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.

 

Help me understand the Russian Collusion angle.

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: growler


for your fantasy to exist the republican party wouldn't be part of your imaginary deep state.

The two party system is designed to divide us against each other, has nothing to do with the men behind the veil in the land of Oz.

There are no 'two parties' in the Constitution, just we the people and our elected representatives.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"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.


From your source:



"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.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.


Forget about why the DNC wouldn't hand it over for a minute (which is a great question that no one had provided an answer for).

Why didn't the FBI demand to see it?

Comey admitted in his testimony that it is always preferable to have access to the physical server. Everyone acknowledges this is one of the biggest cases the FBI has ever dealt with.

So why not use the most preferential method? Biggest political scandal in the history of the country, with the idea that are very leader may be a russian agent, and the FBI says "Screw it. We won't use our best methods, we will just rely on a third party".

Its unbelievable.

And keep in mind, Crowdstrike was wrong in the Ukraine. They only sent the FBI what THEY thought was relevant. Perhaps they missed something.

Its the equivalent of a person getting killed on a companies property, and the companies security takes details pictures and analysis of the body, and provides that to the FBI, but won't let them see the body.


There's a lot of truth in what you say. But if the server copies were provided, the FBI may have felt sufficient data had been provided.

Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines.

I don't find the FBI's behavior here to be all that unreasonable. Questionable? Certainly one can question it.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"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.


From your source:



"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.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.


Forget about why the DNC wouldn't hand it over for a minute (which is a great question that no one had provided an answer for).

Why didn't the FBI demand to see it?

Comey admitted in his testimony that it is always preferable to have access to the physical server. Everyone acknowledges this is one of the biggest cases the FBI has ever dealt with.

So why not use the most preferential method? Biggest political scandal in the history of the country, with the idea that are very leader may be a russian agent, and the FBI says "Screw it. We won't use our best methods, we will just rely on a third party".

Its unbelievable.

And keep in mind, Crowdstrike was wrong in the Ukraine. They only sent the FBI what THEY thought was relevant. Perhaps they missed something.

Its the equivalent of a person getting killed on a companies property, and the companies security takes details pictures and analysis of the body, and provides that to the FBI, but won't let them see the body.


There's a lot of truth in what you say. But if the server copies were provided, the FBI may have felt sufficient data had been provided.

Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines.

I don't find the FBI's behavior here to be all that unreasonable. Questionable? Certainly one can question it.


Well I fully admit to knowing nothing about servers or rather or not they can be copied.

But I disagree with you that this behavior isn't unreasonable.

Again, when the stakes are this high, why take chances with a third party that has been hired by the victims (especially one that was wrong with their exact same assessment in the Ukraine)?

Comey admitted it would be best to look at the server themselves.

I don't care if they were satisfied with what a third party gave to them. The allegations are that the Russian hacked the DNC colluding with Trump to steal the Presidency. We pay for the FBI to do these investigations, not Crowdstrike.

And the FBI can't be bothered to investigate the actual evidence?

It is inexcusable.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

I do believe the $230 million dollar Prevezon Holdings money laundering case was the primary concern and I believe it could have been part of a deal laid out in the package that Natalia delivered to Don Jr..

As in; The Russians deliver the dirt they have acquired on Hillary in exchange for making the Prevezon Holdings case disappear.


Big stretch and since there was nothing at all...seems both were set up as in Trump Jr didn't know who he was meeting and Veselnitskya thought/said she was told they were going to talk about Magnitsky Act. After a couple of minutes both realized both were setup on false pretenses.



And....10 or 15 minutes is plenty of time to drop off a package.


There was no package, never was anything for eather side...So nothing to drop off...



With respect to Natalia overstaying her visa, I have no idea what happened. What are you proposing? Are you saying that Obama and the DNC went to all this effort just to frame Trump at a time when no one even thought he had a fart's chance in a hurricane of winning the election?


She didn't overstay, she got legal clearance well above the USCIS, and that could only mean the State Department...State Department said no comment...lol You can't leave the country then come back on a expired visa, but it seems she was able to...so guess what...she got another visa from someone not the official agency that does them.

It was the Fusion GPS now fully discredited document that outlined Trump/Russian collusion. They are in the business to gather information or make it if need be. This is where Trump Jr and Veselnitskya come into the picture during a WTF moment for the two of them, but it was enough.

You know that Fusion GPS that was paid for by DNC, you know that DNC that is connected to Obama administration, you know that Obama administration that can allow people with expired visas to stay, you know that dossier that the Obama administration got their hands on, ya that one that was totally discredited unless they could maybe...create the connection with lets say Trump Jr and Veselnitskya.

So ya what was it about that fart chance again?



edit on 7-8-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"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.


From your source:



"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.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.


Forget about why the DNC wouldn't hand it over for a minute (which is a great question that no one had provided an answer for).

Why didn't the FBI demand to see it?

Comey admitted in his testimony that it is always preferable to have access to the physical server. Everyone acknowledges this is one of the biggest cases the FBI has ever dealt with.

So why not use the most preferential method? Biggest political scandal in the history of the country, with the idea that are very leader may be a russian agent, and the FBI says "Screw it. We won't use our best methods, we will just rely on a third party".

Its unbelievable.

And keep in mind, Crowdstrike was wrong in the Ukraine. They only sent the FBI what THEY thought was relevant. Perhaps they missed something.

Its the equivalent of a person getting killed on a companies property, and the companies security takes details pictures and analysis of the body, and provides that to the FBI, but won't let them see the body.


There's a lot of truth in what you say. But if the server copies were provided, the FBI may have felt sufficient data had been provided.

Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines.

I don't find the FBI's behavior here to be all that unreasonable. Questionable? Certainly one can question it.


Well I fully admit to knowing nothing about servers or rather or not they can be copied.

But I disagree with you that this behavior isn't unreasonable.

Again, when the stakes are this high, why take chances with a third party that has been hired by the victims (especially one that was wrong with their exact same assessment in the Ukraine)?

Comey admitted it would be best to look at the server themselves.

I don't care if they were satisfied with what a third party gave to them. The allegations are that the Russian hacked the DNC colluding with Trump to steal the Presidency. We pay for the FBI to do these investigations, not Crowdstrike.

And the FBI can't be bothered to investigate the actual evidence?

It is inexcusable.



Perhaps you could write your congressman? They don't exactly clear these things with me.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5




Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines. 


None of this is remotely relevant.

So what?

Who are you to create relevance to an issue of national importance?

Sorry, not sorry!




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines. 


None of this is remotely relevant.

So what?

Who are you to create relevance to an issue of national importance?

Sorry, not sorry!



What's your deal? If you don't think it's relevant, you're welcome to disregard it. I don't think many of your posts (if any) in this thread are relevant, but I don't feel the need to point this out to you every time you post.
edit on 7-8-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Dudemo5
While I agree that it would have been better for the FBI to review the actual server, they did receive COPIES of the servers which contain everything the original server contains. One could argue that the copies could have been altered by the time the FBI reviewed them, but the same argument could be made even if the original servers had been analyzed.


Could you post evidence to the FBI receiving copies of the server?


From: www.politifact.com...

"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.


From your source:



"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.


I MEAN...C'MON!!!



I already said I would have preferred if the FBI had reviewed the PHYSICAL server.

Keep in mind, the NSA and other intelligence agencies already had information about other Russian attempts to influence the election, including the document eventually leaked by Reality Winner. I don't know what circumstances led the FBI tech teams to be comfortable with a copy of the server, but I can easily imagine a scenario in which the digital fingerprint of the attack matched attacks known to have originated with Russia.


Also keep in mind that Crowdstrike made this exact same argument, that the digital fingerprint showed a russian hack, in the Ukraine, and they were wrong.

The FBI didn't get to see the actual evidence, they relied on crowdstrikes interpretation.

Again, there was no good reason for the FBI to not have access to the actual evidence.


I personally don't know if there was a good reason for the DNC not to hand over the physical server. I'd have to hear the reason before I could judge it.

I would think the crowdstrike analysis would have included all the relevant data from the server: IP addresses, logfiles, command profiles, etc. etc. I say this because without those details, there literally would be nothing to the report. A report on something like this is usually 50% hard details of the attack and 50% analysis, based on my experience. And the analysis makes little sense without the supporting details.


Forget about why the DNC wouldn't hand it over for a minute (which is a great question that no one had provided an answer for).

Why didn't the FBI demand to see it?

Comey admitted in his testimony that it is always preferable to have access to the physical server. Everyone acknowledges this is one of the biggest cases the FBI has ever dealt with.

So why not use the most preferential method? Biggest political scandal in the history of the country, with the idea that are very leader may be a russian agent, and the FBI says "Screw it. We won't use our best methods, we will just rely on a third party".

Its unbelievable.

And keep in mind, Crowdstrike was wrong in the Ukraine. They only sent the FBI what THEY thought was relevant. Perhaps they missed something.

Its the equivalent of a person getting killed on a companies property, and the companies security takes details pictures and analysis of the body, and provides that to the FBI, but won't let them see the body.


There's a lot of truth in what you say. But if the server copies were provided, the FBI may have felt sufficient data had been provided.

Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines.

I don't find the FBI's behavior here to be all that unreasonable. Questionable? Certainly one can question it.


Well I fully admit to knowing nothing about servers or rather or not they can be copied.

But I disagree with you that this behavior isn't unreasonable.

Again, when the stakes are this high, why take chances with a third party that has been hired by the victims (especially one that was wrong with their exact same assessment in the Ukraine)?

Comey admitted it would be best to look at the server themselves.

I don't care if they were satisfied with what a third party gave to them. The allegations are that the Russian hacked the DNC colluding with Trump to steal the Presidency. We pay for the FBI to do these investigations, not Crowdstrike.

And the FBI can't be bothered to investigate the actual evidence?

It is inexcusable.



Perhaps you could write your congressman? They don't exactly clear these things with me.


But you seem so much more likeable than my congressman!

But believe me I have personally talked to my congressman, and I will continue to let people no what farce the FBI not looking at that server is.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines. 


None of this is remotely relevant.

So what?

Who are you to create relevance to an issue of national importance?

Sorry, not sorry!



What's your deal? If you don't think it's relevant, you're welcome to disregard it. I don't think many of your posts (if any) in this thread are relevant, but I don't feel the need to point this out to you every time you post.


I will point out relevance every single time in a thread that is based on relevance.

Nice to see you didn't deny your deflection though.



Every single time.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Flatfish

I do believe the $230 million dollar Prevezon Holdings money laundering case was the primary concern and I believe it could have been part of a deal laid out in the package that Natalia delivered to Don Jr..

As in; The Russians deliver the dirt they have acquired on Hillary in exchange for making the Prevezon Holdings case disappear.


Big stretch and since there was nothing at all...seems both were set up as in Trump Jr didn't know who he was meeting and Veselnitskya thought/said she was told they were going to talk about Magnitsky Act. After a couple of minutes both realized both were setup on false pretenses.



And....10 or 15 minutes is plenty of time to drop off a package.


There was no package, never was anything for eather side...So nothing to drop off...



With respect to Natalia overstaying her visa, I have no idea what happened. What are you proposing? Are you saying that Obama and the DNC went to all this effort just to frame Trump at a time when no one even thought he had a fart's chance in a hurricane of winning the election?


She didn't overstay, she got legal clearance well above the USCIS, and that could only mean the State Department...State Department said no comment...lol You can't leave the country then come back on a expired visa, but it seems she was able to...so guess what...she got another visa from someone not the official agency that does them.

It was the Fusion GPS now fully discredited document that outlined Trump/Russian collusion. They are in the business to gather information or make it if need be. This is where Trump Jr and Veselnitskya come into the picture during a WTF moment for the two of them, but it was enough.

You know that Fusion GPS that was paid for by DNC, you know that DNC that is connected to Obama administration, you know that Obama administration that can allow people with expired visas to stay, you know that dossier that the Obama administration got their hands on, ya that one that was totally discredited unless they could maybe...create the connection with lets say Trump Jr and Veselnitskya.

So ya what was it about that fart chance again?




Look, there was indeed a package. At least according to the testimony of some of the attendees at the meeting, including Natalia Veselnitska.

And GPS Fusion was first hired to create the dossier by the "Never Trump" wing of the GOP. It wasn't until they had failed to stop Trump from winning the GOP nomination that the DNC even got involved with them.

When it comes to Natalia's visa and whether or not it was renewed or ignored for some nefarious reasons on the part of the Obama administration is, as far as I can tell, pure speculation without an ounce of proof or inference to back it up.

I have no way of knowing the status of her visa at any given time, whether or not it may have been renewed, extended or reissued and to tell the truth, I don't think you do either.

It's not all that suspicious to me anyway, people of all nationalities overstay their visas all the time.

Oh yeah, that Dossier is not completely discredited as you say. There are some things that can't be proven but to my knowledge, none of it has been disproven in any way.

And quit saying that Don Jr didn't know who he was meeting. That's total BS and only a special kind of idiot would believe multi-millionaires like Donald Trump Jr facilitate meetings with unknown participants.

It's like every claim you Trumpettes make is anything but truthful. Hell, it's no wonder y'all love Trump's lying ass so much.


edit on 7-8-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Don't look now, but you got 2 flat tires.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Flatfish

Don't look now, but you got 2 flat tires.



Yeah, we'll see whose tires are flat when the fat lady sings at the end of Mueller's investigation.

What do you want to bet it's not me or the Obama administration?



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Sorry tough guy.

I'll let the "Whiskey" do the talking.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Here is what I found.


Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election.

It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value. While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

"Contributions definitely do not need to be in the form of cash to constitute a thing of value," said Michael S. Kang, a law professor at Emory University Law School. "However, it also needs to be said that this is an unusual situation quite unlike the usual context for an illegal foreign contribution, typically in the form of money rather than information."


What Legal Experts Say about Donald Trump Jr. Meeting with Russian Lawyer



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Somebody else already did that.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: network dude

Here is what I found.


Federal law prohibits a foreign national from giving anything of value to a campaign engaged in a U.S. election.

It’s also a crime to solicit a foreign national to do so, or even to "knowingly provide substantial assistance" in receiving something of value. While illegal foreign contributions typically take the form of money, legal experts told us it’s possible a court could find that "information" satisfies the legal requirement if it’s considered valuable to a campaign.

"Contributions definitely do not need to be in the form of cash to constitute a thing of value," said Michael S. Kang, a law professor at Emory University Law School. "However, it also needs to be said that this is an unusual situation quite unlike the usual context for an illegal foreign contribution, typically in the form of money rather than information."


What Legal Experts Say about Donald Trump Jr. Meeting with Russian Lawyer


Lol, "legal experts".
I wonder if any of those "legal experts" can show any precedent? I wonder if there are other "legal experts" who disagree with them? Hmmm...

Election Law Experts Divided on Trump Jr meeting

Well now, which "legal experts" should we believe?

What a dilemma!



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Fella, it's already been admitted that the dossier was compiled by Steele using 3rd parties to speak with some Russians and he never verified anything or spoke to any source. There were even spelling mistakes in the document that were the same spelling mistakes in some articles that pre dated the dossier that appeared in obscure sites found via a google search!

Only real die hard wing nuts still hang on to that dossier.



edit on 7/8/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Dudemo5




Where I work, we routinely make copies of servers, especially when we want the ability to run analytics or some other software on board without crippling production machines. 


None of this is remotely relevant.

So what?

Who are you to create relevance to an issue of national importance?

Sorry, not sorry!



What's your deal? If you don't think it's relevant, you're welcome to disregard it. I don't think many of your posts (if any) in this thread are relevant, but I don't feel the need to point this out to you every time you post.


I will point out relevance every single time in a thread that is based on relevance.

Nice to see you didn't deny your deflection though.



Every single time.


I've mostly been ignoring your nonsense posts. I guess I'll resume doing that. Obviously I think it's relevant or I wouldn't bring it up. Like I said, you're free to disregard it if you want.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
Look, there was indeed a package. At least according to the testimony of some of the attendees at the meeting, including Natalia Veselnitska.


Of what? What is this big Hillary bomb shell....waiting....still waiting....nothing there my friend...



When it comes to Natalia's visa and whether or not it was renewed or ignored for some nefarious reasons on the part of the Obama administration is, as far as I can tell, pure speculation without an ounce of proof or inference to back it up.


She got legal real quick without the help of the department that does visas...lol can't you understand even that one point?



It's not all that suspicious to me anyway, people of all nationalities overstay their visas all the time.


They don't leave the country then come back in on the expired visas...some let it go then just stay, but once they leave they can't come back in...she came back in...another easy point to understand.



Oh yeah, that Dossier is not completely discredited as you say. There are some things that can't be proven but to my knowledge, none of it has been disproven in any way.


Speaking of "speculations without an ounce of proof or inference to back it up" holy crap lol





edit on 7-8-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: introvert




I do not claim it is true or that anything will come of it. We're simply speculating and even though I highlight the differences that I see, it does not mean I am pushing against Trump or his team. 


I don't mind playing games but this? This is an absolute lie according to your behaviour on these boards.

Sorry, deleted or not, you lied here.



Deleted? What do you mean?

Apparently trying to be reasonable and honest is considered mind games.

It is not my responsibility to account for your dishonesty.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join