THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[andnowweknow]

Why? I enjoy watching you dine on the rocks that your ilk hurled for 2 years. You lost and look stupid losing.

 

[WTF2008]

I'm unaware of this retarded defense.

Are you saying that the trump campaign gets a pass for working with russia (with a wikileaks intermediary) because the information they received was publicly available already?

WTF

 

[Darkballs]

WTF

I'm trying to figure out his point.

 

[SBJJ]

I'm unaware of this retarded defense.

Are you saying that the trump campaign gets a pass for working with russia (with a wikileaks intermediary) because the information they received was publicly available already?

I'm simply asking you to source what you are claiming

I'm thinking you are really confused

ONE MORE FUCKING TIME. Source what info Wikileaks passed on to the Trump campaign. If you can't provide this info then you are simply talking out your ass. Something you might be known for

 

[SBJJ]

WTF

Yea. He's really making no sense

 

[Darkballs]

I'm simply asking you to source what you are claiming

I'm thinking you are really confused

ONE MORE FUCKING TIME. Source what info Wikileaks passed on to the Trump campaign. If you can't provide this info then you are simply talking out your ass. Something you might be known for

What are you talking about? Are you not aware that Wikileaks received information from russian actors, and passed that information along? Is that what you are asking me to source?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And what did Mueller say???????

That trump used wikileaks as a go between, even though he knew where they got their info from.

Mueller only distinguishes that there isn't that direct link from trump campaign - russia, but rather trump campaign - wikileaks - russia.

You want to champion that point as if it exonerates trump, you go ahead.

Nope, Mueller is not only saying there is no direct link. He explicitly said there was no conspiracy, direct or indirect.

 

[SBJJ]

I'm trying to figure out his point.

I'm assuming you can't see how you are looking here

 

[Darkballs]

Nope, Mueller is not only saying there is no direct link. He explicitly said there was no conspiracy, direct or indirect.

Simply not true.

And stop ignoring "the link." You're doing everything in your power to avoid talking about it. Only demanding that I accept your distorted notion of what Mueller concluded, when his the entire opening section of his report was to clearly state his decision not to indict was in response to a DOJ policy.

 

[SBJJ]

What are you talking about? Are you not aware that Wikileaks received information from russian actors, and passed that information along? Is that what you are asking me to source?

You are very confused

Again. What info did Wikileaks provide to the Trump campaign. Because you are not gonna find it in the report. So again, provide something to back up your claim that contradicts the Mueller report

 

[Darkballs]

You are very confused

Again. What info did Wikileaks provide to the Trump campaign.

Vol. 1; Pages 53-54
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-61

 

[WTF2008]

I'm trying to figure out his point.

There's nothing to figure out. WikiLeaks was an independent source. One of many that had the secretary of states emails because she kept a private unsecured server.

This moron was almost the President.
Trump had nothing to do with them.

 

[Darkballs]

There's nothing to figure out. WikiLeaks was an independent source. One of many that had the secretary of states emails because she kept a private unsecured server.

This moron was almost the President.
Trump had nothing to do with them.

What? Clinton's personal server was not what was stolen by the russians. The russians hacked the DNC servers, passed that to wikileaks, who leaked it. Trump campaign knew about that and worked with wikileaks, and lied about doing so.

Where is the confusion? And really, a "but hillary?"

 

[GSP_37]

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf

133MB download

 

[SBJJ]

Vol. 1; Pages 53-54
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-61

Vol. 1; Pages 53-54
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-61

So the info recieved from Wikileaks was that Emails would be released(something already in the public domain)

How is that info? They did not send any stolen info to the campaign? They simply said some would be released...Wikileaks also made this public before

So again, what illegally obtained information did Wikileaks give to the administration? You have on numerous times now said they were q middleman for stolen emails

 

[WTF2008]

Vol. 1; Pages 53-54
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html#g-page-61

What point are you trying to make here?

"According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks"

Read it again and tell me how this is in any way collusion?

Planning part of your campaign based on information that may be publically released by a non-profit organization is somehow collusion?

Those sneaky Russians.

 

[SBJJ]

What? Clinton's personal server was not what was stolen by the russians. The russians hacked the DNC servers, passed that to wikileaks, who leaked it. Trump campaign knew about that and worked with wikileaks, and lied about doing so.

Where is the confusion? And really, a "but hillary?"

Wait. So now you are saying the campaign simply worked with Wikileaks. Are you abandoning your claim they passed off stolen emails to the campaign?

 

[SBJJ]

What point are you trying to make here?

"According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks"

Read it again and tell me how this is in any way collusion?

Planning part of your campaign based on information that may be publically released by a non-profit organization is somehow collusion?

Those sneaky Russians.

I think he's just clueless

 

[Darkballs]

So the info recieved from Wikileaks was that Emails would be released(something already in the public domain)

The fact that was in the public domain does not mitigate the fact that it was first put there by theft, when the russian state hacked the servers. And the link shows that the trump campaign new about this.

Are you arguing that wikileaks got that information from another source?

 

[Darkballs]

What point are you trying to make here?

"According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks"

Read it again and tell me how this is in any way collusion?

Because the trump campaign know that this information was first obtained by russian intelligence, given to wikileaks, whom the trump campaign coordinated with in the timing and release of such info.

Those sneaky Russians.

I'd say when trump himself was mentioning it at a campaign rally, it wasn't too sneaky.