A Theory of Trump Kompromat

[Sleeppy]

"Conspiracy" is a large term.
Do you have an excerpt from a cromulent link which states more
specifically conspiracy with Russians regarding the election?

In a statement of offense attached to the plea agreement, Gates admits he conspired with Manafort "in a variety of criminal schemes," including moving millions of dollars from offshore accounts without paying taxes on the money, which was disguised as loans.

He also admits he helped Manafort avoid registering as a lobbyist for Ukrainian political figures and misleading two other firms, the Podesta Group and Mercury, on whether they had to register. The firms were paid through an advocacy group which employees knew was a "fig leaf" so they would not have register as agents of the Ukrainian regime, Mueller alleged.

Manafort was an agent of a pro-Putin/Russia Ukrainian regime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ort-and-gates-work-for-in-ukraine-and-russia/

 

[Revoltingest]

Manafort was an agent of a pro-Putin/Russia Ukrainian regime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ort-and-gates-work-for-in-ukraine-and-russia/

From the linked article.....
"Mueller is conducting into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence U.S. politics."
If proven, why is it called "possible"?
And.....
"Many of the charges against Manafort and Gates, which include money laundering and tax fraud, relate to alleged crimes that predate either of the political operatives joining the Trump campaign. They primarily involve the concealment of millions of dollars they made while working on behalf of a pro-Putin political party in Ukraine."

The claim is that Trump colluded with the Russians.
What evidence is there of that?

I can't know whether Trump colluded or not.
It's possible he did. And possible he didn't.
But one can't pronounce a verdict without
some real evidence....something more than
misbehaving underlings & speculation.

 

[Sleeppy]

From the linked article.....
"Mueller is conducting into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence U.S. politics."
If proven, why is it called "possible"?
And.....
"Many of the charges against Manafort and Gates, which include money laundering and tax fraud, relate to alleged crimes that predate either of the political operatives joining the Trump campaign. They primarily involve the concealment of millions of dollars they made while working on behalf of a pro-Putin political party in Ukraine."

The claim is that Trump colluded with the Russians.
What evidence is there of that?

I can't know whether Trump colluded or not.
It's possible he did. And possible he didn't.
But one can't pronounce a verdict without
some real evidence....something more than
misbehaving underlings & speculation.

1) Collusion with the Trump campaign, not necessarily Trump himself.

2) Evidence of conspiracy, or anything else needs to go to the court before it's proven.

3) You're right; we do need to wait for the investigation to conclude. But, you asked if there was evidence and there is.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Collusion with the Trump campaign, not necessarily Trump himself.

2) Evidence of conspiracy, or anything else needs to go to the court before it's proven.

3) You're right; we do need to wait for the investigation to conclude. But, you asked if there was evidence and there is.

With all the certainty of Trump's collusion flying about, I'd expect
something better than the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire variety.
But they have at least a couple years more of investigating to do.
And if he's re-elected, at least 6 more years to enjoy the show.

 

[Sleeppy]

With all the certainty of Trump's collusion flying about, I'd expect
something better than the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire variety.
But they have at least a couple years more of investigating to do.
And if he's re-elected, at least 6 more years to enjoy the show.

6? You mean 4?

It'll either be hard, or impossible to prove, considering you have to provide conversations, which would of course happen privately. Those involved in the conversations would need to cooperate.

However, Trump did ask the Russians on live TV, for information that was sought for illegally. Of course, he did it in a manner that doesn't prove collusion, on its own-- there was no conversation there, but the act seems to have been a successful exchange.

That's enough for any reasonable U.S. Patriot. You don't entice illegal action by a long-standing adversary, even in jest. It may not prove illegal, but it is most certainly treasonous.

 

[Revoltingest]

6? You mean 4?

He will be in office 2 more years.
If he wins re-election, that adds 4 to 2.

It'll either be hard, or impossible to prove, considering you have to provide conversations, which would of course happen privately. Those involved in the conversations would need to cooperate.

However, Trump did ask the Russians on live TV, for information that was sought for illegally. Of course, he did it in a manner that doesn't prove collusion, on its own-- there was no conversation there, but the act seems to have been a successful exchange.

"Seems to" is a very low standard.

That's enough for any reasonable U.S. Patriot. You don't entice illegal action by a long-standing adversary, even in jest. It may not prove illegal, but it is most certainly treasonous.

It is certain only to those with a fervent desire to believe.

 

[Sleeppy]

He will be in office 2 more years.
If he wins re-election, that adds 4 to 2.

"Seems to" is a very low standard.

It is certain only to those with a fervent desire to believe.

1) I see.

2) I wouldn't say it was very low.

3) Calling for a U.S. adversary to illegally access classified information isn't treasonous? OK.

 

[Revoltingest]

3) Calling for a U.S. adversary to illegally access classified information isn't treasonous? OK.

Where you saw serious offer, I saw a joke.
Ya know, if a candidate were really colluding with Russians to
hack email, I'd expect the request to be more covert, & less jocular.

 

[Sleeppy]

Where you saw serious offer, I saw a joke.
Ya know, if a candidate were really colluding with Russians to
hack email, I'd expect the request to be more covert, & less jocular.

Even in jest. Who jokes about hacking into classified U.S. documents? What other attacks on U.S. government infrastructure would you consider comedic?

That was as covert as it gets. There's no need for a reply from the hackers; they follow a clear command, without it being documented as a conspiratorial conversation.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Many of the charges against Manafort and Gates, which include money laundering and tax fraud, relate to alleged crimes that predate either of the political operatives joining the Trump campaign. They primarily involve the concealment of millions of dollars they made while working on behalf of a pro-Putin political party in Ukraine."

All this started with the annexation of Crimea.

Putin's version
Crimea, being a region with a majority of Russian speakers asked for a referendum about its reunion with the Russian Federation. The 97 % voted yes. The parliament of Crimea asked Putin for the annexation to the Southern Federal District.

USA version (NATO's too)
Russians occupied Ukrainian territory and after a null, illegal referendum declared the independence of Crimea and their annexation to Russia.

Italian V-PM's position
Crimea is a historical region of Russia and the referendum and annexation were legitimate. So therefore sanctions on Russia must be lifted at once.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even in jest. Who jokes about hacking into classified U.S. documents? What other attacks on U.S. government infrastructure would you consider comedic?

You're serious?
I thought it a hilarious way to mock Democratic security.

 

[sun rise]

From your link.....

As we can see, "partly" indicates no hard facts for us to address.
So far, all we see is speculation being called evidence.
When you have proof of collusion, then we'll talk.

Proof is established in a court of law or via impeachment and conviction.

But of course that did not stop you from disparaging Hillary Clinton many many times with no proof whatsoever about what she'd do as President. "What goes around, comes around"

 

[sun rise]

You're serious?
I thought it a hilarious way to mock Democratic security.

Attacking US elections is hilarious? That is so wrong on so many levels that I can't say what it causes me to think without getting in real trouble here.

 

[Sleeppy]

You're serious?
I thought it a hilarious way to mock Democratic security.

Amazing.. Says a lot about Trump supporters.

 

[Revoltingest]

But of course that did not stop you from disparaging Hillary Clinton many many times with no proof whatsoever about what she'd do as President. "What goes around, comes around"

You're confusing 2 different things. (This is a common canine brain
shortcoming in breeds lacking sufficient genetic diversity.)

1) To say Trump is guilty of colluding with Russians requires proof.

2) To guesstimate what policies Trump & Hillary would each effect in
office is necessary in order to decide which to vote for....or against.
Of course, one cannot prove prognostications. But one can look to
their records for an idea of what they'd likely do, ie, past is prologue.
There is no question which wars Hillary voted (in Congress) to start
& to continue.

I know it's great fun for Trump's most fervent foes to believe that
he colluded with Russians during the campaign. And there are
many bias confirming little tidbits flying around in the newsosphere.
You've been trying to find the smoking gun for a couple years now, yet
you've no basis for replacing him with Pence. Certainty is unwarranted.
When you get something solid, let me know.

Hey, do you think Pence will be better?
In what ways....SCOTUS picks?

 

[Revoltingest]

Attacking US elections is hilarious? That is so wrong on so many levels that I can't say what it causes me to think without getting in real trouble here.

Some love to take jokes seriously, making them impeachmentworthy.
But desire to believe does not make this delusion factual.
Conspiracies to collude just aren't started on national TV.

 

[Revoltingest]

Amazing.. Says a lot about Trump supporters.

I don't support him.
I look at individual policies, & either support or oppose those.
This is a different approach from many voters, who pick a
candidate, & then give total support towards their agenda, &
total opposition to the other's. My values are not candidate based.

Hey, I know the trick you're trying to pull. You far lefties really
hate Trump, & those of us who voted for that lesser of 2 evils.
In order to more easily demonize us, you call us all "supporters",
thus enabling you to heap your scorn for him upon us too.
I don't buy it, bub.
Learn to stick to the issues, & stop trying to make it personal.
If we disagree about something, then we disagree.

 

[Sleeppy]

I don't support him.
I look at individual policies, & either support or oppose those.
This is a different approach from many voters, who pick a
candidate, & then give total support towards their agenda, &
total opposition to the other's. My values are not candidate based.

Hey, I know the trick you're trying to pull. You far lefties really
hate Trump, & those of us who voted for that lesser of 2 evils.
In order to more easily demonize us, you call us all "supporters",
thus enabling you to heap your scorn for him upon us too.
I don't buy it, bub.
Learn to stick to the issues, & stop trying to make it personal.
If we disagree about something, then we disagree.

You obviously voted for him. You generally support(ed) him. I can't believe you would feel any shame in that, considering you support his joke about attacking the U.S. government. Says a lot about Trump voters.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What's the difference between u and me?

He can stay on topic?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

My Theory on Trump is that his personal wealth is all that matters and Putin has promised him the ability to put up Buildings and Sell under the Trump name same as The Saudi Princes. The only Reason he is turning on Canada, Europe and China is because they are blocking him. Its not about whats best for the US, its about what's best for Trump. The ad he showed Kim Jong Un was like the real estate ads for time shares.

That, and the simple fact that Trump clearly has major issues about self confidence, so, despite all the play acting as a statesman or strongman, when confronted with an actual one, his craven nature makes him utterly deferential. This is fairly common among bullies.