Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Stick to my topic, for I demand that of you because of my self-perceptions of superior understanding or else I will respond in a manner that is too long for anyone but myself to read.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
lol.

I think you've watched one too many Bond flicks, Data.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
lol.

I think you've watched one too many Bond flicks, Data.

---

There is evidence that some peculiar ideas of Russian origin are circulating inside Trump's mind. Against the advice of everybody loyal to the USA and competent to know if Russia hacked the election, Trump has sided with Putin on US election hacking.

To hear the Russians tell it, the president of the United States took Vladimir Putin’s word over the work of US intelligence agencies when it comes to whether Moscow meddled in the 2016 race for the White House.

During their lengthy meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, according to Russia’s foreign minister, Trump accepted Putin’s explanation that the Russia government did not interfere in the election. The US president also cast doubt on the credibility of his own government’s long-running investigation into Russian meddling, dismissing months of work by the US agencies—and the conclusions drawn by top officials Trump himself appointed.

“President Trump has said he has heard a clear declaration from Mr. Putin that the Russian government and Russian leadership has not interfered in the elections, and he accepts the things that Mr. Putin has said,” Sergey Lavrov told journalists on the sidelines of the summit on Friday, according to a translation provided by Sputnik, the Russian state new agency. Trump also told Putin that he has heard these allegations for “many months,” and that “not a single fact has been presented,” Lavrov said.

Lavrov also said that either Trump or US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (he couldn’t remember) said the “campaign” about Russia’s alleged interference has taken on “a strange nature,” according to a report in Russian on RIA, another state-run news agency.

Lavrov’s statements haven’t been disputed by the Trump administration. They are likely to drive an even deeper wedge between the White House and the US intelligence community, even as the FBI and is investigating whether the Trump campaign or administration colluded with Russia to interfere in the election.

Trump’s continued assertion that any assertion that Russia meddled in the last US election is “fake news” have been publicly disputed by intelligence agencies and members of Congress.
https://qz.com/1024135

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I don't see anything here to even be concerned about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Stop doing underhanded shit for a living, and then you can't be called out on doing underhanded shit for a living by 3rd parties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Stop doing underhanded shit for a living, and then you can't be called out on doing underhanded shit for a living by 3rd parties.

---

I agree with you on that.

Now, if we can get peepl out uv their habit uv believing thingz bekuz its wut they want to hear, we coud finally start making progress.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if we can get peepl out uv their habit uv believing thingz bekuz its wut they want to hear, we coud finally start making progress.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
What future hopes?

What God?

What are you talking about?

---

Quote:

---

You’re kind of hopeless about understanding, aren't you? You don’t want to know that your god is a gold-plated plastic idol because your future hopes would crash when Trump crashes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Don't be cute.

You said this to me:

Quote:

---

You’re kind of hopeless about understanding, aren't you? You don’t want to know that your god is a gold-plated plastic idol because your future hopes would crash when Trump crashes.

---

Explain yourself, or shut the fuck up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
"Evidence?" bears repeating.

Been asking for it for months now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
The special prosecutor is still hiring staff, so the investigation is expanding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
After weeks and weeks ... and pages and pages ...

... has any evidence come to light, yet?

Any evidence ... at all?

No?

Time to check out of this thread, then. Again. And put everyone here back on 'ignore'. Again.

---

Quote:

---

You live in ignorance. Your kind of "Evidence" will only come from Robert Mueller, many months or years from now ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Don't be cute.

You said this to me:

Quote:

---

You’re kind of hopeless about understanding, aren't you? You don’t want to know that your god is a gold-plated plastic idol because your future hopes would crash when Trump crashes.

---

Explain yourself, or shut the fuck up.

---

Don't you remember bitching all last year about being dispirited and unemployed because Obama would not help you? I remember mocking you that Trump would be a failure if he does not get you a job in his first hundred days. Are you now employed? Or have you decided that working is overrated? Have you started early retirement? Or are you waiting for Trump's second term in office to begin before he starts making America great again in your county? If greatness doesn't arrive by the end of eight years, will you be disappointed? Or will you just shrug and say "That's politics"?

I almost forget about your where is the evidence? thingy that seems to be your comeback line to every question about Trump's competence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
"Evidence?" bears repeating.

Been asking for it for months now.

---

And it is worth repeating that Trump did not provide his income tax returns, unlike every President and every candidate. That is evidence that Trump is hiding something criminal. But what, precisely?

If I were prosecuting Trump, I'd subpoena his returns as evidence. We've heard all of Trump's excuses: that it would be a lot of paper (I guess Trump knows nothing of electronic documents), that it would inconvenience him ( that is why he has an accountant), that it would give ammunition to his enemies, but there is no ammo if there is no criminal tax evasion.

There is the uncomfortable fact that President Trump can be prosecuted while in office when he breaks a Federal law. Ask Bill Clinton about perjury and Monica Lewinsky. Unlike voters, the law has little tolerance for lying sacks of shit, be it Bill or Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges

Bill was also charged with obstruction of justice. Sounds like Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Impeachment

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Don't post any more bullshit about Trump . . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

You live in ignorance. Your kind of "Evidence" will only come from Robert Mueller, many months or years from now ...

---

Our 'intelligence' agencies supposedly have SOME type of evidence for all their claims - wouldn't you agree? Then they could easily solve their credibility problem by releasing some of it. Because it's not like they're trying to hide it from Russia, Russia already knows what we know.

So, where's that evidence?


BTW, I fully expect you to not actually try to answer this question OR address my post.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if we can get peepl out uv their habit uv believing thingz bekuz its wut they want to hear, we coud finally start making progress.- JO

Coming from you JO, that's ironic. When you have to modify a standard definition ("evidence") just to give speculation, accusation, and paranoia some sort of credibility, it's time to start looking at whether or not you're parting ways with reality.
There's only [one] way to determine who's version is closer to "the truth" and that's by examining evidence - REAL evidence, not just someone's say-so - closely. Piece by piece.

For example, I've asked GSTRING more than once to define what he means by Russian "hacking" because, IMHO, there is evidence that they might have done some information-gathering, but none at all that they took active measures to influence our 2016 election. I guess that's just too much reality for GSTRING, who can't be bothered with little "details" like how the DNC has yet to turn over its server to the FBI or the Mueller for examination. - SIGNY

You also asked me about your constant lying.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Did you accidentally "skip" my response? - try again:

You lie when you say "Cnn says the story is bullcrap" as if that means it's proof that CNN knows there's no collusion.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

You know this takes time, you know they couldn't possibly know everything yet, and yet you want to suggest one flip remark by a line producer shows the party is over, no collusion. You're pretty dumb sometimes, but not that dumb.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

How long did it take to break Watergate? I expect a genuine answer from you.

---

Quote:

---

You lie when you expect us to believe you believe anything from CNN, especially some line producer. You think CNN is either a puppet of the administration (during Obama's terms) or a puppet of the Deep State (Trump's term), but always a puppet full of sh*t.

---

Quote:

---

You lie when you expect people to believe an off the cuff street hello by Van Jones is PROOF that there's no collusion.

---

Quote:

---

The question was "what's up this week... how about that Russia thing?" There was nothing happening that week and Van Jones isn't even one of their Russian talking heads. Even if he was and even if he did know some things, you lie when you expect Van Jones is going to be chatty with this acquaintance. The "nothing burger" was a complete brush off. But you expect us to believe that he would have given up all the details and all the connections to this almost stranger who he just happened to run into.

---

Quote:

---

you expect us to believe

---

Quote:

---

Like a lot of your attempted points and deflections, they are based on lies and obviously biased assumptions. -GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

I'll take your no response as an agreement that you know you lied.

---

Quote:

---

And - I thought you lived in California? That would put your post at about 3 am PCT - huh (11am Moscow time).

---

Quote:

---

Their ignorance makes the most sense if you turn the lens and focus on: Kiggy is happy that Trump won because they wanted the worst for the US, and they got it. "Glee" is not a strong enough word for their feelings with Dump in the WH. It is the best Birthday, Christmas, Graduation Day ever for them. The US is being dragged down by their favorite president ever, just like they thought would happen! It. Worked! God bless Putin.
You cannot prove to them that Trump is bad. They know! That's why they wanted him! We're preaching to the bizarro choir.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Don't post any more bullshit about Trump . . .

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, GSTRING, JO ... I have more respect for SECOND than for you. SECOND makes no pretense of being objective or fair. It's clear that SECOND hates Trump with every fiber of his being, and want to see him burn in hell (or the secular equivalent) without referencing any of the baggage that you call "evidence".

Why don't you just give up the pretense of being at all "real world" and just go to straight ranting partisanship? At least we wouldn't have to deal with the sight of you turning your brains inside out trying to fit that square peg into a round hole?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, GSTRING, JO ... I have more respect for SECOND than for you. SECOND makes no pretense of being objective or fair. It's clear that SECOND hates Trump with every fiber of his being, and want to see him burn in hell (or the secular equivalent) without referencing any of the baggage that you call "evidence".

---

Quote:

---

On December 9, 2016, President Barack Obama directed the Intelligence Community to conduct a full review and produce a comprehensive intelligence report assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections. We have completed this report and briefed President Obama as well as President-elect Trump and Congressional leadership. We declassified a version of this report for the public, consistent with our commitment to transparency while still protecting classified sources and methods.

The Intelligence Community did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election, and DHS assesses that the types of systems the Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

This declassified version of the report is being released to the public and can be accessed via IC on the Record.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Note latest post from SIGGY. Talk about a nothing burger with a side a fries and a large coke. She's just repeating herself. "Evidence, evidence, evidence..." over and over. A monkey could have posted it... OR someone looking to pad their stats. There's no point to posting it unless you just want a response. And the time stamp is hard to explain. Looking forward to her fiction skills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

The stratejy iz to try to 'bury' the evidens we'v posted. Anybody not alredy involved in this thred will hopefully skip to the latest newz insted uv starting at the beginning. Churn churn churn! Bild up the paje count az fast az they can! That alone helps discouraj new readerz, kuz they will think 'too much catching up to do' and pik a fresh thred insted.

---

Quote:

---

The stratejy iz to try to 'bury' the evidens we'v posted.- JO

---

Quote:

---

Not to be all epistemological, but "evidence" that Putin hacked Trump's election could be faked by anybody because the "evidence" would only be log files full of text about times, dates, URL's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
My Grandmother denied that Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. She'd say that every year that passes without another landing is "evidence" the first landing was fake. Touching the Saturn booster at Johnson Space Center did not change her belief. The moon rocks on display could have been earth rocks according to her. The Lunar lander and Apollo capsule had to be fake because she wasn't allowed to touch those. I see that Buzz is amused by Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Bart_Sibrel_incident
If you want to believe that moon landings or Russian hackings never happened, the "evidence" won't change your mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Not to be all epistemological, but "evidence" that Putin hacked Trump's election could be faked by anybody because the "evidence" would only be log files full of text about times, dates, URL's.

---

That would solve the credibility of our 'intelligence' agencies quite nicely! All they'd have to do is cook something up!

Any idea why they haven't? No, of course not.

And, you did not disappoint in your usual evasion of a post and topic! So, let me get back to the fatal flaw in your - some other word than logic.

YOU claim that we'd have to wait weeks ... months ... years ... maybe forever ... for Mueller to provide us evidence that Russia 'hacked' the election. And at the same time you parrot our 'intelligence' agencies in their endless, most often anonymous, and always evidence-free accusations.

Do you now see the basic problem when one combines those two thoughts? It means that all those accusations you parrot are based on what you already know is a total lack of genuine evidence - they're stuff made up out of thin air.

Now, maybe you don't see that as a problem. But other people do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
... but seriously, how many do you need befor you realize that TRUMP HAZ SUM CONNECTION TO RUSSIA?

My opinion iz that Putin and hiz team picked virtually everybody. If there iz anybody that Trump picked for himself, he had to get approval from Putin first.

---

Risking bringing T in this conversation to call me a Commie or another Putin puppet, I don't see what's so wrong about having "some connection to Russia", in and of itself. The way things have been going in the EU, I actually feel more comfortable with that connection than with.... say... Merkel.

There could be something to what you say. By all means, investigate the man. We waste tons of tax payer dollars on much less important things everyday from handouts to war. It is important to be able to trust our president, or at least trust that he's not "in bed" with the Russians. I'm for spending that money investigating it even if it turns up nothing.

The problem J0, is when you take some legitimate concerns and blow them completely out of proportion and accuse Trump of treason and/or being a slave to Putin.

I expect that from Rachel Maddow. She's making 7 million dollars a year speaking to her echo chamber that was yelling "Fuck Trump", "Not my president" and "No way, KKK" from day one.

I expect more from you though.

It is possible to get your point across without peppering in obvious bias and unsubstantiated claims. When you do that, although you might get pats on the back by the echo chamber, you basically shut the conversation down when it comes to moderates or anybody on the other side.

---

Jesus, go fuck yourself. You spend 4 years throwing up on this board and NOW you - of all people - are going to say you're disappointed in Jo?!?!?!?! 'Cuz he didn't hold you hand softly enough?????? God damn unbelievable.

==============================

---

Love this response by G to Jack, so I chose to repost it with something I wish to point out. SIG,1IKI and Jack have been denying the evidence that keeps mounting against Trump. Fake news and lies they say. What they avoid addressing is the elephant in the room. They can't find anyone actually in government that hasn't said the Russians didn't do it.

Even news leaked out of the White House itself they call fake news. I'd like to see them post factual information of our government officials saying nothing here, we should stop investigating Trump. It's heartening to know this is all going to come crashing down on their heads. It won't just be Trump who's taken out. Nope, they'll never live it down. They will be saddled with the label, liar, loser, trolls and fools. Opps, they already are aren't they.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I will start this topic with a clarification on the meaning uv the word eVIDeNS.

Most peepl confuze it with 'proof' - sumthing that leadz directly to an undeniabl conclusion. Proof can be thot uv az a yes/no binary term. Sumthing either iz or iz not proof. There iz no degree to it.

Evidens can be anything - a 5th hand comment about a 3rd hand quote uv sumthing a drunk Skid Row bum mumbled in hiz sleep. Thats extreemly weak evidens, you woudnt bet much on it being true or even related to wutever you are considering, but its still evidens. It mite be true and related to your subject AND helpful.

Or evidens can be the literal smoking gun in the hand uv the perpetrator, identical to 'proof'. It can be anything between the 2 extreemz.

With this in mind, you can see that the statements 'there iz zero eveidens' and 'I see no evidens' rarely make sens.

Obviously, you haf to grade the value uv evidens, otherwize you coud waste a bunch uv time and effort prosessing garbaj. If sumwun iz oppozing you, they coud flood you with all sorts uv junk they just made up.

Now, if you want to derail the topic by trotting out a dictionary definition that duznt jibe with this, too bad - I'm claiming that eVIDeNS iz a new Nooalf word that, altho based on the old English 'evidence' iz more presise and useful. (even if I spell it in the casual slakrz nqalf way 'evidens')

If you arent clear on the consept uv meanz, motive & opportunity, look it up.

I'm going to try to list stuff in kronolojikl order. I will number each post so you dont haf to quote the entire thing for us to no wut yr commenting on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Love this response by G to Jack, so I chose to repost it with something I wish to point out. SIG,1IKI and Jack have been denying the evidence that keeps mounting against Trump. Fake news and lies they say. What they avoid addressing is the elephant in the room. They can't find anyone actually in government that hasn't said the Russians didn't do it.

Even news leaked out of the White House itself they call fake news. I'd like to see them post factual information of our government officials saying nothing here, we should stop investigating Trump. It's heartening to know this is all going to come crashing down on their heads. It won't just be Trump who's taken out. Nope, they'll never live it down. They will be saddled with the label, liar, loser, trolls and fools. Opps, they already are aren't they.

---

Quote:

---

“That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

Later, at a Jan. 27 dinner, Comey said Trump asked him to investigate the origins of a salacious unverified Russian dossier. Comey said it would not be a good idea because it “might create a narrative that we were investigating [Trump] personally, which we weren’t.”- JAMES COMEY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey THUGR:

Quote:

---

“That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

Later, at a Jan. 27 dinner, Comey said Trump asked him to investigate the origins of a salacious unverified Russian dossier. Comey said it would not be a good idea because it “might create a narrative that we were investigating [Trump] personally, which we weren’t.”- JAMES COMEY

---

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336802-rnc-comey-testimony-
proves-trump-not-under-investigation

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

---

You realize that the only way something like this would happen is if Signy were to be doxed like the guy that CNN went after.

I take this statement to mean that you are in full support of what CNN did, and that you would be in full support of somebody doing this to Signy because she posts ideas that you don't agree with.



Remind me again, who is the fascist here?

---

Not surprised you think it means something other than what I have stated before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

---

You realize that the only way something like this would happen is if Signy were to be doxed like the guy that CNN went after.

I take this statement to mean that you are in full support of what CNN did, and that you would be in full support of somebody doing this to Signy because she posts ideas that you don't agree with.



Remind me again, who is the fascist here?

---

Not surprised you think it means something other than what I have stated before.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

You are for silencing voices that are not in line with your own.

The left has become the fascists, though they pretend not to be. This is why Google has a false definition of the word as the first result when looking it up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Trump, Jr.’s participation in the meeting is trouble for him because it’s illegal to seek foreign help of any kind, not just money, in a political campaign. Under 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510, the law governing foreign contributions to political campaigns, you don’t have to actually get useful help from foreigners. According to this law, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton, and heard her out as she attempted to describe it, might have constituted a federal crime.

“If what Donald Trump Jr. said was true ... then they should have never had the meeting in the first place,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

---

Quote:

---

Trump, Jr.’s participation in the meeting is trouble for him because it’s illegal to seek foreign help of any kind, not just money, in a political campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Whether Trump himself knew anything about the meetings his son was setting up is, of course, another matter. But it’s inherently difficult for Trump to put distance between himself and his own son.

---