Report: More Attempted Collusion

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for typing all that up, Hawkeye. I appreciate it.

[_Bach]

Thanks for typing all that up, Hawkeye. I appreciate it.

Yes Shades. It was definitely long and no doubt took an investment of a lot of time.

Did you have a hard time following it also?

[_subgenius]

1. Going for the lowest hanging fruit in a giant tree of evidence you cannot even begin to refute.
2. Pretending the two are equal when they're not. If you had the honesty to quote the entirety of this writer's comments you'd see they're not equivalent.

You just don't understand what constitutes evidence. You're too dumb.

1. No need to pick through all the rotten pieces. The example is to illustrate how you, to continue the fruit theme, cherry pick through facts. And there is no refutation required because it just simply isn't evidence of collusion...its evidence of a guy working in Russia...just like the other people noted to have been working there were also not "colluding".

2. Nope, your brain's inability to discern that the post was not a refutation but was an accentuation... an accentuation of how you misinterpret and misrepresent facts.

3. I get what evidence is, and you have certainly provided evidence for several things.....yet none of those things are actually "collusion". So, while my informal tone might have confused you, let me clarify that when I say "you have no evidence" - it is easily understood that the meaning is "you have no evidence of collusion"...see, spelled it out for ya.


oh, and I'm talking about the 2018 US Presidential election in case you're unclear on what the heck adults are talking about.

[_Gunnar]

. . .oh, and I'm talking about the 2018 US Presidential election in case you're unclear on what the heck adults are talking about.

So, you think now that there will be another Presidential election this year? Maybe that would not be such a bad Idea, if it results in throwing out Trump and his whole, outrageously corrupt and incompetent regime. I doubt that there is any contitutional provision for having another Presdential election only two years after the last one, though. Maybe we ought to amend the constitution so that we can throw out a President and his regime on a no confidence vote as soon as they prove to be corrupt and/or incompetent, like in the British parlamentary system?

[_Hawkeye]

1. Going for the lowest hanging fruit in a giant tree of evidence you cannot even begin to refute.
2. Pretending the two are equal when they're not. If you had the honesty to quote the entirety of this writer's comments you'd see they're not equivalent.

You just don't understand what constitutes evidence. You're too dumb.

1. No need to pick through all the rotten pieces. The example is to illustrate how you, to continue the fruit theme, cherry pick through facts. And there is no refutation required because it just simply isn't evidence of collusion...its evidence of a guy working in Russia...just like the other people noted to have been working there were also not "colluding".

2. Nope, your brain's inability to discern that the post was not a refutation but was an accentuation... an accentuation of how you misinterpret and misrepresent facts.

3. I get what evidence is, and you have certainly provided evidence for several things.....yet none of those things are actually "collusion". So, while my informal tone might have confused you, let me clarify that when I say "you have no evidence" - it is easily understood that the meaning is "you have no evidence of collusion"...see, spelled it out for ya.


oh, and I'm talking about the 2018 US Presidential election in case you're unclear on what the heck adults are talking about.

So basically you've already given up any kind of intellectual effort to salvage your argument because you're too dumb to understand what constitutes evidence. Basically, Manafort's creepy connections with Russia doesn't count as evidence because Hillary once hired a guy who also worked for a Russian company! Likewise, I guess OJ Simpson had nothing to do with his wife's murder because there are plenty of Heisman Trophy winners who handle knives but don't murder their wives.

[_subgenius]

So basically you've already given up any kind of intellectual effort to salvage your argument

Nope, the intellectual effort is still there...its just a futile effort, given the adversary.

because you're too dumb to understand what constitutes evidence.

Nope, apparently I am too dumb to explain how you have no evidence for collusion. You seem to believe that the more insistent you are with your fallacy the more likely it will become true. For example:
1. Hawkeye asserts that smart arguments are posted to this thread.
2. Hawkeye has posted to this thread.
3. Hawkeye now claims there is evidence that Hawkeye has posted a smart argument to this thread.

Basically, Manafort's creepy connections with Russia doesn't count as evidence because Hillary once hired a guy who also worked for a Russian company!

Nope, the citation clearly illustrates that Manafort working (partnered with a Democrat by the way) on a Russian election campaign is not a suspicious situation, especially if we measure "suspicious" as being uncommon...at least as you define uncommon as the probability for hearing Spanish in Havre MT.

Likewise, I guess OJ Simpson had nothing to do with his wife's murder because there are plenty of Heisman Trophy winners who handle knives but don't murder their wives.

Well, that turned racist and stupid pretty quick - even for you.
Perhaps it would be appropriate, and akin to your style of 'reasoning', to claim that the evidence for OJ having murdered his wife is OJ being known to be associated with white women.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for typing all that up, Hawkeye. I appreciate it.

Yes Shades. It was definitely long and no doubt took an investment of a lot of time.

Did you have a hard time following it also?

No, it was pretty straightforward.

[_Hawkeye]

1. Hawkeye asserts that smart arguments are posted to this thread.
2. Hawkeye has posted to this thread.
3. Hawkeye now claims there is evidence that Hawkeye has posted a smart argument to this thread.

More like Hawkeye refutes your baseless assertion that evidence for collusion "doesn't exist" by detailing a list of clear evidence for collusion, not least of which is the fact that we already know that the Trump administration ATTEMPTED collusion with reps from three foreign countries. A fact you haven't even tried to touch upon because you know you have no chance in hell of refuting it.

Nope, the citation clearly illustrates that Manafort working (partnered with a Democrat by the way) on a Russian election campaign is not a suspicious situation, especially if we measure "suspicious" as being uncommon...at least as you define uncommon as the probability for hearing Spanish in Havre MT.

It is a suspicious situation when members of the campaign have already been caught trying to collude with Russia in a meeting. Whether we can prove definitively that actual collusion happened is another question, and I'm guessing probably not without some kind of video or audio evidence. But we know the intent was there which is still criminal. That kind of evidence is what the Watergate investigation lucked into, otherwise idiots like you would still be talking about how there was no evidence against Nixon and the whole thing was a witch hunt.

Again, you're refusing to deal with the mountain of evidence and you keep going after the lowest hanging fruit to obtusely act as if this one piece of evidence by itself is what the argument rests upon.

From day one the Trump people denied having any affiliation with Russians. There have been 75+ documented contacts between members of the campaign and Russians, and they have denied (lied about) at least 20 of them. This is from Trump, Pence, Manafort, Don Jr., the entire lot of them are lying through their teeth and if there were just ONE instance of lying from anyone in the Obama administration that would be all the justification you and your ilk would need to start a huge conspiracy theory claiming the entire lot were corrupt and demand impeachment.

Trump’S RUSSIA COVER-UP BY THE NUMBERS – 75+ CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA-LINKED OPERATIVES

[_Hawkeye]

JUNE 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 claims responsibility for the hack of the Democratic National Committee computer system and begins posting the stolen DNC documents online.

JULY 27, 2016: Donald Trump sent a message to Russia: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

AUG. 5, 2016: Writing for Breitbart, Roger Stone, a former campaign advisor to Trump, asserts that Guccifer 2.0 has nothing to do with Russia. A few days later, Stone boasts that he is in contact with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

AUG. 12, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posts more stolen DNC documents.

AUG. 13-15, 2016: Stone communicates directly with Guccifer 2.0.

AUG. 15, 2016: Guccifer 2.0 posts more stolen DNC documents.

As he exchanges more direct messages with Guccifer 2.0, Stone continues to declare publicly that he is communicating with Assange. As summer turns to fall, Stone also issues prescient tweets about WikiLeaks’ ongoing dissemination of stolen DNC documents, including this one on Aug. 21, 2016: “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary.” And another on Oct 2, 2016: “Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.” WikiLeaks’ drip-drip-drip of DNC documents continues through the election, and so do Roger Stone’s direct communications with WikiLeaks.

BUSTED!

On JAN. 3, 2017, the CIA, FBI and NSA release their unclassified report, concluding unanimously, “Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.” The three intelligence agencies agree that “the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible.”

The report also states that WikiLeaks had been Russia’s conduit for the effort, writing, “We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”

MARCH 22, 2018: The Daily Beast reported how Guccifer 2.0 blew its cover to reveal the Russian behind the curtain.

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

So during his campaign Trump publicly pleads with Russia to intervene by hacking Democrat's emails. Russia complied with the request or they were already doing it and Trump knew. Either way the coincidence is too much to ignore and constitutes evidence of collusion no matter how you slice it. Trump put himself out there in the public spectacle because he was too stupid to understand that this was illegal.

[_subgenius]

"We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
- House Intelligence Committee, Majority Staff

Every good joke has a setup and a punchline,
first the setup;

You said there was no evidence of collusion. You're easily refuted.

Hawkeye refutes ... by detailing a list of clear evidence for collusion ...

the mountain of evidence

and then the inevitable, and hilarious sidestep punchline

Whether we can prove definitively that actual collusion happened is another question

If you have actual evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, then present it...to date you have only presented circumstances that are inconclusive (a.k.a. not evidence OF anything).
For example.
For example.


Truth is, nay, Reality is that you, and that embarrassed Schiff, burned all that hair for no good reason.
“We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
(but the good news is that they absolved Hillary Clinton as well, so there ya go).


“The collusion issue, we found no evidence of it. The Democrats think they have. They’ve not shared that with us, if they have. I’ve shared all of my evidence we’ve got with them, but if they’ve got evidence of collusion, they haven’t shared it with us.”

maybe it is not just the simple notion of "evidence" that you are struggling with but also the more grown-up definition of "collusion".
Good luck with all of that there hop-along.