Leftist Scum Democrats Trying To Squirm Out of Russia Allegations

[kaz]

All this time, Democrats pursued the baseless story that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Now they're saying we were right! Russia did interfere in the election! And Trump was wrong!

1) No, you said Trump colluded with the Russians
2) And no, Trump didn't say Russia didn't interfere, he said he didn't collude with them

Hillary did collude with the Russians who paid her $145 million and got 20% of US uranium in return. She lied about Russian hackers and refused to turn over the DNC server to hide it. She smashed and bit washed her phones.

It was a get Trump campaign. Democrats have been pro-Russia all my life. Once a Democrat is back in the white house, they won't give a shit about Russia.

Democrats lie, it's what they do.

So Trump is changing his story.

Got it!

Democrats are changing your story

 

[AntonToo]

Idiot, in neither of those quotes did I claim that Trump definitely concluded with Russians.

What I said was that it certainly is not "crazy fantasy"

Ah, now you're demonstrating the thread title.

"This, along with the indictment of two top campaign figures is just a BEGINNING."

"we know Russians wanted Trump to win, the only thing we don't know is if and how they actually went on to aid each other's interests"

Yeah, you totally had an open mind

IT WAS THE BEGINNING

SO STFU about what was or wasn't found.

Bam! By changing the words of what you said, you just admitted you said what I said you said.

You didn't say "it was the beginning."

You said, ""This, along with the indictment of two top campaign figures is just a BEGINNING."

Obviously that is conclusion of further guilt.

And Flynn's indictment had nothing to do with the Russians, it was about lying. Who is the other "top campaign figure" you're talking about?

Dude, you are straight bonkers, not only is that NOT obvious, it is straight stupid.

Flynn's indictment was about lying ABOUT DISCUSSING SANCTIONS WITH RUSSIANS.

There was nothing Flynn did that was illegal if he hadn't lied about it.

And again, who is the second "top campaign figure" you referred to?

Not the point, legal or not, he lied about conversations with Russian official about sanctions. When you said this wasn't about Russians you were wrong.

 

[kaz]

Well it sure does look like he colluded with the russians. Especially because of all the denials

Sealybobo: Denying guilt means you are guilty! As of course to admitting guilt, which of course proves you're guilty!

You apply that standard to the Democrats too, right?



I crack myself up. You holding Democrats to a standard ...

 

[AntonToo]

Quote me retard.

Sure, and if I can do that, are you going to say wow, you're an ass wipe for saying that? What are you going to do exactly? You're seriously claiming you never said Trump colluded with the Russians?

Moron, you will not find it because I didn't say it.

And when this will happen I want you to PAUSE and ask yourself - wtf is wrong with me?

Oops, I just gave you two quotes. Didn't know the site has a search feature.

So what about it, going to admit you're a stupid dick now?

OOPS you are a total retard.

NOWHERE in those quotes did I state that Trump definitively colluded with Russians.

He colluded

All of Trump’s Ties to Russia, in 7 Charts

What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia?

The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections—some public, some private, some clear, some murky—exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

[kaz]

You know that leftists said what I said you said

Ahh so now that you can't find me saying it you deflect to some "leftists"

Well played, bravo.

I just showed you two quotes showing you personally did say it, dumb ass

You provided the quotes of me NOT SAYING WHAT I CLAIM I SAID.



This is like explaining to a 2 year old what a table is.

Just another lie

 

[AntonToo]

You know that leftists said what I said you said

Ahh so now that you can't find me saying it you deflect to some "leftists"

Well played, bravo.

I just showed you two quotes showing you personally did say it, dumb ass

You provided the quotes of me NOT SAYING WHAT I CLAIM I SAID.



This is like explaining to a 2 year old what a table is.

Just another lie

whatever you say idiot.

 

[sealybobo]

Well it sure does look like he colluded with the russians. Especially because of all the denials

Sealybobo: Denying guilt means you are guilty! As of course to admitting guilt, which of course proves you're guilty!

You apply that standard to the Democrats too, right?



I crack myself up. You holding Democrats to a standard ...

One of my neighbors killed himself. Do you think the cops would be suspecious if every day I called and asked them if I was under investigation for it?

And only a guilty president would ask this:

Donald Trump asks lawyers about powers to pardon himself and his children in Russia probe, report reveals
President's team may be seeking to control and block Mueller's Russia investigation

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

1) No, you said Trump colluded with the Russians
2) And no, Trump didn't say Russia didn't interfere, he said he didn't collude with them

Err, What's the difference? Orange or Orange campaign is semantics at this point. Maybe he didn't pull the trigger, but he hired the folks that did. The fish rots at the head...

 

[kaz]

Ah, now you're demonstrating the thread title.

"This, along with the indictment of two top campaign figures is just a BEGINNING."

"we know Russians wanted Trump to win, the only thing we don't know is if and how they actually went on to aid each other's interests"

Yeah, you totally had an open mind

IT WAS THE BEGINNING

SO STFU about what was or wasn't found.

Bam! By changing the words of what you said, you just admitted you said what I said you said.

You didn't say "it was the beginning."

You said, ""This, along with the indictment of two top campaign figures is just a BEGINNING."

Obviously that is conclusion of further guilt.

And Flynn's indictment had nothing to do with the Russians, it was about lying. Who is the other "top campaign figure" you're talking about?

Dude, you are straight bonkers, not only is that NOT obvious, it is straight stupid.

Flynn's indictment was about lying ABOUT DISCUSSING SANCTIONS WITH RUSSIANS.

There was nothing Flynn did that was illegal if he hadn't lied about it.

And again, who is the second "top campaign figure" you referred to?

Not the point, legal or not, he lied about conversations with Russian official about sanctions. When you said this wasn't about Russians you were wrong.

I said his indictment had nothing to do with the Russians, it was about lying. He was not indicted for any action he took regarding the Russians. This is classic from the guy trying to word parse your way out of what you said about Trump and the Russians

 

[kaz]

Sure, and if I can do that, are you going to say wow, you're an ass wipe for saying that? What are you going to do exactly? You're seriously claiming you never said Trump colluded with the Russians?

Moron, you will not find it because I didn't say it.

And when this will happen I want you to PAUSE and ask yourself - wtf is wrong with me?

Oops, I just gave you two quotes. Didn't know the site has a search feature.

So what about it, going to admit you're a stupid dick now?

OOPS you are a total retard.

NOWHERE in those quotes did I state that Trump definitively colluded with Russians.

He colluded

All of Trump’s Ties to Russia, in 7 Charts

What is the real story of Donald Trump and Russia?

The answer is still unclear, and Democrats in Congress want to get to the bottom of it with an investigation. But there’s no doubt that a spider web of connections—some public, some private, some clear, some murky—exists between Trump, his associates and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

You want the same thing you always wanted, the best story you can tell implying a web and you give a shit not whether it's true or not

 

[kaz]

Well it sure does look like he colluded with the russians. Especially because of all the denials

Sealybobo: Denying guilt means you are guilty! As of course to admitting guilt, which of course proves you're guilty!

You apply that standard to the Democrats too, right?



I crack myself up. You holding Democrats to a standard ...

One of my neighbors killed himself. Do you think the cops would be suspecious if every day I called and asked them if I was under investigation for it?

And only a guilty president would ask this:

Donald Trump asks lawyers about powers to pardon himself and his children in Russia probe, report reveals
President's team may be seeking to control and block Mueller's Russia investigation

Absolutely. As a long time manager / entrepreneur, it's only competence to ask my lawyers about every possibility

 

[The Original Tree]

It means the Clintons have been protected by The Deep State since their Cocaine & Gun Running Operation back in Mena Arkansa.

No one else in the world could get away with that many scandals unless the Deep State was protecting them, and I know for a fact that was the deal The DEA, FBI and CIA made with them clear back then.

yeah, Trump is innocent as hell - he's hiding the shitstains in his drawers.

Can som

yeah, Trump is innocent as hell - he's hiding the shitstains in his drawers.

Can someone tell me what this means?
.

 

[kaz]

1) No, you said Trump colluded with the Russians
2) And no, Trump didn't say Russia didn't interfere, he said he didn't collude with them

Err, What's the difference? Orange or Orange campaign is semantics at this point. Maybe he didn't pull the trigger, but he hired the folks that did. The fish rots at the head...

Another baseless accusation

 

[LoneLaugher]

There was absolutely no relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence.

LOL!

 

[Lakhota]

Trump even publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails. That alone is collusion - asking a hostile foreign country to interfere in an American election. That sounds like "criminal" collusion to me.

 

[Reasonable]

Trump attacks just about everyone, but never says anything derogatory about Putin or Russia. Even in cases such as,,,,,,:
Russian mercenary boss spoke with Kremlin before attacking US forces in Syria, intel claims
So, Russia has been very active attacking our democratic election process, working hard to divide America and now attacking US troops by proxy in Syria.
Trump still says nothing about Putin /Russia, that might be offensive.
Yet the alleged "patriotic" little Trumpsters, just keeps on cheering on Trump and his anti-American policies or his no policies. Now it must be OK to let Russia attack America.

Just ask the cowards that support this president why is he afraid to say anything negative about Putin.
Ask them why won’t he install sanctions on Russia totally supported by Congress.
Ask them what they think of his constant lying about” I have no business with Russia” WHILE he was doing business with them attempting to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
They’ll lie, deflect and refuse to answer on the grounds they would incriminate themselves.

 

[Reasonable]

Trump’s right hand man.
All the others have been indicted or quit or have been fired.

“ I pick the best people.”

 

[kaz]

Just ask the cowards that support this president why is he afraid to say anything negative about Putin

strawman

 

[AZGAL]

The Democratic National Committee last year did not allow the FBI to physically inspect its machines, including servers. (Associated Press/File)

Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, July 27, 2017


Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel of the Russia election interference probe presents an opportunity for the FBI to inspect the Democratic Party computers that U.S. intelligence concluded were penetrated by Kremlin-directed hackers, cybersecurity analysts say.

The Democratic National Committee did not allow the FBI to physically inspect its machines, including servers. There is no public indication that any government agency has ever looked at the machines, prompting some former intelligence people to question the findings.

Instead, the DNC — and thus the FBI — relied heavily on the conclusions of counterhacking firm CrowdStrike, which the Democrats invited in to investigate the computers. CrowdStrike’s executive team has included former FBI officials close to Mr. Mueller. A major CrowdStrike investor is Google, whose founders work with Democrats.


The nongovernment access to the DNC machines spurred alternative theories from the political right, computer technologists and President Trump.

After former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congress that the DNC had refused his agency’s assistance, Mr. Trump sent out a tweet: “Why did Democratic National Committee turn down the DHS offer to protect against hacks (long prior to election). It’s all a big Dem HOAX!”

The DNC defends how it handled the hacking.


“The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers,” Adrienne Watson, deputy director of DNC communications, told The Washington Times. “Conspiracy theories from the president suggesting otherwise are false.

“Our U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russia hacked the DNC and attempted to interfere in our election. In spite of that, Donald Trump has resorted to tweeting false allegations about an attack on our democracy and turned a blind eye to the very man responsible for these attacks.”

Ms. Watson did not say whether the DNC still has possession of the hacked servers.

Russia conclusions and sent it to Mr. Mueller.

The Times asked Mr. Mueller’s spokesman if the special counsel would seek access to the DNC machines to settle the matter. The spokesman declined to comment.

‘Questionable political ties’

CrowdStrike has links to Mr. Mueller. Its president, Shawn Henry, ran the FBI’s cyber division when Mr. Mueller led the bureau. Steve Chabinsky was also a close aide to Mr. Mueller in the cyber division before arriving at CrowdStrike as general counsel. He later joined an international law firm.

Mr. Henry and Mr. Chabinsky were senior CrowdStrike officers when the DNC called on the company to investigate the hack, identify the culprits and patch vulnerabilities.

Most members of Congress have accepted the conclusions of the CIA and others of Russian hacking to interfere in the U.S. election by stealing and releasing Democratic Party emails. But some outside groups disagree. They are puzzled by the FBI’s lack of assertiveness last year to have its agents personally seize and inspect servers in one of the most famous cybercrimes ever.

Then under the direction of James B. Comey, a close friend of Mr. Mueller, the FBI accepted CrowdStrike’s forensic data to conclude that Russia’s two main intelligence services, the GRU and FSB, were responsible for the crime. Concurring were the National Security Agency, the CIA and the director of national intelligence — but not all of the 17 intelligence agencies participated.

Counterterrorism consultant Larry Johnson, a former CIA case officer, said there is evidence that the breach was an inside download onto a thumb drive.

“Bottom line, there is a lot that the FBI did not investigate and should have,” Mr. Johnson said. “It would be a step in the right direction for the FBI to finally handle this as a real investigation requiring real evidence, rather than defer to an outside firm with questionable political ties and motives.”

Said Tom Fitton, who runs Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog: “One would think the feds would want their own experts to examine the computer evidence. I’d be surprised if Mueller’s team isn’t taking a second look at this issue.”

Mr. Comey provided his most detailed explanation of the DNC lockout in March when he appeared before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and was questioned by Rep. Will Hurd, Texas Republican.

Mr. Hurd: So, Director, FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on WikiLeaks and when you have still been, never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were, that were hacked by the Russians?

Mr. Comey: That’s correct, although we got the forensics from the pros [CrowdStrike] that they hired, which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.”

Why the FBI did not request a search warrant was not asked.

An alternative conclusion

Before President Obama left office, his intelligence chiefs issued a report on Jan. 6 that fingered Russia as the culprit. The agencies relied on CrowdStrike’s inspection as well as their own intelligence collections.

Not everyone agrees. A group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity issued a report July 24 concluding that someone penetrated the computers from inside the DNC.

“Forensic studies of ‘Russian hacking’ into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia,” the group said in a memo to Mr. Trump.

“After examining metadata from the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that ‘telltale signs’ implicating Russia were then inserted.”

Guccifer 2.0 was a fake name for Russian intelligence hackers, the U.S. says. They leaked sometimes embarrassing DNC emails as a cover for the Kremlin.

VIPS asserted that the leaked emails were “copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an internet capability for a remote hack.”

It said there were two distinct breaches: an inside leak to WikiLeaks sometime before the anti-secrecy website announced on June 2, 2016, that it had obtained DNC documents; and a leak on July 5, 2016, that was a “cut-and-paste job” that made it look like the material came from Russians when it did not.

“Why the FBI neglected to perform an independent forensics on the original ‘Guccifer 2.0’ material remains a mystery,” the VIPS report said.

In a direct message to Mr. Trump, the retired operatives said: “You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.”

 

[kiwiman127]

Trump attacks just about everyone, but never says anything derogatory about Putin or Russia. Even in cases such as,,,,,,:
Russian mercenary boss spoke with Kremlin before attacking US forces in Syria, intel claims
So, Russia has been very active attacking our democratic election process, working hard to divide America and now attacking US troops by proxy in Syria.
Trump still says nothing about Putin /Russia, that might be offensive.
Yet the alleged "patriotic" little Trumpsters, just keeps on cheering on Trump and his anti-American policies or his no policies. Now it must be OK to let Russia attack America.

You're full of shit. Trump attacks everyone including the Russians. Get the partisan shill crap out of here

Right.
Find me a tweet and speech, anything that verifies Trump attacking Putin/Russia. All you got is Trump attacking Obama, Clinton, the FBI, the Judicial Department, the US court system, the Democrats, the media, Jeff Session. Comey, the US election system, blacks Hispanics, Muslims, Africa Haiti, Puerto Rico, Oprah, the UK, the mayor of London, etc: But Putin,,no.
Look, Obama was kinda a pussy in regards to Putin/Russia. But he did impose sanctions, took away three real estates of the Russian, and like Trump, told Putin Russia to stop interfering with our elections.
But has Trump been tougher on Russia than Obama? No.
Has Trump 'been much tougher on Russia' than Obama?
Above is a linky for you. Now, like every Trumpster, you will call it partisan. However, when Politifact named Obama the liar of the year, you guys started thread after thread after thread on Politifact's dubious award to Obama. So, why not prove my link wrong. It's that easy.