Reply With Quote
hmm.
So someone else observed you engaging in deeply flawed reasoning and ignoring simple requests for information.
At least I am not the only one who noticed.
they really really want Trash gone ASAP
hmm.
So someone else observed you engaging in deeply flawed reasoning and ignoring simple requests for information.
At least I am not the only one who noticed.
You would be.
Leave. I am not a gambler, sorry.
-Obama administration was trying to help Clinton secure the Presidency
-plan was to get dirt on Trump through intelligence agencies
-Obama loosened rules for unmasking to make dissemination easier
-first attempt for FISA warrant denied
-second attempt using Dem paid for Fusion GPS unverified dossier successful
-Trump team now under surveillance
-ability to monitor and leak to press as needed
-DNC "hacked"
-DNC hires Crowdstrike
-Crowdstrike sees it was an inside leak, not a hack
-creates Russian templates/fingerprints to mimic a hack
-Fusion GPS sets up meeting with their Russian lawyer and Trump Jr
-DNC denies FBI/CIA/DHS access to servers to hide Crowdstrike "hack" manipulation
-FBI forced to use Crowdstrike report
-Russia blamed for hack
-Trump accused of colluding with Russia
-Trump Jr meeting used as proof of collusion
-Trump winning s up everything
-now all of the surveillance/unmasking/dissemination that was supposed to be swept under the rug after Hillary won is out in the open
-everyone involved from Lynch, Rice, Wasserman Schultz, Comey, Podesta, Mook, etc trying to cover their own ass
My theory is being tested as we speak. The focus of both intelligence committees has shifted after the testimony by Browder linking Fusion GPS directly to Russian agents. Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson testimony will further test my theory.
So be it.
I still look forward to embarrassing you.
This is in somewhat of a chronological order
Brilliant idea. Let's jump start a nuclear arms race.
SEE FACTS BELOW:Cir stantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, cir stantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of cir stantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving cir stantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out[citation needed].
Cir stantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be cir stantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives cir stantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is cir stantial.
"Trump warns of 'dangerous low' in Russia relations"
See Fact #3
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/03/po...tin-sanctions/
I find the use of the term "dangerous" to be somewhat telling.
He has repeatedly shown the only thing he is ever genuinely concerned about is himself.
At some point, if the Russians do have compromising material, they might decide to release it. From Trump's selfish perspective, bad relations would vastly increase the danger of that material being made public.
One also has to wonder that after Trump is no longer useful to Russia, when that material will find its way into the light of day.
Once Trump is no longer useful to Putin, then it would be in Russia's interests to release it, since the ensuing scandal would presumably damage US democracy, a chief Russian aim.
If the material were personal in nature, i.e. tapes with pros utes, it would be pretty easy for them to release it at no cost to themselves.
If the material implicated Russians, such as money laundering that would less likely to be released, unless of course the Russian involved were already disgraced or removed from power.
I can see why you wanted pre-approval.
Who are you saying the FISA targets were in the warrant applications of June and October 2016?
How exactly would you go about doing that?
Asking for evidence of Trump campaign people looking to collude with the Russian government?
That timeline is way off.-Trump accused of colluding with Russia
-Trump Jr meeting used as proof of collusion
-Trump winning s up everything
Please provide evidence of this plan.
You have stated something as fact.
Or is this your operating theory?
Except for the relaxing of unmasking rules was done in 2011 and 2013. Unless you refer to something more specific.
And seriously, IMO its silly to think Obama had to order everyone to investigate the Trump-Russia connection when Uday was setting up secret meetings with Russian government agents in early June. If the Trumps have nothing to hide, they have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort and political capital trying to hide nothing.
less obese wimpy whinerlosing his friends
And General McMaster is so terrified of Susan Rice and her dangerous unmasking and leaking that he continues to give her free access to NSA information.
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/08/...er-letter-saysAlmost one month after it was disclosed that former President Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice was unmasking members of President Trump’s team and other Americans, Trump’s own national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, sent an official letter giving her unfettered and continuing access to classified information and waiving her “need-to-know” requirement on anything she viewed or received during her tenure, Circa has confirmed.
Jesus, I tried to help by putting the thing into MS Word, and doing a good faith effort to sift "hypothesis" from proven facts, and it was a total hash.
There is more than one "theory" here, and the entire thing is a jumble. A good brainstorming first draft, but at least an effort to shape something out.
Please provide proof that Democratic party paid for dossier.
A canceled check would be ideal. Verifiable statements or admissions that the dossier was paid for by people in the position to know about it, would also be acceptable.
It's not a timeline. And you asked for my theory so of course there are hypothesis in there.
I never said the Democratic party paid for it.
Uday was setting up meetings or Fusion GPS was setting up meetings?
Been a while since I read it but believe it was Manafort
Yeah, I was half expecting him to put nanothermite in there somewhere.
Given what we already know about Trump and his associates' ties to Russia, and assuming that the intel agencies of the US and its allies know way more about them, IMO it's a ridiculous stretch to think that it was all a bad faith exercise by Obama. This is the guy who later refrained from dropping the mother of all bombs s on the election with all the information he did have because Senator Turtlehead didn't wanna.
It simply doesn't make sense.
TSA's job is to make that make sense.
Good luck to him.
Grand Jury empaneled.
It's Mueller time RG!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions