It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?

page: 36
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Start by explainig how or dont because you cant.

Because it is correct.



edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Seth Rich was killed by the DNC for leaking. Russia didnt hack us.



Perhaps you should look closer?

The Investigator that FOX news (Falsely) quoted that began this Seth Rich BS is now suing Fox news for lying about what he said..

His lawsuit claims this...and he has texts and communications submitted to the court supporting it..


The White House worked with Fox News and a wealthy Republican donor to concoct a story about the murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, according to an explosive lawsuit filed Tuesday

money.cnn.com...



Seymour Myron "Sy" Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American investigative journalist and political writer based in Washington, D.C. He is a longtime contributor to The New Yorker magazine on national security matters and has also written for the London Review of Books since 2013.[5][6] Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. In 2004, he notably reported on the US military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award.[7]


Mr Hersh has come forward to say that he has been read the documents that show Seth Rich offering the DNC emails to Wikileaks and asking for payment.

About as credible as any story on a hack by the Russians.


This "Mr. Hersh"??



At some point before or during February, Butowsky apparently speaks with veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, who Butowsky says indicated a link between Rich and the FBI.

Hersh told Folkenflik it was “gossip” and that Butowsky “took two and two and made forty-five out of it
LINK



Wheeler's lawsuit also goes over the conversation with Hersh. It claims that the journalist "cautioned Butowsky that the information was not necessarily true, and that, even if true, it did not preclude the possibility that the Russians also hacked the DNC."

Hersh didn't immediately return messages seeking comment late Tuesday, but he told NPR that he hears gossip.

"[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it," Hersh told the radio station.

www.dallasnews.com...

So...NO...Mr. Hersh has NOT "come forward" to support the claim.

Just the opposite.
edit on 2-8-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: soberbacchus

Thats one fox news story that was BLOCKED not proven invalid.



the story ran and it falsely quoted the investigator. Thus the lawsuit.



Also, the digital evidence shows a download speed not consistent with a remote hack.


Also false. It showed a download speed consistent with anyone that has good quality high-speed internet, which I assume state sponsored hackers do.




Russia never hacked us.


All of the US government, congress and every Trump appointee to US Justice and Security Apparatus disagrees with that unsupported claim.


Seth leaked a USB or hard drive with the info to WIKI,


No ..again..no evidence..just bs.


just like WIKI has been saying since before the story of the fake hack was shoved down our throats.



Wiki chose their words carefully and never said Seth Rich was the source.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The law suit is not complete /over. It is only filed.

The disclaimer the investigator made is that he didn't say it was true or not, and that Fox shouldn't have mentioned him because he didnt want to be mentioned.

The news story could have ran as an inquiry with its own disclaimer, but was blocked by lawyers contacting Fox.

That screams cover up.

They are speaking about the investigator being taken out of context. He said something, said it could be true or not, but that he doesn't affirm either.

False, the direct file transfer speed available in the US over any infrastructure is not possible at the end users interface that measures its rate of upload and download independently at those recorded transfer rates.

There is an internal network speed and an external ISP speed that is limited by hardware and software regulations.

The speed recorded was for an internal network, not an even possible ISP connection speed.

Please list the technical specifications that prove the recorded transfer speed as standard for remote connections.

The ones who "agree" agree that there were ATTEMPTED intrusions. What they dont agree on is if the massive data dump given to wiki was a product of those attempted intrusions.

We have attempted intrusions daily.

Also,

THE DNC NEVER gave the original servers to be examined by the FBI. HOW are they sure of anything?

Why is that even allowed?

Like Wasserman denying access to her computer to capitol police. Why is that even permitted?

Its not very honest if you ask me. What are they hiding? Wink wink.

The speed recorded can only be possible by a direct, physical connection to the network.

It would have been more credible to say a mission impossible type heist was carried out by Soviet hold overs.

Wikileaks republished and retweeted many articles that argued that Seth was the leak. Assange alluded to much and ended that they cant reveal sources.

Any honest person gets the message.

You do realize that there are even now attempted cyber intrusions by places like Nigeria.

Do you want to investigate Trump-Nigerian prince collusion and Nigerian state cyber espionage?

With the same level of scrutiny for evidence that is applied to this you could be able to formulate any story you want and investigate.

You just couldn't find guilt....like the investigators cant.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That sounds like gossip.
What we do have is a recording of Hersh actually saying it.
He may decide to back track it - until such time I take his actual recorded interview as evidence of what he is saying and not a third hand account of what he meant.


p.s. there is no evidence at all that Russia hacked the DNC. Not saying they didn't - we just don't know.
edit on 2/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?


Then clarify.
You have used the investigations as a talking point to prop up the dying narrative, and yet you can't even hold a discussion on the specifics of whether the President is the subject of investigations.

Poor form.
"5 investigations" sounds a bit like the false narrative of "20m+ people will lose health insurance". The usual democrat tactic of trying to dumb down a conversation to numbers that don't actually address the key discussion - because they have no argument. ... also a bit like "17 agencies said"...

Here is a number for you. There is 0 evidence that the President colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the election. Hence the narrative is dying.
edit on 2/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



"Appears to be" 

"Seems to be" 



Are you talking about your "evidence" of Russian collusion?

Is this the evidence?

Russia and Trump, APPEAR TO BE OR SEEM TO BE
colluding?

Thats not evidence.


Thats conjecture. You finally get it.




Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said. 


You're a gem.

Not only do you admit to trolling, admit to there being no evidence beyond conjecture, but now you fully explain away the entire premise for all these Russia investigations.

Thank you, so much

Please stop trolling. I wouldn't keep admitting to it either. It sets you up for everyone to see you only post to amuse yourself and use blatant lies as the medium.

Its not easy to trust that.

I would just stop trolling people, and if its a job, I would change jobs.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?


Then clarify.
You have used the investigations as a talking point to prop up the dying narrative, and yet you can't even hold a discussion on the specifics of whether the President is the subject of investigations.

Poor form.



So are you saying that the statement

"The Trump Russia narrative is not dying." (my contention)

... is equivalent to ...

"Donald Trump is being investigated."

????

Really?

You may need a break; you seem distraught.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?


Then clarify.
You have used the investigations as a talking point to prop up the dying narrative, and yet you can't even hold a discussion on the specifics of whether the President is the subject of investigations.

Poor form.



So are you saying that the statement

"The Trump Russia narrative is not dying." (my contention)

... is equivalent to ...

"Donald Trump is being investigated."

????

Really?

You may need a break; you seem distraught.


I think we can finally conclude that not only do you not have any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election, you also have no firm information to provide on the context of the current investigations.

Seems you don't know very much... and you wonder why the narrative is dying?
edit on 2/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Your posts are looking ever more clueless to the actual discussion going on here.

Perhaps your conscience is troubling you over your traitorous admission above?

/shrug



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?


Then clarify.
You have used the investigations as a talking point to prop up the dying narrative, and yet you can't even hold a discussion on the specifics of whether the President is the subject of investigations.

Poor form.



So are you saying that the statement

"The Trump Russia narrative is not dying." (my contention)

... is equivalent to ...

"Donald Trump is being investigated."

????

Really?

You may need a break; you seem distraught.


I think we can finally conclude that not only do you not have any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election, you also have no firm information to provide on the context of the current investigations.

Seems you don't know very much... and you wonder why the narrative is dying?


You can conclude anything you like. The evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents is not even in the ballpark of questioning any longer.

You guys seem completely uninformed. Do you also contend that there's no evidence that Russian agents interfered in the 2016 Election?

This denial of the obvious thing isn't doing your work any justice here.

The "context of the current investigations" is not the topic of the thread. If you wish to start one, I'll be glad to participate.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You havent refuted one single post.

Also, you admitted to trolling. Why would I care what you say?

You only amuse yourself. You arent actually here to debate.

Thats the core of trolling.

I am posting information you could detract from or add to.

You avoid every single argument and attack me.

Is there a SINGLE post where you addressed my argument?

No. Not one. Others have. You can not because you simply dont understand what is going on. You may be young or dumb, it doesnt matter.

Here is another, is there a SINGLE post where you didnt attack me personally?

Not one.

Just like there isnt a single post by you where you quoted the "undeniable" proof of collusion.

This is why you only have investigations that are bleeding our pockets in costs while flooding our landscape with propaganda and lies.

You are hitting a wall. You start strong, short circuit, and then quit.

Is this a common theme to your life?

Do you find satisfaction that is meaningful and worthy in what you do?

Is this the way it is forever for you? Or does this rot?


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

If you don't care what I say, traitor, why do you respond (sometimes multiple times) to every thing I post?

/shrug



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I respond to correct you.

Traitor? Wow.

You just short circuited.

Are you happy in life?

You admitted to trolling. I am just wondering if you are the exception to the sad, bullish real life person who goes online to do that.

I proved my reasons. You did not.

You cant actually insult me.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is funny tbh the desperation coming from tad.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Gryphon66

I respond to correct you.

Traitor? Wow.

You just short circuited.

Are you happy in life?

You admitted to trolling. I am just wondering if you are the exception to the sad near bullish real life person who goes online to do that.

I proved my case. You did not.



LOL ... you can't even keep up with the logic of your own "arguments."

You admitted above that you're fine with foreign agents interfering in an American election.

That's a traitor in my book.

Since you can't cut your constant spamming obsessions with my posts, I'm going to put you back on ignore.

Please, for the sake of the conversation here, move on to obsessing about something else.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

At least I am not so excited that I cant type a single sentence.

How am I wrong?

Its been us 3 all along huh


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I never said that

Quote it

Also, lol, how AM I the traitor here?

You are covering up for the corruption of ONE party among many that has used foreign intelligence operatives to sway a domestic election.

A group of corrupt career politicians killed an honest staffer for whistleblowing against corruption like the posters in the DC subways said to.

And here you come admitting to trolling and call me a traitor? You who have only posted propaganda and dealt with conjecture and rhetoric.

Go troll on somewhere else.

Not one post where you didnt attack me personally and spoke instead with facts to contest mine.



edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is funny tbh the desperation coming from tad.


What I find sad in this whole "question" here ... is the "narrative" about Trump Russia dying ... is that there seems to be ZERO concern on the part of a few Trump supporters that Russia not only interfered in our Elections, but that members of the Trump team ACTIVELY colluded with them.

If it's discovered that the Clinton Campaign colluded with China, or Iran, or North Korea ... I think that most moderates and even liberals would be disgusted. I know I would be. There would be no excuses made.

However, one member at least is on record above now, saying that there was nothing wrong with the Trump campaign receiving information (stolen information at that) from Russians.

It boggles the mind.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join