The Russian Collusion Paradox

1  2018-06-21 by SomeoneLikeYouToo

First of all, we know for a fact, without a doubt that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents and other foreign spies in order to obtain allegedly damaging information against her political opponent in the 2016 election. This part is not up for debate. Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents and paid them for whatever wild stories they could come up with. Proof: read the first few pages of the Steele Dossier (AKA the Piss Dossier, AKA the Garbage Document) and look at who the sources are: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Source A is "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure".

Source B is "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin".

Source C is "a senior Russian financial officer".

Source D is the only one who may not be Russian, noted in the dossier as an "associate of Trump".

Sources E and F are Russian hotel staff.

Source G is "a senior Kremlin official".

That makes 6 Russian sources, including at least 3 Russian government agents (and at least 2 of the Russian agents are still active), and possibly 1 non-Russian source.

The Steele Dossier, put together using stories from the Russian agents and the "associate" above, was 100% paid for by Hillary Clinton and Democrat groups.

So far, this is all fact-based. There is no conspiracy theory above - no links to random blogs or opinion pieces. Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents. That's a fact you cannot escape from, no matter how hard you try.

Now, on to Trump:

We do not know if Trump colluded with Russians. It's possible that he did, but very unlikely at this point. With every passing day it becomes less likely that Trump colluded with Russians. There were multiple spy agencies, both foreign and domestic, surveilling Trump's campaign during the time in which he was supposed to have colluded with Russians, and after. There are thousands of completely humiliated and intellectually wounded journalists, pollsters, commentators, and think-tank do-nothings around the world furiously digging for gold in this story, and without fail they return from the depths with nothing but a handful of dirt that quickly disintegrates. There is a special counsel investigation with extraordinary powers to investigate, which it has been doing for over a year now, and so far it has provided nothing in the way of evidence of Russian collusion.

So, like I said, it's very unlikely that Trump colluded with Russians, just based on probabilities. At this point, you would have to believe that this "Orange Retard" is so smart that he managed to hide all evidence from multiple elite spy agencies, every journalist on the planet, and so on. And if that's the case, and he really is that smart, doesn't that just crush one of your main talking points, that he's stupid? That's just one small mental hurdle for you to navigate before we get to the main event. More cognitive dissonance to come.

Now, the paradox:

If you didn't want Trump to win because you think he colluded with Russians, then your only other choice was Clinton who you know colluded with Russians.

Those were your only two choices in the end. How do you solve this?

Do you continue to allow your hatred to flood your brain, completely drowning all logic and intellectual honesty? Or do you come to the realization that you could have been wrong about everything, and that you have been sold a lie by traitorous government agents and a complicit media?

Common attempts at solving the paradox:

"I hate both of them and I didn't want either to win!" - Good for you, but that's not a reasonable answer and it's not helpful. There was a roughly 0% chance that someone other than Clinton or Trump would win the presidency after the primaries were over. Again: these were your only two realistic choices.

"But Trump really did collude with Russians! Just wait and you'll see! It's gonna be Mueller Time any minute now!" - You're free to imagine whatever you like, and this certainly is a popular mainstream conspiracy theory that the corporate media has sold to you, but there is no evidence to support this claim. You are relying on your ability to predict the future, and even if your prediction on Trump-Russia came true, you're still left with the conclusion that both presidential candidates colluded with Russians. And if they both colluded, then it was a fair fight that Trump won.

We'll see if any more answers come out in the comments but most of the time when I post stuff like this, people just downvote and run because they can't handle the fact that for all of this time, they have taken the side of traitors in the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies against the duly elected president. I understand how that must make you feel. It must be terrible to slowly realize that you, a part of this conspiracy sub, are now allied with corrupt government agents who vowed in secret to "stop" the election of Donald Trump. You have become what you always hated, and you're endorsing secret actions by unelected government agents simply because you cannot control your hatred for Trump. You're on the side of the "G-Men" now. You bring us closer to living in a police state by refusing to speak out against their bias and corruption, and instead blaming the victim. That should come as quite a shock to all of the haters here, but unfortunately I don't have much hope that they can even imagine for a second that they have been fooled by the very same elite groups they were once skeptical of. The Cult of Resistance will live on in spite of the facts.

And I will make a prediction to end this: watch the comments for people who completely dismiss this post without pointing to any factual errors. They will act as if it's beneath them to provide facts and evidence to back up their claims, as I have done. They will bring up members of the Trump campaign who have been charged with crimes they allegedly committed 10-15 years ago and pretend that this is evidence of something bigger and more recent. They will bring up a bunch of Russian trolls who were indicted for putting political ads on Facebook (ads that were both pro- and anti-Trump), and of course they will not provide any connection between these Russians and the Trump campaign, as I have done to connect Russian agents with the Hillary campaign. They will do everything they can to avoid the core message of this post: Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents.

64 comments

1  garyp714 2018-06-21

First of all, we know for a fact, without a doubt that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents and other foreign spies in order to obtain allegedly damaging information against her political opponent in the 2016 election. This part is not up for debate.

Great way to start a discussion.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Great way to start a discussion.

So, you're not disputing the fact that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents... you just don't like the way I stated that fact. Just as I predicted in the last paragraph.

1  garyp714 2018-06-21

So, you're not disputing the fact that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents

Welp, you've provided zero proof so how could I tell? Plus wouldn't this post be better if you didn't force the reader to stumble over your ham fisted attempt to frame the ideas?

And no, HRC did not collude with Russians.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Now you're just a liar. I provided plenty of proof, and you provided none at all in your dismissal. It is up to you whether you read the post, even just the first few paragraphs. It won't hurt you.

1  garyp714 2018-06-21

No need for name calling. You did nothing of the sort. You made an assertion and that's it.

Show me Hillary colluding with Russian spies. Russian.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

I can't tell if you're trolling or just illiterate. Read the first few paragraphs of this post. That is not my opinion. I am linking to the source document which lists the Russian agents, and reporting from the Associated Press which shows that Hillary Clinton paid for it.

I can't make it any clearer than this - you're on your own from here, and I honestly wish you luck and hope that you do decide to read something that you adamantly disagree with for seemingly no logical reason. I made this post for you and others like you, and I'm being serious about that.

1  garyp714 2018-06-21

I can't tell if you're trolling or just illiterate. Read the first few paragraphs of this post. That is not my opinion. I am linking to the source document which lists the Russian agents, and reporting from the Associated Press which shows that Hillary Clinton paid for it.

Right wing Washington Free Beacon started the dossier by paying Fusion to begin the work:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/27/trump-russia-washington-free-beacon-fusion-gps-244265

That's when the agents of all kind were approached by Steele and interviewed.

After many months, BEacon offered it to the Hillary campaign which they took but never used.

So your threadbare and silly assertion of Russian collusion is dead. Maybe delete this post and start anew with actual facts?

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Right wing Washington Free Beacon started the dossier by paying Fusion to begin the work:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/27/trump-russia-washington-free-beacon-fusion-gps-244265

That's when the agents of all kind were approached by Steele and interviewed.

After many months, BEacon offered it to the Hillary campaign which they took but never used.

So your threadbare and silly assertion of Russian collusion is dead. Maybe delete this post and start anew with actual facts?

Fake news. I already provided the correction to you in the original post: https://apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5

Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

I'll give you a hand.

Proof: read the first few pages of the Steele Dossier (AKA the Piss Dossier, AKA the Garbage Document) and look at who the sources are: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

Source A is "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure".

Source B is "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin".

Source C is "a senior Russian financial officer".

Source D is the only one who may not be Russian, noted in the dossier as an "associate of Trump".

Sources E and F are Russian hotel staff.

Source G is "a senior Kremlin official".

That makes 6 Russian sources, including at least 3 Russian government agents (and at least 2 of the Russian agents are still active), and possibly 1 non-Russian source.

1  garyp714 2018-06-21

Yes, all of that was commissioned by right wing Free Beacon so all you're showing me is A. you aren't paying any attention B. you fall for anything your side writes and C. you do none of your own research.

And here I thought you folks loved to research?

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

The Dossier was not commissioned by the Free Beacon. Steele came on after the Democrats picked up the tab.

But you know this already.

And here I thought you folks loved to research?

What are you on about?

1  frothface 2018-06-21

Notice how you get exactly 4 downvotes each time?

1  Zap_Powerz 2018-06-21

Or do you come to the realization that you could have been wrong about everything, and that you have been sold a lie by traitorous government agents and a complicit media?

Thats me. That is my conclusion. I trust nothing and no one. We live in a world of lies, deceit and propaganda.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Great post OP. Spot on. It wont fare well here because this place has become a political battleground for bots and shills.

I'm aware of that. :-)

My last post like this made it to #2 on Reddit /all/ list of most controversial posts and stayed there for half a day, getting it many more views than it would have in the conspiracy sub alone. All of the downvotes just create more publicity at a certain point. But it does make me a little more combative than I normally would be. Just a little.

1  Shiny-And-New 2018-06-21

First of all, we know for a fact, without a doubt that Hillary Clinton colluded with Russian agents and other foreign spies in order to obtain allegedly damaging information against her political opponent in the 2016 election. This part is not up for debate

Yeah open with a blatant falsehood, great

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Yeah open with a blatant falsehood, great

Show me one fact I got wrong in that part of the post. Just point it out. Please.

Hillary Clinton paid for the Steele Dossier. Right or wrong?

The majority of the sources of the Steele Dossier are Russian agents. Right or wrong?

A foreign spy put together the Steele Dossier. Right or wrong?

All of these questions are answered in my post, but you can do your own research too. I encourage you to do that. Often it's easier to take in information that you seek out yourself. Go. Seek.

1  Biggest_Lebowski 2018-06-21

Easy Hillary and the Democrats didn’t 100% pay for the dossier. They didn’t even start it....

For its investigation into Trump, Fusion was initially hired in the fall of 2015 by the conservative Washington Free Beacon website. The publication is backed by billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who was then supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) in the GOP primary.

There is literally not one factually correct statement in this whole post. The reason people won’t take the time to fight you is because you aren’t dealing in facts or reality. You’re dealing is assumptions with little pieces of fact in them. No one cares to argue with people who think the earth is flat either...

The truth is over 20 people indicted compared to how many indictments in over 8 years of Hillary investigations. That means it’s not looking too good for trump. No one knows the facts because the special counsel doesn’t leak. I know that’s hard for republicans like you to understand because you guys leak everything you possibly can and even force other people to leak ( see rouge FBI agents who leaked to Giuliani and trump campaign to force Comey to reopen Clinton right before election). The facts will come out when Robert mueller releases them , so until then enjoy telling dems to prove things while we laugh at you because you don’t understand federal investigations that are literally ONLY effective when you keep everything under lock and key.

I guess we’ll see how midterms workout and when mueller releases At bare minimum a referral for impeachment because of obstruction what’s the excuse gonna be, just fighting back? Lol

If you don’t think trump is guilty of obstruction every time he opens his mouth or does anything then that’s your problem, and a serious one at that.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

If you're going to accuse me of not dealing in facts, please don't give me fake news.

Here is the correction, which you would have seen if you read the original post: https://apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5

Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it.

The Steele Dossier was started and paid for by Hillary Clinton and Democrat groups. 100%. You cannot and will not prove this simple fact to be false. I guarantee you.

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to the post. "We'll see how midterms work out and Mueller Time and blah blah blah..." - stick to the facts.

1  Biggest_Lebowski 2018-06-21

“Blah Blah Blah” said the guy calling your facts fake news. While saying “prove it “ right after.

You are a textbook example of uneducated, loud mouthed trump voter. Thinks he is so smart to himself while everyone else just kind watches and thanks the lord they aren’t you. No one cares what you think cause you’re dumb uneducated and probably white trash. Make as much noise as you want while you’re here cause it’s not gonna last that much longer. You can convince yourself, but you’re gonna learn that other people aren’t as gullible as you lol

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

“Blah Blah Blah” said the guy calling your facts fake news. While saying “prove it “ right after.

You are a textbook example of uneducated, loud mouthed trump voter. Thinks he is so smart to himself while everyone else just kind watches and thanks the lord they aren’t you. No one cares what you think cause you’re dumb uneducated and probably white trash. Make as much noise as you want while you’re here cause it’s not gonna last that much longer. You can convince yourself, but you’re gonna learn that other people aren’t as gullible as you lol

More irrelevant (and now racist) nonsense and predictions of future doom from someone I proved wrong when they posted fake news. You've got nothing after I showed how you were misled by fake news, so you lash out at me for being correct. I understand. Just do better in the future and you won't have to get so emotional about it.

If you had bothered to read the original post at all you would have already seen that correction to the fake news you posted, but you didn't read it... and now here you are, absolutely wrong, humiliated, and rambling like a madman. Take care. :-)

1  MissType 2018-06-21

Removed. Rule 1

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

For its investigation into Trump, Fusion was initially hired in the fall of 2015 by the conservative Washington Free Beacon website.

Fusion GPS' work with the Free Beacon was over before Steele was ever brought on to compose his Dossier. Literally all of the sources listed by OP were Steele's sources, not Fusion's.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

He has shown you where it is not a falsehood.

What gives?

1  DonnaGail 2018-06-21

Great Post!

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

You've dropped the term "MI6 Agent Christopher Steele" from your model. He's the one she was paying. Restoring that term resolves your paradox.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

No, he's in there. He's the foreign spy I mentioned, differentiated from the many Russian agents I mentioned.

But anyway, are you saying it would be fine if Trump colluded with Russian agents while using a middleman? All would be forgiven because he didn't hand over the cash directly to Putin, right? I really am just trying to understand the logic.

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

If any of the intelligence he got the head of GCHQ to hand deliver to the head of CIA is accurate, the question of its ultimate source would be interesting. So far, however, there is no reason to believe that the intelligence is real. Perhaps there will be some day.

Meanwhile, all current evidence indicates that Mueller is the current ball carrier for a UK backed coup attempt. It's not clear if he knew it when he started but he damned sure oughta know it by now.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

It's still collusion.

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

Yes, but it is collusion with MI6. That's whats there to see. Hillary Clinton and DNC were paying MI6 for dirt on Trump. The Russians are still imaginary.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

The Russians are still imaginary.

I will give you that some of them are outright make believe.

1  Alpinegoatherd 2018-06-21

He had long left MI6

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

The head of GCHQ gave the sketchy intelligence to the head of CIA. How did the sketchy intelligence get from Steele to the head of GCHQ?

1  Alpinegoatherd 2018-06-21

Previous personal contacts I'm sure.

I would encourage you to read this.

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/12/christopher-steele-the-man-behind-the-trump-dossier/amp

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

That article contains claims that were convincingly falsified more than a year ago but have not been retracts. I would encourage you to stop wasting your time on articles from that author and that publisher until it becomes clear which is at fault.

1  Alpinegoatherd 2018-06-21

Which claims?

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

Very good question. The answer has been in plain sight even longer than UK's attack on my democracy--and that has been in plain sight for over year. I suspect that it will be reported by the left-establishment press will be forced to report it as the coup's agents are frog marched out of FBI headquarters. If you'd like to know what's coming, here's the short form spoiler:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/fbi-dossier-carter-page-donald-trump-russia-investigation/

https://www.businessinsider.de/uk-told-cia-about-trump-russia-contacts-before-election-2018-3?r=US&IR=T

https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/976943588394323973

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/tgp-exclusive-former-intelligence-officers-find-indisputable-evidence-u-s-intel-leaders-were-linked-to-british-in-spygate-scandal/

The claims made in those articles are solidly supported by stories from WikiLeaks, Consortium News, Rebel Media, Zero Hedge, Big League Politics, Judicial Watch, DOJ document dumps, FBI document dumps and even the establishment press.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Lets assume your post is correct and that Hillary colluded with Russian agents, then wouldn't you want Trump to be more aggressive against Russia such as publicly attacking them and be more supportive of sanctions against Russia?

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

Lets assume your post is correct and that Hillary colluded with Russian agents, then wouldn't you want Trump to be more aggressive against Russia such as publicly attacking them and be more supportive of sanctions against Russia?

That's a fair point, although it calls for mind reading abilities. I can't read his mind, but let's give it a shot since you asked: he is being defensive about the unending Trump-Russia allegations against him, and he thinks that "attacking" Russia (I hope you mean economically and politically attacking) would be an admission of guilt. He doesn't want to add fuel to the fire.

He has not removed any sanctions however, and that was part of an alleged deal he had with Russia - the removal of previous sanctions, (so why hasn't Putin called him out on breaking the deal?), and he has added more sanctions on top of that (April 2018). The US military has also killed "a couple hundred" Russian soldiers in Syria. At what point does Putin say "enough is enough" and reveal the whole plot?

But this is getting away from the topic of the post now...

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

I don't see it as getting away from the topic of the post. For the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to assume you are correct that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians, and based on that I'm going to try reach logical conclusions.

To clarify what I meant by publicly attacking them, I meant verbally on twitter or in a speech.

And I don't follow how attacking Russia would be addmitting guilt? Defending Russia, praising them and Putin, and deflecting from Russian election interference is much more evidence of admitting guilt. If he publicly attacked them and placed more sanctions or heavily enforced the sanctions that are in place, then that would vindicate him and make him look more innocent.

He has not removed any sanctions, because congress passed a bill that would make it impossible for him to do so. He could not veto the bill because the Senate had the overwhelming numbers to override his veto. Immediately after the bill was passed, Trump publicly attacked congress for passing the bill, which made it look like he did ultimately want to remove the sanctions but was not given the opportunity to do so.

Also, the April 2018 sanctions were done because they were legally required to in accordance with the congress bill I just mentioned.

We know that Trump hates Hillary Clinton, and has no problem attacking her, anyone that helped her, and is known for verbally attacking our own allies leaders and nations.

So, if your post is correct, why isn't Trump doing more to call out Russia's interference with our elections and politics?

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

So, if your post is correct, why isn't Trump doing more to call out Russia's interference with our elections and politics?

Like I said, it's a fair point to make, and I can't answer for him. I will note that you completely avoided the whole issue of the US military killing Russian soldiers in Syria though, and how that basically smashes the narrative that he's protecting Russia.

What is easier for a leader to take, in terms of public opinion at home, some economic sanctions or some deadly airstrikes? And, again, at what point does Putin say "enough is enough - you didn't stick to the deal on removing sanctions, and now you're literally killing my men"?

So, you see... it's not as easy as you think to get in to someone else's mind.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

I'm not asking you to answer for him. I'm asking you to come up with your own logical conclusional assumption just like you did with the information you made about Clinton.

And I don't know enough about the Syrian attack. Did Trump order the attack? Did Russia attack first?

And Putin may not care enough about the loss of men if it doesn't matter for his end goals, especially if he mainly just cares about destablising the West and the US using social division and chaos.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

I'm not asking you to answer for him. I'm asking you to come up with your own logical conclusional assumption just like you did with the information you made about Clinton.

What was the assumption I made about Clinton? Did I say anything about Clinton that is not supported by evidence?

And I don't know enough about the Syrian attack. Did Trump order the attack? Did Russia attack first?

And Putin may not care enough about the loss of men if it doesn't matter for his end goals, especially if he mainly just cares about destablising the West and the US using social division and chaos.

Putin may not personally care one way or another whether his men died from US airstrikes in Syria, but I'm almost positive the Russian people care a lot.

Putin likes to portray that tough-guy image, right? But he just lets the US shit all over his country economically and now militarily, with deadly results, after it was alleged that he had a deal with Trump to... not do any of that? What good is that deal if Trump won't stick to it, and why won't Putin just reveal the whole plot as an act of revenge and to save face among his people?

You talk about destabilizing the West... well, imagine the chaos that he could conjure in an instant just by posting a few documents online, or just any kind of evidence that he colluded with Trump. Boom. Destabilization in seconds. And remember, you said that's what he "mainly" cares about. So, his main goal is just a click away if the Trump-Russia collusion story is true, but he doesn't pull the trigger even after the economic and military attacks. Imagine that. ;-)

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

You made the assumption that because she hired Steele to compile the dossier, and since Steele used Russian sources to provide information in the dossier, that she colluded with the Russian government. Is that correct?

Do you assume the Russian care about it or do they actually in reality care about it? Was the attack reported on in Russia, and how did they portray it? Do you have evidence or examples of the Russian people caring about it?

From what I recall about it, the battle wasn't really reported on in Russian media. Feel free to correct me on it.

And it's true that Putin could do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin eventually did provide those types of documents online. But, that would also admit that the Russian government does use fake social media propaganda shills to spread disinfo on social media. It would make that long term effort of using shills less useful in the future.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

You made the assumption that because she hired Steele to compile the dossier, and since Steele used Russian sources to provide information in the dossier, that she colluded with the Russian government. Is that correct?

Basically. I said she colluded with Russian agents, and at least 2 of those Russian agents are still "active in the Kremlin", so yes... collusion with agents of the Russian government. (Whether they were rogue or "mainstream" government agents with Putin's blessing is another story.)

Do you assume the Russian care about it or do they actually in reality care about it? Was the attack reported on in Russia, and how did they portray it? Do you have evidence or examples of the Russian people caring about it?

From what I recall about it, the battle wasn't really reported on in Russian media. Feel free to correct me on it.

Yes, I'm assuming that the Russian general public care very much that their military men were killed by US airstrikes. Seems like a safe bet to make, right?

No, I don't know how or if the airstrikes were reported in whatever mainstream TV / newspapers are operating in Russia. But they have internet, because they have Facebook. ;-) And I'm sure they have "alternative media" just as any other country does.

And anyway, how would you recall one way or another whether the airstrikes were reported in Russian media? Were you watching a lot of Russian media at the time? I don't mean watching RT America either. I mean whatever Russian-language programs they have on TV, radio, newspapers, for domestic consumption - not international appeal (like RT).

And it's true that Putin could do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin eventually did provide those types of documents online. But, that would also admit that the Russian government does use fake social media propaganda shills to spread disinfo on social media. It would make that long term effort of using shills less useful in the future.

That doesn't sound like a secret operation to me, the fact that they use trolls / disinfo on social media. The whole world is on alert for it by now. So, he is holding back on "dropping the collusion bomb", which would accomplish his "main" goal of causing chaos in the US and the West, because he's worried about exposing a secret operation that the whole world knows about? Come on... let's be reasonable here.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Basically. I said she colluded with Russian agents, and at least 2 of those Russian agents are still "active in the Kremlin", so yes... collusion with agents of the Russian government. (Whether they were rogue or "mainstream" government agents with Putin's blessing is another story.)

You said she colluded with Russian agents, because Steele used Russian agents as informants to compile evidence for his dossier. I seriously doubt that Russian agents would collude with Clinton without Putin's blessing. I think that's a good safe bet to make.

I think it would tough for the Russian people to care about it if it wasn't being reported on in Russian media. It's well known how much Russia controls the press and media over there.

To me, it just sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions about other aspects of this, but do not want to make assumptions about why Trump refuses to verbally attack Russia or Putin more if Putin/Russia did indeed work together with Clinton to interfere with our nation.

I think if Trump knew about this, and doesn't say or do anything about it, that wouldn't be placing America first would it?

And I obviously don't follow Russian media or their propaganda sources, but I just remember it being reported on in Western media or western sources. As I said, feel free to correct me on it.

And there is a difference between the governments around the world knowing it, and the populace knowing it. For example there's still a good portion of my family who doesn't believe that Russia interfered with our elections using social media shills and propaganda. If Russia admitted it, then that would be revealing the man behind the curtain, and would make people like my family more wary about what Russian state media propaganda they are being influenced by.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

You said she colluded with Russian agents, because Steele used Russian agents as informants to compile evidence for his dossier. I seriously doubt that Russian agents would collude with Clinton without Putin's blessing. I think that's a good safe bet to make.

Right. What's the problem here? Is it no longer "Russian collusion" if you use a middleman to do it? Will you accept that if Trump's lawyer (Cohen), for example, is found to have colluded with Russian agents? All is forgiven because Trump didn't personally hand Putin a bag of cash? I doubt it.

I think it would tough for the Russian people to care about it if it wasn't being reported on in Russian media. It's well known how much Russia controls the press and media over there.

The news finds a way, particularly on a subject like this. Even in China and other countries with restrictive internet policies they're able to get outside news. The news of US airstrikes killing Russian soldiers would spread. And yes, I am assuming that, because I don't live in Russia and can't read or understand the Russian language. Just as you are assuming the Russian people never heard of these airstrikes (you've completely backtracked on how closely you monitored Russian media during that time though - now saying you only saw it from US/West media. Interesting).

To me, it just sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions about other aspects of this, but do not want to make assumptions about why Trump refuses to verbally attack Russia or Putin more if Putin/Russia did indeed work together with Clinton to interfere with our nation.

I don't think I'm making a lot of assumptions in the original post. You've drawn me in to mind reading, and I'm fine with that... but then don't blame me for making assumptions while mind reading. And I did offer some assumptions on why Trump hasn't attacked Russia / Putin more in public.

I think if Trump knew about this, and doesn't say or do anything about it, that wouldn't be placing America first would it?

He has talked about it. What can he do? Military tribunals for Clinton and the gang? Send her to Gitmo? What she did is obviously not illegal. The only reason I bring it up is the sheer hypocrisy of those who want Trump impeached for something he allegedly did, in favor of Clinton who really did it. It's a bit like freeing a murderer to put an alleged murder in his cell. Doesn't make sense, right?

And there is a difference between the governments around the world knowing it, and the populace knowing it. For example there's still a good portion of my family who doesn't believe that Russia interfered with our elections using social media shills and propaganda. If Russia admitted it, then that would be revealing the man behind the curtain, and would make people like my family more wary about what Russian state media propaganda they are being influenced by.

Sounds like a small price to pay (losing the trust of however many Americans actually trust the Russian government - can't be all that many) while causing the complete meltdown of the US, which was Putin's "main" goal as you said. He could rip the country apart, even more than it is now, within seconds. That was his main goal, remember? His main goal is certainly not preserving trust with the American public. What is he saving that ace card for?

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Right. What's the problem here? Is it no longer "Russian collusion" if you use a middleman to do it? Will you accept that if Trump's lawyer (Cohen), for example, is found to have colluded with Russian agents? All is forgiven because Trump didn't personally hand Putin a bag of cash? I doubt it.

I didn't say it was a problem. I'm trying to clarify what you are saying. I would say it's still collusion if a middle man is used if you agree that if Cohen was used as a middleman, that he and Trump colluded with Russian government as well. I have no problem at all indicting anyone from any party that colluded with Russia or other foreign governments to interfere with our elections and politics.

The news finds a way, particularly on a subject like this. Even in China and other countries with restrictive internet policies they're able to get outside news. The news of US airstrikes killing Russian soldiers would spread. And yes, I am assuming that, because I don't live in Russia and can't read or understand the Russian language. Just as you are assuming the Russian people never heard of these airstrikes (you've completely backtracked on how closely you monitored Russian media during that time though - now saying you only saw it from US/West media. Interesting).

Again, it sounds like you are assuming what's going on in Russian people's minds, but are wary about guessing what's going on in Trump's mind for the purpose of this discussion.

But, did you know that Turkey shot down a Russian military plane, and that Russia did not take any further actions against Turkey? I think that would show a pattern of Russia not saying or do anything about the loss of Russian military lives depending on what their goals are.

He has talked about it. What can he do?

Like I said, he can publically attack Russia or Putin more. He has no problems doing that with our allies like Trudeau. Why won't he do it to Putin who, according to your post, helped Clinton against Trump.

The only reason I bring it up is the sheer hypocrisy of those who want Trump impeached for something he allegedly did, in favor of Clinton who really did it.

Are you saying you only made this post to point out the hypocrisasy of others? If not, I would think that if you believe that Clinton did collude with Russia, that you would want Trump and our government to push more against Russia. You would think you would also speak out more publicly against Russia as well because they colluded with Clinton to interfere with our elections.

Sounds like a small price to pay (losing the trust of however many Americans actually trust the Russian government - can't be all that many) while causing the complete meltdown of the US, which was Putin's "main" goal as you said. He could rip the country apart, even more than it is now, within seconds. That was his main goal, remember? His main goal is certainly not preserving trust with the American public. What is he saving that ace card for?

I don't think it's a small price at all if Putin can convince at least half of America to completely lose trust in our government which would eventually cause America to self destruct on it's own through hyper partisanship. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's ultimate goal is to cause America to have a civil war through shills and propaganda.

What is he saving that ace card for?

Could be lots of reasons that we aren't aware of or would be hard to be aware of. But, like I said, I think he'll do it eventually.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

I would say it's still collusion if a middle man is used and if you agree with that, and it is revealed that Cohen was used as a middleman, then you must conclude that he and Trump colluded with Russian government as well.

Of course. I would agree with that. If Trump instructed Cohen, or had knowledge of it, then it's "Trump-Russia collusion". And then what happens? It's obviously not illegal, because we know Clinton did that and she has not been charged. But even though it's not illegal, it would completely change my mind on Trump if that was revealed. No doubt about that.

Are you saying you only made this post to point out the hypocrisasy of others? If not, I would think that if you believe that Clinton did collude with Russia, that you would want Trump and our government to push more against Russia. You would think you would also speak out more publicly against Russia as well because they colluded with Clinton to interfere with our elections.

I don't feel the need to add to the hysteria - I'm trying to fight against the hysteria with this post. It didn't work, as I expected, but I wanted to try. I just wanted to see what the cognitive dissonance would do in the minds of the haters. As you can see, the downvote button was hit many times just as a reflexive habit. People just go blind with rage and think I'm just making it all up, even when I link to all of my completely mainstream sources, and the Steele Dossier itself. It's TDS in full effect, and it may be unstoppable at this point.

I don't think it's a small price at all if Putin can convince at least half of America to completely lose trust in our government which would eventually cause America to self destruct on it's own through hyper partisanship. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's ultimate goal is to cause America to have a civil war through shills and propaganda.

Putin didn't force any of those FBI agents to conspire against Trump and vow to stop him from becoming president. That has caused people to lose trust in the US government more than any Facebook ads or Russian-sourced rumors and innuendo from a foreign spy (Christopher Steele, who now admits he's "50 / 50" on whether the piss video story is true - skip the first 5 minutes of wide-eyed gushing about old news and disregard the patchy mustache on Isikoff, and watch the MSNBC host's reaction to the 50 / 50 comment - he is completely gutted, and the guest quickly changes subject).

It sounds like I'm defending Putin, but I'm not... I'm just putting more responsibility on US agents for causing distrust rather than Russian agents. Internal espionage and corruption by people who are supposed to be trusted (Russians are not) creates much more damage to public trust than any outside source ever could.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Of course. I would agree with that. If Trump instructed Cohen, or had knowledge of it, then it's "Trump-Russia collusion". And then what happens? It's obviously not illegal, because we know Clinton did that and she has not been charged. But even though it's not illegal, it would completely change my mind on Trump if that was revealed. No doubt about that.

I can understand your point of view on that. I appreciate consistency in views.

I don't feel the need to add to the hysteria - I'm trying to fight against the hysteria with this post. It didn't work, as I expected, but I wanted to try. I just wanted to see what the cognitive dissonance would do in the minds of the haters. As you can see, the downvote button was hit many times just as a reflexive habit. People just go blind with rage and think I'm just making it all up, even when I link to all of my completely mainstream sources, and the Steele Dossier itself. It's TDS in full effect, and it may be unstoppable at this point.

I don't think people downvoted you out of rage or anything like that. But, like I said, I appreciate that you at least keep your views consistent that if it's true that Cohen was proven to be involved with the Russian interference, then Trump should be held accountable at least in the court of public opinion.

Your second to last paragraph also has no relevance to what we are talking about. I agree with you that the government and politicians and the media take actions to cause distrust in the American people. Doesn't mean that Russia isn't trying to make it worse. Which is what we are talking about.

We can hold our own people accountable, and also foreign interests that try to harm our country accountable at the same time. And just because a lot of it may be our own making, does not mean we should ignore when other countries like Russia, Israel, or China do it to us.

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

We can hold our own people accountable, and also foreign interests that try to harm our country accountable at the same time.

I will believe that when the FBI and other agencies make an honest attempt to clean house, not like this bullshit IG report that claims no bias and then goes on for hundreds of pages listing all of the bias, and when journalists start doing journalism again.

And just because a lot of it may be our own making, does not mean we should ignore when other countries like Russia, Israel, or China do it to us.

I don't ignore it, but I put more weight on what the US government and media are doing to the country, rather than an external hostile force. After all, that external hostile force is just doing what they're supposed to be doing: being hostile.

If a snake bites you, well... it's a snake. That's what it does. Maybe you get mad at the snake, but you're not shocked that it bit you. It's bad but it's normal. It doesn't turn your world upside down.

But if one of your family members bites you... that's a WTF moment. They're not supposed to do that. That is shocking. You put more weight on the hostile actions of your family member as opposed to the snake.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

You would still do something about the snake and the snake bite. You wouldn't just ignore it. You would treat the wound and take actions in the future about not getting bitten by snakes again.

There are also snake bites that can poison you and ultimately kill you.

So yes, I do take snakes/foreign adversaries seriously when they want to destroy my country from within.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

Why does every issue require escalation?

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Because inaction encourages the aggressor to keep doing the same actions or escalate their actions against our nation.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

Who said anything about inaction?

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Not escalating with a response is an in inaction.

And if you agree with OP''s post, wouldn't that be proof of Russian government aggression?

Or do you disagree with OP?

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

Not escalating with a response is an in inaction.

No, there are plenty of other avenues for response. You could, for example, make it illegal to seek help in elections from foreign intelligence agents (former or otherwise). There are lots of things that can be handled internally that don't require playing war games with Russia.

And if you agree with OP''s post, wouldn't that be proof of Russian government aggression?

No, it would be proof of individuals from Russia working with Christopher Steele in a private capacity.

Or do you disagree with OP?

What is there to disagree with?

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

But inaction against the foreign nation, such as Russia, would encourage the aggressor to keep doing the same actions or escalate their actions against our nation.

What you mentioned would just discourage US persons from taking part.

No, it would be proof of individuals from Russia working with Christopher Steele in a private capacity.

According to OP, Clinton colluded with Russian agents and spies. I think it's a safe bet that Russian agents and spies would not perform these types of actions without the blessings of the Russian government.

What is there to disagree with?

Do you disagree with OP that Clinton colluded with Russian spies and agents to interfere with our elections?

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

But inaction against the foreign nation, such as Russia, would encourage the aggressor to keep doing the same actions or escalate their actions against our nation.

That's your opinion. I reject it as the unfounded, neocon-esque scaremongering horseshit that it is.

. I think it's a safe bet that Russian agents and spies would not perform these types of actions without the blessings of the Russian government.

Do you understand the difference between established fact and, "I think it's a safe bet?"

I think it's a shitty bet, so there.

Do you disagree with OP that Clinton colluded with Russian spies and agents to interfere with our elections?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills. This is getting tiresome.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Yes, it’s my opinion, but it’s an opinion that is even held Republican congressmen.

And yes I understand the difference. That’s why I said I think it’s a safe bet. I never said it was an established fact.

And you can have any opinion of me or my opinions that you want.

And as for my reading comprehension skills, I’m more than willing to be corrected by you. Using your reading comprehension, what is OP’s thesis or main point? And do you agree or disagree with it?

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

Yes, it’s my opinion, but it’s an opinion that is even held by Republican congressmen.

You mean cats like John McCain? Skullfuck those monkeys in their tumor brains.

And yes I understand the difference. That’s why I said I think it’s a safe bet.

It was a safe bet that Sadam Hussein had WMD.

Safe bets are sHitt excuses for sabre rattling.

Using your reading comprehension, what is OP’s thesis or main point?

Oh, how cute. You think you're a professor of COMP1303.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

I mean people like Richard Burr who is the republican leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

And I'm not sure why my opinion on it being a safe bet has anything to do with WMD's or sabre rattling. It's just my opinion. I'm certainly free to have it just as you are to have yours.

So are you going to answer my question? What was the point that OP was trying to make with his post? And do you agree with it or disagree with it? You said I had bad reading comprehension skills, so I thought maybe you could correct me then.

1  thistookmethreehours 2018-06-21

Anything trump is accused of Hillary is twice as guilty of obviously

1  BiscuitAnger 2018-06-21

If the only concern was that Trump tried to gather intel via a middleman, none of this investigation would be happening.

What is fact is that Trump’s business ties to Russia are deep. Deeper than to any other country. In spite of that, he continually insists (lies) that he has no Russian connections and had never even met Putin before winning the election.

That should scare anyone. I don’t give a damn that someone tried to setup a meeting with Trump Jr or whatever shit.

I care that the President of the United States may be in personal debt - as in owing his life and allegiance sort of debt - to an adversarial foreign power.

1  BUT_MUH_GUNS_THO 2018-06-21

High effort cut n paste shitpost.

1  Biggest_Lebowski 2018-06-21

Easy Hillary and the Democrats didn’t 100% pay for the dossier. They didn’t even start it....

For its investigation into Trump, Fusion was initially hired in the fall of 2015 by the conservative Washington Free Beacon website. The publication is backed by billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who was then supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) in the GOP primary.

There is literally not one factually correct statement in this whole post. The reason people won’t take the time to fight you is because you aren’t dealing in facts or reality. You’re dealing is assumptions with little pieces of fact in them. No one cares to argue with people who think the earth is flat either...

The truth is over 20 people indicted compared to how many indictments in over 8 years of Hillary investigations. That means it’s not looking too good for trump. No one knows the facts because the special counsel doesn’t leak. I know that’s hard for republicans like you to understand because you guys leak everything you possibly can and even force other people to leak ( see rouge FBI agents who leaked to Giuliani and trump campaign to force Comey to reopen Clinton right before election). The facts will come out when Robert mueller releases them , so until then enjoy telling dems to prove things while we laugh at you because you don’t understand federal investigations that are literally ONLY effective when you keep everything under lock and key.

I guess we’ll see how midterms workout and when mueller releases At bare minimum a referral for impeachment because of obstruction what’s the excuse gonna be, just fighting back? Lol

If you don’t think trump is guilty of obstruction every time he opens his mouth or does anything then that’s your problem, and a serious one at that.

1  YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-06-21

The Russians are still imaginary.

I will give you that some of them are outright make believe.

1  Alpinegoatherd 2018-06-21

He had long left MI6

1  SomeoneLikeYouToo 2018-06-21

You made the assumption that because she hired Steele to compile the dossier, and since Steele used Russian sources to provide information in the dossier, that she colluded with the Russian government. Is that correct?

Basically. I said she colluded with Russian agents, and at least 2 of those Russian agents are still "active in the Kremlin", so yes... collusion with agents of the Russian government. (Whether they were rogue or "mainstream" government agents with Putin's blessing is another story.)

Do you assume the Russian care about it or do they actually in reality care about it? Was the attack reported on in Russia, and how did they portray it? Do you have evidence or examples of the Russian people caring about it?

From what I recall about it, the battle wasn't really reported on in Russian media. Feel free to correct me on it.

Yes, I'm assuming that the Russian general public care very much that their military men were killed by US airstrikes. Seems like a safe bet to make, right?

No, I don't know how or if the airstrikes were reported in whatever mainstream TV / newspapers are operating in Russia. But they have internet, because they have Facebook. ;-) And I'm sure they have "alternative media" just as any other country does.

And anyway, how would you recall one way or another whether the airstrikes were reported in Russian media? Were you watching a lot of Russian media at the time? I don't mean watching RT America either. I mean whatever Russian-language programs they have on TV, radio, newspapers, for domestic consumption - not international appeal (like RT).

And it's true that Putin could do that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Putin eventually did provide those types of documents online. But, that would also admit that the Russian government does use fake social media propaganda shills to spread disinfo on social media. It would make that long term effort of using shills less useful in the future.

That doesn't sound like a secret operation to me, the fact that they use trolls / disinfo on social media. The whole world is on alert for it by now. So, he is holding back on "dropping the collusion bomb", which would accomplish his "main" goal of causing chaos in the US and the West, because he's worried about exposing a secret operation that the whole world knows about? Come on... let's be reasonable here.

1  politicalconspiracie 2018-06-21

Of course. I would agree with that. If Trump instructed Cohen, or had knowledge of it, then it's "Trump-Russia collusion". And then what happens? It's obviously not illegal, because we know Clinton did that and she has not been charged. But even though it's not illegal, it would completely change my mind on Trump if that was revealed. No doubt about that.

I can understand your point of view on that. I appreciate consistency in views.

I don't feel the need to add to the hysteria - I'm trying to fight against the hysteria with this post. It didn't work, as I expected, but I wanted to try. I just wanted to see what the cognitive dissonance would do in the minds of the haters. As you can see, the downvote button was hit many times just as a reflexive habit. People just go blind with rage and think I'm just making it all up, even when I link to all of my completely mainstream sources, and the Steele Dossier itself. It's TDS in full effect, and it may be unstoppable at this point.

I don't think people downvoted you out of rage or anything like that. But, like I said, I appreciate that you at least keep your views consistent that if it's true that Cohen was proven to be involved with the Russian interference, then Trump should be held accountable at least in the court of public opinion.

Your second to last paragraph also has no relevance to what we are talking about. I agree with you that the government and politicians and the media take actions to cause distrust in the American people. Doesn't mean that Russia isn't trying to make it worse. Which is what we are talking about.

We can hold our own people accountable, and also foreign interests that try to harm our country accountable at the same time. And just because a lot of it may be our own making, does not mean we should ignore when other countries like Russia, Israel, or China do it to us.

1  NapalmForNarratives 2018-06-21

That article contains claims that were convincingly falsified more than a year ago but have not been retracts. I would encourage you to stop wasting your time on articles from that author and that publisher until it becomes clear which is at fault.