Inconsistent; logically opposite DJT

1. 66

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   Putin denied interfering in the 2016 president election and Trump accepted his denial. Putin said,  “I got the impression that my answers satisfied him.”
   
   Trump took the word of the Russian autocrat over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Director of National Intelligence and the unanimous opinion of his entire national security team. This includes Mike Rogers, Trump’s NSA Director; Dan Coats, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence; and Mike Pompeo, Trump’s CIA Director. - https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-meetin … b820331cb3
   
   Trump left the G20 without holding a press conference.
   
   Moscow said Mr Trump accepted its denial of any election meddling, a claim later denied by the White House
   
   Putin joked about a reporter’s complaint that White House officials are providing no information about that topic of discussion when he met with President Trump on Friday.
   

   replyreport
2. 66

   ptosisposted 6 years ago

   Trump's Tweet from G20 Proves He Treats His Supporters Like Morons
   
     Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA. Disgraceful!     — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017
   
   Podesta:
   "I had nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee. . . So there was no DNC server for me to refuse to give, and I was never asked for one."
   
   Trump:
   "Questions were asked about why the CIA & FBI had to ask the DNC 13 times for their SERVER, and were rejected,"
   
   _______________________
   (Jan2017) Comey said to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the FBI made “multiple requests at different levels”.
   
   CrowdStrike, which Comey dubbed a “highly respected private company” was given access and shared its findings with the FBI.
   
   https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears- … committee/
   
   "Using a system called Falcon, a two-megabyte agent installed on systems without the need for a reboot, it profiled every action that occurred at a programme level on the hundreds of machines owned by the DNC. One clue might be a programme behaving abnormally; it might be the unusual transfer of millions of documents. "We're not looking at any personal data, any documents or emails," explains Alperovitch. "We're just looking at what is being executed." - http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dnc-hack … -democrats
   
   "The COZY BEAR intrusion relied primarily on the SeaDaddy implant developed in Python and compiled with py2exe and another Powershell backdoor with persistence accomplished via Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) system, which allowed the adversary to launch malicious code automatically after a specified period of system uptime or on a specific schedule. The Powershell backdoor is ingenious in its simplicity and power. It consists of a single obfuscated command setup to run persistently" - https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears- … committee/
   
   _______________________
   'Like giving the alarm code to the guys who just burglarized your home'
   _______________________
   Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded.. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
   
   Schiff said that it was "dangerously naive" to rely on the Russians for help. "The Russians want to take down liberal democracy,"
   
   Republican Sen. Marco Rubio also weighed in: "Partnering with Putin on a 'Cyber Security Unit' is akin to partnering with Assad on a 'Chemical Weapons Unit,'"
   
   James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence during the election said, “We saw no evidence that there was anyone involved other than the Russians.”
   
   
   McCain: Putin could offer 'enormous assistance' in cyber efforts 'since he is doing the hacking'
   © Greg Nash
   
   Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday joked that he thinks Russian President Vladimir Putin could be of "enormous assistance" regarding cybersecurity because he is the one doing the hacking.
   
   During an interview on CBS's "Face The Nation," McCain was asked about President Trump's earlier tweet in which the president said he talked with Putin during their meeting about creating an "impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to guard against election hacking.
   
   "I'm sure that Vladimir Putin could be of enormous assistance in that effort since he is doing the hacking," McCain said, laughing
   
   Clapper said Trump not taking a stiff line on Russian interference encourages Putin to "keep doing what he's doing ... They're going to stretch the envelope as far as they can to collect information and I think largely to, if I can use the military phrase, prep the battlefield for 2018 elections". - http://clicklancashire.com/2017/07/08/j … -more.html
   
   __________________________________
   
   Russian hacking group Energetic Bear. It's likely they are mapping out nuclear facilities for future attacks.
   
   The FBI and DHS gave this attack an amber warning. That's the second-highest threat level.
   
   You won't believe how easily these hackers infiltrated this highly secure power plant. They sent resumes to executives at the facilities.
   
   Those resumes included links. Whoever clicked on the links exposed their credentials to the hackers. Meaning, they potentially had access to restricted data about the nuclear facility. - https://www.komando.com/happening-now/407427/hackers-targeting-u-s-nuclear-facilities-according-to-fbi
   
   
   
   "We didn't meddle, just ask Trump," Putin told reporters. When one pointed out that the White House still hadn't released any proof one way or the other, Putin laughed and replied: "We'll talk to the White House and tell them to fix that."

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Putin laughed and replied: "We'll talk to the White House and tell them to fix that."
      
      Good luck with that - it's a little tough to prove that something didn't happen.  One the other hand, it seems just as tough to prove it did!

      replyreport
      1. 66

         ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Schiff, of the House Intelligence Committee, said that Russia could not be a credible partner in a cyber security unit.  "If that’s our best election defense, we might as well just mail our ballot boxes to Moscow,"
         
         Former CIA Director John Brennan; “He said it’s an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say,”
         
         Trump said he did not discuss new sanctions with Putin, contradicting Tillerson.
         
         Priebus said, "No that is not true. The president absolutely did not believe the denial of President Putin,"
         
         What a sad little sycophant {roll eyes} - Priebus,  you have no idea what Donald Trump "absolutely believes." Donald Trump has no idea what Donald Trump "absolutely believes."
         
         
         
         https://youtu.be/y6_ckWZCHW4
         
         
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Are you really trying to promote that because someone believes there was meddling by Russia it means it is so?
            
            How about providing who did it, what they did, where they did it and when instead of assuming it happened.  Proof that it was effective and useful would help, too!

            replyreport
            1. 66

               ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I did already. To gloss over it and ignore it is not my problem.
               
               It's as if FDR went to Tokyo and the Japanese convince him they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor and then set up a joint US-Japanese commission to ensure military tranquility in the Pacific region.
               
               
               Obama's response to Russian interfering in the 2016 elections:
               - Sign authorization for placement of cyber bombs into Russian infrastructure.
               - Talk to Putin directly and tell him to cut it out.
               - Seize two compounds where Russians were conducting spy activities on US soil.
               - Expulse 35 diplomats.
               - Assess risks for voting machine hacking.
               - Considers new sanctions but leaves it up to Trump administration to implement.
               
               Trump's response to Russian interfering in the 2016 election:
               - It could be anybody, may be.
               - Praises Putin as a better leader than Obama.
               - Invite Russians into the oval office and brag about how he fired the chief investigator who was investigating Russia's wrong doings to take "the pressure off."
               - Considers returning seized compounds.
               - Considers lifting sanctions put in place by Obama.
               - Disagrees with republican lawmakers on imposing new sanctions.
               - Making statements about Obama "doing nothing."
               
               Quiz:
               Can you spot the traitor?
               Out of these two men who is the disgrace to our country?
               
               https://youtu.be/uRRw0s6rPrA
               
               https://youtu.be/qeePXg0CM8E
               
               @ 16:00   Putin trolls the WH, smirking and laughing https://youtu.be/OE-m3riOBBE
               
                   The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!
                   — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2017

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  But, but...nowhere in there is there a name of anyone that did something.  Nowhere in there is what was done, or when it was done or where it was done.  Instead you provide Obama's response to supposed (still no evidence) of Russian involvement.  You provide that Trump said something to the effect that maybe it was a good thing.  But nowhere is there any proof of anything at all, just circumstantial evidence that a politician said or did something sometimes in response to assumed tampering, sometimes in response to something totally different.
                  
                  You'd make a lousy jurist.

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Prosecutors can rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence, and courts usually tell juries that neither type of evidence is necessarily superior.
                     
                     The circumstantial evidence jury instruction tells the jury that in order to convict a defendant based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must not only find that the circumstantial evidence is consistent with defendant’s guilt, but also that the evidence is not reasonably consistent with innocence. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/re … uction.htm
                     
                     You make a lousy professor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Right.  That someone probably drove by the area of a robbery is as good as a video of them robbing a store.  And that Russians were spying on American soil, Obama seized two compounds because of it and Trump thought about giving them back means that they also interfered with the election.  Got it.
                        
                        You do realize how inane that sounds?

                        replyreport
                        1. 66

                           ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, I fully realize how inane whatever you just said sounds StrawMan.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Absolutely!  It's a straw man argument because you can't support your claims.  Works every time, doesn't it?

                              replyreport
                              1. 66

                                 ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 I cut and pasted straight out of Black's law and you squeezed something out of your nether regions - so yeah if you are sitting on the toilet it 'works every time".
                                 
                                 All presumptive evidence is circumstantial, because necessarily derived from or made up of circumstances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive, that is, it does not operate in the way of presumption, being sometimes of a higher grade, and lending to necessary conclusions, instead of probable ones - http://thelawdictionary.org/circumstantial-evidence/
                                 
                                 You can't deny the fact of circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    And your so-valuable circumstantial evidence is "that Russians were spying on American soil, Obama seized two compounds because of it and Trump thought about giving them back means that they also interfered with the election. ".  What I said before, but that is such a stretch it is absolutely meaningless and without any value at all.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 66

                                       ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       I never mentioned Obama compounds - only you. Quit making a false history of what I wrote. You're a liar if you make up stuff and then say that I wrote that. You lie about what the other person posted - and then knock them down with your own straw-man logical fallacy. What a master-debater you are!  You say something stupid, then say that I said that, then knock down your own statement.
                                       
                                       You don't really need me do you? Just go back to talking to you voices in you head.
                                       
                                       Why don't you mention Trump Jr's email and confession? You won't accept a public confession neither?
                                       
                                       Donald Trump Jr. released images of an email exchange Tuesday that show he was contacted in June 2016 about a meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer. At that meeting, he was told, he could obtain “some official documents and information that would incriminate” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
                                       
                                       “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump ― helped along by Aras and Emin,” Goldstone added. “What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?”
                                       
                                       Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it.”
                                       
                                       __________________
                                       Riddle me that Batman.
                                       
                                       
                                       

                                       report
                     2. 61

                        Gladys Gladyshunposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                        Both types of evidence can be used to prove the guilt of the defendant, and courts usually instruct juries that neither type of evidence is necessarily more or less reliable than the other. It is up to the jury to consider all of the evidence and decide whether the prosecution has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. https://miamicriminaldefense.com/miami- … -attorney/

                        replyreport
            2. 0

               promisemposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               "Someone believes"? Do you mean the independent counsel, CIA, FBI, NSA, congressional intellience committees, etc? Are they all making it up? Did Trump Jr. simply dream about his collusion meeting? Did the six other Trump associates lie about their Russian meetings?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, but I haven't seen any report from CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. that there was "collusion".  Unless you want to claim that any time words are exchanged it becomes "collusion"?
                  
                  And of course we're still all left wondering just what the Russians did that was so terrible, unethical and illegal...

                  replyreport
                  1. 66

                     ptosisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     Oh, so you are avoiding Trump Jr's public written confession with his entire email chain?

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Confession of what?  Speaking to foreign nationals?  I've done that when visiting Mexico, England, Scotland, etc. and so has every dignitary on the payroll.  Somehow collection of information has become something terrible, dirty and, according to some, deserving of the death penalty.

                        replyreport
3. 93

   Readmikenowposted 15 months ago

   From the American Bar Association...
   
   Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
   
   Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016. 
   
   Mueller concluded his 22-month investigation and submitted a report to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, March 22. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the report over the weekend and filed a four-page summary of the report to Congress Sunday afternoon that was also released to the public.
   
   https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanew … n/election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Gladys Gladyshunposted 5 months ago

   Great info for the American Bar Association Litigation

   replyreport