This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Trump the traitor -- EVIDENCE AT LAST!!

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]


Thursday, May 25, 2017 06:03 PM CST
GOP strategist admits he colluded with Russian hackers to hurt Hillary Clinton, Democrats
It’s bigger than Trump



Topics: 2016 presidential election, Collusion, Elections 2016, GOP, Paul Ryan, russiagate, Russian hack, Politics News, Elections News, News
GOP strategist admits he colluded with Russian hackers to hurt Hillary Clinton, Democrats
(Credit: Getty/Zach Gibson)

The U.S. intelligence community has long since concluded Russia meddled in the 2016 election, and it was reported shortly after the 2016 presidential election that a GOP superPAC linked to Paul Ryan used illegally hacked material to attack Democratic House candidates. But a bombshell report published on Thursday confirms that Republican political operatives were working with the Russian government to hurt Hillary Clinton and Democrats during the election — the first direct evidence of so-called collusion.

The Wall Street Journal reported that hacked information was posted on a blog run by Aaron Nevins, the political operative, and then passed along to top Trump adviser Roger Stone during the campaign. The Republican operative in Florida received a trove of Democratic documents from the allegedly Kremlin-linked hacker, Guccifer 2.0. For months, both Congress and the FBI have been scrutinizing evidence that associates of Trump may have colluded with Russia during the campaign.

Nevins confirmed to the Journal that he told hacker Guccifer 2.0 to “feel free to send any Florida based information” after learning that the hacker had tapped into Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) computers last summer. From the DCCC, Guccifer 2.0 released internal assessments of Democratic congressional candidates, known as “self-opposition research,” to GOP operatives using social media. Nevins told the Journal that, after receiving the stolen documents from the hacker, he “realized it was a lot more than even Guccifer knew that he had.” The stolen DCCC documents also contained sensitive information on voters in key Florida districts, breaking down how many people were considered dependable Democratic voters, undecided Democrats, Republican voters and the like. Nevins made a war analogy, describing the data he received to Guccifer 2.0 as akin to a “map to where all the troops are deployed.”

After Nevins published some of the material on the blog HelloFLA.com, using his own pseudonym, Guccifer 2.0 sent a link of the information to close Trump associate Roger Stone — who is currently under federal investigation for potential collusion with Russia.

“I just threw an arrow in the dark,” Nevins, who set up a Dropbox account for Guccifer 2.0 to transfer data, told the Journal. “If your interests align,” the operative concluded, “never shut any doors in politics.”

View user profile
Link? And what exactly do you consider "evidence" there?

Or has evidence been newspeaked into something else? This groupthink stuff is hilarious... lol.

View user profile
I think I can wait for evidence. I think I can wait for the investigation to conclude. This is getting as bad as what was done to Hillary and President Obama. Facts, elements of a crime, and an indictment would be a good starting point.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:Link? And what exactly do you consider "evidence" there?

Or has evidence been newspeaked into something else? This groupthink stuff is hilarious... lol.

Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/2017/05/25/gop-strategist-admits-he-colluded-with-russian-hackers-to-hurt-hillary-clinton-democrats/
Stick your groupthink idea where the sun don't shine.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I think I can wait for evidence.   I think I can wait for the investigation to conclude.   This is getting as bad as what was done to Hillary and President Obama.  Facts, elements of a crime, and an indictment would be a good starting point.

Kushner met with the Russian ambassador to discuss initializing a "back channel" for secret information. Do you have any information that indicates this didn't happen?

View user profile
There's nothing unusual about back channel talks... in fact it's common.

See: Iran deal and tpp for starters.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:There's nothing unusual about back channel talks... in fact it's common.

See: Iran deal and tpp for starters.

Pray tell, what in the world would the Russians and Trump talk about under such cover?

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's nothing unusual about back channel talks... in fact it's common.

See: Iran deal and tpp for starters.

Pray tell, what in the world would the Russians and Trump talk about under such cover?

I don't know... but it's probably not bending over and taking it in the ass.

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:There's nothing unusual about back channel talks... in fact it's common.

See: Iran deal and tpp for starters.

Pray tell, what in the world would the Russians and Trump talk about under such cover?

I don't know... but it's probably not bending over and taking it in the ass.

President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."

President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"

President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."


Golly ... I didn't realize that the fact somebody else has done something wrong makes it okay if your favorite asshole does the same. And I still don't.
But that's sure your M. O. Anytime anyone accuses one of your favorites of some terrible act, you don't defend, you quickly search for and present a story of someone else doing the same thing or something similar.

Considering how many times you resort to this bit of fakery, and how many times it has made you look like a fool, I marvel at your perseverance.

What Obama DIDN'T do was conspire with the leaders of another country to steal the presidential election in his own.
Reality.

View user profile
The fool here is the one that has one set of standards for their party... and another for the other party.

Edit: and you still haven't pointed out any evidence of wrongdoing.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:The fool here is the one that has one set of standards for their party... and another for the other party.

Edit: and you still haven't pointed out any evidence of wrongdoing.


No my friend, you're the fool for insisting the issues here are partisan. Having knowledge the Russians are interfering with the legitimacy of our national presidential election, without saying anything about it, is a crime. And it doesn't matter which political party is involved. Obviously, there is enough evidence that Trump and gang colluded with the Russians in this anti-American effort to qualify for a full-fledged FBI criminal investigation.

Reality.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The fool here is the one that has one set of standards for their party... and another for the other party.

Edit: and you still haven't pointed out any evidence of wrongdoing.


No my friend, you're the fool for insisting the issues here are partisan.  Having knowledge the Russians are interfering with the legitimacy of our national presidential election, without saying anything about it, is a crime.  And it doesn't matter which political party is involved.  Obviously, there is enough evidence that Trump and gang colluded with the Russians in this anti-American effort to qualify for a full-fledged FBI criminal investigation.

Reality.

It's just wishful delusion without factual provable evidence of wrongdoing... period.

But I'll concede this... if evidence is presented to find them guilty... i want them hung publicly.

Did you see the difference? No... i didn't think you would.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The fool here is the one that has one set of standards for their party... and another for the other party.

Edit: and you still haven't pointed out any evidence of wrongdoing.


No my friend, you're the fool for insisting the issues here are partisan.  Having knowledge the Russians are interfering with the legitimacy of our national presidential election, without saying anything about it, is a crime.  And it doesn't matter which political party is involved.  Obviously, there is enough evidence that Trump and gang colluded with the Russians in this anti-American effort to qualify for a full-fledged FBI criminal investigation.

Reality.

It's just wishful delusion without factual provable evidence of wrongdoing... period.

But I'll concede this... if evidence is presented to find them guilty... i want them hung publicly.

Did you see the difference? No... i didn't think you would.

You're a champion at being naive. You want politics to be fair and transparent, which will never happen. Conflict between political parties will always be bare-knuckle action. The saying "all's fair in love and war" certainly applies to our heavily flawed and failing two-party system. But it's what we're stuck with for the present. Once a party is in power the game changes. From then on their first loyalty must be to the country itself. That's where Trump and gang crossed the line.

We do agree that if found guilty, Trump and all those who were connected to collusion with the Russians to take possession of the White House, should be punished to the full extent of the law. Including the death penalty.

View user profile
The request to create a secure line is not a crime. I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime. However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well. Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:The request to create a secure line is not a crime.  I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime.  However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well.  Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

A secure line is one thing but a secure line via the Russian set up and circumventing our own intelligence agencies is a bit much wouldn't you think?

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The request to create a secure line is not a crime.  I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime.  However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well.  Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

A secure line is one thing but a secure line via the Russian set up and circumventing our own intelligence agencies is a bit much wouldn't you think?


good point Othershoe. But Seaoat always goes to the Russian embassy to obtain his secure phone lines ... right? Seaoat, please dream up a justification for going to the Russians to use their equipment for a secure phone line. Your's sucks.

View user profile
Wordslinger wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The request to create a secure line is not a crime.  I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime.  However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well.  Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

A secure line is one thing but a secure line via the Russian set up and circumventing our own intelligence agencies is a bit much wouldn't you think?


good point Othershoe.  But Seaoat always goes to the Russian embassy to obtain his secure phone lines ... right?  Seaoat, please dream up a justification for going to the Russians to use their equipment for a secure phone line.  Your's sucks.  

Where was the outrage when Obama whispered a private message to the Russian President?

Or when there were secret back channels to seal a crappy Iran deal?

When you're told to jump... you should only ask how high. Eh comrades?

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The request to create a secure line is not a crime.  I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime.  However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well.  Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

A secure line is one thing but a secure line via the Russian set up and circumventing our own intelligence agencies is a bit much wouldn't you think?


good point Othershoe.  But Seaoat always goes to the Russian embassy to obtain his secure phone lines ... right?  Seaoat, please dream up a justification for going to the Russians to use their equipment for a secure phone line.  Your's sucks.  

Where was the outrage when Obama whispered a private message to the Russian President?

Or when there were secret back channels to seal a crappy Iran deal?

When you're told to jump... you should only ask how high. Eh comrades?

Please explain how a brief conversation between President Obama and the President of Russia at the time carried on and overheard via a hot mic is in the same universe with setting up a covert back channel secure communications channel using Their devices? The magnitude of these two happenings is so grossly out of proportion as to make heads spin.

Also, you must know that the "secret" back channel communications you obliquely refer to involved diplomats from Iran and the US discussing a specific agreement. It was not an open-ended line of communication like the one suggested by Kushner.  You can argue the merits of the Iran deal if you like but as for the secrecy of it, it should come as no surprise that many international treaties are negotiated out of public view for very good reasons.

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:it should come as no surprise that many international treaties are negotiated out of public view for very good reasons.[/color]

No... it's no surprise... it shouldn't be to anyone. Unless of course there's political hay to be made.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:it should come as no surprise that many international treaties are negotiated out of public view for very good reasons.[/color]

No... it's no surprise... it shouldn't be to anyone. Unless of course there's political hay to be made.

So you think that Jared, during the transition period, was actually planning some secret treaty negotiations with Russia behind the backs of our intelligence community? Really?

View user profile
othershoe1030 wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:it should come as no surprise that many international treaties are negotiated out of public view for very good reasons.[/color]

No... it's no surprise... it shouldn't be to anyone. Unless of course there's political hay to be made.

So you think that Jared, during the transition period, was actually planning some secret treaty negotiations with Russia behind the backs of our intelligence community? Really?

I have no idea what he did. If it's illegal i hope he fries... but it's unlikely given that he's not been arrested. The intelligence agencies take that shit pretty seriously and don't screw around. If there were evidence it'd be pretty cut and dry... like it should've been for Hillary. I think we'd know by now given the political insider leaks and media bias. If the pattern holds... nothing of any real magnitude will come of it.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The request to create a secure line is not a crime.  I have an expectation of privacy when discussing certain issues, and my desire to have a private conversation is not a crime.  However, it may indicate that something illegal was being covered up as well.  Both are mere speculation, and I can wait for facts.

A secure line is one thing but a secure line via the Russian set up and circumventing our own intelligence agencies is a bit much wouldn't you think?


good point Othershoe.  But Seaoat always goes to the Russian embassy to obtain his secure phone lines ... right?  Seaoat, please dream up a justification for going to the Russians to use their equipment for a secure phone line.  Your's sucks.  

Where was the outrage when Obama whispered a private message to the Russian President?

Or when there were secret back channels to seal a crappy Iran deal?

When you're told to jump... you should only ask how high. Eh comrades?

My outrage concerns the current President and his gang committing treason, which was not the case when Obama spoke to the Russian president at that time (not Putin). The "crappy Iran deal" you cite was not an act of treason but was Obama's decision to take the course he thought was best for America at the time. And I'm not sure Obama's call had anything to do with the Iran deal, but with sanctions placed against Russia because of their acts in Crimea and Ukraine. At any rate, he was discussing future political possibilities, not arranging to steal the coming presidential election or to act against as agents of the Russian government.

Do try and focus, I realize the subject is challenging for you. Your dedication to the idea of justifying any wrong by someone else's wrong is really awesome.

View user profile
There were numerous complaints along those lines over Obama and his leftist ideologues... but y'all never listened. You dismissed them without consideration... without even acknowledgement. They were summarily dismissed as racist or bigoted or whatever. Sooo...  now you have concerns... how cute.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The fool here is the one that has one set of standards for their party... and another for the other party.

Edit: and you still haven't pointed out any evidence of wrongdoing.


No my friend, you're the fool for insisting the issues here are partisan.  Having knowledge the Russians are interfering with the legitimacy of our national presidential election, without saying anything about it, is a crime.  And it doesn't matter which political party is involved.  Obviously, there is enough evidence that Trump and gang colluded with the Russians in this anti-American effort to qualify for a full-fledged FBI criminal investigation.

Reality.

It's just wishful delusion without factual provable evidence of wrongdoing... period.

But I'll concede this... if evidence is presented to find them guilty... i want them hung publicly.

Did you see the difference? No... i didn't think you would.

There is already evidence and it's being uncovered by the day. And you're a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:There were numerous complaints along those lines over Obama and his leftist ideologues... but y'all never listened. You dismissed them without consideration... without even acknowledgement. They were summarily dismissed as racist or bigoted or whatever. Sooo...  now you have concerns... how cute.

I'm a leftist myself. I approve of most of what Obama accomplished. But I guess in your eyes I'm flawed because I care about people more than money. Reality. And, like I said, show me where Obama colluded with a foreign country to take control of our government ... and if you can't then show your white flag!

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum