Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Still of relevance after all those years: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/
  3. Exactly. Who are they? Gomer & Barney? Although, a WH spokesperson casting nasturtiums on another 'news outlet' via FoxNews: priceless
  4. Wow you are an idiot. The point is to get the LITTLE FISH to attack the BIG ONE. So they take a plea on a minor matter and get immunity on the big case. That's all that black ink on the sentencing report. Mueller is a master at this. And when he moves, he SLICES LIKE A FUCKING HAMMER. You won't have to wait much longer. And when the doom comes, I will be laughing with glee as the piggies squeal. Some interesting leaks just came out giving us a hint of what's under the redactions. Trump ordering Cohen to lie to congress about his Russia contacts. That is most assuredly ILLEGAL. Way more illegal than a mere election law violation. It's the cover-up that'll get you. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/trump-russia-cohen-moscow-tower-mueller-investigation?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
  5. Endless Cold War means never having to finish your investigaion and therefore never needing to present evidence. Perfect job for CAI/FBI types.
  6. Yes, a distrust in the political system started post 2016 election. Is that around the time all the unicorns died?
  7. Oh yeah sure, that's an article of faith I've been hearing for about 3 years now, like the way the evidence Russia "hacked the election" was going to have more than just the word of a few CIA officers in an NSA report to back it up by now.
  8. You don't present the results of your investigation until your investigation is finished. That's how it works.
  9. Oh well that worked a treat then since NOBODY HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH IT.
  10. The plea deals were to get them to provide evidence of collusion, you demented titmouse. That's why huge chunks of the sentencing memos were blacked out and what was there kept mentioning Trump as "number one"
  11. You really are a nut case, you know that?
  12. By such means you rationalise the fact NOBODY has been charged with collusion as evidence they definately did collude! The lack of any such charges just proves it by itself.
  13. The plea deals all involve pleading guilty to the least serious of the crimes they can be convicted of, in return for cooperating with the investigation. None of these people would have flipped if they Mueller didn't have evidence of far worse crimes.
  14. None of them to collusion with Russia, none of them even committed while campaigning for Trump. Mostly tax dodging and process crimes or lying to the Mueller investigation, in which case they are crimes that wouldn't even exist if the Mueller investigation didn't exist.
  15. We have guilty pleas and actual convictions to convince us that there's something there. We don't need any of this.
  16. The relevance is that he owed $20 million to Deripaska when he joined the Trump campaign and offered him private briefings on the campaign to "get whole".
  17. Calling Isaac Fish "antisemitic" wasn't my point in highlighting his tweet, rather I was using it to compare the belief in the Russiagate conspiracy to antisemitic ones of the early C20th, they are just as irrational and based on loose presumptions and associations. Fin-de-si├Ęcle Viennese anti-semites framed modernist art as "Jewish", Klimt and Schiele were scandalising everyone, but they weren't Jewish, so the antisemites traced "Jewish connections" like a gallery who displayed their work with a Jewish owner, or a journalist at a newpaper that gave them good reviews, by such means they largely succeeded in convincing many people that modernist art was some kind of Jewish conspiracy, the idea a "Jewish problem" existed was widely accepted in society at the time, this was not just a matter of ideological anti-semites. Communism was even easier, after all there were prominent Jewish communists like Marx or Trotsky, as such those who wished could pin Communism on Jews. This is effectively the same way Russiagate works, follow the connections of Trump team members until you find a Russian and bobs-your-uncle, it's "evidence" and enough by itself to convince some that there is something there.
  18. No the question is what are you talking about, what relevance is Manafort having contacts with important Russians in the 00's supposed to prove about Trump in 2016? It doesn't change the fact that in the run up to Euromaidan Manafort was attempting to pull Yanukovych to the west. He is being charged with tax irregularites while he was working in Ukraine, crimes committed before he worked for Trump and which have nothing to do with collusion.
  19. Of course not. What are you even talking about? More from the strategy documents: In other words, Manafort was offering to do the same thing in other eastern European countries that he did in Ukraine, where he propped up Yanukovych and conducted black ops against Tymoshenko. This is how he saw his work in Ukraine. The fact that he thought private briefings from inside the Trump campaign would be considered valuable to Deripaska ties into all of this. Manafort was making money from furthering Russian interests. And money was what he wanted above all else.
  20. The very begining of western concerns about Putin started in 2007 with Putin's Munich speech in which he criticised western dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin And that was only the first signs, it grew gradually from then.
  21. And this was all to prepare the way for Trump, is that what you are saying?
  22. https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-manaforts-plan-to-greatly-benefit-the-putin-government-2017-3?IR=T
  23. Regarding your latest article - Why do you think Giuliani is now creating room for a concession that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians? Also, why do you think Manafort owes Deripaska such a large amount of money? Do you think it's completely irrelevant that he offered private briefings on the Trump campaign to Deripaska?
  24. Yes he is he is denouncing Jews who aren't going along with the anti-Russian hysteria (like Stephen F Cohen or Aaron Mate) and comparing them to the so called "Judeo-Bolsheviks" of the 1930's.
  25. Sure. He's not denouncing "the Jews", though.
  1. Load more activity