which made the difference in the Georgia elections. After which Trump labelled the new voters as fraudulent.

So both made false claims. Whereas Democrats accepted that Abrams' claims were unfounded, many Republicans did not accept that Trump's claims were also unfounded, which resulted in the events of Jan 6.

Aaron747 wrote:

The media also reported that nothing came of Abrams's claims and there was no concrete evidence of wrongdoing in the GA gubernatorial race. You're getting confused by your own emotions. The lead-up to and day of Jan 6th with the totally unprecedented scenario of VP refusing to listen to a gaggle of WH advisers insisting Congress could stop confirmation of POTUS results is miles away ridiculous by comparison.

You keep spinning this like a top. Also it isn't me who spent 4 years unable to control my emotions and kept reciting that Hillary and Abrams had their birth right elections stolen. That is the same big lie but it was celebrated and recited every day by the same people who are saying it's a big lie that Trump really won. If you want to refuse to accept this fact fine but months are growing short and 20% of the country say we are on the right track.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/20/two-in-10 ... tion-poll/

All the media and yelling of illegitimacy isn't going to stop what will be happening in November.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The media also reported that nothing came of Abrams's claims and there was no concrete evidence of wrongdoing in the GA gubernatorial race. You're getting confused by your own emotions. The lead-up to and day of Jan 6th with the totally unprecedented scenario of VP refusing to listen to a gaggle of WH advisers insisting Congress could stop confirmation of POTUS results is miles away ridiculous by comparison.

You keep spinning this like a top. Also it isn't me who spent 4 years unable to control my emotions and kept reciting that Hillary and Abrams had their birth right elections stolen. That is the same big lie but it was celebrated and recited every day by the same people who are saying it's a big lie that Trump really won. If you want to refuse to accept this fact fine but months are growing short and 20% of the country say we are on the right track.

https://nypost.com/2022/05/20/two-in-10 ... tion-poll/

All the media and yelling of illegitimacy isn't going to stop what will be happening in November.

Yah, OK. Hope things are sunny side up in fantasyland.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Stunningly bad take. If you can’t tell the difference between WH advisers planning to stop a Congressional confirmation process (and VP refusing to play along out of principle) and misinformation during campaign season, I don’t think anything positive can really be said.

What are you talking about? Abrams refused to concede and said the election was stolen from her, that is the big lie except it isn't because the media has brainwashed so many people into thinking if you are a Democrat it's heroic. It's not. It's complete and utter lunacy. Just as everyone bought into the crap that Trump stole the election from Hillary with "misinformation"

Total rubbish. Hillary gave a gracious concession speech when Trump won. We are still waiting for that gracious concession speech from Trump. Or are you one of those people who believe the election was stolen from Trump? I can't wait to hear Trump's generous concession speech. So tell us, do you believe that the election was stolen from Trump? Or will you, like other Republicans, choose to avoid the question. Your party is the greatest danger to democracy in this country today and you have no problem with this.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So we are just glossing over the fact that Hillary was sus of the story and wanted more information so she, or someone in her camp, gave the report to someone who had connections and could fact check? That is just not a thing? Hillary wanted facts is just not worth discussing?

Nice deflection but that is not what happened. She knew it was bogus, she could have fact checked it herself but it wasn't about facts it was about getting it to the media who controls peoples minds and hoping they would believe it.

She wanted research. And? Questioning the source. Isn't that what Republicans like you demand?

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe the Senate will reopen the Mueller report, something that McConnell had no spine to follow up on. Much like the Jan 6 insurrection.

Well Chucky has had the ball for over a year and has done ungatz, like everything else, so I doubt it.

What ball? He has Lucy McCoal swiping it at every second to please one of the least educated and poorest states in the country.

Sorry, I am not playing your "move the goalposts" game any further.

victrola wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Stunningly bad take. If you can’t tell the difference between WH advisers planning to stop a Congressional confirmation process (and VP refusing to play along out of principle) and misinformation during campaign season, I don’t think anything positive can really be said.

What are you talking about? Abrams refused to concede and said the election was stolen from her, that is the big lie except it isn't because the media has brainwashed so many people into thinking if you are a Democrat it's heroic. It's not. It's complete and utter lunacy. Just as everyone bought into the crap that Trump stole the election from Hillary with "misinformation"

Total rubbish. Hillary gave a gracious concession speech when Trump won. We are still waiting for that gracious concession speech from Trump. Or are you one of those people who believe the election was stolen from Trump? I can't wait to hear Trump's generous concession speech. So tell us, do you believe that the election was stolen from Trump? Or will you, like other Republicans, choose to avoid the question. Your party is the greatest danger to democracy in this country today and you have no problem with this.

Total complete and utter rubbish.

I remember it was John Podesta coming out to talk to the blubbering crowd and saying that she wouldn't be speaking that morning. Hillary was probably deep in the bottle, and they had to get a concession ready for her, because NFW did she or 99% of the pundits think she would need it. I mean lose to Trump FFS????? So she mouthed a few platitudes and the went on to complain THROUGH THE PRESENT DAY that the election was stolen.

And please, spare us the piety about threats to Democracy. You and yours spent four years trying to overthow a legitimately elected president with your fake investigations and bogus impeachments. That crap may play in the bubble and here in Non-av, but the rest of the country knows it's garbage. See you in November. I bet the "Voter Suppression!" placards have already been made. Funny how we never heard about that in 2020, with Biden and his 81 million votes.. But that only happens when a Dem loses, right Stacey? 2020 was a perfect election! PERFECT!

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So we are just glossing over the fact that Hillary was sus of the story and wanted more information so she, or someone in her camp, gave the report to someone who had connections and could fact check? That is just not a thing? Hillary wanted facts is just not worth discussing?

Nice deflection but that is not what happened. She knew it was bogus, she could have fact checked it herself but it wasn't about facts it was about getting it to the media who controls peoples minds and hoping they would believe it.

She wanted research. And? Questioning the source. Isn't that what Republicans like you demand?

Facts say otherwise. Her own IT people said it was crap.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Well Chucky has had the ball for over a year and has done ungatz, like everything else, so I doubt it.

What ball? He has Lucy McCoal swiping it at every second to please one of the least educated and poorest states in the country.

Sorry, I am not playing your "move the goalposts" game any further.

So you agree then that the thread starter started a BS thread about a nothing burger. Have a good day since you have nothing to further discuss on the GOP's Russian complacency.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

What ball? He has Lucy McCoal swiping it at every second to please one of the least educated and poorest states in the country.

Sorry, I am not playing your "move the goalposts" game any further.

So you agree then that the thread starter started a BS thread about a nothing burger. Have a good day since you have nothing to further discuss on the GOP's Russian complacency.

I agree to nothing of the sort. I have proved the opposite in fact.

You are following the standard playbook: If "move the goalposts" fails, put words into the other guy's mouth and scurry off declaring victory to yourself.

You know what would be swell? If Republicans applied their same rigorous standards for statements by Hillary Clinton, to statements they make about Hillary Clinton, who has reportedly been a murderous, drug-dealing, sex-trafficking terrorist-enabler for nearly as long as I've been alive.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Sorry, I am not playing your "move the goalposts" game any further.

So you agree then that the thread starter started a BS thread about a nothing burger. Have a good day since you have nothing to further discuss on the GOP's Russian complacency.

I agree to nothing of the sort. I have proved the opposite in fact.

You are following the standard playbook: If "move the goalposts" fails, put words into the other guy's mouth and scurry off declaring victory to yourself.

That is why you end all discussions without responding to the questions? It would seem that you are the one that wants to pick up the ball and leave while not engaging in the discussion.

Newark727 wrote:

You know what would be swell? If Republicans applied their same rigorous standards for statements by Hillary Clinton, to statements they make about Hillary Clinton, who has reportedly been a murderous, drug-dealing, sex-trafficking terrorist-enabler for nearly as long as I've been alive.

Thanks for the off topic post.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So you agree then that the thread starter started a BS thread about a nothing burger. Have a good day since you have nothing to further discuss on the GOP's Russian complacency.

I agree to nothing of the sort. I have proved the opposite in fact.

You are following the standard playbook: If "move the goalposts" fails, put words into the other guy's mouth and scurry off declaring victory to yourself.

That is why you end all discussions without responding to the questions? It would seem that you are the one that wants to pick up the ball and leave while not engaging in the discussion.

I have answered everything related to the topic. Just because you don't like the answers but are incapable of responding on topic actually does mean that the discussion is over. By definition.

As to your "questions", start another thread, or bump one of the many thousands of their kind and I may choose to reply to that. But stop pouting that I am ignoring off-topic posts.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I agree to nothing of the sort. I have proved the opposite in fact.

You are following the standard playbook: If "move the goalposts" fails, put words into the other guy's mouth and scurry off declaring victory to yourself.

That is why you end all discussions without responding to the questions? It would seem that you are the one that wants to pick up the ball and leave while not engaging in the discussion.

I have answered everything related to the topic. Just because you don't like the answers but are incapable of responding on topic actually does mean that the discussion is over. By definition.

As to your "questions", start another thread, or bump one of the many thousands of their kind and I may choose to reply to that. But stop pouting that I am ignoring off-topic posts.

The topic is that Trump-Russia Material was released to a reporter, and then the infomation was deemed plausible enough , Due to Trump's and his campaign's own previous actions and statements that it was investigated by the FBI. How have we left the subject?

Newark727 wrote:

You know what would be swell? If Republicans applied their same rigorous standards for statements by Hillary Clinton, to statements they make about Hillary Clinton, who has reportedly been a murderous, drug-dealing, sex-trafficking terrorist-enabler for nearly as long as I've been alive.

Right? Again, you gotta give Hillary credit - never before has a one time Secretary of State and failed presidential candidate from 5+ years ago lived rent free in the heads of so many.

Show us on the doll where Hillary hurt you...

May I kindly ask you to stop attacking each other and keep this thread on topic, thanks.

casinterest wrote:

The topic is that Trump-Russia Material was released to a reporter, and then the infomation was deemed plausible enough , Due to Trump's and his campaign's own previous actions and statements that it was investigated by the FBI. How have we left the subject?

Let's be accurate. The subject is "Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material to reporter". It's not "Trump gave polling information to Putin" or any of the other distractions that have been thrown up to distort the discussion. So let's parse it, so we can talk about the subject matter, sans sideshow.

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says : So the source isn't Trump, it isn't Democracy hating Republicans, or whatever boogeyman is trotted out in an attempt to minimize or spin the story away, it's a Clinton campaign insider.

Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material In this case, and let's be specific, it relates to an alleged secret server that Trump had to contact Alfa Bank of Russia. That started with a "computer expert" who passed along this info to his buddy Sussman, a lawyer for the campaign. Clinton campaign IT folk said there was nothing to it. Notwithstanding, Sussman smelled opportunity (and billable hours) and wanted to run with it.

to reporter But even a sleaze like Sussman knew that the story was thin, and even a "friendly" reporter might have a question or two before running it. So let's give it to his buddy James Baker, FBI General Counsel. He can't tell Baker he's working for the campaign, because even a dunce's ears would prick up at that, so he lies and pretends he happened across it and was a concerned citizen. As long as Baker says he will look into it, even if he roundfiles it the second Sussman slithers out of his office, Sussman can then say "The FBI is looking into Trump/Russia banking connections." And Hillary said run with it.

So when you say "the information was deemed plausible enough", it in fact wasn't. It wasn't plausible to Hillary's own staff. It was ultimately dismissed by everyone else who looked at it. Even you. Machts nichts. Damage done. Winning!

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The topic is that Trump-Russia Material was released to a reporter, and then the infomation was deemed plausible enough , Due to Trump's and his campaign's own previous actions and statements that it was investigated by the FBI. How have we left the subject?

Let's be accurate. The subject is "Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material to reporter". It's not "Trump gave polling information to Putin" or any of the other distractions that have been thrown up to distort the discussion. So let's parse it, so we can talk about the subject matter, sans sideshow.

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says : So the source isn't Trump, it isn't Democracy hating Republicans, or whatever boogeyman is trotted out in an attempt to minimize or spin the story away, it's a Clinton campaign insider.

Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material In this case, and let's be specific, it relates to an alleged secret server that Trump had to contact Alfa Bank of Russia. That started with a "computer expert" who passed along this info to his buddy Sussman, a lawyer for the campaign. Clinton campaign IT folk said there was nothing to it. Notwithstanding, Sussman smelled opportunity (and billable hours) and wanted to run with it.

to reporter But even a sleaze like Sussman knew that the story was thin, and even a "friendly" reporter might have a question or two before running it. So let's give it to his buddy James Baker, FBI General Counsel. He can't tell Baker he's working for the campaign, because even a dunce's ears would prick up at that, so he lies and pretends he happened across it and was a concerned citizen. As long as Baker says he will look into it, even if he roundfiles it the second Sussman slithers out of his office, Sussman can then say "The FBI is looking into Trump/Russia banking connections." And Hillary said run with it.

So when you say "the information was deemed plausible enough", it in fact wasn't. It wasn't plausible to Hillary's own staff. It was ultimately dismissed by everyone else who looked at it. Even you. Machts nichts. Damage done. Winning!

Let's be accurate. This headline comes from a trial where there was a report of the Clinton Campaign giving the information to a reporter to vet it out. This was not in a vacuum. This was during a time where Donald Trump and campaign where actively dealing with Russians whether for business details, access to Hillary's servers or other nefarious items.

At the end of the day, information came to a cyber security exper's attention about some interesting traffic occurring between a server at a Russian Bank and a server at the Trump campaign, I have a high doubt about the story that it was just a spam email server, and a ping access, as most cyber security experts can recognize random email headers and ICMP packets. But let's not go to what i think was a pretty crappy FBI investigation into the data.

The end issue is that the data was brought to the attention of the campaign, and they did not know what to do with it, so they sent it to a reporter, and Sussman on his own, representing the Clinton Campaign ,. or in conjunction with the original cyber expert went to the FBI with the data. The only thing Sussman is on trial for is whether or not he lied about who he was representing. There is no question about the claim, or whether it had merit. The FBI investigated. So there was enough THERE , THERE to investigate.

Trump already is damaged goods he is a liar, racist, fraud and a traitor, and a great deal of dishonorable, uneducated or gullible people still follow him and all the fraud he represents.

There was no damage to be done by the leak that even rivals the "Hillary email" scandal, and i suspect based on what was found out about Sussman's receipts we will find out that the Jury has doubts about Durham's lone criminal charge against a person , not for the information he brought, but for the interpretation of who he represented.

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The topic is that Trump-Russia Material was released to a reporter, and then the infomation was deemed plausible enough , Due to Trump's and his campaign's own previous actions and statements that it was investigated by the FBI. How have we left the subject?

Let's be accurate. The subject is "Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material to reporter". It's not "Trump gave polling information to Putin" or any of the other distractions that have been thrown up to distort the discussion. So let's parse it, so we can talk about the subject matter, sans sideshow.

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says : So the source isn't Trump, it isn't Democracy hating Republicans, or whatever boogeyman is trotted out in an attempt to minimize or spin the story away, it's a Clinton campaign insider.

Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material In this case, and let's be specific, it relates to an alleged secret server that Trump had to contact Alfa Bank of Russia. That started with a "computer expert" who passed along this info to his buddy Sussman, a lawyer for the campaign. Clinton campaign IT folk said there was nothing to it. Notwithstanding, Sussman smelled opportunity (and billable hours) and wanted to run with it.

to reporter But even a sleaze like Sussman knew that the story was thin, and even a "friendly" reporter might have a question or two before running it. So let's give it to his buddy James Baker, FBI General Counsel. He can't tell Baker he's working for the campaign, because even a dunce's ears would prick up at that, so he lies and pretends he happened across it and was a concerned citizen. As long as Baker says he will look into it, even if he roundfiles it the second Sussman slithers out of his office, Sussman can then say "The FBI is looking into Trump/Russia banking connections." And Hillary said run with it.

So when you say "the information was deemed plausible enough", it in fact wasn't. It wasn't plausible to Hillary's own staff. It was ultimately dismissed by everyone else who looked at it. Even you. Machts nichts. Damage done. Winning!

Let's be accurate. This headline comes from a trial where there was a report of the Clinton Campaign giving the information to a reporter to vet it out. This was not in a vacuum. This was during a time where Donald Trump and campaign where actively dealing with Russians whether for business details, access to Hillary's servers or other nefarious items.

At the end of the day, information came to a cyber security exper's attention about some interesting traffic occurring between a server at a Russian Bank and a server at the Trump campaign, I have a high doubt about the story that it was just a spam email server, and a ping access, as most cyber security experts can recognize random email headers and ICMP packets. But let's not go to what i think was a pretty crappy FBI investigation into the data.

The end issue is that the data was brought to the attention of the campaign, and they did not know what to do with it, so they sent it to a reporter, and Sussman on his own, representing the Clinton Campaign ,. or in conjunction with the original cyber expert went to the FBI with the data. The only thing Sussman is on trial for is whether or not he lied about who he was representing. There is no question about the claim, or whether it had merit. The FBI investigated. So there was enough THERE , THERE to investigate.

Trump already is damaged goods he is a liar, racist, fraud and a traitor, and a great deal of dishonorable, uneducated or gullible people still follow him and all the fraud he represents.

There was no damage to be done by the leak that even rivals the "Hillary email" scandal, and i suspect based on what was found out about Sussman's receipts we will find out that the Jury has doubts about Durham's lone criminal charge against a person , not for the information he brought, but for the interpretation of who he represented.

Whistle loud your same old song. Whistle loud.

All your ad hominems are irrelevant. Everything I posted is accurate, and at least now you are not attempting to deny it. Spin away. But it matters not. You and I will still be here while Sussman spends a few months in Club Fed. Hopefully he gets disbarred, but I suspect he won't.

OT: Are you saying that the "Hillary email" scandal cost her the election? A yes or no will suffice. You have me curious.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Let's be accurate. The subject is "Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material to reporter". It's not "Trump gave polling information to Putin" or any of the other distractions that have been thrown up to distort the discussion. So let's parse it, so we can talk about the subject matter, sans sideshow.

Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook says : So the source isn't Trump, it isn't Democracy hating Republicans, or whatever boogeyman is trotted out in an attempt to minimize or spin the story away, it's a Clinton campaign insider.

Clinton agreed to give Trump-Russia material In this case, and let's be specific, it relates to an alleged secret server that Trump had to contact Alfa Bank of Russia. That started with a "computer expert" who passed along this info to his buddy Sussman, a lawyer for the campaign. Clinton campaign IT folk said there was nothing to it. Notwithstanding, Sussman smelled opportunity (and billable hours) and wanted to run with it.

to reporter But even a sleaze like Sussman knew that the story was thin, and even a "friendly" reporter might have a question or two before running it. So let's give it to his buddy James Baker, FBI General Counsel. He can't tell Baker he's working for the campaign, because even a dunce's ears would prick up at that, so he lies and pretends he happened across it and was a concerned citizen. As long as Baker says he will look into it, even if he roundfiles it the second Sussman slithers out of his office, Sussman can then say "The FBI is looking into Trump/Russia banking connections." And Hillary said run with it.

So when you say "the information was deemed plausible enough", it in fact wasn't. It wasn't plausible to Hillary's own staff. It was ultimately dismissed by everyone else who looked at it. Even you. Machts nichts. Damage done. Winning!

Let's be accurate. This headline comes from a trial where there was a report of the Clinton Campaign giving the information to a reporter to vet it out. This was not in a vacuum. This was during a time where Donald Trump and campaign where actively dealing with Russians whether for business details, access to Hillary's servers or other nefarious items.

At the end of the day, information came to a cyber security exper's attention about some interesting traffic occurring between a server at a Russian Bank and a server at the Trump campaign, I have a high doubt about the story that it was just a spam email server, and a ping access, as most cyber security experts can recognize random email headers and ICMP packets. But let's not go to what i think was a pretty crappy FBI investigation into the data.

The end issue is that the data was brought to the attention of the campaign, and they did not know what to do with it, so they sent it to a reporter, and Sussman on his own, representing the Clinton Campaign ,. or in conjunction with the original cyber expert went to the FBI with the data. The only thing Sussman is on trial for is whether or not he lied about who he was representing. There is no question about the claim, or whether it had merit. The FBI investigated. So there was enough THERE , THERE to investigate.

Trump already is damaged goods he is a liar, racist, fraud and a traitor, and a great deal of dishonorable, uneducated or gullible people still follow him and all the fraud he represents.

There was no damage to be done by the leak that even rivals the "Hillary email" scandal, and i suspect based on what was found out about Sussman's receipts we will find out that the Jury has doubts about Durham's lone criminal charge against a person , not for the information he brought, but for the interpretation of who he represented.

Whistle loud your same old song. Whistle loud.

All your ad hominems are irrelevant. Everything I posted is accurate, and at least now you are not attempting to deny it. Spin away. But it matters not. You and I will still be here while Sussman spends a few months in Club Fed. Hopefully he gets disbarred, but I suspect he won't.

OT: Are you saying that the "Hillary email" scandal cost her the election? A yes or no will suffice. You have me curious.

So slander in your statement is all you have? you slandered Sussman , who was invited by the FBI in as a colleague on multiple occasions. Don't sit here and pretend you have any high ground here.

casinterest wrote:

So slander in your statement is all you have? you slandered Sussman , who was invited by the FBI in as a colleague on multiple occasions. Don't sit here and pretend you have any high ground here.

If calling someone a sleaze when that someone lies about not representing a client and then send the client a bill falls under your definition of slander, then yes. My definition of slander is calling half this country racist traitors, for example.

Bricktop wrote:

casinterest wrote:

So slander in your statement is all you have? you slandered Sussman , who was invited by the FBI in as a colleague on multiple occasions. Don't sit here and pretend you have any high ground here.

If calling someone a sleaze when that someone lies about not representing a client and then send the client a bill falls under your definition of slander, then yes. My definition of slander is calling half this country racist traitors, for example.

That s now what is in evidence in the current case. So yes your statement is slanderous.

The FBI Brass themselves hid the identify of the source so as not to hinder the investigation.

FBI agent Curtis Heide testified that he and another agent tasked with running down the so-called secret server claims repeatedly asked officials at FBI headquarters for permission to interview the source of the data and “white papers” that spurred the investigation. However, those requests were rebuffed, he said.

“That made your investigation incomplete, did it not?” defense attorney Sean Berkowitz asked.

“Yes,” Heide replied.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/2 ... a-00034814

ltbewr wrote:

Sadly, we may never know the truth about the possible involvement of the Russian government supporting the campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 and how much it helped him. Too much hearsay evidence, both Trump and Clinton playing dirty during the campaign, both of them being a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, racism, sexism, anti-immigrant attitudes, serious mistakes in campaigning by HRC (like ignoring Michigan and Pennsylvania, the infamous 'deplorables' comment as to Trump supporters, getting ill at the 9/11 ceremony at the WTC) and so on. I don't know if this 'Durham' will result in any criminal convictions but at the least it should be a warning to anyone campaigning to be very careful with information they may have on an opponent if can't be fully vetted.

The “deplorables” comment was one of the most truthful moments of 2016.

CitizenJustin wrote:

The “deplorables” comment was one of the most truthful moments of 2016.

Actually it was one of the most stupidest things any candidate has said on the campaign trail. I am glad she said it though for it hurt her badly and contributed to her loss in the election in addition to showing the country why she was very disliked.

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The “deplorables” comment was one of the most truthful moments of 2016.

Actually it was one of the most stupidest things any candidate has said on the campaign trail. I am glad she said it though for it hurt her badly and contributed to her loss in the election in addition to showing the country why she was very disliked.

And yet she won the popular vote.

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The “deplorables” comment was one of the most truthful moments of 2016.

Actually it was one of the most stupidest things any candidate has said on the campaign trail. I am glad she said it though for it hurt her badly and contributed to her loss in the election in addition to showing the country why she was very disliked.

It was a stupid comment to make publicly at the time, even though truth was the obvious defence. It would have only hardened the vote against her in states that were already borderline, sealing her deafeat by the EC.

Kent350787 wrote:

It was a stupid comment to make publicly at the time, even though truth was the obvious defence. It would have only hardened the vote against her in states that were already borderline, sealing her deafeat by the EC.

The political area was (still is) extremely toxic.

She made it easy on Fox & co, but had she not said this they would have clung on something else she said. Or they would have made up something outlandish like a child sex ring underneath a pizza place. Oooh wait... that happened.

I don't think Hillary lost votes from this comment.
If you felt that comment was directed at you, then the odds of you seriously considering voting for her where nill anyway.

Added a link since the mods like that sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate ... acy_theory

How many swing votes do you think there really were in that election?
You either loved trump or hated him. If you hated him, you either voted against or didn't vote at all.
Hillary just couldn't get enough people excited enough to go out and vote. trump was just a love fest for his supporters.
(Of course as I said above, she did get more votes than trump, just not in the right places)

Kent350787 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The “deplorables” comment was one of the most truthful moments of 2016.

Actually it was one of the most stupidest things any candidate has said on the campaign trail. I am glad she said it though for it hurt her badly and contributed to her loss in the election in addition to showing the country why she was very disliked.

It was a stupid comment to make publicly at the time, even though truth was the obvious defence. It would have only hardened the vote against her in states that were already borderline, sealing her deafeat by the EC.

She was also being *incredibly* charitable.

Most of MAGA world is looking up at a stretch goal of 'deplorable'. Any flash of sanity or decency is instantly excommunicated by the hordes.

petertenthije wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

It was a stupid comment to make publicly at the time, even though truth was the obvious defence. It would have only hardened the vote against her in states that were already borderline, sealing her deafeat by the EC.

The political area was (still is) extremely toxic.

She made it easy on Fox & co, but had she not said this they would have clung on something else she said. Or they would have made up something outlandish like a child sex ring underneath a pizza place. Oooh wait... that happened.

I don't think Hillary lost votes from this comment.
If you felt that comment was directed at you, then the odds of you seriously considering voting for her where nill anyway.

Added a link since the mods like that sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate ... acy_theory

Mmmmhmmmm pizzagate wasn't even fringe for the GOP, and certainly isn't now. Never mind Sandy Hook (and now Uvalde) truthers, and regular shoulder rubs with Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, and anyone repeating their Great Replacement Theory dog and pony show...

Deplorable was being nice.

Exrampieyyz wrote:

How many swing votes do you think there really were in that election?
You either loved trump or hated him. If you hated him, you either voted against or didn't vote at all.
Hillary just couldn't get enough people excited enough to go out and vote. trump was just a love fest for his supporters.
(Of course as I said above, she did get more votes than trump, just not in the right places)

Trump and Clinton were the two worst people to run (as D or R general election candidates) in 50 years. Clinton lost a lot of states that Obama or Biden would have won, because she was such a poor candidate. Trump won in '16, not because he was any good, but purely as a protest candidate. A protest against the wealthy, self congratulatory Washington/NY elites, the mandarins. Trump was always rejected by the "best people." He resented them, being weak and thin-skinned as he was. And he was able to convey his resentment and bile to the masses.

I don't even think the election was really about Trump. It was about Clinton versus a pile of shit. And electors gave their verdict on that.

petertenthije wrote:

She made it easy on Fox & co, but had she not said this they would have clung on something else she said. Or they would have made up something outlandish like a child sex ring underneath a pizza place. Oooh wait... that happened.

I don't think Hillary lost votes from this comment.
If you felt that comment was directed at you, then the odds of you seriously considering voting for her where nill anyway.

Added a link since the mods like that sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate ... acy_theory

Please quote in your link where it says Fox News made up pizza gate, or even reported it. I read your link but can't find that part.

Acquittal!


That is the end of the one far reaching charge to come out of the Durham witch hunt against Americans doing their jobs.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-su ... m-verdict/

Washington – A District of Columbia jury has acquitted Michael Sussmann, a prominent Democratic lawyer, on one count of lying to investigators during a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting during which he conveyed now-debunked data that purportedly linked Trump Tower to Russia's Alfa Bank.

Michael Sussmann was accused by special counsel John Durham — a holdover from the Trump administration — of hiding his ties with a technology executive and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign when he brought the allegations to then-FBI general counsel Jim Baker.