Trump gives classified info to russians

Post Reply New Topic

I mean come on as far as flat out lies, forget podesta, clinton, or prostitutes, they couldn't even get the part about a basement right, lol.

No, and that never happened. One news source with no known reputation to protect attributed the comment to an anonymous source. They then selected a couple of emails with the subject line, "legal and non-legal remedies" and used the subject line, not the text, as evidence. Non-legal clearly refers to public relations, and other remedies for the WikiLeaks problem aside from prosecution. The emails do not propose a drone strike. Ergo, you have answered my question. You don't check sources, and base your assessment of the credibility of an anonymous source on how well it fits your preconceptions.



What evidence against the Clintons? I made my specific claim about Russian involvement elsewhere in a conversation with you, and you persist in ignoring it and ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold. You don't really want a discussion, do you?

Media deliberately conflated Pizzagate with that pizza place instead of diving into what it really means which is a code word used by pedophiles which is found in Podesta's emails, read wikileaks yourself and tell me that Podesta is actually talking about pizza. If you actually look into this stuff I think you would be truly horrified at what you find. Check out their taste in "art"...

What specific claims, what evidence? If you have any, I'm sure the House Intelligence Committee or whoever would like to see it.

also stop reading stupid snopes they're not credible anymore

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/h ... nge-229123



Hillary speaks lawyerese like a champ. "I don't recall", calling it a joke, "if it had been said"(as in if you have proof of me saying it then I'm not technically lying)

She wanted to kill Assange BELIEVE me

Your evidence of the veracity of your conspiracy theory consists of a denial excerpted from a report about the denial. The Politico story in your link clearly questions the legitimacy of the story and of True Pundit, the source of the report. Just to make sure you understand, a story discrediting your claim is not a good source to use to confirm your claim.

That's just a blanket statement, like something made up and passed off as fact.

What evidence is there of Putin manipulating Trump?

What has Trump done so far that's evidence of Putin manipulating him?

Really? What are their names? What's the evidence bearing case history on them?

I'm not url linking all these, you can copy and paste if you want to read the evidence.

ALEKSEI NAVALNY, current leader of the main opposition, in jail:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/784 ... dev-Russia
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... /99679422/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/worl ... .html?_r=0


VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA former leader of opposition, poisoned twice, survived:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/worl ... oison.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 37421.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39021225
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russi ... as-n719061


BORIS NEMTSOV initial supporter of Putin turned critic of Putin, deceased:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ce-killing
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39094596
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/26/europe/ru ... niversary/


ALAXANDER LITVINENKO spy that accused Putin of pedophilia, deceased:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19647226
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... used-puti/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/worl ... itain.html


SERGEI MAGNITSKY lawyer who exposed state corruption, deceased:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sing-putin
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... der-114878
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-20626960


YURI SHCHEKOCHIKHIN journalist that exposed state corruption, deceased:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 324241.stm


SERGEI YUSHENKOV politician from opposition party and critic, deceased:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/18 ... sination18
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... f26986e4cf


NATALIA ESTEMIROVA, human rights activist, critic, deceased:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/ ... estemirova
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... t-murdered


ANNA POLITKOVSKAYA journalist, critic, deceased:

https://www.thenation.com/article/this- ... as-murder/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/anna-politkovskaya
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 68c29a6ed2


BORIS BEREZOVSKY Russian oligarch, critic deceased:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... putin-feud
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 17927.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/world ... at-67.html


STANISLAV MARKELOV, human rights lawyer, and ANASTASIA BABUROVA, journalist, critic deceased:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/world ... chnya.html


DENIS VORONENKOV, politician, critic, deceased:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/worl ... raine.html
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/europe/uk ... ov-killed/


PAUL KLEBNIKOV, AMERICAN journalist working in Russia, and critic, deceased:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/world ... ussia.html


And on a side note, one of the most respected Russians alive, Gary Kasparov, grand master chess champion who fled Russia after a receiving a tip of a hit on him, this peice is written by him, and illustrates exactly the type of leader Putin is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... 73dfb1392e

*edit: sweet it auto url-ed it. Well that's a mighty long research list for you to get familiar with topic, enjoy!

Thanks!

"You Don't Do Evidence Well I Do" Trey Gowdy Demands Answers On Trump Russia Collusion. (5/23/17)



To me this is just a continuing example of how they do a lot of taking and stammering without actually saying anything, while looking very uncomfortable and nervous. The so called evidence is still after all this time something vague, mysterious and secret. No progression whatsoever.

And now for the next testimony:

The CIA's job is to collect and analyze information, evidence is a legal term that would apply to the FBI and DOJ. The CIA and NSA don't bring lawsuits, so no they really don't do evidence, they collect information, follow leads in that information, and pass that information onto the president and his team so the president can make informed decisions. They also don't operate in the United States, their jurisdiction is exclusively international, meaning if Brennan saw anything he thought could be collusion which he stated he did today, he would have found that on foreign grounds or through an allied intelligence agency.

So basically any testimony in this investigation given by a the CIA and NSA is of no value from a legal standpoint.

Bush and later Obama politicized the intelligence services, they aren't worth anything anymore at this point by how corrupted they've made it. It's a faction allowed to exist in the government that needs to be purged. They can't be trusted, they lie, they play politics.

How? Do you consider them some up against the wall motherf**kers?

Last edited by jrjones9933 on 23 May 2017, 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They would provide leads, but the FBI likes to conduct their own investigation. They do much better than the CIA or military with interviewing suspects. They play it very cool, no torture at all. It gets better results.

Pretty much, but congressional investigations aren't courts of law. The foreign intelligence agencies gather information on foreign threats, we don't sue foreign threats, we either negotiate or attack, so it's a completely different ballgame than the legal framework the FBI has to work in domestically. That's why Brennan's statement sounds ridiculous, but it's actually truthful. Let me put it this way: we don't sue Ibraham al-Terrorist in Afghanistan, we kill him, he has no rights because he's not an American citizen, there's no need to collect enough evidence to prove anything 'beyond a reasonable doubt'-- the threshold we use in our legal system. The FBI on the other hand has to prove a case in court of law to convict the suspect. That's also why you'll see the FBI refuse to answer a question in a hearing with "I can't answer that because of an ongoing investigation" because whatever statement they make could be used against the government in a court of law if the investigation leads to an arrest; whereas the CIA will answer most questions albeit in a vague way (don't want to tip your hand to a foreign threat), and only refuse to answer due to "classified information." Intelligence has always been a problem in democracies where the citizens demand transparency, but the alternative is to disclose everything and run the most inept intelligence agency in the history of existence. That's also why these investigations seem like dog and pony shows, most of the information of value the senators and reps receive is after the public hearing when they're briefed in private. Democracy can be messy, especially when we're talking spying, but to take spying out of the equation would eliminate one of our defense tools.