Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Which sentence? I count 9 of them.


I agree though. A year later and now we supposedly have some real evidence, but they're not showing it to us.

#ReleaseTheMemo2

---

Which sentence? This sentence:

Quote:

---

Robert Hannigan, then the head of the U.K.’s intelligence service the G.C.H.Q., had recently flown to Washington and briefed the C.I.A.’s director, John Brennan, on a stream of illicit communications between Trump’s team and Moscow that had been intercepted.

---

---

Quote:

---

Mueller is not showing you the real evidence because Trump and his lawyers would then know and then their new strategy would be to destroy evidence. Trump can order assassinations and Mueller probably doesn't want Trump killing his witnesses. Mueller is treating Trump as if Trump is the head of an organized crime family.

In more ordinary situations, prosecutors never share their evidence with the defendant's attorney until the last moment that the judge will allow.

Sharing evidence with 6ixStringJack would screw-up Mueller's investigation by tipping off Trump's lawyers. It’s not just Russia — Mueller is digging into Trump associates’ potentially corrupt foreign ties. He’s looking at Trump associates’ dealings with investors or governments in Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and China.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/5/17080302/trump-russia-news-ku
shner-mueller

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:Oops...

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61377&mid=10488
76#1048876] You mean a lady of the evening is trying to get out of a Thai jail and avoid extradition to Belarus by claiming unspecified information about unnamed people? I'm smelling a lot of if coming off of that.

---

No, she named quite a few of them. That said she'll have to produce the tapes and prove what she claims.

Point is, it may be true. If it is it is over for Trump. Hey, I see you changed the link I posted so people will go to the wrong place. Fixed that for you.

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61377&mid=10488
76#1048876


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Instead of going on ... and on ... and on ... about what OTHER people say about the dossier, why not look for yourself?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-All
egations.html

Some things don't make sense to me.

Quote:

---

2015 Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.

---

Putin courted Trump for at least 5 years before the campaign as a political influence? What crystal ball was Putin using? I want it, too! Aside from finding amusement, this is a ridiculous premise. Russia was feeding Trump dirt on Hillary for YEARS before either ran in the primaries or was a presidential candidate? Anything related to that claim needs a whole lot of explaining, which it never gets. As does the fact that Trump never, according to Steele, took up any of Russia's business offers.

Quote:

---

A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by Russian Intelligence Services over many years and comprises mainly bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia ...

---

That means that there should be evidence of this in OUR records. And that means, either our 'intelligence' services are insufficiently non-partisan and diligent, or the dossier is bunk.

Quote:

---

2016 Source E

---

This section is nearly completely comprised of the unverified claims of Source E. And that requires a lot of trust in whoever that source is, their position to acquire knowledge, and their ability to transmit it without embellishment or bombast.

The rest of the document reads like a lurid diary. It makes many, many, many claims of contacts between Trump's people and various Russians, and documents the supposed Russian/ wikileaks efforts (but managed to not notice the 13 Russians in social media efforts).

Items of interest are that at least THREE secret overseas meetings between Trump's representatives and Russian government officials are alleged to have occurred. Trips should be easy enough to document.

Finally, one of Steele's sources claimed Russia attempted to curry favor with Jill Stein and others by arranging to have their visit to Russia paid for. I thought Stein being questioned was bizarre. But that's one thing in the dossier that can be definitively crossed off the list as completely bogus. Stein paid for the trip herself. And that means, the OTHER thing that can be crossed off the list as bogus is the claim that nothing in the dossier has been disproven.

---

Question one is, why didn't the democrats use the dossier during the 2016 election? The other links report on other good questions.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/why-didn-t-democrats-use-the
-dossier-during-the-2016-campaign-1177592387714?playlist=associated&v=a

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/report-raises-specter-of-a-t
rump-russia-dossier-related-death-1177585219786

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/report-russia-vetoed-romney-
favored-tillerson-for-state-dept-1177585219570


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Question one is, why didn't the democrats use the dossier during the 2016 election?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I have absolutely no stake in this whatsoever. Aside from a hundred or two dollars I'll be getting back in taxes next year, Trump being president hasn't really done anything for me. Same old shit, different day.

I just come here to see the crazies fight about everything that is completely out of their control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Question one is, why didn't the democrats use the dossier during the 2016 election?

---

There's a really, really good reason for the dems to not use the report - and it's in the report itself. And that's because it says Russia has dirt on Hillary. Now, only Hillary knows for sure what she had in those 33,000 'personal' emails on her private server. But even though her server security was beyond amateurish, she got expert help in forensically scrubbing those files. There were things she really didn't want anyone to see, and it wasn't the guest list and cake selection for her daughter's wedding. As long as we're speculating here, I'll speculate that she was afraid something in those files got captured and might come out if she 'went there'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Question one is, why didn't the democrats use the dossier during the 2016 election?

---

There's a really, really good reason for the dems to not use the report - and it's in the report itself. And that's because it says Russia has dirt on Hillary. Now, only Hillary knows for sure what she had in those 33,000 'personal' emails on her private server. But even though her server security was beyond amateurish, she got expert help in forensically scrubbing those files. There were things she really didn't want anyone to see, and it wasn't the guest list and cake selection for her daughter's wedding. As long as we're speculating here, I'll speculate that she was afraid something in those files got captured and might come out if she 'went there'.

---

What it actually said is different than what you said it says. What it says is: "Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years." What do you say, 1kiki? I say, "Shove it up your ass, 1kiki."

www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations
.html

---

Yes second true. What's another point we could make again? A point we've made over and over again in these threads?

Because kiki lies, kiki knows she is wrong. And because she does it anyway, she is a troll. In her case, someone who trolls on behalf of Russia.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-All
egations.html

page 1 par 4
"A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly (emphasis is mine) comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia ..."

page 2 par 2.
"... including democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON ..."

page 2-3 par 5.
" ... rumors about a Russian dossier of 'kompromat' on Hillary CLINTON ..."

page 3 par 6
"... the CLINTON dossier was controlled exclusively ..."

---

What evidence against Hillary. The Russians released everything they had through wiki leaks. Everything they produced was proven to be lies or amounted to nothing. Some bad behavior, golly gee.

Yet you still make false claims. Still post those same accusations against her. The same ones that did not bear fruit the first, second, third and even more times you trolls bring them up. So many times in fact you no longer bother.

I notice you make claims of improprieties in your post but don't list them. Loser kiki, you're a loser.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What evidence against Hillary. What evidence against Hillary. The Russians released everything they had through wiki leaks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
What evidence against Hillary. What evidence against Hillary. The Russians released everything they had through wiki leaks.

---

I suggest you read the first two pages of my link, which makes it quite clear that their information was (mostly) comprised of phone calls intercepted over the years while Hillary visited Russia. Which, and I apparently have to spell this out for you, is separate from the DNC files, the Podesta files, and Hillary's private State Department server.

You know, you could save yourself from being so stupendously, embarrassingly wrong by doing just a small amount - less than 2 complete pages - of reading plain English.

---

Who posted that document to the internet kiki? Did they doctor it? Is it completely made up? I also recommend everyone look at the first two pages. It offers nothing of what you claim, troll.

We both know it's not a truthful document. Did you cut and paste it, highlight what you wanted, changed what you wanted and then post it?


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, if you can believe that, you can believe anything.

AND YOU DO!!! No matter how stupid.

---

You're just to stupid and dishonest to have a good conversation with. If everyone clicks on your documents link, then clinks onto the document cloud link on the right, they are brought to the sauce where your document was created and edited. I suggest everyone give it a go.

You asshole. https://www.documentcloud.org/


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-All
egations.html

page 1 par 4
"A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly (emphasis is mine) comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia ..."

page 2 par 2.
"... including democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON ..."

page 2-3 par 5.
" ... rumors about a Russian dossier of 'kompromat' on Hillary CLINTON ..."

page 3 par 6
"... the CLINTON dossier was controlled exclusively ..."


Since roughly 50% of the first two pages are devoted to Hillary, both of you are wrong, once again, when it comes to the facts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And btw, I already discussed this: "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, ..." Search on the phrase 'crystal ball' and you'll find it.

And, once again - you are so wrong. So very, VERY wrong.

---

Lets get back to reality shall we...


Publics Worldwide Unfavorable Toward Putin, Russia but few see Russian power and influence as a major threat

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/08/16/publics-worldwide-unfavorable-towa
rd-putin-russia/


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Your link is not a secure connection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And I proved you wrong. There were many, many references to the dirt on Clinton that Steele's sources said Russia had. So sorry you can't take being wrong, but if you did a little more reading and thought just a twees, you wouldn't be so very, very wrong, so very, very often.

So, aside from you being an ass, do you have a point of fact to make?

Well, for SURE you're an ass !!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And let me add - if you believe Steele's dossier about Trump, then it means that the Russians also had dirt on Clinton. Which is what I said at the top of the page, where you accused me of lying. So, isn't it you who's lying, SECOND-RATE?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And second once again smacks down a liar. As we witnessed it is kiki again. Shame on you kiki.

---

Quote:

---

97% of people 'believed' Iraq had WMDs. And how did that work out? As they say, a million flies eat shit.

That's the problem with assuming public opinion is reality. It isn't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And second once again smacks down a liar. As we witnessed it is kiki again. Shame on you kiki.

---

I could smack 1kiki for this statement:

Quote:

---

97% of people 'believed' Iraq had WMDs. And how did that work out? As they say, a million flies eat shit.

That's the problem with assuming public opinion is reality. It isn't.

---

That 97% doesn't cover the reality in Texas which is expressed with two numbers: 0% and 100%. I knew no Democrats in Texas (0.00%) that believed in WMD in Iraq. All who were familiar with Governor George Bush being a liar, disbelieved President Bush. All the Texas Republicans (100.0%) believed in WMD. There was many reasons to believe all Texas Republicans were delusional at the time:
www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts
/index.html

Even until today, there are reasons to believe Texas Republicans live inside a delusion about Trump.

---

The democrats allowed Bush to go into Iraq because of a political gamble. Americans were pissed. They didn't want them angry at them. They chose wrong.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

The democrats allowed Bush to go into Iraq because of a political gamble. Americans were pissed. They didn't want them angry at them. They choose wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
The democrats allowed Bush to go into Iraq because of a political gamble. Americans were pissed. They didn't want them angry at them. They chose wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
1kiki, you proved nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And let me add - if you believe Steele's dossier about Trump, then it means that the Russians also had dirt on Clinton. Which is what I said at the top of the page, where you accused me of lying. So, isn't it you who's lying, SECOND-RATE?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
1kiki, that is stupid what you wrote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
I'm feelin a major inditement rumbling down the chute, probably Kushner. Maybe Don Jr. Maybe both!

---

I'll be looking for those indictments against Kushner and/ or Trump Jr. this week and next week.

If you're wrong, will you admit it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Its going to be a little harder for traffic cops to do their job if the Trump gang arent in prizon befor 2020.

"A 2 bit con man got away with treazon, and youre hassling me for not uzing my turn signal?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've seen absolutely no evidence of that yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've seen absolutely no evidence of that yet.

---

Thats bekuz the old saying 'you can provide Rachel Maddow links to 6stringjack, but you cant make him watch' iz true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Thats bekuz the old saying 'you can provide Rachel Maddow links to 6stringjack, but you cant make him watch' iz true.

---

Quote:

---

Trump was finally on his way in Russia. And shortly after the Miss Universe event, Agalarov’s daughter showed up at the Miss Universe office in New York City bearing a gift for Trump from Putin. It was a black lacquered box. Inside was a sealed letter from the Russian autocrat. What the letter said has never been revealed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
#10,235
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/russian-connection-what-h
appened-moscow-inside-story-trump-obsession-putin-david-corn-michael-isikoff/

Quote:

---

Trump was finally on his way in Russia. And shortly after the Miss Universe event, Agalarov’s daughter showed up at the Miss Universe office in New York City bearing a gift for Trump from Putin. It was a black lacquered box. Inside was a sealed letter from the Russian autocrat. What the letter said has never been revealed.

---

Wy do you think Mr. Shameless Braggart woud not be Trumpeting hiz special messaj from hiz hero to the world? Completely out uv karakter for the guy who puts framed picturez uv himself everywhere. A man so desperate for adulation that he put framed picturez uv hiz inaguaration az Prezident up 2 dayz afterward bogusly claiming 'the biggest crowd ever'!

Yet here he gets a sealed letter in a fansy black laquered box hand delivered and he keeps it a secret. Hmmm.

Gotta be bad. REEEELLY FREEKIN BAD!

My gess: It wuz to inform him uv all the Kompromat Putin haz on him. A document uv ownership. 'You are my puppet.'

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

---

Quote:

---

This is the first of two excerpts adapted from Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump (Twelve Books), by Michael Isikoff, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, and David Corn, Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones. The book will be released on March 13.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

That is the face of a woman who just lost her children in a house fire.

As you know, Maddow or her news network doesn't keep her videos online very long. Many times when J0 posts a link to one of her videos they don't work a few weeks later.

If anybody could find the actual video of her realizing that Hillary lost, I would appreciate it.

I actually did see it. I was enjoying watching people like her and The Young Turks heads explode, so I stopped watching people that were hopeful for a Trump win so I could see the breakdowns instead. Admittedly, I was still in a pretty dark place back then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Yeah, that's what I thought - you were drunk or full of shit or both. People can manipulate video just like still images and if a person wants to bad enough they'll fall for anything.
I switched around to all channels that night including Fux. I had never watched MSNBC because I couldn't stand her (shrill) and Williams was tainted, but their coverage was superior to the others imho. Matthews has some serious political chops, and Maddow actually held her own with him. She actually was laughing after they called it and made jokes and that made me want to watch her more, see if she knew her stuff (she did, she does). She has so far been the best MSM show for content that I've seen. Not surprised you fell for it - content ain't your thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Donald Trump was suspicious from the start.

It was the afternoon of January 6, 2017...

---