Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

The group to which, Bush, Clinton. Obama, Cheney, Kerry, Brennan, Comey, McCain, McConnell all belong, but which you're too partisan to recognize, has you regurgitating their status quo rot night and day.

 

If I'm regurgitating rot, why are you unable to rebut it except with name-calling?

 

That you regurgitate The Economist and Foreign Affairs talking points night and day?

 

Since I don't read either, that's really weird.

 

Their spew is briefed to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC daily at 0430 where it is regurgitated into your brain

 

I see. And what, exactly, have I written to demonstrate I have been brainwashed? Especially because I don't watch broadcast news, either?

 

Then you pick up their headlines on the net

 

Let's do that then:

Assange has BEEN effectively silenced. He no longer has access to the internet at all, is not permitted visitors and can get nothing out into the public domain. He has been completely silenced and isolated by the new Ecuadorian administration who are about to throw him to the wolves --- even though Ecuador granted him political immunity and sanctuary in their London Embassy years ago. They later gave him Ecuadorian citizenship too.

To repeat: the mainstream media have ignored his offer and not reported this, which he had earlier posted about on his Twitter and FB accounts. The authorities and investigators (Mueller for example) have ignored that offer to provide proof. When an investigator ignores any evidence it is because they have an agenda. And Mueller does have an agenda.

Meanwhile, Murray has spoken of this a number times on his blog, Twitter and FB pages and he has expressed frustration that the media refuse to interview him about it --- but if the media won't take up his story -- and they won't -- then he's talking only to those who follow those feeds.

***

This is why Mueller shouldn't be trusted. He's got form following false narratives.

Watch and weep:

 

Russian interference is not a fact. It's an allegation made by notoriously deceitful government officials with an obvious political agenda.

 

Along with the fact that known Russian assets were reaching out to the Trump campaign about this very sort of stuff. And there is bipartisan agreement, and even Trump himself now (begrudgingly) acknowledges the facts. So the whole "obvious political agenda" is complete nonsense.

 

None of that amounts to "interference" in the election. The elections proceeded in accordance with established norms and laws. Trump won fair and square. No proof of "interference" has ever been produced.

 

When they make contact offering to help one campaign against the other using hacked emails and the like to do so, while trying to cover up their activity, then yes, that is "interference." And let's not forget the fact that they also tried hacking voter rolls. Yes, Trump did win fair and square, as I've said myself several times. Even the interference doesn't change that. Nor does his win change the fact that the Russians interfered. The only legal question here is whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with them to do so. The will to do so has already been proven on both sides, so the only question is how much they followed through on.

 

Facts not in evidence. There is absolutely no proof that the Russian government hacked anyone's emails, let alone offered those emails to the Trump campaign.

That is not a fact. It is an allegation made by the government. When will people learn the difference between those two things?

"Interference" implies that something prevented the election from proceeding properly, but you have just acknowledged that Trump won fair and square. How do you reconcile those two positions?

Also, how can that be a "legal" question when there is no law against collusion?

 

The GRU officials all used their government issued computers in their offices dont you know?

 

lol

 

Except we already know for a fact that Russian assets reached out to the Trump campaign to offer such material . . . based on the admission of Trump campaign members

I never did understand how Trumpeters thought they had something here just because the charge isn't called "collusion." Collusion is a layman's term -- an umbrella term that includes things like criminal conspiracy, which of course there are laws against.

 

No, "we" do not know that at all. The only thing we know is that a Russian lawyer met with Trump Jr. and offered him a bunch of worthless opposition research.

I'm not a Trump supporter. Didn't vote for him; didn't campaign for him; didn't contribute a single dollar to him.

And if you're relying on "layman's terms" to make a LEGAL argument, you really have no argument. But feel free to cite the specific statute that Trump supposedly violated.

 

Actually, we don't know it was worthless. We know that she had government ties and that Trump Jr, Kushner and Manafort met with her for the express purpose of colluding with the Russian government to tip the scales of the election. We also know that they lied to try to cover it up. We also know she was after their help on the Magnitsky Act. You can continue believing the people who lied to you about every other detail of that meeting if you wish, and maybe Russia really did fail to follow through, but it doesn't change the fact that it proves a willingness to collude on both ends.

And, no, that wasn't the only such meeting. You are forgetting Papadopoulos.

I'm clarifying a term for you that you really should know by now, not making a legal argument. Junior, Kushner and Manafort at the very least plotted to do exactly what they are accused of and took steps toward doing so. If Mueller wants to, he can pursue that alone as criminal conspiracy, regardless of whether or not the underlying felony that they planned was successful. The fact that the charge isn't called "collusion" means absolutely nothing.

 

This is hilarious.

More fake news with the goal of undermining the actual facts of WTF happened.

If this clown who has worked for so long on uncovering guccifer 2.0 has NO ACCESS to the technical data required to make any intelligent assessement. He doesn't have access to the internet backbone and multiple servers around the world. He doesn't have access to humint or commint.

Nah, hes' just a british guy that has some technical capability with his own agenda.

So naturally that is more than sufficient to claim that the mueller indictments are a bogus deep state anti trump conspiracy.

keep swingin' at the fences, but the game is over.

 

It's part of the play book isn't it, when confronted start the ad hominem attacks.

 

So where is your proof that the opposition research contained hacked emails?

YOU SAID the only LEGAL question that remains is whether or not they colluded. I merely pointed out the fact that "collusion" isn't actually a crime, and therefore not really a legal question. So if you're going to use "layman's terms" to make LEGAL arguments, you should not be surprised when someone points out your error.

And we've already been over this before: There is no proof of a felony having been committed by Trump Jr. After I posted an analysis from two Stanford legal scholars on the issue of campaign finance laws, you simply left the thread never to return. Yet here you are in another thread promoting the same dubious rationale.

 

I think you were born in the wrong place and wrong time. Such a commitment to one's government, right or wrong, would have make Hitler proud.

 

meanwhile you praise Russians for literally worshipping Putin.

irony huh?

 

For his integrity Ronstar, for his integrity. Something you could never understand.

 

You are misinformed

Stipped Horse is not even an American much less part of the US government