Buried From Trump Tower Meeting: Translator Telling FBI 'No Collusion'

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

dixon01767 said:
Your not contradicting a thing Ive said

Because I don't have to. You replied to me first and did so by making deliberately false and misleading statements. I don't have to contradict you, I just have to show what you are saying is false and misleading. Which I've done.

and confirming that he didn't tell anyone they were obtained illegally.

If you don't understand how Russia having emails which do not belong to them had to be obtained illegally, then I highly suggest you logoff the Internet and never return.

AND STILL, all the emails were never obtained and as far as we know, never obtained through hacking.

...again, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Read the Mueller Report, like I said. That way you'll stop posting stupid things.

Athanasius68 · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Slyfox696 said:

Okay, so we're to believe the Russian agent whom the FBI determined lied to them before he fell off the face of the Earth about information we know for a fact Russia hacked from the DNC?

Click to expand...

Nobody is asking you to believe Mifsud or disbelieve Misfud.
Either way, it doesn't matter for the purposes here.
PapaD and Mifsud were talking about the Clinton emails, which have never been found.

Patriotic Americans or anyone who is against criminals prospering from their crimes.

Click to expand...

Well, it continues to be a fact that the ONLY campaign that received information from Russia was the Clinton campaign.
And it continues to be a fact that the Obama Admin used that information again an American citizen.
It continues to be mysterious why NOT receiving information from Russia is more of a crime than receiving information from Russia.

T

his is a blatant lie. Do check up on the date of the DCLeaks website reveal and how it coincides with the Trump Tower scheduled meeting date.

Click to expand...

The Trump campaign received no information from Russia about Mrs. Clinton.
The Clinton campaign did receive information from Russia about Mr. Trump.
That's a fact.
As far as the tower meeting, nothing in that chain of emails indicate that the source of information that was claimed to have had was in the form of emails.
The assumption that it was about the DNC emails however, comes from Mr. Downer and has no substantiated basis.

Of course it does. I already told you how. I told you again in this post. Read the GRU indictment and compare the timing of the DCLeaks website with the Trump Tower scheduled meeting date.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Click to expand...

No Americans were indicted along with these GRU folks.
The issue is whether Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.

But let's just say it is true, even though it clearly is not. Then if Russia was claiming to have those emails, the only way they could have gotten them was by illegally hacking the Clinton server. Which means everything I said about them illegally obtaining them from the DNC server, still applies.

Click to expand...

Its completely true-- the Clinton emails and the DNC emails are two separate and distinct sets of emails.

You are trying to fit fact facts to the the theory.

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Your fifth reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you.

I cannot imagine the lack of self-awareness it must take to post this...

Five times?

OMG! Can we make it six in your mind?
There you go being wrong as usual.

As for your lack of awareness comment?
My commentary to you was subject related. Did you get that, or are you still not paying attention? As you have already been proven wrong, rebuttal is not required.
While on the other hand the other poster's activity was just a continuation of drive-bys over different subjects. The two are not the same.

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying. So you clearly know my commentary towards you was substantive. You literally know not of which you speak.

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
Nobody is asking you to believe Mifsud or disbelieve Misfud.

...you literally presented his words as your argument.

Wow, the dishonesty...

PapaD and Mifsud were talking about the Clinton emails, which have never been found.

Just because you make things up you want to be true, that doesn't change the fact it's not.

Papadopoulos was actively working with a Russian asset/agent to coordinate cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign and was doing so with the encouragement of the Trump campaign. Mifsud tells PapaD they have damaging information through illegally obtained emails. Goldstone reaches out to Trump Jr. and offers the same information.

You are literally making things up which are not true.

Well, it continues to be a fact that the ONLY campaign that received information from Russia was the Clinton campaign.

I see you still haven't read the Mueller Report. You should try it.

And it continues to be a fact that the Obama Admin used that information again an American citizen.

Wow, you could not be more wrong if you were deliberately lying.

Michael Horowitz, the nonpartisan inspector general, has confirmed the investigation into the Trump campaign's coordination with Russia was properly predicated and we know for a fact the Trump campaign colluded. You REALLY need to stop presenting lies and disinformation.

The Trump campaign received no information from Russia about Mrs. Clinton.

:lamo

Why do you keep posting this lie when it has already been disproven, both by me and by common sense and reality?

As far as the tower meeting, nothing in that chain of emails indicate that the source of information that was claimed to have had was in the form of emails.

The email LITERALLY stated Russia had "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"...that is 100% collusion and directly relates to the information Mifsud told PapaD about.

You trying to claim they are different things is laughably stupid.

No Americans were indicted along with these GRU folks.

I said read the timing of when DCLeaks went live and compare it with the scheduled date of the Trump Tower meeting.

Why are you continuing to post disinformation?

The issue is whether Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election.

And we know for a fact, due to numerous Americans who worked with the Trump campaign who were indicted and found guilty, that they colluded. :shrug:

Its completely true-- the Clinton emails and the DNC emails are two separate and distinct sets of emails.

You're trying to obfuscate the fact Russia hacked the DNC emails and offered the information to the Trump campaign, an offer they made good on by releasing them through DCLeaks and Wikipedia. The DCLeaks public unveiling was within 24 hours of the scheduled Trump Tower meeting and we know from Rick Gates testimony that Roger Stone was the liason between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks.

Either you are horribly misinformed or you are lying. Which is it?

Excon said:
Five times? OMG! Can we make it six in your mind?
There you go being wrong as usual.

As for your lack of awareness comment?
My commentary to you was subject related. Did you get that, or are you still not paying attention? As you have already been proven wrong, rebuttal is not required.
While on the other hand the other poster's activity was just a continuation of drive-bys over different subjects. The two are not the same.

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."
And yet you keep replying. So you clearly know my commentary towards you was substantive. You literally know not of which you speak.

Your sixth reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Your sixth reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.

Six times?

OMG! Can we make it seven in your mind?
:lamo

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying. So you clearly know my commentary towards you was substantive. You literally know not of which you speak.

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

Excon said:
Six times? OMG! Can we make it seven in your mind?
:lamo

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."
And yet you keep replying. So you clearly know my commentary towards you was substantive. You literally know not of which you speak.

Your seventh reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Your seventh reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.

Seventh time?

OMG! Can we make it eight in your mind?

You were already proven wrong.

:laughat:

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.
Clearly know my commentary had been substantive otherwise you wouldn't have responded, or were you just lying?

danielpalos · Mar 25, 2020

zimmer said:
Where’s the Goebbels Media on this?

Hiding the truth as usual.

It’s time to pull Bob Mueller back before Congress, along with Weissmann to grill these corruptniks.

They knew there was nothing, but they went on their witch hunt/coup attempt anyways.

lol. Public policies are Public not Private.

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

Excon said:
Seventh time? OMG! Can we make it eight in your mind?

You were already proven wrong.

:laughat:
"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.

Your eighth reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.

Clearly know my commentary had been substantive otherwise you wouldn't have responded

You think it takes any amount of time worth mentioning to reply to your lack of content?

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Your eighth reply to a post of mine and not one contains anything substantive. Like I said. Thank you for proving me correct about you and your lack of desire or ability to reply substantively.
You think it takes any amount of time worth mentioning to reply to your lack of content?

Eight time?

OMG! Can we make it nine in your mind?

You were already proven wrong.

:laughat:

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.
Clearly know my commentary had been substantive otherwise you wouldn't have responded, or were you just lying?

Slyfox696 said:
You think it takes any amount of time worth mentioning to reply to your lack of content?

:lamo
Get a clue dude.
All the above is content.

Pointing that you were already proven wrong is substantive.

And the question your apparently are avoiding is; Were you lying?
Were you? Because your continual replies certainly indicates you were.

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

Excon said:
Get a clue dude..

You have not once responded with anything on-topic in your nine replies to me. Your posts are reflective of the kind of posts useless trolls make when they have nothing of value to add.

Do you have anything related to the topic to add in response to me or not?

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
You have not once responded with anything on-topic in your nine replies to me. Your posts are reflective of the kind of posts useless trolls make when they have nothing of value to add.

Wrong, and lying to boot.
Pointing out that you have already been proven wrong is on-topic.

Your dislike of that being pointed out does not change the fact that it is on-topic.

Slyfox696 · Mar 25, 2020

Excon said:
Wrong

You have not once responded substantively with anything on-topic in your ten replies to me. Your posts are reflective of the kind of posts useless trolls make when they have nothing of value to add.

Do you have anything substantive related to the topic to add in response to me or not?

Excon · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
You have not once responded substantively with anything on-topic in your ten replies to me. Your posts are reflective of the kind of posts useless trolls make when they have nothing of value to add.

Do you have anything substantive related to the topic to add in response to me or not?

Wrong, and lying to boot.
Pointing out that you have already been proven wrong is on-topic.

Your dislike of that being pointed out does not change the fact that it is on-topic.

:laughat:

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.
Clearly you know my commentary had been substantive otherwise you wouldn't have responded, or were you just lying?

Athanasius68 · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Slyfox696 said:

...you literally presented his words as your argument.

Click to expand...

I said it doesn't matter. The issue there was the Clinton emails.

Papadopoulos was actively working with a Russian asset/agent to coordinate cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign and was doing so with the encouragement of the Trump campaign. Mifsud tells PapaD they have damaging information through illegally obtained emails. Goldstone reaches out to Trump Jr. and offers the same information.

Click to expand...

Yes-- we know this already. Russia was reaching out to the Trump campaign to screw with the election.

As earlier-- Mifsud has denied telling PapaD that the info Russia had was in the form of email.
Goldstone makes no mention of emails either in his email to Trump jr.
As I said earlier, you can believe Mifsud lied about what he told PapaD.
Or you can believe that PapaD lied about what Mifsud told him.
It doesn't matter because the understanding was this was about the Clinton emails.
Which have never been found.
Nothing to do with the DNC emails.

Michael Horowitz, the nonpartisan inspector general, has confirmed the investigation into the Trump campaign's coordination with Russia was properly predicated and we know for a fact the Trump campaign colluded. You REALLY need to stop presenting lies and disinformation.

Click to expand...

Mueller said there was no collusion.
What does Horowirz report have to do with the fact that Russia sent information to the Clinton campaign (Steele Dossier) which the Obama Admin used in court?

The email LITERALLY stated Russia had "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"...that is 100% collusion and directly relates to the information Mifsud told PapaD about.

Click to expand...

Yes.
Russia reached out to the Trump campaign.
While this was occurring, they were also reaching out to the Clinton campaign.
The Trump campaign bit when Russia reached out.
The Clinton campaign bit when Russia reached out.

I said read the timing of when DCLeaks went live and compare it with the scheduled date of the Trump Tower meeting.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Russia was doing. What matters is what the Trump campaign was doing.
And they received NO information.
We know this because of Mr. Mueller-- In the prosecution of Mr. Stone, the government said that Trump and the campaign were excited about the WIKILEAKS release and reached out to Stone to see if he could reach out to WIKILEAKS (Stone had no contacts with WIKILEAKS, but he knew Credico who had contacts with WIKILEAKS) to find if anything else would be forthcoming.
It should be obvious that the Trump campaign would have no need for Stone to reach out to WIKILEAKS (!), or for Stone to reach out to Credico, to get information if the campaign and Stone already were conspiring.

And we know for a fact, due to numerous Americans who worked with the Trump campaign who were indicted and found guilty, that they colluded. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Nobody was convicted for conspiring with Russia to fix the election.

You're trying to obfuscate the fact Russia hacked the DNC emails

Click to expand...

Not denying that at all.

and offered the information to the Trump campaign

Click to expand...

,

We don't know that.

an offer they made good on by releasing them through DCLeaks and Wikipedia.

Click to expand...

So Russia didn't need the Trump campaign after all.

T

he DCLeaks public unveiling was within 24 hours of the scheduled Trump Tower meeting and we know from Rick Gates testimony that Roger Stone was the liason between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks.

Click to expand...

As above--- Russia didn't need the Trump campaign to release the information.
Also as above-- we know the campaign reached out to Stone after the leak.

dixon01767 · Mar 25, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
Because I don't have to. You replied to me first and did so by making deliberately false and misleading statements. I don't have to contradict you, I just have to show what you are saying is false and misleading.

If you can locate your nads, go ahead and point out what was false since you don't want to contradict any of these false assertions

Slyfox696 · Mar 26, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
You have not once responded substantively with anything on-topic in your ten replies to me. Your posts are reflective of the kind of posts useless trolls make when they have nothing of value to add.

Do you have anything substantive related to the topic to add in response to me or not?

Excon said:
Wrong, and lying to boot.
Pointing out that you have already been proven wrong is on-topic.

Your dislike of that being pointed out does not change the fact that it is on-topic.

:laughat:
"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.
Clearly you know my commentary had been substantive otherwise you wouldn't have responded, or were you just lying?

So your answer is no. Got it.

Athanasius68 said:
I said it doesn't matter.

:lamo

I'm over this dishonesty as well. If you're willing to post lies about the things you clearly said, then there's no point in continuing.

dixon01767 said:
If you can locate your nads, go ahead and point out what was false

I already did. Way back the first time I replied to your response to me. :shrug:

Good God, what is it about Trump defenders that make them so dishonest?

dixon01767 · Mar 26, 2020

dixon01767 said:
If you can locate your nads, go ahead and point out what was false since you don't want to contradict any of these false assertions

Slyfox696 said:
I already did. Way back the first time I replied to your response to me. :shrug:

Good God, what is it about Trump defenders that make them so dishonest?

So full of it. Here is the entirety of your first reply void of a shred of substance

Slyfox696 said:
I love how people think spreading lies is the same as refuting a point.

Evidently no nads to be found.

dixon01767 · Mar 26, 2020

lurchadams said:
Russian agent:

Rob Goldstone isnt a Russian Agent.

lurchadams · Mar 26, 2020

dixon01767 said:
Rob Goldstone isnt a Russian Agent.

Really? Then what's his relationship with the crown prosecutor of Russia? Do you know what an agent is?

Agent:

"a person who acts on behalf of another person or group."

So tell me again Goldstone's not a Russian agent :roll:

Slyfox696 · Mar 26, 2020

dixon01767 said:
So full of it. Here is the entirety of your first reply void of a shred of substance

:roll:

I was referring to time period, not specific post, obviously, since I called out your lie and then you asked what lie and I told you right after you asked. But fine, if you want to be pedantic, it is post #34.

I swear Trump defenders are the most dishonest people on the planet.

Integrityrespec · Mar 26, 2020

Oborosen said:
I doubt that this would've saved us the last few years of BS. Especially with how the left keeps pushing this.

There really should be some accountability for this kind of corruption. There will not be because the democrats will fight it tooth and nail to keep it quiet. If it were pursued and became public knowledge and discussed on all the media networks it would hurt the democrat changes in 2020.

Excon · Mar 26, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
[SUP]So your answer is no. Got it.[/SUP]

Again.

"Of course I wouldn't waste my time on someone who rarely responds with anything substantive."

And yet you keep replying.

dixon01767 · Mar 27, 2020

Slyfox696 said:
:roll:

I was referring to time period, not specific post,....

The forum records your posts. You referred to "the first time I replied to your response to me". And post 34 is nothing more than your baseless assertion that the information was obtained illegally.

dixon01767 · Mar 27, 2020

lurchadams said:
Really? Then what's his relationship with the crown prosecutor of Russia? Do you know what an agent is?

Agent:

"a person who acts on behalf of another person or group."

So tell me again Goldstone's not a Russian agent :roll:

No relationship whatsoever. He was an agent for Emin Agalarov , an Azerbaijani pop star who asked him to forward the message.

Buried From Trump Tower Meeting: Translator Telling FBI 'No Collusion'

Zoom Warrior