Trump allows attorney general to declassify information about origins of Russia probe

[cbtstorm]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why would anyone think Trump was a Russia agent?  Oh, I remember:

 

All US intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.

 

Trump was running a "Let's be friends with Russia" campaign while pursuing a major real estate deal in Moscow.

 

Trump asked Russia to hack Hillary's emails.

 

Trump encouraged everyone to check out Wikileaks, which was releasing emails hacked by Russia.

 

Trump hired lots of people for his campaign with shady Russia connections.

 

 

didnt hrc recently ask china to release Trump tax returns lol

Russian interference is a joke, even google ceo admitted some russian firm spent less than 5,000 grand for ads that half of which ran after the election.

 

Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse

shady dealings she had.

 

We still dont know who hacked her hidden servers, as fbi outsourced that info to Crowstrike, a firm paid by you know who.

 

its all coming, hang tight.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, cbtstorm said:

No the real dubious affair was the last three years. "Trump a russian agent"

Dems went all out on this and we'll get to the bottom of why. I suspect its not just an election loss. 

 

Ofcourse attacking barr is just standard defense tactic even before any declassification. I wont matter though. I wonder who will be indicted first.

or will it be several at once.

 

 

Nope, that would be you deflecting again. I replied to a direct comment, you chose to intercede and move the goal posts.

 

Spin it all you like, Barr's presentation of the Mueller report does not support high regard for his credibility on such matters. Your claim that Barr is "attacked....before any declassification" - in response to posts citing his conduct on Mueller's report is bizarre. He's attacked precisely because he recently demonstrated his credibility on this is questionable.

 

Enjoy your fantasies.

[cbtstorm]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nope, that would be you deflecting again. I replied to a direct comment, you chose to intercede and move the goal posts.

 

Spin it all you like, Barr's presentation of the Mueller report does not support high regard for his credibility on such matters. Your claim that Barr is "attacked....before any declassification" - in response to posts citing his conduct on Mueller's report is bizarre. He's attacked precisely because he recently demonstrated his credibility on this is questionable.

 

Enjoy your fantasies.

3 years of a failed fantasy.  ofcourse any Ag will be in the same position if

no collusion and no obstruction was decided based on Barrs understanding

of the statue.  

Basicslly if you dont get your way, then only thing left is to cry foul. standard loser tactic just an extension of the resposnse to election results. 

im enjoying the show. thx.

buckle up, its gonna be a bummpy ride.

 

[Morch]

34 minutes ago, cbtstorm said:

3 years of a failed fantasy.  ofcourse any Ag will be in the same position if

no collusion and no obstruction was decided based on Barrs understanding

of the statue.  

Basicslly if you dont get your way, then only thing left is to cry foul. standard loser tactic just an extension of the resposnse to election results. 

im enjoying the show. thx.

buckle up, its gonna be a bummpy ride.

 

 

The Muller report clearly stated something on the matter of obstruction. Barr's version, which you repeat, was inaccurate, to put it politely. You wish to do that song and dance thing again, or just revisit the recent topics dealing with it?

 

Crying foul whenever not getting his way - not sure a point you'd like to make as a Trump supporter.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, cbtstorm said:

didnt hrc recently ask china to release Trump tax returns lol

Russian interference is a joke, even google ceo admitted some russian firm spent less than 5,000 grand for ads that half of which ran after the election.

 

Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse

shady dealings she had.

 

We still dont know who hacked her hidden servers, as fbi outsourced that info to Crowstrike, a firm paid by you know who.

 

its all coming, hang tight.

 

From page 15 of the Mueller report:

 

"In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017.  Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts.  In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IR controlled account."

 

That's my three sentence fair-use limit on TV, but there is a lot more in the Mueller report about Russian interference. 

 

Now that I've destroyed your claim that "Russian interference is a joke", why don't you attempt to support your other specious claims with some credible sources?

 

Regarding your encouraging Wikileaks to hack Hillary Clinton's private server; Trump continues to use a private phone against all security rules and requests that he stop.  Would you encourage Wikileaks to hack his phone as well?

[cbtstorm]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

From page 15 of the Mueller report:

 

"In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January 2015 and August 2017.  Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook accounts.  In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IR controlled account."

 

That's my three sentence fair-use limit on TV, but there is a lot more in the Mueller report about Russian interference. 

 

Now that I've destroyed your claim that "Russian interference is a joke", why don't you attempt to support your other specious claims with some credible sources?

 

Regarding your encouraging Wikileaks to hack Hillary Clinton's private server; Trump continues to use a private phone against all security rules and requests that he stop.  Would you encourage Wikileaks to hack his phone as well?

facebook deleted 3 billion fake accounts.

this ira nonsense of 470 accounts is meaninless. drop in the ocean.

same for twitter, no context as to what those tweets are about or their reach.

drop in the ocean

 

both companies inflate their size for ad dollars. another scandal in itself.

 

truth is your cadidate sucked and lost. 

 

billions

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-fake-accounts-delete-abuse-social-media-whatsapp-a8928391.html

 

nonetheless nothing to do with Trump.

[riclag]

 

Do you really need a re-hash of the recent episode involving Barr's version of Mueller's report?

 

This thread ain’t about mueller In case you didn’t notice it’s about the declassification of files which will lead up to a investigation by the special prosecutor .

[cbtstorm]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

This thread ain’t about mueller In case you didn’t notice it’s about the declassification of files which will lead up to a investigation by the special prosecutor .

easy to go off topic just answering to a comment.

Barr will look into whether these fisa warrants were applied for and issued

properly. 

they can hash it out in court if he finds any funny business. no dif than what flynn or Papadopoulos had to do. Barr is not the final judge so its all just defense posturing imo

 

 

 

[riclag]

The Mueller investigation began with all intelligence agencies agreeing Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, Trump calling for Russia to hack Hillary's emails and encouraging people to check Wikileaks, and suspicious contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russia.

 

This investigation begins with Trump making unfounded accusations.

 

Do you see the difference?

Your deflecting this isn’t about mueller .There are investigations into the fbi, and doj by Durham ,Horowitz and Huber .Declassification was handed off to Barr in turn will hand it off to Durham to investigate and prosecute if need be

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

This thread ain’t about mueller In case you didn’t notice it’s about the declassification of files which will lead up to a investigation by the special prosecutor .

Look again at the headline. It begins with "Trump Allows Attorney General...." Unless the Attorney General happens to someone other than Barr, the question of whether or not the AG is biased is obviously relevant to this topic.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

didnt hrc recently ask china to release Trump tax returns lol

Russian interference is a joke, even google ceo admitted some russian firm spent less than 5,000 grand for ads that half of which ran after the election.

 

Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse

shady dealings she had.

 

We still dont know who hacked her hidden servers, as fbi outsourced that info to Crowstrike, a firm paid by you know who.

 

its all coming, hang tight.

 

Ridiculous falsehood of what Clinton said. What she said was if a Democratic candidate had publicly asked China to hack Trump's tax returns and hours later they had done just that, would anyone be claiming no collusion. Now, it's possible to disagree with her contention, but it's a lie to say she asked the Chinese to do just that.

[mogandave]

Ridiculous falsehood of what Clinton said. What she said was if a Democratic candidate had publicly asked China to hack Trump's tax returns and hours later they had done just that, would anyone be claiming no collusion. Now, it's possible to disagree with her contention, but it's a lie to say she asked the Chinese to do just that.

Do you really believe Russia got the idea to hack Hillary’s basement server by seeing Trump on TV?

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Do you really believe Russia got the idea to hack Hillary’s basement server by seeing Trump on TV?
 

 

I wasn't defending her contention. I was pointing out that cbtstorm offered a false version of the story. 

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

So you disagree with her contention?
 

 

Please stop trolling and disturbing the discussion here.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

facebook deleted 3 billion fake accounts.

this ira nonsense of 470 accounts is meaninless. drop in the ocean.

same for twitter, no context as to what those tweets are about or their reach.

drop in the ocean

 

both companies inflate their size for ad dollars. another scandal in itself.

 

truth is your cadidate sucked and lost. 

 

billions

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-fake-accounts-delete-abuse-social-media-whatsapp-a8928391.html

 

nonetheless nothing to do with Trump.

In other words, you don't want to believe in Russian interference, so you won't believe in it or the statements made under oath (a felony to lie) by Facebook or Twitter executives.  You live in your own unreal reality.

 

You also didn't answer my question about Wikileaks hacking Trump's phone.  If you approve of hacking for Hillary's poor security, surely you must also approve of it for Trump.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

Your deflecting this isn’t about mueller .There are investigations into the fbi, and doj by Durham ,Horowitz and Huber .Declassification was handed off to Barr in turn will hand it off to Durham to investigate and prosecute if need be

My point is that there is no basis for this investigation.  It's a diversion created by Trump to distract attention from the legitimate investigations into him.

[mogandave]

In other words, you don't want to believe in Russian interference, so you won't believe in it or the statements made under oath (a felony to lie) by Facebook or Twitter executives.  You live in your own unreal reality.
 
You also didn't answer my question about Wikileaks hacking Trump's phone.  If you approve of hacking for Hillary's poor security, surely you must also approve of it for Trump.

I think most everyone agrees the Russians had a campaign to stir up animosity and interfere with the election.

What many people do not agree on, is how much it actually affected the election, and that the campaign was intended to benefit Trump.

Has anyone really claimed they condoned the hacking?

I don’t doubt for a moment you would condone the hacking of Trump’s phone if it would expedite his leaving office.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.   

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I think most everyone agrees the Russians had a campaign to stir up animosity and interfere with the election.

What many people do not agree on, is how much it actually affected the election, and that the campaign was intended to benefit Trump.

Has anyone really claimed they condoned the hacking?

I don’t doubt for a moment you would condone the hacking of Trump’s phone if it would expedite his leaving office.

Trump certainly condoned the results of the hacking; he encouraged people to go on Wikileaks and read the hacked material.  What is the difference between condoning the results of hacking and condoning hacking?

 

No, I wouldn't condone the hacking of Trump's phone, as I didn't condone the hacking of Hillary's emails.  You are the one who stated you would encourage hacking of people who don't follow proper security rules.

[mogandave]

Trump certainly condoned the results of the hacking; he encouraged people to go on Wikileaks and read the hacked material.  What is the difference between condoning the results of hacking and condoning hacking?
 
No, I wouldn't condone the hacking of Trump's phone, as I didn't condone the hacking of Hillary's emails.  You are the one who stated you would encourage hacking of people who don't follow proper security rules.

What were the results of the hacking you claim Trump condoned?

I’m not really clear what you mean by condoning results anyway. Clearly there are things people do that I don’t approve of that have positive results. I didn’t approve of Hillary keeping a server in basement, but if it played a part in her losing the election I’m happy about that.

When you claim I said I “...would encourage hacking of people who don’t follow proper security rules.”, you are lying and you should take it back and apologize.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

What were the results of the hacking you claim Trump condoned?

I’m not really clear what you mean by condoning results anyway. Clearly there are things people do that I don’t approve of that have positive results. I didn’t approve of Hillary keeping a server in basement, but if it played a part in her losing the election I’m happy about that.

When you claim I said I “...would encourage hacking of people who don’t follow proper security rules.”, you are lying and you should take it back and apologize.

My apologies, it was cbstorm who posted:

 

"Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse

shady dealings she had."

 

However I never indicated I supported hacking, I just posed the question to cbstorm if his encouragement of hacking extended to hacking someone so recklessly unconcerned with security as Trump.

 

What I meant by condoning the results of hacking is clear; Trump encouraged people to go to Wikileaks and look at the hacked material.  How can that not be an endorsement of the hacking?

[cbtstorm]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I wasn't defending her contention. I was pointing out that cbtstorm offered a false version of the story. 

she said it in jest as with trump. not a false version. point being that what Trump said does not imply collusion as previously implied.

you sure do get triggered and jump the gun a lot. you  got checked last time and  fled. lol 

 

[cbtstorm]

23 minutes ago, heybruce said:

My apologies, it was cbstorm who posted:

 

"Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse

shady dealings she had."

 

However I never indicated I supported hacking, I just posed the question to cbstorm if his encouragement of hacking extended to hacking someone so recklessly unconcerned with security as Trump.

 

What I meant by condoning the results of hacking is clear; Trump encouraged people to go to Wikileaks and look at the hacked material.  How can that not be an endorsement of the hacking?

id encourage people learning of the news thst wikileaks revealed in regards to hidden unsecured servers. thats campaign gold.

[mogandave]

My apologies, it was cbstorm who posted:
 
"Wikileaks had some serious stuff, id encourage it too especially since she had private servers to circumvent foia requests and who knows whatelse
shady dealings she had."
 
However I never indicated I supported hacking, I just posed the question to cbstorm if his encouragement of hacking extended to hacking someone so recklessly unconcerned with security as Trump.
 
What I meant by condoning the results of hacking is clear; Trump encouraged people to go to Wikileaks and look at the hacked material.  How can that not be an endorsement of the hacking?

Thank you.

If WikiLeaks illegally obtained a copy of Trump’s tax returns and posted them, would you condemn anyone that suggested you go and look at them?

If someone recommended you buy equities in defense when the 9/11 attack took place, does that mean they condoned the attack?

Now you’ll likely say oh, but that’s different, but it seems pretty much the same to me.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, cbtstorm said:

she said it in jest as with trump. not a false version. point being that what Trump said does not imply collusion as previously implied.

you sure do get triggered and jump the gun a lot. you  got checked last time and  fled. lol 

 

But that's not what you wrote:

"didnt hrc recently ask china to release Trump tax returns lol"

 

And, no, she didn't say it in jest. She clearly and explicitly posited it as a hypothetical matter.

[mogandave]

But that's not what you wrote:
"didnt hrc recently ask china to release Trump tax returns lol"
 
And, no, she didn't say it in jest. She clearly and explicitly posited it as a hypothetical matter.

The “lol” is not something of a tip-off?

The idea of Trump or Hillary either one seriously asking a foreign country for political assistance on TV is ridiculous.

Hillary’s was a hypothetical, Trump’s was a joke.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

The “lol” is not something of a tip-off?

The idea of Trump or Hillary either one seriously asking a foreign country for political assistance on TV is ridiculous.

Hillary’s was a hypothetical, Trump’s was a joke.

 

"lol" by itself indicates something laughable. In this case it's a comment on what she said. There's nothing there to indicate it's a comment on her intent.

[mogandave]

"lol" by itself indicates something laughable. In this case it's a comment on what she said. There's nothing there to indicate it's a comment on her intent.

And so now you think he is lying, and that he seriously thought Hillary was committing treason on television.

Do you honestly believe Trump was asking Russia for help on television?

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

And so now you think he is lying, and that he seriously thought Hillary was committing treason on television.

Do you honestly believe Trump was asking Russia for help on television?
 

 

Trump has repeatedly accused various US officials of treason. As are many of his supporters here on Thaivisa.com

I honestly don't know if Trump was serious or not.

[mogandave]

Trump has repeatedly accused various US officials of treason. As are many of his supporters here on Thaivisa.com
I honestly don't know if Trump was serious or not.

Why do you have to waffle?

I did not ask you what you knew, I asked you what you believed.

Now I’m guessing you’ll claim you don’t know what to believe.

I think Hillary Clinton made a reckless, bone-headed, criminal mistake with the server. But I don’t think for a minute she is a traitor.

I like virtually nothing the left stands for, and generally think them fools, but I believe that by and large, they have what they think is in the country’s best interest at heart.