John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president (page 6)

Village Idiot

Hard evidence is completely lacking in the Trump dossier case, which is why we should question it.

Such "hard evidence" would compromise the manner in which intelligence is gathered which would not be in our national interest.

Simon

Such "hard evidence" would compromise the manner in which intelligence is gathered which would not be in our national interest.

Sometimes that makes sense, but in this case I think it's just an excuse.

The information they have release about the hack doesn't point to Russia anymore than it points to anywhere else.

You also can't escape the fact that the source for the "information" is someone paid by Trump opponents (Clintons?) to come up with dirt on him.

It comes back to "do we trust the CIA" and I say no. They are jackasses who want to sucker us into wars. Time and time and time again, 30 years later we learn what a pack of lies the 30+ year old conflicts were based on.

How about this time round we get a frickin' clue?

And Trump has the LEFT clamouring for everyone to trust the CIA and blame Russia. Unbelievable, he could sell anything.

bohm

Clinton admitted she deleted them but claims they were "just personal". We only have her word and I don't trust it,

No, we don't just have her word because there was an FBI investigation. You can say: I don't trust HRC, I don't trust the FBI, I don't trust the CIA, I don't trust the NSA, etc. etc. and I obviously can't convince you because you have specifically ruled out all sources of information that could influence your view. That is a world view which is robust in the sense you are unlikely to be challenged but I would ask you to consider if that kind of worldview is one you would find very convincing in other circumstances (I don't trust the scientific community, I don't trust the 9/11 commission, etc. etc.).

I don't see any reason to question his guilt or that investigation as there was actual evidence presented in court.

Yes but that evidence was collected by the FBI which can't be trusted.. or can they be trusted in this case? Who determines when the FBI can be trusted?

Hard evidence is completely lacking in the Trump dossier case, which is why we should question it.

The discussion is not about the Dossier, which I am nearly 100% certain is a fake, but that Russia influenced the election.

Simon

No, we don't just have her word because there was an FBI investigation. You can say: I don't trust HRC, I don't trust the FBI, I don't trust the CIA, I don't trust the NSA, etc. etc. and I obviously can't convince you because you have specifically ruled out all sources of information that could influence your view. That is a world view which is robust in the sense you are unlikely to be challenged but I would ask you to consider if that kind of worldview is one you would find very convincing in other circumstances (I don't trust the scientific community, I don't trust the 9/11 commission, etc. etc.).

The lack of logic in your statement is astounding. How good any investigation is (by the police, the FBI or whoever) really depends on how good that investigation is, not which agency conducted it. Are all police investigations good or all of them bad? It's possible there are some of both. We'd hope mostly good, but it comes down the specifics of any case.

The FBI investigation was lame, they still have never touched the server. They have only gone off what Clinton gave them and have identified, from other sources, emails that Clinton did NOT give them - that's how they know some were deleted and she did not hand them over despite A SUBPOENA !

She has destroyed evidence, to add to the crimes she was guilty of in the first place.

I don't trust or mistrust the FBI or anyone else as a default position (well, maybe mistrusting the CIA is healthy as a default setting). In a case like this, dripping of politics, it's important that it's investigated properly and that has not happened. Clinton made sure it could not happen and I don't buy that she was happy to make the tradeoff for the inevitable politically damaging consequences of doing that simply because there were some old family emails she wasn't bothered about anymore.

Wake up and smell the coffee, she's corrupt as shit and got caught. The reason the email scandal kept going and going was because getting "truth" out of her was like pulling teeth. She damaged herself with her lies and I'm not sorry that she was caught doing it.

The discussion is not about the Dossier, which I am nearly 100% certain is a fake, but that Russia influenced the election.

No. It's about whether Russia hacked the DNC and provided information to WikiLeaks to influence the election. The CIA have jumped on that to push the Trump - Russia blackmail link ... strange they would peddle such obvious tripe, almost as if it suited someone's agenda.

Assange says Russia was not the source and he has a much better track record than the CIA does (and I doubt he'd put the reputation of WikiLeaks on the line if it could be proven they were). I think a simpler explanation is that the DNC were incompetent (seriously, read how they were hacked - you don't need crack Russian hackers for that, just a few schoolkids).

But the CIA want to push a certain agenda, that Russia did it - I think they were trying to manipulate Trump but he didn't buy the crap they were trying to sell.

Awakenednow

The crimes are in the Wikileaks emails. Thousands of them. If you take the time to read them you'll see the bigger picture. The deep state act as arms and drug dealers (who do you think ( some of ) the CIA work for) all over the world and when countries don't play ball they get bombed with a big dose of democracy. Hilary is part of that group and it remains to be seen if trump is. It was supposed to be Hil v Jeb wasn't it? Y? Lybia was suing for peace when Hilary urged Obama to bomb them, Y? Congressman Kucinich was involved in the peace deal. Why has he been so quiet lately? The other congressman is in hiding. Y? Google it. So was France I.e. NATO, wanting control of Lybian oil fields, its in the emails, France complaining Ghadafi had to much gold and silver to hold out. One could conclude that the tragic embassy deaths were a sloppy cover up and the money was laundered somehow thru the Clinton foundation. It's funny how Ghadafi was for Obama and against Clinton (when running against each other) refusing to donate to the foundation and that other African nations followed his lead, and after his death they all started ponying up to the Clinton foundation. Look at the You-tube Gen Wesley Clarkes video about post 9/11 Middle East strategy straight from the dod. It's so much bigger then political parties, trump is not mussolini or Hitler, he's Trump and within his organization you'd be hard-pressed to find any who would characterize him as such a bad guy. give him a chance, think for yourself and do your own homework. The tv news people get paid to entertain us that's all, not report in total honesty. Hilary would have for sure followed the war with Russia drumbeats, ( see the Clarke statements) at least Trump isn't publicly yet. We will have to see about him. But if you are looking to sentimentally elect a leader (First black, woman, etc.) without properly vetting them, then we are all doomed. Watch Clinton chronicles , and verify its conclusions yourself, it's very interesting if you want clarity on the clintons.

And if that isn't enough, read up on the Lolita express. Bill and Hilary have both been to that island as the flight logs reflect. Sick people! Years ago I read the lawsuit transcripts due to a news headline. It's a buried story.

Look at Huma's family background, YouTube has some verifiable reports.

There is overwhelming evidence, but you have to do your own research' just like TTATT. First step is an open mind.

Simon

Here's a question to ask:

How did 650,000 Clinton emails get onto a laptop used by Anthony Weiner?

Oh, he's the husband of Clintons most trusted aide, Huma Abadin.

Doesn't it seem most likely that SHE put them there? or they were there because she was accessing them?

Now ask why would she do that? (and also why and how many other people had access to Clinton's email account).

I'm sure nothing to do with any islamist relatives she has, connected to islamist governments or groups ...

She definitely couldn't have copied them, no, definitely not. She just needed the 650,000 emails to ... erm, what?

Now tell me that Clinton, running her own server with democrat amateur-hour IT expertise, wasn't putting information at risk. Even if the server was secure (it wasn't), it looks like someone could download the lot onto an unsecure laptop. The emails were absolutely put at risk and her "I don't know what confidential means" is simply not good enough.

We know that undercover agents mentioned in HER emails were captured and killed.

And she just walks off, scott-free.

(and by "walk off", I of course mean "is loaded into a van like a grandfather clock").

Awakenednow

P.s.- which naughty emails have been proven untrue? Naughty is naughty maybe the Holy Spirit used Russia to reveal the Truth. 😱 Or did Russia create a Manchurian candidate Clinton into such a terrible candidate that trump kicked her butt? It was Russia behind it all. That king of the north. Oh my god! Trump is the stone from the mountain... ya that's it and why his son in law is buying up WT Brooklyn. It's all a gog scheme....for the end of the world. The end.

Awakenednow

Simon...haha grandfather clock!

Village Idiot

We'll see how far this gets. It's going to get uglier, that's for sure.

John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

Share this