PROOF TRUMP COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA
-
Do you have proof Trump colluded with Russia? Maxine Waters went on radio today and admitted there is NOTHING.
She has called for his impeachment multiple times over these allegations that he did collude with Russia, backtracking today.
James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.
The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?I get it, a lot of you just don't like him because you don't like Republicans and Conservatives. He's neither of those, just using their name.
Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.
-
Most trump haters hate him based on things they've been told by others, not things Trump actually said/did. This is why they refuse to do interviews on their talking points.
-
Never mind Russian THE HEALTH ARE!!! TRUMP DOESNT GIVE A SHIT IF PEOLE WITH PE CONDTIONS DIE!!!
-
Do you have proof Trump colluded with Russia? Maxine Waters went on radio today and admitted there is NOTHING.
She has called for his impeachment multiple times over these allegations that he did collude with Russia, backtracking today.
James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.
The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?I get it, a lot of you just don't like him because you don't like Republicans and Conservatives. He's neither of those, just using their name.
Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.
The libtards are like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". They attack EVERYTHING Trump does, regardless of what he does. If he builds a wall they attack him, if he doesn't build a wall they attack him. If he doesn't fire Comey they attack him, if he does fire Comey they attack him. If' he is soft on North Korea they attack him, if he is hard on North Korea they attack him, etc.
Their constant stream of new attacks dimininshes and makes people forget about their previous attacks to the point where none of their attacks mean anything to anybody.
If Trump watched the children having the annual Easter Egg Roll in the Rose Garden at the White House, "Auntie" Maxine Waters would call for his impeachment because he was disrespecting women by having the "EGG" used in such a frivolous and playful way.The libtards started out with very little credibility, and now have none.
=============
One other thing. Just what is it that Russia could possibly do to influence the election? -
James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.
Now that would be quite an accomplishment considering his investigation is incomplete and he was fired in the middle of it.
The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?It literally is irrelevant how they knew considering Trump went on Twitter and confirmed everything.
Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.
Well other than Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, that fact that his children confirmed his business ties (including loans) to Russia, and the fact that this past week Trump literally gave Russia highly classified intel that compromised American agents.
-
James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.
Now that would be quite an accomplishment considering his investigation is incomplete and he was fired in the middle of it.
The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?It literally is irrelevant how they knew considering Trump went on Twitter and confirmed everything.
Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.
Well other than Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, that fact that his children confirmed his business ties (including loans) to Russia, and the fact that this past week Trump literally gave Russia highly classified intel that compromised American agents.
- Comey was not investigating anything. The FBI is. Comey wasn't an agent, and wasn't "doing" anything other than overseeing an arm of the DOJ.
2)It LITERALLY IS relative, since WaPo getting their hands on that information is actually a criminal offense by the person that gave them the information and does more harm to our Nat. Security THAN ANYTHING Trump has even been accused of doing.
3)More lies. Whether or not Gen. Flynn did anything improper is highly suspect. The FBI cleared him regarding the call in December on January 24th because what he did WAS proper. How long exactly did Manafort actually work for Trump? Where did his children confirm any such ties? Surely you aren't trying to use an article by an unnamed source that claims Eric told him something golfing several years ago, and that which Eric flatly denied?
-
- Comey was not investigating anything. The FBI is. Comey wasn't an agent, and wasn't "doing" anything other than overseeing an arm of the DOJ.
…Which means he's overseeing the investigation.
2)It LITERALLY IS relative, since WaPo getting their hands on that information is actually a criminal offense by the person that gave them the information and does more harm to our Nat. Security THAN ANYTHING Trump has even been accused of doing.
The Washington Post was actually quite circumspect in order to prevent divulging any classified material. Please explain to the group how a newspaper reporting that Trump out and out gave the Russian classified intelligence is more harmful to our national security than Trump giving the Russians classified intelligence? But good job at attempting to deflect from the real issue.
3)More lies. Whether or not Gen. Flynn did anything improper is highly suspect. The FBI cleared him regarding the call in December on January 24th because what he did WAS proper. How long exactly did Manafort actually work for Trump? Where did his children confirm any such ties? Surely you aren't trying to use an article by an unnamed source that claims Eric told him something golfing several years ago, and that which Eric flatly denied?
The FBI is still investigating Flynn, so they obviously haven't "cleared" him. It doesn't matter how long Manafort worked for Trump. And it wasn't an unnamed source, it was a journalist there specifically to write a story on Trump's golf courses, with the statements being corroborated by two others.
Not to mention, of course, this quote from Donald Trump Jr. “… In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,”
And, of course, here's the Wall Street Journal:
-
- Comey was not investigating anything. The FBI is. Comey wasn't an agent, and wasn't "doing" anything other than overseeing an arm of the DOJ.
…Which means he's overseeing the investigation.
2)It LITERALLY IS relative, since WaPo getting their hands on that information is actually a criminal offense by the person that gave them the information and does more harm to our Nat. Security THAN ANYTHING Trump has even been accused of doing.
The Washington Post was actually quite circumspect in order to prevent divulging any classified material. Please explain to the group how a newspaper reporting that Trump out and out gave the Russian classified intelligence is more harmful to our national security than Trump giving the Russians classified intelligence? But good job at attempting to deflect from the real issue.
3)More lies. Whether or not Gen. Flynn did anything improper is highly suspect. The FBI cleared him regarding the call in December on January 24th because what he did WAS proper. How long exactly did Manafort actually work for Trump? Where did his children confirm any such ties? Surely you aren't trying to use an article by an unnamed source that claims Eric told him something golfing several years ago, and that which Eric flatly denied?
The FBI is still investigating Flynn, so they obviously haven't "cleared" him. It doesn't matter how long Manafort worked for Trump. And it wasn't an unnamed source, it was a journalist there specifically to write a story on Trump's golf courses, with the statements being corroborated by two others.
Not to mention, of course, this quote from Donald Trump Jr. “… In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,”
And, of course, here's the Wall Street Journal:
-
which means the investigation is ongoing, and as was testified to under oath not only is it ongoing, but there had been no attempts to obstruct it.
-
Because 1 is ILLEGAL and the other isn't. Trump, by definition, cannot illegally disclose classified information. He has been elected to be the Executive, the anonymous source hasn't. Trump gets to make the decision what to share and with whom, the anonymous source doesn't.
-
Eric Trump again denies this conversation and the fact that legal filings to Congress do not show income or debt ties to Russia (with few exceptions) debunk the claim. As for the Don Jr. quote from 9 years ago, you do realize he was discussing Russia's economy and how at that time the ruble was strong over the dollar, so the Russian investors were using that to invest in properties outside of Russia. Not RUSSIA, but Russian investors, 9 years ago. As for your link, again, it proves NOTHING! Goodness gracious!
Critical thinking is your friend! Use it.
-
- which means the investigation is ongoing, and as was testified to under oath not only is it ongoing, but there had been no attempts to obstruct it.
This is a completely different point than the one you were just making. And the original point was, "James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion." So, I guess you are saying I was right all along.
- Because 1 is ILLEGAL and the other isn't. Trump, by definition, cannot illegally disclose classified information. He has been elected to be the Executive, the anonymous source hasn't. Trump gets to make the decision what to share and with whom, the anonymous source doesn't.
At no point were we ever discussing whether it was legal or illegal for Trump to share that information. We were discussing what was the threat to national security. What Trump did was obviously a threat to national security (such an obvious threat that there are WWII posters about it), and what the WaPo did was not.
- Eric Trump again denies this conversation and the fact that legal filings to Congress do not show income or debt ties to Russia (with few exceptions) debunk the claim.
I do like that you have debunk your own debunk. And that wasn't "legal filings to congress," that was Trump's own lawyer in a story from the AP: "President Trump's lawyers say that their review of his tax returns for the last 10 years does not show 'any income of any type from Russian sources' — with 'a few exceptions.'"
As far as Eric Trump denying the conversation? Of course he does. He's perfectly capable of lying.
As for the Don Jr. quote from 9 years ago, you do realize he was discussing Russia's economy and how at that time the ruble was strong over the dollar, so the Russian investors were using that to invest in properties outside of Russia. Not RUSSIA, but Russian investors, 9 years ago.[/blockquote]
Are you seriously trying to imply that Russian oligarchs don't have ties to Russia's government? Also you should note how he keeps saying "we" and "our" in the quote.
As for your link, again, it proves NOTHING! Goodness gracious!
After all, it's obvious that a state run bank financing Trump is in no way a compromising tie to Russia.
Critical thinking is your friend! Use it.
This applies to you, not to me.
-
Good grief! This post has gotten SO out of hand. Look. Comey exonerated Trump three times. He even said no one has ever tried to stop or halt an investigation atleast under his tenure (Meaning Trump DID NOT try to halt an investigation) because there was none. The whole Russia investigation was therefore a total fraud. Quit listening to the media and their Russia headlines as though you should worry. Trump will still be the President at the end of the day because there's nothing there. I am astounded at how stupid people are.
Hillary used BLEACH BIT. AFTER an investigation was launched. But you are loving Russia collusion claims to distract from that extraordinary corruption and criminal filth because you just don't like him. It's ok. We know very well that you are wrong and what you are really trying to do. Look, I didn't want Hillary to be exposed as a horrible person, because I love women. But really? She's an actor, she's using it to get away with murder. We need to indict her. And quit with the Trump-Russia propaganda. It's nonsense. There literally is NO evidence, but there IS evidence that Hillary used BLEACH BIT. You're allowing a clear criminal to get away just because she's a woman. It's horrible.
-
Hillary used BLEACH BIT. AFTER an investigation was launched. But you are loving Russia collusion claims to distract from that extraordinary corruption and criminal filth because you just don't like him. It's ok. We know very well that you are wrong and what you are really trying to do. Look, I didn't want Hillary to be exposed as a horrible person, because I love women. But really? She's an actor, she's using it to get away with murder. We need to indict her. And quit with the Trump-Russia propaganda. It's nonsense. There literally is NO evidence, but there IS evidence that Hillary used BLEACH BIT. You're allowing a clear criminal to get away just because she's a woman. It's horrible.
Republicans investigated Hillary thoroughly, very thoroughly, and found absolutely nothing. She was investigated and charged with nothing. Agent Orange won the election and after promising to charge Hillary, he proceeded to charge her with NOTHING. Why didn't Sessions open an investigation into Hillary Clinton or even the Clinton Foundation upon taking office? Do you know something that we do not know? Do you know something that the Republicans do not know? Do you know something that the FBI should know? If so, why are you ranting on here instead of showing your proof to the proper authorities? We're not allowing Hillary to get away with anything. The Republicans are in power and they are the ones not going after her the way they PROMISED they would.
-
Do you have proof Trump colluded with Russia? Maxine Waters went on radio today and admitted there is NOTHING.
She has called for his impeachment multiple times over these allegations that he did collude with Russia, backtracking today.
James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.
The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?I get it, a lot of you just don't like him because you don't like Republicans and Conservatives. He's neither of those, just using their name.
Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.
The libtards are like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". They attack EVERYTHING Trump does, regardless of what he does. If he builds a wall they attack him, if he doesn't build a wall they attack him. If he doesn't fire Comey they attack him, if he does fire Comey they attack him. If' he is soft on North Korea they attack him, if he is hard on North Korea they attack him, etc.
Their constant stream of new attacks dimininshes and makes people forget about their previous attacks to the point where none of their attacks mean anything to anybody.
If Trump watched the children having the annual Easter Egg Roll in the Rose Garden at the White House, "Auntie" Maxine Waters would call for his impeachment because he was disrespecting women by having the "EGG" used in such a frivolous and playful way.The libtards started out with very little credibility, and now have none.
=============
One other thing. Just what is it that Russia could possibly do to influence the election?Russia gathered compromising information on Hillary Clinton and Donnie "loved it." His own words incriminate the entire campaign. This is only the beginning… Does anyone believe that Don Jr. would not have told his father that Russia wanted to help him get elected?
-
Well, if you want to whine about Russia, then the DNC should have cooperated with the FBI from the very beginning. Instead, they thwarted the FBI investigation at every turn.
The various Congressional hearings showed the DNC and Hillary were obstructionists.
-
royalcrown, the proof that Washington is a swamp is overwhelming, and if Sessions tried to take down a NETWORK, it would destroy our government, because we have allowed it to get this far and they're all involved in it, Republicans AND Democrats.
-
Well, if you want to whine about Russia, then the DNC should have cooperated with the FBI from the very beginning. Instead, they thwarted the FBI investigation at every turn.
The various Congressional hearings showed the DNC and Hillary were obstructionists.
Blame the victim. That's what rapists do–The DNC was asking for it by exposing their cyberasses.
As for whining, to indulge in a bit of your favorite argument of "what if-ism," if Russia was found to have infiltrated the emails of any of the political parties in Great Britain and weaponized them to get their favorite party into power and the prime ministry, would you be "whining?"
Even if you are an American citizen, it is easy for you to diminish the significance of this from across the pond.
-
Blame the victim. That's what rapists do–The DNC was asking for it by exposing their cyberasses.
FUCKING HELL, YOU ARE DISHONEST.
No one said blame the victim for being attacked.
YES, blame the victim when they cry about being a victim, but absolutely refuse to cooperate with the police so they can catch the criminal.
As for whining, to indulge in a bit of your favorite argument of "what if-ism," if Russia was found to have infiltrated the emails of any of the political parties in Great Britain and weaponized them to get their favorite party into power and the prime ministry, would you be "whining?"
At this point, we still have no proof that Russia hacked Hillary or the DNC because they refuse to cooperate.
Even if you are an American citizen, it is easy for you to diminish the significance of this from across the pond.
Stop whining and admit that this entire situation could have been solved last year, IF Hillary and the DNC had cooperated with the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. But NO, they refused to cooperate.
Let's assume their claims are/were true. Since they refused to cooperate, it looked like they were trying to false flag to play the victim. If they would have cooperated and proved their claims were true, then people would have turned away from Trump due to Russia.
-
Where did you learn that the DNC sis not cooperate with the FBI? One of your favorite youtube channels?
This is from Politifacts:First, the American intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA and DNI) stated: ""The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,"
Further:
"n his testimony in January on the cyber attacks, then-director of the FBI James Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm."
That may be the basis for your idea that the DNC did not cooperate.
But
"We got the forensics from the pros 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," Comey said.
In addition:
"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.
The FBI joined CrowdStrike’s efforts to boot Russia from the server, but then-Homeland Security Department secretary Jeh Johnson complained the DNC rebuffed their offer to help. This was because Russia was already out of their system by then.If you are referring to an earlier period in the summer of 2015, it has been reported that the FBI was calling an IT desk help phone line manned by a contractor, who did his own search and found nothing and left it there, without kicking it up the chain of command, not did the FBI contact any of the executive leadership of the DNC at that time
I can understand denial of collusion, which is complicated, but to deny that we have proof that Russia hacked the DNC is like denying climate change. Even Trump's intelligence leaders admit it freely.
While you might be able to make an argument that DNC could have done more before the fact, both with protecting their servers and paying more attention to the low-level FBI warnings, they certainly cooperated sufficiently after the fact to determine who had carried out the cyberattacks.
Even in a world of hypotheticals, if the DNC was partially responsible for not preventing the attacks, would that give the Trump campaign the right to weaponize the information by coordinating with the hackers in terms of content and timing of the release? If the hacker were domestic, it would they would be considered to be part of a conspiravy.
-
I don't care if you believe this or not, I guarantee the authorities are focused on this report instead of what you are propagandizing:
The files were not hacked by an outside agency or person, that would be impossible, and here is why the proof shows that they were copied from the inside, and it's focused on a new IT report:
-
You know what would be really nice? You guys investigating this and considering the evidence. But we all know that isn't going to happen because it doesn't fit your narrative so why am I even bothering. (I did not leave a question mark at the end of that sentence.)
-
Russians vs Russia state
We know the hack came from Russia, but there is nothing proving it was by the state.
The Brit with aspergers hacked the US, does that mean the British state did it? No one believes it was state sponsored.
If you want to go with "yeah, but Russia has a history of…..", don't forget the US spied directly on Merkel. Every country spies in both their friends and enemies. Israel is notorious for spying on the US, and we're it's biggest cuck.
