• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jailed Russian says he hacked DNC on Kremlin’s orders and can prove it

haymarket said:
Only to the mind of a right wing zealot who deludes themselves into a mentally unbalanced state where they now discount everything produced by our current intelligence agencies because a couple of decades ago they made a mistake.
Click to expand...

Look-- we are back to square one here.
The claim that Russia attempted to interfere and screw with the election seems plausable and reasonable in a way that it wouldnt be if the claim was that Canada or the UK had done so.

But things get tangled when its added that Trump colluded with the Russia in that effort. Because now it is relevent the source and nature of the dossier. It is relevent how the government dealt with an investigation into the Clinton emails vs. how it dealt with claims of Trump collusion.
Its not a distraction at all.
 
haymarket said:
your non denial denial is noted.

Your personal attack is noted.

Your inability to refute what was stated to you stands like a mountain side hovering over a small town.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel I attacked you personally for saying silly things, I didn't. Your absolute faith in the current reports is not based upon the trustworthiness or lack of it, just your partisan willingness to want it to be true. The façade is readily apparent.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Look-- we are back to square one here.
The claim that Russia attempted to interfere and screw with the election seems plausable and reasonable in a way that it wouldnt be if the claim was that Canada or the UK had done so.

But things get tangled when its added that Trump colluded with the Russia in that effort. Because now it is relevent the source and nature of the dossier. It is relevent how the government dealt with an investigation into the Clinton emails vs. how it dealt with claims of Trump collusion.
Its not a distraction at all.
Click to expand...

Not only that but the information they supposedly had was that the Clinton campaign was receiving funds from Russian sources. Something that should be followed up on, even if just to report it to the FEC and carpet bomb it to the press if the FEC sits on it.

When it became apparent they had no such information, the meeting became about how fast it could be over because it was based on false pretenses.
 
haymarket said:
Mueller already has the evidence I referred to.
Click to expand...

And so far all he has is that the Russians actually rejected Flynn's efforts regarding the pro-Israeli vote at the UN.

There is no evidence the Russians did anything regarding our election, except RT buying some ads on Facebook.

Talk about a tempest in a teapot......Much ado about nothing at all. Mueller and Congress fiddle as Rome burns.
 
haymarket said:
You continuing to do your radical right wing true believer insult campaign is not a conversation. Its merely a vitriolic rant.
Click to expand...

Nope it is the truth..

Constantly asking for information that is common knowledge is not your right. It just proves your trying to derail the conversation. :2wave:

And an observation by several people on this forum..

I, and others get very tired of your tired old same old, same old. You do this every time you really don't have anything to say...
 
OpportunityCost said:
They paid Steele who worked with Russian sources to compile his dossier. Steele was little better than a pass through for their information or disinformation as the case may turn out to be. The DNC, Clinton campaign and the FBI each had a hand in paying for this work product coming second hand from Russian sources.

Again, I don't believe in coincidences.
Click to expand...

So if I go to my local home town American party store owned by local Americans and buy a bottle of vodka that came from a legal US importer who got it from a distiller in Russia, somehow you can claim I did business with Russia?
 
Athanasius68 said:
There is no such evidence. There is conjecture-- some guy in the trump campaign says he knows sone guy in russia who says he knows somebody in the russian government who might have access to the missing clinton emails... Or jr. Trump meets with a Russian lawyer who it turns out has also worked for the same company which produced the anti-Trump dossier....

Not much there.
Click to expand...

Top Trump campaign officials met with Russians who said there was governmental information which would help them in the campaign against Clinton. Before the meeting they even discussed how to best use the information and even the timing of how to release it to maximum help to Trump.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Look-- we are back to square one here.
The claim that Russia attempted to interfere and screw with the election seems plausable and reasonable in a way that it wouldnt be if the claim was that Canada or the UK had done so.

But things get tangled when its added that Trump colluded with the Russia in that effort. Because now it is relevent the source and nature of the dossier. It is relevent how the government dealt with an investigation into the Clinton emails vs. how it dealt with claims of Trump collusion.
Its not a distraction at all.
Click to expand...

We are far far far beyond square one and its miles upon miles in the rear view mirror.

Trump campaign officials colluded with Russians and Trump invited the Russians to help him. That is fact supported by the emails we got from the Trump campaign and their own actions going to such a meeting for the purpose of getting dirt on Clinton to weaponize in the campaign.

To pretend to compare that to this silly nonsense about the dossier and Clinton Russian collusion is beyond absurd .
 
OpportunityCost said:
I'm sorry you feel I attacked you personally for saying silly things, I didn't. Your absolute faith in the current reports is not based upon the trustworthiness or lack of it, just your partisan willingness to want it to be true. The façade is readily apparent.
Click to expand...

Actually its based on me being a patriotic American who wants to find out how this happened and the steps we need to take to make sure it does not happen again.
 
haymarket said:
The evidence is undeniable
1- we have Trump on video inviting the Russians to help him in his campaign
2- we have evidence of the meeting between top Trump campaign officials and Russians for the purpose of getting information from them to help them in the campaign

As Charles Krauthammer said on FOX - even bungled collusion is still collusion.
Click to expand...

1. We have Trump mocking Clinton as to the fate of her emails.
2. We have a brief meeting that went nowhere with a woman who also worked with the anti- Trump fusion group (if anything, such is proof that the Kremlin targeted the 2016 election as a whole rather than a candidate in particular).
 
Thoreau72 said:
And so far all he has is that the Russians actually rejected Flynn's efforts regarding the pro-Israeli vote at the UN.

There is no evidence the Russians did anything regarding our election, except RT buying some ads on Facebook.

Talk about a tempest in a teapot......Much ado about nothing at all. Mueller and Congress fiddle as Rome burns.
Click to expand...

When you say they did not do anything and then the next word is EXCEPT - you already lost.
 
Athanasius68 said:
1. We have Trump mocking Clinton as to the fate of her emails.
2. We have a brief meeting that went nowhere with a woman who also worked with the anti- Trump fusion group (if anything, such is proof that the Kremlin targeted the 2016 election as a whole rather than a candidate in particular).
Click to expand...


Trump publicly invited the Russians to help him in his campaign.

Top level Trump campaign officials accepted an invitation to meet with Russians who claimed they could help with information against Clinton to be weaponized for use in the campaign. And then they attended that meeting with Russians . That is collusion regardless of what resulted.

Even noted conservative FOX News commentator Charles Krauthammer wisely observed that bungled collusion is still collusion.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
When you say they did not do anything and then the next word is EXCEPT - you already lost.
Click to expand...

RT buying an add in facebook... :roll:

And you think you won something? :lamo

Prove the Russian collusion that the entire nation has been waiting for, for over a year now. Or, SHFU... :2wave:
 
Blkdirt Farmer said:
RT buying an add in facebook... :roll:

And you think you won something? :lamo

Prove the Russian collusion that the entire nation has been waiting for, for over a year now. Or, SHFU... :2wave:
Click to expand...

When one says that they did not do ANYTHING was done and then the next word is EXCEPT - it negates the first statement and is a lost claim of fact.

That is simply how the English language works.
 
haymarket said:
So if I go to my local home town American party store owned by local Americans and buy a bottle of vodka that came from a legal US importer who got it from a distiller in Russia, somehow you can claim I did business with Russia?
Click to expand...

That would be more evidence of dealings with Russia than what we have now.

This thread is originally about some Russian who said he can prove that the Russian government hacked the DNC. And why does that matter? Because there is otherwise NO proof that the DNC was even hacked, much less hacked by Russia. The claims to the contrary are based upon the DNC's own internal review which came to that conclusion and for which the FBI et. al. accepted for purposes of drawing certain intelligence conclusion.

Again, its perfectly plausable and reasonable to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the info to wikileaks who in turn leaked it to the workd. But the argument is being made that Trump conspired in all this, that criminal and civil sanction need to be applied. And yet, nobody can actuallly prove there was any HACK which is the whole predicate offense.

So yes, you buying Russian vodka in an American liquor store is greater proof of you doing business with the Russian government than has ever been presented with respects to Trump and 2016.
That is, if the objective was to prove that you had broken some law, as opposed to showing that Russia was engaged in some plot to harm the American vodka industry.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That would be more evidence of dealings with Russia than what we have now.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor I have access to the evidence that Muller has as of today. So it could be a mountain or it could be just what we already have - which is enough to show collusion.


This thread is originally about some Russian who said he can prove that the Russian government hacked the DNC. And why does that matter? Because there is otherwise NO proof that the DNC was even hacked, much less hacked by Russia. The claims to the contrary are based upon the DNC's own internal review which came to that conclusion and for which the FBI et. al. accepted for purposes of drawing certain intelligence conclusion.

Again, its perfectly plausable and reasonable to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC and leaked the info to wikileaks who in turn leaked it to the workd. But the argument is being made that Trump conspired in all this, that criminal and civil sanction need to be applied. And yet, nobody can actuallly prove there was any HACK which is the whole predicate offense.

So yes, you buying Russian vodka in an American liquor store is greater proof of you doing business with the Russian government than has ever been presented with respects to Trump and 2016.
That is, if the objective was to prove that you had broken some law, as opposed to showing that Russia was engaged in some plot to harm the American vodka industry.
Click to expand...

Based on that connecting of the dots on different pages with different people in different roles at different times - one can say that we are nearly all connected in one way or another and a shoddy case can be made for connection even though it is remote and not at all direct ..... and that describes the dossier and Russian connection to a tee.

On the other hand, the collusion between the Trump campaign top officials was direct and personal face to face with Russians for the expressed purpose of getting dirt on Clinton and using it in the campaign from a foreign adversary that made it known they were trying to help and their efforts were enthusiastically received and welcomed and acted upon.

The difference between those two things is akin to the difference between a small ravine and the Grand Canyon.
 
haymarket said:
Neither you nor I have access to the evidence that Muller has as of today. So it could be a mountain or it could be just what we already have - which is enough to show collusion.




Based on that connecting of the dots on different pages with different people in different roles at different times - one can say that we are nearly all connected in one way or another and a shoddy case can be made for connection even though it is remote and not at all direct ..... and that describes the dossier and Russian connection to a tee.

On the other hand, the collusion between the Trump campaign top officials was direct and personal face to face with Russians for the expressed purpose of getting dirt on Clinton and using it in the campaign from a foreign adversary that made it known they were trying to help and their efforts were enthusiastically received and welcomed and acted upon.

The difference between those two things is akin to the difference between a small ravine and the Grand Canyon.
Click to expand...

That Russian lawyer denied working for the Russian government, and the Russian government denied she worked for them. We can take those denials with a grain of salt, but it is still not proof of anything, if the objective is a criminal complaint against Trump.
And that is really what is happening here-- everyone hereabouts is talking past each other and in a different language.
Maybe Mueller has more stuff he is not sharing. Fair enough. But then we are still left with the question that we are investigating something when their is less evidence of 'it' happeniing than something else happennig for which is being described by many as a diversion from investigating the former.
 
haymarket said:
So if I go to my local home town American party store owned by local Americans and buy a bottle of vodka that came from a legal US importer who got it from a distiller in Russia, somehow you can claim I did business with Russia?
Click to expand...

No, but if you were negotiating to build a skyscraper in Moscow, then claimed you had no business with the Russians while running for president, only hard core members of your party would believe you.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That Russian lawyer denied working for the Russian government, and the Russian government denied she worked for them. We can take those denials with a grain of salt, but it is still not proof of anything, if the objective is a criminal complaint against Trump.
And that is really what is happening here-- everyone hereabouts is talking past each other and in a different language.
Maybe Mueller has more stuff he is not sharing. Fair enough. But then we are still left with the question that we are investigating something when their is less evidence of 'it' happeniing than something else happennig for which is being described by many as a diversion from investigating the former.
Click to expand...

Actually it is proof of just what I stated: That the top level people on the Trump campaign willingly met with Russians who told them they had information which would help them in the campaign against Clinton and they were supported by the Russian government. And they met with them enthusiastically hoping to get that information and even discussed how to best time it to their advantage.

That is collusion any way you slice it.

If by something different happening - you are referring to the cover up and lying to agents - yes, that is happening also. And those things are also crimes arising out of the entire Russian-Trump again so they are fair game under the mandate given to Mueller.

But I would fully expect the final report will provide us with much more than that - we will get actual point by point of the actual collusion with Russia during the campaign to interfere in the election and do with the cooperation of the Trump campaign.
 
Holy cheese and crackers! I see the usual suspect pounced immediately, postulating all manner of "fake news/everyone is out to get Trump/I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" kinda goofy flavored stuff. I can't wait to see who is actually right on this one. Very interesting.
 
Lerxst said:
Holy cheese and crackers! I see the usual suspect pounced immediately, postulating all manner of "fake news/everyone is out to get Trump/I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" kinda goofy flavored stuff. I can't wait to see who is actually right on this one. Very interesting.
Click to expand...

The power structure has no interest in ever resolving this completely. The diversion is stunningly useful to the corporate state.
 
haymarket said:
So if I go to my local home town American party store owned by local Americans and buy a bottle of vodka that came from a legal US importer who got it from a distiller in Russia, somehow you can claim I did business with Russia?
Click to expand...

Poor analogy. We are talking about using Russian intelligence sources to put together a dossier that may or may not contain misinformation. Your silly analogies are just a way to dodge the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom