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.

 

For the 1st time Trump has been linked to Russia in court documents

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: BlackJackal


The over-all picture that the indictment offers of the “WikiLeaks connection,” as Clapper once put it, is entirely consistent with previous intelligence assessments, which said that the G.R.U. provided Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, with the D.N.C. and Podesta archives.

Plus, you accuse me of guilibility but you chose to believe Corsi’s word? Really?



Speaking of gullibility (that's how it is really spelled) you are now going on the word of James Clapper?

The same guy that resigned before he was indicted for lying to Congress?

Seems legit.



Sigh....... no, you guys don’t read do you? The article quoted Clapper’s take from 2 years ago in the opening paragraph but he is NOT the source for the updated information. The updated information comes from the Mueller investigation.




posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Agit8dChop

Give the OP a break and stop throwing facts into the thread.

I mean c'mon... it's obvious at this point that this is the only thing the poster lives for.

It won't hurt you and it gives him a reason to get up in the morning and make the posts in the first place.



To the OP, how many other people were talking about the Wikileaks dump at the time?

Answer.... everyone.

Nothing burger again, I am afraid...


You buddy you congratulated on his “facts” turned out to be wrong.

To answer your question it is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter how many were talking about it. It only matters who was talking directly to Assange and the Trump campaign.


It actually is relevant to anyone with critical thinking skills.

Which appears to leave you out of the party.

It's called opposition research... sure you've heard of THAT with all the collusion between Russian intelligence agents and the Hillary campaign.

But, but....

LOL



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

" How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks "


Who in turn , Sat on that Info for Political Reasons Until the Time was Ripe to Reveal them .



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: JinMI

Here is some more proof since you are having problems with the first link

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks



actually there's 0 proof there, 0 information. lots of assumptions - but 0 proof of anything
Which, has been the status quo since day dot of the Mueller investigation

Leak after leak after leak after leak of faulty crap
Rubio '' the only thing that didnt leak - was the truth ''



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whoops 3
edit on 27/11/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whoops 2
edit on 27/11/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whoops 1
edit on 27/11/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

Dude.

You've actually never been laid once, have you?



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal

That source doesn't reinforce your argument.

Even by clappers own words:

“We don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases, or when the data may have been provided,” he said. Today, almost two years later, and after months of investigation, we know a lot more than we once did. But our insight into the timing—at least from publicly available information—remains uncertain.


What it 'looks like' and what it actually is does not pass reasonable doubt.


Read further than the first paragraph. If you read what you quoted that was the assessment from 2 years ago.....


Good god man. In your rush to be right you forgot to read.

Read the part after "almost two years later" that is right in the quote.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Sigh....... no, you guys don’t read do you?


Nah, we do... lots more than you it seems
we're just sick of the same people saying the same trash from the same crap sources telling us how
'' this is it Trumps done ''
'' here's the link to russia ''
'' trump peed on hookers ''
'' trump sexually assaulted xyz ''
'' trump lied ''
'' trumps done ''
'' Trump Jnr is going to prison ''
'' Muellers got Trump ''
'' Indictments coming this week for Trump ''
'' Trumps going to be impeached ''

we read... and we remember... and we're sick of the same crap you spew!


ok ive had my fun



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: JinMI

Here is some more proof since you are having problems with the first link

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks


Yea, IDK where you were but that stance has been put to rest.

As I said, "like" doesn't equal 'beyond reasonable doubt." No matter how many agencies you attempt to wrangle into the position by proxy.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

The indictment included detailed information for how the Russians delivered the data to Wikileaks. Yes it definitely mentions Wikileaks by name.


Although the broad outlines of the hacking and influence campaign have been widely reported, the indictment describes for the first time the identities, techniques and tactics of the operation to disrupt American democracy.

It includes details on how the Russians, using an encrypted file with instructions, delivered their trove of hacked emails to WikiLeaks, the online anti-secrecy organization led by Julian Assange that became the main platform for the Russians to display their trove of hacked emails.


How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks

If you don’t believe me read the indictment yourself. But quit being obtuse.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: JinMI

Here is some more proof since you are having problems with the first link

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks


All speculation and biased 🎉



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's amazing. It's like Mueller charged the russians that he alleged perpetrated the crimes, and they showed up! Only there was no evidence. Well, not that he was willing to disclose anyway.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI


What if Seth Rich gave the emails to the Russians and THEY killed him!


*Mind Blown*



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This afternoon, a document called a statement of the offense, which was sent from Robert Mueller to Jerome Corsi was released to the press. Within that document, several new details in the Russia investigation have emerged. One of those details is that according to the document Robert Mueller has evidence which proves Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi were in direct conduct with Julian Assange and relayed that information back to the Trump campaign. The other bit of news is that for the first time court documents link this activity directly to the Trump campaign.


Glad it is in the legal record.
The more Mueller gets stuff on paper, the better.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

TO be fair, the left was under the assumption that all you had to do was make allegations.

Just look at Kavanaugh.

Asking for proof kind of deflates their whole argument.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: BlackJackal

Sigh....... no, you guys don’t read do you?


Nah, we do... lots more than you it seems
we're just sick of the same people saying the same trash from the same crap sources telling us how
'' this is it Trumps done ''
'' here's the link to russia ''
'' trump peed on hookers ''
'' trump sexually assaulted xyz ''
'' trump lied ''
'' trumps done ''
'' Trump Jnr is going to prison ''
'' Muellers got Trump ''
'' Indictments coming this week for Trump ''
'' Trumps going to be impeached ''

we read... and we remember... and we're sick of the same crap you spew!


ok ive had my fun


You know what’s funny, I’m not making any statements that I don’t have hard proof to back it up. Trump has been linked to Russia in this court filing for the first time. Yet instead of addressing the actual topic you keep going off on tangents. It really seems like you just want to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. But you know what? It doesn’t matter what you think, it doesn’t matter that you want to ignore reality, the facts are that the evidence against Trump keeps adding up and no amount of denial will change that.

It really is hilarious the heights of denial you guys will go to in order to ignore reality.

If you ever find yourself indicted you should try these techniques and see how well it works out for you




posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI

TO be fair, the left was under the assumption that all you had to do was make allegations.

Just look at Kavanaugh.

Asking for proof kind of deflates their whole argument.



Exactly this. They definitely believe that all you need is an accusation.

Sorry libs, six more years left.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's amazing. It's like Mueller charged the russians that he alleged perpetrated the crimes, and they showed up! Only there was no evidence. Well, not that he was willing to disclose anyway.


You know why he didn’t show up? Because he didnt want to give the Russians the evidence he had.


The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.


link



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join