All that hysteria for nothing

Almost like it was a big ole' nothing burger...

Not much, just chillin' like a villain.

fucking love that video

ahh, the thought of all the amphetamines and research chemical stimulants that must have gone into its making warm my heart

not so fast . now it will be Russia hacking navy war ships.

Don't give these idiots any idears.

I'm guessing you haven't checked the news today

Haha, one article? 2-3 major stories broke today in regards to Trump/Russia conspiracy and one or two broke last week.

Just because you don't seek out this information or don't see it, doesn't mean nothing is happening or breaking

Do you seriously think that's the only aspect to the conspiracy or are you being purposely ignorant?

Ah, so you are going with the purposeful ignorance view.

The narrative never changed. You just haven't been paying attention and don't want to genuinely learn what the conspiracy is about

No wonder you are so ignorant and dismissive. You believe in the straw men arguements that the right and the Russian shills have been pushing.

Russia didn't hack any of the polls. No votes were changed through hacking the polling machines.

Do you genuinely want to learn what the conspiracy is about? Or are you just interested in debunking?

Yes, I'm ok, thank you for asking.

I write to my representatives regularly depending on the issues.

I'm not insulting you. It is a fact that you are ignorant of all of the surrounding information and issues relating to the Trump/Russia conspiracy.

Ignorance is not a bad thing on its own. Everyone has ignorance of different topics. But, being purposely ignorant is a different story.

I'll ask you two questions and then I'll answer any wu actions you have.

Do you genuinely want to have a substantive conversation without insults or pettyness/whataboutism in regards to the Trump/Russia conspiracy?

And secondly, are you genuinely willing to change your kind in th subject?

I genuinely want to hear your side as someone who 100% believes this Russia narrative is a crock of shit.

So, please, do go on.

Are you willing to change your mind on the subject?

And why are you replying to this relatively old comment?

Just stumbled across if as it was referenced in another conspiracy thread and you peaked my curiosity.

Bear in mind though that I deal with facts and truth. Speculation, leads and bounds to connecting ridiculous dots is not what I will believe. I believe in conspiracies but I still believe in logic too.

Fair enough. Are you willing to change your mind on the case and hear me out?

I will change my mind if I believe something to be true. If you can convince me it's true then sure but it won't be easy.

Alrighty, I'll try. Lets try to keep it civil and substantative shall we?

Are you familiar with the Magnitsky Act?

Civil is fine by me. I am not familiar with it.

For more context

When the Trump team says they were talking about adoptions, that was code for sanctions.

Russia stole money and companies from Bill Browder ( an American citizen) in Russia. They kicked Browder out and once they received his company, Russian oligarchs used the companies documents to receive several hundred million dollars in a tax refund from the government, which is probably one of the biggest tax scams committed by the Russian government (and Putin).

They did this to Browder because he was exposing the corruption of the Russian oligarchs that were sending their money to Putin, and Putin was tired of it, so he labeled him a national security threat.

Browder fought back, and hired Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian top lawyer, to fight back against Putin's corruption.

Well Putin got tired of it, and arrested Magnitsky, and kept him in brutal conditions in prison for a year, and then brutally beat him to death with batons while in prison.

The US retaliated with the Magnitsky Act and placed heavy sanctions on dozens of corrupt Russian oligarchs.

Then Putin retalliated with the adoptions sanctions against American citizens.

So whenever you hear talk about "they were just talking about adoption policy" that means they were talking about removing the Magnisky act and other sanctions on Russia's corrupt government officials.

On January 9, 2017, under the Magnitsky Act, the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control updated its Specially Designated Nationals List and blacklisted Aleksandr I. Bastrykin, Andrei K. Lugovoi, Dmitri V. Kovtun, Stanislav Gordievsky, and Gennady Plaksin, which froze any of their assets held by American financial institutions or transactions with those institutions and banned their travelling to the United States.

I don't see Putin named on the list? And still this has literally 0 evidence of anything to do with Trump? I'm am more confused than before you wrote that. You haven't put across any points or argues anything. Just showed me a act that seems like other acts?

Bill Browder recently testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Magnitsky Act and how it relates to Putin, Trump, and the Trump Jr. meeting where they discussed "adoption sanctions.

Here's the transcript of the hearing

All of the people that were sanction were the most powerful and richest oligarchs in Russia. Russia is a mafia state, and those oligarchs give 50% of their income and assets to Putin. So when sanctions were placed on those oligarchs, it was essentially sanctions on Putin himself and it severely impacted the Russian economy overall.

That all changed in July 2003, when Putin arrested Russia’s biggest oligarch and richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin grabbed Khodorkovsky off his private jet, took him back to Moscow, put him on trial, and allowed television cameras to film Khodorkovsky sitting in a cage right in the middle of the courtroom. That image was extremely powerful, because none of the other oligarchs wanted to be in the same position. After Khodorkovsky’s conviction, the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky. From what followed, it appeared that Putin’s answer was, “Fifty percent.” He wasn’t saying 50 percent for the Russian government or the presidential administration of Russia, but 50 percent for Vladimir Putin personally. From that moment on, Putin became the biggest oligarch in Russia and the richest man in the world, and my anti-corruption activities would no longer be tolerated.

In response to these sanctions, Russia placed sanctions on American citizens adopting Russian children. Trump and his family and his lawyers admit that Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort had a secret meeting with Russian government representatives, where they discussed "adoption sanctions".

One of the Russians that attended this meeting was Rinat Akhmetshin.

Senator Grassley (R): Rinat Akhmetshin worked for the GRU and allegedly specializes in “active measures campaigns"

I feel like a lot of what you are going off is based on Bill Browder telling the truth. I have seen COUNTLESS people lie under oath, why would I believe Bill?

Like I said, factual evidence. Someone saying something isn't truth without being able to verify it.

The Magnitsky Act was based off of the evidence Bill Browder brought to the House and Senate. It was a huge bipartisan effort with 365 Yeah votes to 43 Nays in the house and 92 yeahs and 4 Nays in the Senate

I think it's logical to think that the vast majority of the house and the senate think he's a credible source.

Someone saying something isn't truth without being able to verify it.

Do you remember Donald Trump Jr.'s email with Rob Goldstone? Were you following that news when it broke? Did you read the email?

I do remember and one of the funniest pieces of that story is this quote from WaPo or NYT can't remember:

“I do think it’s important to point out there’s a lot we don’t know,” Haberman cautioned Cooper. “We know this email was sent, but we don’t know what was said, what he thought was going to be in there … It’s really important not to rush into the breach…This is another piece of the puzzle.”

Except that Trump Jr. and his family/lawyers told us what was said.

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.

I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

And as I just educated you on, adoption sanctions actual means the Magnitsky sanctions. Lets use your logic - Why would Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort talk about receiving Hillary Clinton dirt and the Magnistky act in the same meeting with Rinat Akhmetshin, whom Senator Grassley said previously is a Russian GRU spy who specializes in active measures?

Well in my personal opinion it's because Hillary is one of the most evil fucks to ever live? Stole $2 billion from Haiti, Husband sexually assaulted how many people? Hillary intimidated the victims? The list goes on.

Now if I was Trump and loved my country and running against a fucking evil wench like that who you know 100% is controlled by globalists I would look for every piece of info on her from every source in ANY COUNTRY. But that's just me.

I suppose it could be some super conspiracy instead, not saying that's not possible just not as plausible.

Are you seriously going to shut down this substantive conversation with whataboutism and excuses?

You asked why they would have that meeting and I gave you my personal opinion of why and now you blast me for it? Yeah good civility rofl. If you don't want MY opinion do NOT ask a question. Simple.

So now do you acknowledge that Trump or members of his campaign tried to collude with Russia?

I acknowledge that Trumps son appeared to want to get info about Hillary (who I BELIEVE is corrupt and evil). Does that amount to collusion? I don't think so.

And talked about sanctions with Rinat Akhmetshin.

Do you understand what active measures are?

noun: collusion secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.

That's the definition. Now Im happy to sit here and wait for you to PROVE that they intentionally tried to deceive others. I'll wait.....

Do you understand what active measures are?

Yes, taught to the KGB blah blah blah. Still not 1 single fucking shred of evidence and you avoid it every time I ask for proof. So I am done with this convo.

Active measures

Active measures ranged "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degrees of violence". They were used both abroad and domestically. They included disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression, such as penetration into churches, and persecution of political dissidents

Retired KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin described active measures as "the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence": "Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs.

Past use of active measures has been revealed in the Mitrokhin Archive by former KGB spies.

That's the type of people that Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with. They had a secret meeting with a litteral Russian GRU spy who specialized litterally in social media shilling and trolling.

I'm providing you with evidence. You are just choosing to ignore it.

Can you prove that the GRU spy specialised in social media shilling and trolling? You keep making statements and linking wikipedia shit but there is no proof of what you are saying.

How do you know these things? You are literally believing whatever you read on the internet. I may choose to ignore some things but you are choosing to believe everything that makes Trump look guilty regardless of the fact. The bias is very clear.

Are you not reading what I said?

Can you prove that the GRU spy specialised in social media shilling and trolling?

Try actually clicking on the links I'm providing you. This is an official government document from the Senate Judiciary Comittee which Senator Grassley is in charge of.

Senator Grassley (R): Rinat Akhmetshin worked for the GRU and allegedly specializes in “active measures campaigns"

And here's a transcript of the March 20 Intelligence Hearings where they discuss Active Measures and what they are.

I know all of this stuff because I actually pay attention to the news and watch the intelligence hearings.

I know exactly where you are coming from and your argument. Mine is just that you can believe all of this full well but you are relying on TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT OR DEFENCE PERSONNEL WITHOUT QUESTION. You see a statement and jump to "it's true coz it happened in a room that people should tell the truth", well that doesn't fucking hold up on conspiracy. Any single one of those people in any of the articles could have lied for whatever reason but you don't even entertain the idea. To you what these people say is the truth no matter what. Well I don't fucking buy it for a second.

Basically, you are saying that you won't believe any evidence. Whatever evidence that does come out, you will say they are lying or the evidence is fabricated.

I am saying to believe what comes out of ANYONES mouth without question is naive, dangerous and just fucking stupid.

Anyone can sit here linking articles of he said/she said. But my point is YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY PROVE ANYTHING.

Basically, you are saying that you won't believe any evidence. Whatever evidence that does come out, you will say they are lying or the evidence is fabricated.

I knew this would be the end result of this conversation.

I said there is no way for you to prove they are telling the truth, is this a correct statement?

Is it correct to say that you have no possible way of ever definitely knowing?

Is it correct to say that all of this then base on the previous questions means you are connecting your own dots for your own believed narrative?

It is possible you are correct about every single thing you said, but you have no way of proving it and I choose to remain skeptical about EVERYTHING not just your theory so no need to get pissy.

Yes or no. Did Trump acknowledge there was a meeting with these Russians and they talked about adoption sanctions?

She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.

Nah I have no clue about any of it, that's why I wanted to discuss it....wtf is wrong with you? It's like you woke up dumb today. So again, where is the collusion? From what I read the lawyer wanted to talk about the sanctions and Trump Jr. wanted info on Hillary. I am still very much backing my play to yours.

From what I read the lawyer wanted to talk about the sanctions and Trump Jr. wanted info on Hillary.

You're almost there buddy! You almost made the connection! I believe in you!

NYT Interview with Trump

TRUMP: She was sitting next to Putin and somebody else, and that’s the way it is. So the meal was going, and toward dessert I went down just to say hello to Melania, and while I was there I said hello to Putin. Really, pleasantries more than anything else. It was not a long conversation, but it was, you know, could be 15 minutes. Just talked about — things. Actually, it was very interesting, we talked about adoption.

HABERMAN: You did?

TRUMP: We talked about Russian adoption. Yeah. I always found that interesting. Because, you know, he ended that years ago. And I actually talked about Russian adoption with him, which is interesting because it was a part of the conversation that Don [Jr., Mr. Trump’s son] had in that meeting. As I’ve said — most other people, you know, when they call up and say, “By the way, we have information on your opponent,” I think most politicians — I was just with a lot of people, they said [inaudible], “Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?” They just said——

And why did Russia place sanctions on adoptions again?

Russian lobbyist testifies before Mueller grand jury

You're arguing with that guy.

Yes?

They have two stories, they claim Obama illegally wiretapped Trump.

And debunking the email leak, not hack, will cause the entire investigation to evaporate.

You would think the search for truth would be more important to Han defending the government

I don't understand why is that a conflict and when you say defending the government are you speaking our the Constitution and Laws that direct the government, certain individuals in the standing or non elected government, or the elected officials of the government?

What do you think the Mueller investigation is doing?

Yeah maybe I shouldn't have worded it that way. I was mainly talking about Trump.

I swear I see this post on this subreddit every day.

Did you miss this story?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/28/politics/trump-tower-plan-moscow-during-election/index.html

They will be coming up with new Russia shit till 2018 at least, maybe 2020

Peeps figured it out.

riggedit.com

Well, there is this story on the front page. It details negotiations made during the presidential campaign that Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and Russian mafia member/Trump Org senior adviser, Felix Sater, made with the Kremlin to build a Trump building in Moscow.

Something that was never disclosed until now.

Trump was long trying to get into Russia. If anything his attempts and failures show lack of clout and connection.

We know he was always trying to get into business there.

We know he was always trying to get into business there.

True, but why did he completely never disclose that he had his personal attorney and a senior adviser to the Trump Organisation that was also a convicted Russian mobster negotiating with the Russian government during the election?

Don't you think that is something that you should disclose during an election, especially if you are being asked questions about Russia and your business acumen?

If anything his attempts and failures show lack of clout and connection.

Not really. He already has had large sources of Russian and Kazak mafia wealth pour into several different projects. He also was paid millions for the Miss Universe pageant from a company that gets it funding almost entirely from a state run Russian bank.

Complains when there are too many Russian articles and now complaining that there isn't enough.

You chose the worst day post-Charlottesville to make this topic

If Hillary had been elected, would the Republicans be interested in her deal to sell uranium to the Russians or the role of the Clinton Foundation in any Russia contacts, or any back door meetings between Clinton people like Podesta with Russians?

I think there is enough dirt to go around but I don't think there will be any impeachments or indictments, I think its all a distraction while the deep state (consisting of neocons and neoliberals) is basically getting all the money and power it wants.

The DNC case is over without the skeletons exploding out of the closet. They pulled it off masterfully and now it is time to move on.

Usually nothing happens in August so it gave them something else to talk about.

Haha, one article? 2-3 major stories broke today in regards to Trump/Russia conspiracy and one or two broke last week.

Just because you don't seek out this information or don't see it, doesn't mean nothing is happening or breaking

Ah, so you are going with the purposeful ignorance view.

The narrative never changed. You just haven't been paying attention and don't want to genuinely learn what the conspiracy is about

I feel like a lot of what you are going off is based on Bill Browder telling the truth. I have seen COUNTLESS people lie under oath, why would I believe Bill?

Like I said, factual evidence. Someone saying something isn't truth without being able to verify it.

The Magnitsky Act was based off of the evidence Bill Browder brought to the House and Senate. It was a huge bipartisan effort with 365 Yeah votes to 43 Nays in the house and 92 yeahs and 4 Nays in the Senate

I think it's logical to think that the vast majority of the house and the senate think he's a credible source.

Someone saying something isn't truth without being able to verify it.

Do you remember Donald Trump Jr.'s email with Rob Goldstone? Were you following that news when it broke? Did you read the email?