(06-29-2017 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So what's the latest in the collusion matter, other than the Van Jones thingie? Have we yet discovered what Trump promised Vlad?

That's what the investigation of the entire Trump administration is for...

But if you're asking for related news, Manafort registered retroactively as a foreign agent for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party yesterday. That's the second time a campaign official for Trump has retroactively registered (Flynn and Turkey being the first).

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/27...ine-240027

Also, I'll try and get back to your original request sometime soon, I keep getting distracted with other posts though.

I'd written off the other request. I am impressed that you have not.

So how is the Manafort registration a brick in the collusion wall? What is the narrative that it supports? That Manafort has always been a secret agent, working for Mother Russia? And that he has done this at Trump's request, to help Trump keep his promises to Vlad? Maybe Trump should just tell Vlad he can be more flexible later. Sufficiently vague.

If you're asking for theories...

Manafort was paid by a Pro-Russian Ukranian outfit to explicitly get Trump to accept and promote Pro-Russian ideas.

Ever hear about how the language about Russia's incursion in Ukraine was softened during the Republican Convention, and the rumors were that Trump's people were leading that change?

So: $$ from Russians -> Manafort -> pushes through changes in how we treat Russia's incursion into Ukraine

I've said this time and again, I will be shocked if Trump was integrally involved with anything relating to Russia. It is the people who surround him that have me more concerned.

A. So what does this have to do with the hacking of the emails, the centerpiece of the collusion theory?

B. Rumors? What do rumors have to with the collusion theory? I thought investigations dealt in facts. Or are the rumors the basis for the theory, and the theory basis for the investigation?

C. Congratulations. I have been asking liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever for months, ever since the first whisperings on the night of 11-8-16, for a narrative of any sort supporting/explaining the collusion theory, and you are the first to step to the plate with anything. My admiration for you grows.

(06-29-2017 01:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Glad to see the president is spending his time this morning focusing on important issues in a mature and responsible way:

------
I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came..

...to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!
-------


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...2310776832

...and just saw that the WH social media director tweeted something about "Dumb as a rock Mika" WTF is wrong with these people?

miss George W. yet?

he took the attacks from the left with silence and didn't fire back. Still hasn't
i admire his resolve not to respond to wthe criticism, even lies that circulated and still circulate, but I don't know if it is the best way to handle things.

You were similarly admirable of Obama?

I kind of viewed that as a trait that the President needed to have, which was a huge disqualifier in my book for Trump.

Actually, I did think that Obama had a good and correct manner of dealing with detractors, although Obama did not quite reach the level that W did. W showed a respect for his successor's right to be President as he saw fit, even though Obama spent the first 6 years using W as an excuse, a restraint Obama is lacking.

I certainly would prefer that the president, whoever he is, refrain from the petty name calling and sniping that is so prevalent among the press and the halls of congress.

I have already told you the disqualifier, for me, for Hillary. I think her disqualifier runs more deeply into her character flaws than this childish behavior runs into his. JMHO. I would rather have had a better choice. I bet you would have, too. I never thought Trump would the nominee, or that Hillary wouldn't.

Still, in the long run, it will be the actions and policies of his Administration that will define him in the history books, unless someone in the press is planning a book: History of the Trump Presidency, tweet by tweet.

(06-29-2017 07:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So what's the latest in the collusion matter, other than the Van Jones thingie? Have we yet discovered what Trump promised Vlad?

That's what the investigation of the entire Trump administration is for...

But if you're asking for related news, Manafort registered retroactively as a foreign agent for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party yesterday. That's the second time a campaign official for Trump has retroactively registered (Flynn and Turkey being the first).

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/27...ine-240027

Also, I'll try and get back to your original request sometime soon, I keep getting distracted with other posts though.

I'd written off the other request. I am impressed that you have not.

So how is the Manafort registration a brick in the collusion wall? What is the narrative that it supports? That Manafort has always been a secret agent, working for Mother Russia? And that he has done this at Trump's request, to help Trump keep his promises to Vlad? Maybe Trump should just tell Vlad he can be more flexible later. Sufficiently vague.

If you're asking for theories...

Manafort was paid by a Pro-Russian Ukranian outfit to explicitly get Trump to accept and promote Pro-Russian ideas.

Ever hear about how the language about Russia's incursion in Ukraine was softened during the Republican Convention, and the rumors were that Trump's people were leading that change?

So: $$ from Russians -> Manafort -> pushes through changes in how we treat Russia's incursion into Ukraine

I've said this time and again, I will be shocked if Trump was integrally involved with anything relating to Russia. It is the people who surround him that have me more concerned.

A. So what does this have to do with the hacking of the emails, the centerpiece of the collusion theory?

B. Rumors? What do rumors have to with the collusion theory? I thought investigations dealt in facts. Or are the rumors the basis for the theory, and the theory basis for the investigation?

C. Congratulations. I have been asking liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever for months, ever since the first whisperings on the night of 11-8-16, for a narrative of any sort supporting/explaining the collusion theory, and you are the first to step to the plate with anything. My admiration for you grows.

You're conflating a lot of things here.

1 - I never suggested it had anything to do with the emails, but that doesn't mean it didn't have to. Perhaps Manafort also wanted Trump to win, so he got paid and got helped in the election?

2 - you asked for me to come up with potential theories on collusion, not provide you facts from an investigation...

3 - you're not trying hard enough if this is the first time you've heard an actual collusion theory. Google "Russia Trump 19.5%". Bring your tin foil though!

(06-29-2017 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's what the investigation of the entire Trump administration is for...

But if you're asking for related news, Manafort registered retroactively as a foreign agent for a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party yesterday. That's the second time a campaign official for Trump has retroactively registered (Flynn and Turkey being the first).

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/27...ine-240027

Also, I'll try and get back to your original request sometime soon, I keep getting distracted with other posts though.

I'd written off the other request. I am impressed that you have not.

So how is the Manafort registration a brick in the collusion wall? What is the narrative that it supports? That Manafort has always been a secret agent, working for Mother Russia? And that he has done this at Trump's request, to help Trump keep his promises to Vlad? Maybe Trump should just tell Vlad he can be more flexible later. Sufficiently vague.

If you're asking for theories...

Manafort was paid by a Pro-Russian Ukranian outfit to explicitly get Trump to accept and promote Pro-Russian ideas.

Ever hear about how the language about Russia's incursion in Ukraine was softened during the Republican Convention, and the rumors were that Trump's people were leading that change?

So: $$ from Russians -> Manafort -> pushes through changes in how we treat Russia's incursion into Ukraine

I've said this time and again, I will be shocked if Trump was integrally involved with anything relating to Russia. It is the people who surround him that have me more concerned.

A. So what does this have to do with the hacking of the emails, the centerpiece of the collusion theory?

B. Rumors? What do rumors have to with the collusion theory? I thought investigations dealt in facts. Or are the rumors the basis for the theory, and the theory basis for the investigation?

C. Congratulations. I have been asking liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever for months, ever since the first whisperings on the night of 11-8-16, for a narrative of any sort supporting/explaining the collusion theory, and you are the first to step to the plate with anything. My admiration for you grows.

You're conflating a lot of things here.

1 - I never suggested it had anything to do with the emails, but that doesn't mean it didn't have to. Perhaps Manafort also wanted Trump to win, so he got paid and got helped in the election?

2 - you asked for me to come up with potential theories on collusion, not provide you facts from an investigation...

3 - you're not trying hard enough if this is the first time you've heard an actual collusion theory. Google "Russia Trump 19.5%". Bring your tin foil though!

1. YOU didn't have to. The emails as a reason for Hillary's loss is a mainstay of the "Russia meddling in our elections" mantra. In fact, you bring up getting helped in the electiion - how exactly did anybody get helped? Oh, yeah, emails were stolen and published as found.

2. So the best thing you can come up with is based on rumors? I appreciate you trying, but...

3. I have not heard a coherent collusion theory of the type that says "I think this is what happened, and I think it can be proven that it did." All you did was li8st some maybes and possibles based on rumors. What I have heard so far is that there were rumors, and there was smoke, and why the heck would Russia publish the emails if they didn't want Trump to win? Answer; the same reason I wanted Florida to win their CWS games against LSU and TCU - I wanted TCU and LSU to lose. I didn't really give a damn about Florida, and I was paid nothing to be "for" them. C'mon, give me a real narrative.

4. " Tin foil"? So dismissive of anybody who doesn't follow along. Admiration wanes a bit.

(06-29-2017 08:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'd written off the other request. I am impressed that you have not.

So how is the Manafort registration a brick in the collusion wall? What is the narrative that it supports? That Manafort has always been a secret agent, working for Mother Russia? And that he has done this at Trump's request, to help Trump keep his promises to Vlad? Maybe Trump should just tell Vlad he can be more flexible later. Sufficiently vague.

If you're asking for theories...

Manafort was paid by a Pro-Russian Ukranian outfit to explicitly get Trump to accept and promote Pro-Russian ideas.

Ever hear about how the language about Russia's incursion in Ukraine was softened during the Republican Convention, and the rumors were that Trump's people were leading that change?

So: $$ from Russians -> Manafort -> pushes through changes in how we treat Russia's incursion into Ukraine

I've said this time and again, I will be shocked if Trump was integrally involved with anything relating to Russia. It is the people who surround him that have me more concerned.

A. So what does this have to do with the hacking of the emails, the centerpiece of the collusion theory?

B. Rumors? What do rumors have to with the collusion theory? I thought investigations dealt in facts. Or are the rumors the basis for the theory, and the theory basis for the investigation?

C. Congratulations. I have been asking liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever for months, ever since the first whisperings on the night of 11-8-16, for a narrative of any sort supporting/explaining the collusion theory, and you are the first to step to the plate with anything. My admiration for you grows.

You're conflating a lot of things here.

1 - I never suggested it had anything to do with the emails, but that doesn't mean it didn't have to. Perhaps Manafort also wanted Trump to win, so he got paid and got helped in the election?

2 - you asked for me to come up with potential theories on collusion, not provide you facts from an investigation...

3 - you're not trying hard enough if this is the first time you've heard an actual collusion theory. Google "Russia Trump 19.5%". Bring your tin foil though!

1. YOU didn't have to. The emails as a reason for Hillary's loss is a mainstay of the "Russia meddling in our elections" mantra. In fact, you bring up getting helped in the electiion - how exactly did anybody get helped? Oh, yeah, emails were stolen and published as found.

2. So the best thing you can come up with is based on rumors? I appreciate you trying, but...

3. I have not heard a coherent collusion theory of the type that says "I think this is what happened, and I think it can be proven that it did." All you did was li8st some maybes and possibles based on rumors. What I have heard so far is that there were rumors, and there was smoke, and why the heck would Russia publish the emails if they didn't want Trump to win? Answer; the same reason I wanted Florida to win their CWS games against LSU and TCU - I wanted TCU and LSU to lose. I didn't really give a damn about Florida, and I was paid nothing to be "for" them. C'mon, give me a real narrative.

4. " Tin foil"? So dismissive of anybody who doesn't follow along. Admiration wanes a bit.

I said bring tin foil because of what you'll read when you google those words. Because there ARE a lot of conspiracies out there, some of which are crazy, and that one especially so...

(06-29-2017 08:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 08:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 07:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 01:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you're asking for theories...

Manafort was paid by a Pro-Russian Ukranian outfit to explicitly get Trump to accept and promote Pro-Russian ideas.

Ever hear about how the language about Russia's incursion in Ukraine was softened during the Republican Convention, and the rumors were that Trump's people were leading that change?

So: $$ from Russians -> Manafort -> pushes through changes in how we treat Russia's incursion into Ukraine

I've said this time and again, I will be shocked if Trump was integrally involved with anything relating to Russia. It is the people who surround him that have me more concerned.

A. So what does this have to do with the hacking of the emails, the centerpiece of the collusion theory?

B. Rumors? What do rumors have to with the collusion theory? I thought investigations dealt in facts. Or are the rumors the basis for the theory, and the theory basis for the investigation?

C. Congratulations. I have been asking liberals/Democrats/leftists/whatever for months, ever since the first whisperings on the night of 11-8-16, for a narrative of any sort supporting/explaining the collusion theory, and you are the first to step to the plate with anything. My admiration for you grows.

You're conflating a lot of things here.

1 - I never suggested it had anything to do with the emails, but that doesn't mean it didn't have to. Perhaps Manafort also wanted Trump to win, so he got paid and got helped in the election?

2 - you asked for me to come up with potential theories on collusion, not provide you facts from an investigation...

3 - you're not trying hard enough if this is the first time you've heard an actual collusion theory. Google "Russia Trump 19.5%". Bring your tin foil though!

1. YOU didn't have to. The emails as a reason for Hillary's loss is a mainstay of the "Russia meddling in our elections" mantra. In fact, you bring up getting helped in the electiion - how exactly did anybody get helped? Oh, yeah, emails were stolen and published as found.

2. So the best thing you can come up with is based on rumors? I appreciate you trying, but...

3. I have not heard a coherent collusion theory of the type that says "I think this is what happened, and I think it can be proven that it did." All you did was li8st some maybes and possibles based on rumors. What I have heard so far is that there were rumors, and there was smoke, and why the heck would Russia publish the emails if they didn't want Trump to win? Answer; the same reason I wanted Florida to win their CWS games against LSU and TCU - I wanted TCU and LSU to lose. I didn't really give a damn about Florida, and I was paid nothing to be "for" them. C'mon, give me a real narrative.

4. " Tin foil"? So dismissive of anybody who doesn't follow along. Admiration wanes a bit.

I said bring tin foil because of what you'll read when you google those words. Because there ARE a lot of conspiracies out there, some of which are crazy, and that one especially so...

So I DID misinterpret that. sorry, and happy that I was wrong.

I presume above when you said "conspiracies", you meant "conspiracy theories". (Clearly I haven't googled yet, but I will).

Sure, lots of crazy conspiracy theories. The faked moon landing, the faked 9-11 attack, all sorts of crazy stuff out there. Personally, I include the Trump Administration/Russian conspiracy theory among them. I just cannot come up with a narrative that makes any sense or logic, and nobody else has yet either. Not buying the collusion conspiracy theory does not make me a Trump stormtrooper.

Of course, I also did not believe the vice-president had outed a CIA agent. I did believe that that the future First Husband did "have sex with that young lady, Miss Lewinsky", and had lied about it under oath. Just a personal peccadillo until then, though.

I appreciate you exempt Trump himself, but that just makes him a dupe in a web of spies, and I just cannot see either part of that, the dupe or the web. Do you really think a bunch of Trump's people are pushing pro-russia policies AND that he doesn't notice?

Strange things happen sometimes. Sanctions get eased, one-sided accords get signed, we don't need to go to conspiracy theory to explain those things.

Here's my narrative:

Hillary was an odds-on favorite, and her defeat was an epic upset. How do you explain away that happening? Why, there must have been skullduggery. How lese could she have lost? she was the golden child, with a message of peace to all.
Somebody was slinking in the shadows, pulling strings. Has to be, what else could it be? This stuff just doesn't happen on its own, right? The emails were stolen and published, most likely stolen by russians. So if Hillary lost, it must have been those emails, and there is no reason to try and hurt Hillary other than to try and help Trump, so there must have been some deals made, and if we, the Democrats, cry loudly about it, we can tie up Trump until 2018 when we can reqroup and take back power.

did that happen? We will never know unless we have an investigation into the source of the collusion theory. Of course, that would never happen because no crime has been committed. Oh, wait a minute... It sure would be interesting to see some of the DNC emails now. But I think my narrative makes more sense than collusion.

(06-29-2017 09:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's my narrative:

Hillary was an odds-on favorite, and her defeat was an epic upset. How do you explain away that happening? Why, there must have been skullduggery. How lese could she have lost? she was the golden child, with a message of peace to all.

I think you are wrongly conflating the Clinton inner circle with the larger center-left. Clinton may have blamed Russia, but she's been roundly criticized within Democratic circles, both from the Obama camp, the moderate camp, and the Bernie camp when she does so. She's also blamed the late Comey announcement, and frankly, most of the analysis I've seen of that is pretty convincing that she'd have squeaked out a victory without Comey's announcement. But even so, there has been huge pushback from people like David Axlerod pointing out that the fact that she was in a position to lose because of Comey shows what a horrible campaign she had run.

If you told most dems 2 years ago she would lose in the general, I don't think many would find that shocking. Now if you told them she'd lose to Donald Trump, that's a different story...

(06-30-2017 09:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-29-2017 09:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Here's my narrative:

Hillary was an odds-on favorite, and her defeat was an epic upset. How do you explain away that happening? Why, there must have been skullduggery. How lese could she have lost? she was the golden child, with a message of peace to all.

I think you are wrongly conflating the Clinton inner circle with the larger center-left. Clinton may have blamed Russia, but she's been roundly criticized within Democratic circles, both from the Obama camp, the moderate camp, and the Bernie camp when she does so. She's also blamed the late Comey announcement, and frankly, most of the analysis I've seen of that is pretty convincing that she'd have squeaked out a victory without Comey's announcement. But even so, there has been huge pushback from people like David Axlerod pointing out that the fact that she was in a position to lose because of Comey shows what a horrible campaign she had run.

If you told most dems 2 years ago she would lose in the general, I don't think many would find that shocking. Now if you told them she'd lose to Donald Trump, that's a different story...

I guess you may be right. I tend to hear the noise coming from all parts of the Blue Conglomeration as one noise. Perhaps it is a sin shared by those who hear statements coming from anywhere on the Red side as being representative of everybody on the Red side.

what I hear is that we must investigate Trump (meaning everybody associated with Trump in any way) since the Russians attempted to interfere with our elections. This assumption of a connection leads directly to the investigations. If we are blaming her loss on her, why are we investigating Trump?

True, she blamed Comey and his announcement, and I think it certainly had more effect than all the emails, but she also blamed misogynism, IIRC. My personal viewpoint, stated here previously, is that her "deplorables" speech had the most to do with it. It told a lot of middle Americans just what she thought of them. I am sure it tipped more than a few, and hardened the attitudes of a few others. when she blames misogyny, she is blaming deplorables.

Two years ago, on political discussion boards like this, the Dems were crowing to the conservatives that "you're not going to like it when you have to say Madame President.". She was the expected nominee in 2008, until the surprise surge from Obama,and then she was groomed to be the nominee eight years later. Surely you don't think she was named SecState on her merits, do you? Obama looked around and could see nobody better? So yes, I think the whole world expected her to be the 2016 nominee and the DNC took steps to ensure there was not a repeat of 2008, rigging the debates, and so, Lo! it came to pass. Then everybody thought she was a shoo-in, as the Dems supposedly started with 234 electoral votes in the bag. I doubt anybody on the left had any doubt about here ability to get one or two states more, especially when Trump hijacked the Republican nomination. So, yes, her loss was a shock, even to me, and yes, people are searching for some logical reason that it happened. I just don't agree that that collusion between Trump or his people with Russia is a logical reason. It is an illogical reason. As you say, the emails were a minor influence at best, and nobody could have thought they would do the trick enough to manipulate their publication. And the smoke that some people quote is mostly smoke blown by the people who think a conspiracy must be to blame for Hillary not getting her due.

Complain about his tweets, his jokes, his ego, his crassness all you want. I don't like them either. I have said it before here, I don't consider him a role model for my grandsons. But this stupid conspiracy theory? Might as well investigate Hillary for murder. Same amount of smoke, er, I mean evidence.

We had an election between two of the worst people we could find. One lost. It must be a conspiracy.

WSJ reported yesterday that intelligence agencies have evidence that hackers were discussing how to steal Clinton's emails and specifically and then get them to Michael Flynn.

Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

(06-30-2017 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

You need to read the actual article. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall...

This is the key point I was referring to (summary from The Guardian):

Quote: The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

(06-30-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

You need to read the actual article. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall...

This is the key point I was referring to (summary from The Guardian):

Quote: The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

So were these emails they had already stolen, or is the allegation that Flynn commissioned the theft?

So how would this show collusion? Is the inference that he hired them to get those emails? He may have been in the market to buy stolen emails, but how does that show collusion? Connect the dots for me.

(06-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

You need to read the actual article. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall...

This is the key point I was referring to (summary from The Guardian):

Quote: The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

So were these emails they had already stolen, or is the allegation that Flynn commissioned the theft?

So how would this show collusion? Is the inference that he hired them to get those emails? He may have been in the market to buy stolen emails, but how does that show collusion? Connect the dots for me.

Collusion (noun): secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion? Or did these hackers just randomly pick Flynn out of the crowd to bestow their bounty upon.

I think you're too hung up on the idea that collusion must involve a quid pro quo.

Also, you keep looking for a single smoking gun, and thus disregard any evidence of potential collusion because it is not definitive.

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

You need to read the actual article. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall...

This is the key point I was referring to (summary from The Guardian):

Quote: The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

So were these emails they had already stolen, or is the allegation that Flynn commissioned the theft?

So how would this show collusion? Is the inference that he hired them to get those emails? He may have been in the market to buy stolen emails, but how does that show collusion? Connect the dots for me.

Collusion (noun): secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion? Or did these hackers just randomly pick Flynn out of the crowd to bestow their bounty upon.

I think you're too hung up on the idea that collusion must involve a quid pro quo.

Also, you keep looking for a single smoking gun, and thus disregard any evidence of potential collusion because it is not definitive.

assuming in arguendo that everything is true as written (a big if, mind you), the 'connect the dots' for you was that they wanted Flynn to end up with them.

What is missing is any action on Flynn's part to get them.

If I break into the Smithsonian and steal the Hope Diamond, and *want* to give it to my wife, there is no collusion between me and my wife to steal the Hope Diamond. C'mon man, the term collusion *means* the presence of participation or urging. You know that.

No offense, but Progs seem to keep having that same problem with this term as they did with the term 'lie' as it related to Baby Bush and WMDs....

So even *if* everything in the article is true (see above as to the *if issue), there is *still* no 'collusion' present.

(06-30-2017 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 11:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Before any more smoke is blown, here is a link:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-oper...ton-emails

From the linked article:

"In the midst of the 2016 campaign, a veteran GOP opposition researcher who said he had ties to ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn contacted hackers hoping to obtain emails that he believed Russian operatives had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s personal server, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

Now, if the Trump Campaign was colluding with Russia, wouldn't they already have access to these emails?"

"Smith, who died at the age of 81 just 10 days after the Journal interviewed him, told the newspaper that he never explicitly said that Flynn was involved with the project"

so a dead man did a little implicit name-dropping? Now that is smoke worth smoking.

"What Smith hoped to unearth were the 33,000 emails that Clinton has said she deleted from her private email server because they were personal in nature, and which Trump infamously urged Russia to find and release during a July 2016 campaign rally."

Where are those emails, and how do we know they were personal in nature? Using DNC logic, we have to have an investigation just so we will know.

"Though the bulk of the 2016 cyberhacking efforts focused on Democratic targets, some Republicans, including Smith himself, were apparently hacked as well. (Emphasis mine)

Smith told the New York Times last December that he was unaware his emails had been hacked and published on the website DCLeaks.com until the newspaper’s reporter informed him.

“I’m not upset at all,” he said in a phone call with the Times. “I try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.”

Good advice. I bet Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC wish they had followed it. They said things that were embarrassing when made public, and the uproar is because their dirty linen didn't stay hidden from the public.

Just wonder what there is in here that bolsters the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians? You shouldn't have to buy what you already have. Who promised what to the Russians in exchange for what?

As I told JAAO, the narrative here is Russians hacked, Hillary lost, there must be something connecting the two. Somebody point out the connection, please.

You need to read the actual article. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall...

This is the key point I was referring to (summary from The Guardian):

Quote: The Journal said investigators looking into Russian meddling in the election had examined intelligence agency reports about how hackers wanted to get emails from Clinton’s server to an intermediary and then to Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and senior adviser to Trump who went on to serve briefly as his national security adviser.

So were these emails they had already stolen, or is the allegation that Flynn commissioned the theft?

So how would this show collusion? Is the inference that he hired them to get those emails? He may have been in the market to buy stolen emails, but how does that show collusion? Connect the dots for me.

Collusion (noun): secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion? Or did these hackers just randomly pick Flynn out of the crowd to bestow their bounty upon.

I think you're too hung up on the idea that collusion must involve a quid pro quo.

Also, you keep looking for a single smoking gun, and thus disregard any evidence of potential collusion because it is not definitive.

assuming in arguendo that everything is true as written (a big if, mind you), the 'connect the dots' for you was that they wanted Flynn to end up with them.

What is missing is any action on Flynn's part to get them.

If I break into the Smithsonian and steal the Hope Diamond, and *want* to give it to my wife, there is no collusion between me and my wife to steal the Hope Diamond. C'mon man, the term collusion *means* the presence of participation or urging. You know that.

No offense, but Progs seem to keep having that same problem with this term as they did with the term 'lie' as it related to Baby Bush and WMDs....

So even *if* everything in the article is true (see above as to the *if issue), there is *still* no 'collusion' present.

Certainly enough evidence to warrant an investigation, though.

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Collusion (noun): secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion? Or did these hackers just randomly pick Flynn out of the crowd to bestow their bounty upon.

I think you're too hung up on the idea that collusion must involve a quid pro quo.

Also, you keep looking for a single smoking gun, and thus disregard any evidence of potential collusion because it is not definitive.

so what is the evidence of conspiring?

Thieves steal stuff all the time. They usually then try to turn it into cash by selling it to people they think may be interested in buying it. I guess if I had stolen emails I wouldn't just ask some random guy in a Wal-Mart parking lot if he wanted to buy them.

You aren't connecting the dots. You are jumping to conclusions, conclusions you desperately want to reach it seems.

So give me an example of collusion that does not involve a quid pro quo. The basis I keep hearing is that the Russians must have stolen the emails and had them published for some reason. I can think of several that do not involve collusion.

1. because they can
2. because they want to mess up the election generally.
3. for the fun of watching the Democrats squeal
4. because Putin hates Hillary
5. all of the above
6. any of the above


Personally, I think a lot of people in the Kremlin are having a big laugh over the worker ants running in circles over the Russian meddling. This is success for them, and the Democrats are colluding with them in getting it done.

But please feel free to put together a coherent narrative that explains all this with collusion.

Here's a sample:

Flynn, either with or without the knowledge of Trump, meets at a state dinner with Kislyak and offers him something to steal emails. The Russian Ambassador checks with his boss, who says, "Deal!". Then the trustworthy Russians steal the emails, but instead of giving them to Flynn or the 81 year old guy trying to buy them, gives some to Wikileaks and keeps the others, thus completing the deal, well, sort of. Trump says, well, all I wanted anyway is for the emails to be published exactly as written, giving me the election, so I will keep my end of the bargain and end the sanctions, the sanctions that were not in place when I made the deal. But I will end them. Someday.

If that's what the collusioneers want to believe, fine with me.
But for me at least, the dots are not connected.

(06-30-2017 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  t.

No offense, but Progs seem to keep having that same problem with this term as they did with the term 'lie' as it related to Baby Bush and WMDs....

and the term "sex" with Bill.

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion?

Before answering that, first note that we don't have that fact pattern.

(06-30-2017 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion?

Before answering that, first note that we don't have that fact pattern.

I completely agree that this is not proven - I haven't stated that it was. My whole stance this entire debate is about the amount of smoke around the Trump team. A lot of weird coincidences that pique my interest and make me believe that it is not a foregone conclusion that there WASN'T collusion. Obviously there is not enough evidence that the WAS collusion either.

That's why I am happy with how things are playing out in the real world, with investigations to ferret out the truth. I think there are enough issues that have arisen to warrant that. And honestly, all I keep doing is posting articles about the circumstances that indicate we should be looking into the situation.

My response was to OO's request to connect the dots on how that article could suggest collusion. I didn't think it was that illogical to connect the dots on ones own - that if hackers were actively trying to get a particular person intel, that they were told to get that particular person said intel. It's also not that illogical to assume that they had their own motives and felt said person was the best means to their ends.

I feel like I'm being treated as a person who is screaming at the top of their lungs "FIRE" while I'm screaming "SMOKE" and everyone else is screaming "THAT'S JUST FOG."

(06-30-2017 07:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 06:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-30-2017 02:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How would conspiring with foreign hackers to steal emails NOT be collusion?

Before answering that, first note that we don't have that fact pattern.

I completely agree that this is not proven - I haven't stated that it was. My whole stance this entire debate is about the amount of smoke around the Trump team. A lot of weird coincidences that pique my interest and make me believe that it is not a foregone conclusion that there WASN'T collusion. Obviously there is not enough evidence that the WAS collusion either.

That's why I am happy with how things are playing out in the real world, with investigations to ferret out the truth. I think there are enough issues that have arisen to warrant that. And honestly, all I keep doing is posting articles about the circumstances that indicate we should be looking into the situation.

My response was to OO's request to connect the dots on how that article could suggest collusion. I didn't think it was that illogical to connect the dots on ones own - that if hackers were actively trying to get a particular person intel, that they were told to get that particular person said intel. It's also not that illogical to assume that they had their own motives and felt said person was the best means to their ends.

I feel like I'm being treated as a person who is screaming at the top of their lungs "FIRE" while I'm screaming "SMOKE" and everyone else is screaming "THAT'S JUST FOG."

I feel your pain. Some people have thought I approve of everything Trump. Very frustrating.

I see lots of smoke, but most of it is smoke blown by the people hollering "smoke" or hollering "fire". When casual meetings in public become smoke, then people are just looking for smoke.

I met a Russian woman a few months ago. A Russian meeting with a conservative? Clearly, I need to be investigated.

I asked for dots to be connected to show,they don't connect. Even your strained effort had to rely on a bad assumption. There just is no logical or reasonable narrative that supports collusion. But it is not fair to make Lad shoulder the burden of the collusion conspiracy alone. Does anybody have a logical and reasonable narrative of this collusion?