@raphjd You know im gonna have to call bullshit here, because when i Do a google search on emmanul samson, whose links come up? NBC News, USA Today, NYTimes.
I THOUGH YOU SAID MSM SUPRESSED THIS INFO. OMG the supression must have ended JUST RIGHT NOW.
ITS MaGiCal!!!
@raphjd LoL
Essentially, your saying "It's okay what I did here posting these links, because someone doing something over there made It ok."
If no one knows about emmanuel samson, then how do you know about him?
DOJ and FBI - dirty as fuck.
Whatever Trump, Guliani, ____ (insert name here) did which might have been bad....well, but Schiff, Pelosi, Clinton _____ (insert name here) did em too!
those are your two main arguments FOR ANYTHING. Right?
@raphjd
Woohoo, pay attention. I'm the one talking about your most used arguments.
Justice systems, ummm you mentioned that. thats your argument. "the DOJ and FBI are dirty as fuck"
Looking at these, I love it! you've built yourself an ironclad argument.
In step one, you grant certain people immunity, because "others do it too"
Then, in step 2, after you've let everyone off with no consequences, you then have the audacity to sit back and say "well hey, none of these people are being punished.... so whats the point of the FBI to do anything, its all corrupt."
LoL
Its strikingly banal in its simplicity. An unmovable bowl of crap. How do you do it? Its fascinating
So taking a look inside your old "excuses/arguments" hat, there appears to be only two left.
@raphjd said:
Nothing she did was any different from what MSM and bid tech did.
Just because the DOJ and FBI are dirty as fuck, doesn't change that fact.
Ok, so what we've got here:
(1) The crimes that person A commits are similar enough to crimes that person B commits, which then legitimizes person A's crimes as not really a problem for anyone.
(2) The criminal justice system is corrupt, which then legitimizes crimes commited by person's A and B because no one can be held accountable.
Have I accurately distilled your arguments? Please advise.
There, now we can check that off your list as DONE. That argument can be removed from your hat. It doesn't work anymore because the proof Schiff was talking about was the meeting.
Doesn't that feel great?
@raphjd
I found the evidence of collusion youve been asking for all this time. Schiff had said that the meeting with the Russians about getting dirt on Clinton was the proof he was talking about. And there it is, on page 110 of Mueller's report.
On June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov.
Goldstone relayed to Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia . . . offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls.
Trump Jr. invited campaign chairman Paul Manafort and senior advisor Jared Kushner to attend the meeting, and both attended. Members of the Campaign discussed the meeting before it occurred, and Michael Cohen recalled that Trump Jr. may have told candidate Trump about an upcoming meeting to receive adverse information about Clinton, without linking the meeting to Russia. According to written answers submitted by President Trump, he has no recollection of learning of the meeting at the time, and the Office found no documentary evidence showing that he was made aware of the meeting—or its Russian connection—before it occurred.
The Russian attorney who spoke at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a relationship with that government throughout this period of time. She claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.
Trump Jr. requested evidence to support those claims, but Veselnitskaya did not provide such information. She and her associates then turned to a critique of the origins of the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 statute that imposed financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials and that resulted in a retaliatory ban on adoptions of Russian children.
Trump Jr. suggested that the issue could be revisited when and if candidate Trump was elected.
Rick Gates, who was the deputy campaign chairman, stated during interviews with the Office that in the days before June 9, 2016 Trump Jr. announced at a regular morning meeting of senior campaign staff and Trump family members that he had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation. Gates believed that Trump Jr. said the information was coming from a group in Kyrgyzstan and that he was introduced to the group by a friend. Gates recalled that the meeting was attended by Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Paul Manafort, Hope Hicks, and, joining late, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. According to Gates, Manafort warned the group that the meeting likely would not yield vital information and they should be careful. Hicks denied any knowledge of the June 9 meeting before 2017, and Kushner did not recall if the planned June 9 meeting came up at all earlier that week.
Michael Cohen recalled being in Donald J. Trump’s office on June 6 or 7 when Trump Jr. told his father that a meeting to obtain adverse information about Clinton was going forward. Cohen did not recall Trump Jr. stating that the meeting was connected to Russia. From the tenor of the conversation, Cohen believed that Trump Jr. had previously discussed the meeting with his father, although Cohen was not involved in any such conversation.
In an interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, Trump Jr. stated that he did not inform his father about the emails or upcoming meeting.
@raphjd said in Bipartisan Committee Votes Unanimously to Investigate DFL Senator’s Role in Voter Fraud:
You are forgetting that countless people committed the same sort of crimes, to help Democrat politicians and other liberal causes.
This is significant. "the same sort of crimes".
Which democratic president cast doubt on the election after it was over, tried pressuring state legislatures to appoint electors faithful to him, brought out fake electors and had them fill out fake documents, try to submit those fake documents to the VP on Jan 6th, tried to force the VP to throw out the election, and sent a mob to the Capitol to threaten lawmakers. Which one did that? If you cant name one, then it's not the same sort or crimes.
You'll mention the "fraud" that took place during the election. But you wont mention any deposed witnesses who testified to witnessing any of those acts, whereas the committee has hours and hours of testimony from hundreds of people who worked with Trump and his lackeys. Lots and lots of them.
Democratic fraud? I hear only crickets. The GOP had the perfect opportunity to present all of their election fraud evidence -- THEY HAD THIS COMMITTEE that would have heard their witnesses. But McCarthy said "nope" we're not participating. Why would he pass up a golden opportunity?
Lets hear your excuses, the ones that you pull out of your hat that I know you despise having to keep in that hat, the ones that blame MSM, big tech, "why havent we heard about the russian collusion" (oh and by the way does collusion need to be out and loud in the spotlight to have happneed? You're tacit acknowledgement of Macedonian content farms that "deserve your clicks cause of MSM avoiding things", well is that collusion? Its you helping them without you coming out and saying "here I am I'm helping them") Its you giving them the "wink & a nod". But you'll still say "wheres your evidence of the wink and the nod? where is it?
Ask me where the Trump crime evidence is. I wont respond with "whataboutisms" Ill give you the Jan 6 committee and the hundreds of testifying witnesses. And all you got is that hat.
@raphjd said in House Republicans Accuse Rep. Adam Schiff of Allowing Colbert Staff Into Capitol:
When the liberal agenda driven MSM and big tech, actively REFUSE to cover stories that don't match their narrative, then why should I reward them?
So you would choose the American in my hypothetical scenario if the Indian failed to cover stories that you thought appropriate. In your mind, that would be fair payback.
People who make no creative efforts of their own to publish content online don't deserve renumeration UNLESS some other person on the other side of the world doesn't cover all the right stories, then the loafers can get paid. Its very George Costanza of you.
I used a plane crash as my scenario. Lets change the story the Indian person writes about and the American person steals for clicks to an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
So in that scenario, the Indian would have then covered a story that you approve of. But according to your own logic YOU'D STILL REWARD THE AMERICAN. Here's how....
The Macedonian content farms are stealing headlines from conservative news sites. You're rewarding the stealers. The real content creators follow your rules, they publish content you like, and you still reward the content farms. You've completely butt-fucked your own logic.
Are you paying attention, or just equivocating again?
@raphjd
Conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the United States Department of Justice, and the United States Department of State. Bogacheva oversaw the data analysis group within the Translator Project of the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), an organization allegedly engaged in political and electoral interference operations in the United States which included the purchase of American computer server space, the creation of hundreds of fictitious online personas, and the use of stolen identities of persons from the United States.
These alleged actions were taken to reach significant numbers of Americans for the purposes of interfering with the United States political system, including the 2016 Presidential Election. Additionally, Bogacheva allegedly withheld employment information on her United States visa application and traveled to the United States in June of 2014 to collect information in support of the Internet Research Agency's operations. --- From the FBI Poster
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
MSM Big Tech collusion, you mean when they failed to identify foreign interference in the 2016 election? Absolutely, I agree. But that's all kids stuff compared to the criminality shown this past week in the Jan 6 hearings, news stories which have oddly escaped your attention, in that we havent gotten any links posted by you with fresh outrage over the hearings revelations. You must not have seen any of the hearings.
And lets say the information about the plane crash is identical... so the questions isnt even about veracity. Lets say its all truthful info identical info.
So the real question is, who do you reward for that info. Because like it or not, when you post a link on this forum, youre rewarding someone.
Who deserves the reward, the recognition? The Indian, or the American?
The question illuminates you and your personal character. Its a clue into how you view questions of personal morality, of right and wrong.
Now lets hear the 500 different ways youll dodge this question, or say "theres no difference!"
@raphjd
Yeah, shes wanted by the FBI and everything she posts online is unassailable, stellar works of journalistic integrity and sophistication.
And we can count on you to repost all of her links here in this forum (so her and her cohorts get their $$$). We, and they, are truly blessed.
Let me ask you a hypothetical:
Let's say there was a plane crash, and lots of people died in what appeared to be a suspicious accident.
Now lets say there are two people following that crash. One of them lives in India. This person writes for a news website in India. They went to college and have followed a career path of journalism. This Indian person, the stories they write about the plane crash are based on information that they have collected themselves from different sources that they have investigated, and they've used what they learned in college to synthesize the information into a narrative that they then publish online to inform their readers.
Now the other person, they live in America, they have a website where the information about the plane crash is published, but the American didnt do any of the leg work involved--- in fact, they took stories that were written by the Indian and they republish them on their American website in order to generate clicks they then get paid for.
My question to you is this: Here on this forum, what type of information are you generally wanting to present, info that youre most comfortable presenting? Would you be more comfortable sharing the links from the Indian person, or from the American one?
Proving they were fake? -- When you say "fake", what do you mean? Fake in that the headlines werent really written by that website, but were taken from other websites? Or that the stolen headlines weren't real? Or that the stolen headlines you selectively presented here were fake and the others you didn't link to werent fake? There's a whole lot to unpack there, I dont know what you mean.
I was the one who was saying the website was a content / click farm. That was my argument. That argument is the easiest one to prove. Which is why I (and also, the user soapbubble) we were making that argument here in this thread (and 2 other threads I believe).
This other argument you keep trying to shoehorn me into--- supposedly having been made by me-- that the main issue is the headlines are fake....well thats more of a complicated, multi-tiered argument that I'd be foolish to make right off the bat, but that you're just itching for me to assume the role of. Why would I do that?
Content / click farms -- thats the topic here. Let's stay on topic, K?
@raphjd I confess I had to look up QI, I had no idea what that was.
As far as YouTube videos on dirty law enforcement, I'm way ahead of you on that. Some of my favorite clips are off-duty police pulled over for DUI's. Watching them dancing through hoops trying to get off the hook is a guilty pleasure.
@raphjd I noticed that too. This slight cop bias of his -- well I wouldnt call it a bias, rather, his heightened awareness of police impropriety --- certainly goes against the grain of most conservatives who are usually in the police cheer section.
This raphjd stands in contrast with the raphjd of 5 years ago... the one who saw the death of michael brown for stealing a 0.25 cent cigarillo as an example of exemplary policework. Whats going on here?
Is there a bad police observation/interaction somewhere that's causing this?
We're all ears raphjd....
@bi4smooth said in Bipartisan Committee Votes Unanimously to Investigate DFL Senator’s Role in Voter Fraud:
Regardless of the port of entry (Macedonia), the port of Origin is Putin & the Russian KGB.
The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project has some interesting information on a Russian named Anna Bogacheva, who was one of 13 Russian nationals indicted by Mueller in his Russia probe. She worked at the infamous St. Petersburg troll factory Internet Research Agency, at one point overseeing their US data analysis group, travelling around the US for about three weeks in June 2014. In 2015, she moved to....wait for it.... Macedonia. Still unsure what connections she had with these click/content farms, but nothing would surprise me.
Ms. Bogacheva's FBI poster:
@raphjd
And yet, none of those examples get their one and only paycheck from InfoLinks.
Cause when Infolinks is your only source of income, the only thing driving any of your actions, the only "God" you worship where the daily figures you watch ferociously from Google Analytics that cause your heart to beat faster and faster and faster when you see the web traffic increased, increased, increased, increased, increased ......more and more and more clicks must get MORE CLICKS!!!.............then you've got problems.
That's the difference. Right there. Those pictures explain themselves.
CNN creates its own journalistic content from hundreds of paid employees. The other site doesn't create its own content, and its revenue pay anywhere from 2 to 5 people.
Which site has relatively good journalistic safeguards and principles with a relatively functioning oversight protocol exercised by an educated staff..... and which site doesn't have all those things?
Youre asking me whats the difference between these two.
You seriously expect me to believe you're that naive?
I don't, and you're not.
