Technical question for legal minds

[Anthony Marsh]

To throw a bone to the WC defenders, let's say arguendo that Oswald had
confessed before he was killed. Then would they not need to present any
evidence in court for everyone to assume that he was guilty? Would that
silence the Anybody But Oswald kooks who claim that you can't say that
Oswald was guilty because he never had a trial? I am thinking back to
many real cases and some movies where kooks plead guilty to crimes they
could not possibly have committed. So police simply dismiss them as
kooks and keep looking for the real killer.

Just today we had a case where the criminal pleaded guilty, but Trump
supporters claim there is no evidence and no trial. Will there be a
Flynn Innocence Campaign? FIC

[claviger]

It's easy to see your heritage goes back to the Salem Witch Trials.
Didn't your ancestors torture witches to get confessions?

Flynn was guilty of lying to the Vice President about phone calls with
Russians prior to the election. That's all we know at this point. The
obvious question is what impact did those conversations have if any, on
the US Presidential election? Did the Russians say we like Trump better
and punch a button that automated victory?

Trump had campaigned on a better economic relationship with Russia so
there was no secret about what his policy would be if elected. Since the
Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware of his
desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
customer for US products.

This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
"A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/6/2017 6:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 3:57:43 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> To throw a bone to the WC defenders, let's say arguendo that Oswald had
>> confessed before he was killed. Then would they not need to present any
>> evidence in court for everyone to assume that he was guilty? Would that
>> silence the Anybody But Oswald kooks who claim that you can't say that
>> Oswald was guilty because he never had a trial? I am thinking back to
>> many real cases and some movies where kooks plead guilty to crimes they
>> could not possibly have committed. So police simply dismiss them as
>> kooks and keep looking for the real killer.
>> Just today we had a case where the criminal pleaded guilty, but Trump
>> supporters claim there is no evidence and no trial. Will there be a
>> Flynn Innocence Campaign? FIC
>
> It's easy to see your heritage goes back to the Salem Witch Trials.
> Didn't your ancestors torture witches to get confessions?
>

Didn't yyou say that before? SPAM.

> Flynn was guilty of lying to the Vice President about phone calls with
> Russians prior to the election. That's all we know at this point. The

False. Trump said he lied to the FBI. That is a crime and Mueller can use
it as leveral to flip Flynn against Trump. Remember that the court filing
says nothing about his son. At this stage he might not mind going to jail
for 5 years, but he doesn't want his son to go to jail for 5 years. It's
not a cheerful place.

> obvious question is what impact did those conversations have if any, on
> the US Presidential election? Did the Russians say we like Trump better
> and punch a button that automated victory?
>
> Trump had campaigned on a better economic relationship with Russia so
> there was no secret about what his policy would be if elected. Since the

The secret was just revealed today that Flynn was saying on Inauguration
Dat that after being sworn in Trum would lift the sanctions against
Russia. That's what it's all about, not whether he could get the Miss
Universe Pageant in Moscow or Trump Tower in Moscow. Putin wanted
something for his help.

> Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware of his
> desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
> reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
> beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
> customer for US products.
>

Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
sanctions. That's about $62B US.

> This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
> set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
> "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
> Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
> Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.
>
>

WTF are you talking about? Don't even mention JFK's name in the same
sentence with Donald Trump.

[claviger]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:16:38 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 12/6/2017 6:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2017 at 3:57:43 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> To throw a bone to the WC defenders, let's say arguendo that Oswald had
> >> confessed before he was killed. Then would they not need to present any
> >> evidence in court for everyone to assume that he was guilty? Would that
> >> silence the Anybody But Oswald kooks who claim that you can't say that
> >> Oswald was guilty because he never had a trial? I am thinking back to
> >> many real cases and some movies where kooks plead guilty to crimes they
> >> could not possibly have committed. So police simply dismiss them as
> >> kooks and keep looking for the real killer.
> >> Just today we had a case where the criminal pleaded guilty, but Trump
> >> supporters claim there is no evidence and no trial. Will there be a
> >> Flynn Innocence Campaign? FIC
> > It's easy to see your heritage goes back to the Salem Witch Trials.
> > Didn't your ancestors torture witches to get confessions?
> Didn't yyou say that before? SPAM.

No, but the Salem Witch Trials are common knowledge and the brutal
treatment to coerce a confession.

> > Flynn was guilty of lying to the Vice President about phone calls with
> > Russians prior to the election. That's all we know at this point. The
> False. Trump said he lied to the FBI. That is a crime and Mueller can use
> it as leveral to flip Flynn against Trump. Remember that the court filing
> says nothing about his son. At this stage he might not mind going to jail
> for 5 years, but he doesn't want his son to go to jail for 5 years. It's
> not a cheerful place.

Lying to the FBI by politicians is nothing new. If they put every
politician who did behind bars the prisons would be overcrowded. Not a
bad idea though. Clinton lied about Benghazi and Lois Learner lied about
abuse of power at the IRS. Both arrogant serial abusers belong inside a
Federal prison mopping floors.

> > obvious question is what impact did those conversations have if any, on
> > the US Presidential election? Did the Russians say we like Trump better
> > and punch a button that automated victory?
> > Trump had campaigned on a better economic relationship with Russia so
> > there was no secret about what his policy would be if elected. Since the
> The secret was just revealed today that Flynn was saying on Inauguration
> Dat that after being sworn in Trum would lift the sanctions against
> Russia.

So what? Trump could have said that during the campaign. If he did then
it's public knowledge. He did speak about a better trade relationship
with Russia so lifting sanctions would be obvious to achieve that goal.

> That's what it's all about, not whether he could get the Miss
> Universe Pageant in Moscow or Trump Tower in Moscow.
> Putin wanted something for his help.

What help? How could Putin help elect Trump? In our democracy a
candidate can say "I think we should lift sanctions on Russia if they make
peace with the Ukraine." The opponent can reply "No that is a terrible
idea! You can't trust the Rooskies!" Then they debate the Pros and Cons
and let the voters decide.

> > Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware of his
> > desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
> > reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
> > beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
> > customer for US products.
> Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
> sanctions. That's about $62B US.
> > This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
> > set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
> > "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
> > Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
> > Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.
> WTF are you talking about? Don't even mention JFK's name in the same
> sentence with Donald Trump.

So now you are the self imposed speech Nazi for the Newsgroup? No more
First Amendment rights on this Google Group! Have you notified McAdams
and Google of your putsch on the ROC policy?

Stop trying to bully everyone on this discussion forum. Mind your manners
and behave yourself. You can't change history no matter how many tantrums
you have. President Kennedy wanted tax cuts across the economy to revive
US productivity and it worked great! Reagan was a copycat success.
Trump took notice and borrowed the same policy to reenergize our current
economy which is limping along.

President Kennedy initiated a new policy with Russia of peaceful
coexistence. Reagan followed his lead and supported Gorbachev initiatives
of perestroika and glasnost. Trump wants to finish that process using
economic agreements with Putin. NATO needs oil to stay viable as an
economic partnership. As trade partners the US can influence Russian
policy with a big carrot instead of a big stick. Peace and prosperity for
both economies can generate an era of peaceful coexistence. Now Democrats
are trying to screw up that opportunity by sounding like the new war
mongers of US politics.

[Anthony Marsh]

Russian Mafia money. Digging up dirt on his opponents. Hacking Hillary's
e-mails and leaking them to Wikileaks.

> candidate can say "I think we should lift sanctions on Russia if they make
> peace with the Ukraine." The opponent can reply "No that is a terrible

That's not what Trump said. He said, you help me win the election and
I'll the sanctions.

> idea! You can't trust the Rooskies!" Then they debate the Pros and Cons
> and let the voters decide.
>
>>> Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware of his
>>> desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
>>> reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
>>> beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
>>> customer for US products.
>> Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
>> sanctions. That's about $62B US.
>>> This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
>>> set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
>>> "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
>>> Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
>>> Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.
>> WTF are you talking about? Don't even mention JFK's name in the same
>> sentence with Donald Trump.
>
> So now you are the self imposed speech Nazi for the Newsgroup? No more

Yes, because no one else has the courage to do it.

> First Amendment rights on this Google Group! Have you notified McAdams
> and Google of your putsch on the ROC policy?
>

What?
You have some gall to talk about first amendment rights. I encourage the
WC defenders to say the most stupid and racist things they can dream up.

> Stop trying to bully everyone on this discussion forum. Mind your manners

I don't have any power to bullt, only to complain.

> and behave yourself. You can't change history no matter how many tantrums
> you have. President Kennedy wanted tax cuts across the economy to revive

History is written by the victors, not necessarily the truth.

> US productivity and it worked great! Reagan was a copycat success.

I like your attempt to latch onto Kennedy to justify you reasoning, but
he was not able to pass his reforms. LBJ is the one who did that.
So you want to go back to the JFK era and pay 91% taxes? Fine with me.

> Trump took notice and borrowed the same policy to reenergize our current
> economy which is limping along.
>

Nonsense. Trump has done absokutely NOTHING. They can't even name a post
office after Ronald Reagan because the Freedom Causus thinks he was a
Liberal.

> President Kennedy initiated a new policy with Russia of peaceful
> coexistence. Reagan followed his lead and supported Gorbachev initiatives
> of perestroika and glasnost. Trump wants to finish that process using

Yes. I have never said that Reagan never did anything good. He held an
AIDS baby.

> economic agreements with Putin. NATO needs oil to stay viable as an
> economic partnership. As trade partners the US can influence Russian

Silly. This is not about NATO. It is about Exxon and Russia.

> policy with a big carrot instead of a big stick. Peace and prosperity for
> both economies can generate an era of peaceful coexistence. Now Democrats
> are trying to screw up that opportunity by sounding like the new war
> mongers of US politics.
>

Russia is not our ally, it is our enemy.

[mainframetech]

Then you must want serial abusers Roy Moore and Trump behind bars too,
seeing as how the evidence against them is easily proved. Trump admitted
his crimes himself, and in Moore's case, there were up to 30 corroborating
witnesses gathered by the Washington Post. An overwhelming number. It
has also been stated by an attorney that only about 3% of women that bring
this kind of info forward are lying. The odds alone convict those two.
And since Franken is on his way out, pushed out by the democrats, it's
time for the Republicans to push Trump and Moore out too. But naturally
they will defend the abusers so they can continue in power.

As to Clinton lying about Benghazi, it would seem hard to prove since
the Republicans held a hearing for up to 18 months and still couldn't find
enough dirt on her to get her in trouble with the law. And if you're
going to say she eeled out of it, then she proved her ability as a
successful politician. Something Trump still has to prove.

> > > obvious question is what impact did those conversations have if any, on
> > > the US Presidential election? Did the Russians say we like Trump better
> > > and punch a button that automated victory?
> > > Trump had campaigned on a better economic relationship with Russia so
> > > there was no secret about what his policy would be if elected. Since the

> > The secret was just revealed today that Flynn was saying on Inauguration
> > Dat that after being sworn in Trum would lift the sanctions against
> > Russia.
>
> So what? Trump could have said that during the campaign. If he did then
> it's public knowledge. He did speak about a better trade relationship
> with Russia so lifting sanctions would be obvious to achieve that goal.
>
> > That's what it's all about, not whether he could get the Miss
> > Universe Pageant in Moscow or Trump Tower in Moscow.
> > Putin wanted something for his help.
>
> What help? How could Putin help elect Trump? In our democracy a
> candidate can say "I think we should lift sanctions on Russia if they make
> peace with the Ukraine." The opponent can reply "No that is a terrible
> idea! You can't trust the Rooskies!" Then they debate the Pros and Cons
> and let the voters decide.
>

You apparently have no clue the power of social media like Twitter,
Face book and others. The Russians have ben proved to have sued those
conduits to reach as many as 150 million Americans and psychological
means, to turn them to vote for Trump or change, either one. The
difference that won the election was 80,000 votes. Not a lot to turn over
with the right methods. And it's illegal for any foreign country to
meddle in the elections, or to help them do it.

> > > Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware of his
> > > desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
> > > reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
> > > beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
> > > customer for US products.

Total baloney. The Russians have never had any problem stealing any
technology they wanted from us. Why buddy up to us for what they can get
for nothing?

> > Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
> > sanctions. That's about $62B US.

> > > This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
> > > set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
> > > "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
> > > Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
> > > Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.

Are you blind to the direction Putin has made clear he wants to go in?
He has no problem walking into Crimea and grabbing it, and now he's
looking to walk into Ukraine and do the same thing. He's made it clear
he's not interested in being friends for any reason. He's only interested
in running the world, but will settle for sharing it with China for now,
since Trump has backed us out of contention and leadership in the world,
and made us look like chickens afraid to deal with the big world outside.

> > WTF are you talking about? Don't even mention JFK's name in the same
> > sentence with Donald Trump.
>
> So now you are the self imposed speech Nazi for the Newsgroup? No more
> First Amendment rights on this Google Group! Have you notified McAdams
> and Google of your putsch on the ROC policy?
>
> Stop trying to bully everyone on this discussion forum. Mind your manners
> and behave yourself. You can't change history no matter how many tantrums
> you have. President Kennedy wanted tax cuts across the economy to revive
> US productivity and it worked great! Reagan was a copycat success.
> Trump took notice and borrowed the same policy to reenergize our current
> economy which is limping along.
>
> President Kennedy initiated a new policy with Russia of peaceful
> coexistence. Reagan followed his lead and supported Gorbachev initiatives
> of perestroika and glasnost. Trump wants to finish that process using
> economic agreements with Putin. NATO needs oil to stay viable as an
> economic partnership. As trade partners the US can influence Russian
> policy with a big carrot instead of a big stick. Peace and prosperity for
> both economies can generate an era of peaceful coexistence. Now Democrats
> are trying to screw up that opportunity by sounding like the new war
> mongers of US politics.

That's all blaoney. Putin has no intention of working on relations
with the USA, and has pretended to that many times in the past. He played
that card with Trump and the very next day had his planes bomb a hospital
in Syria.

Trump is not trying for any legitimate connection with Russia, he's
being manipulated by Putin for some reason and is avoiding saying anything
bad about him. Whether the 'Dossier' is the reason I don't know, but it's
very possible.

Chris

[claviger]

Why did those accusers not step forward at the time? A couple decades
later smells like politics and play for pay. Did the stories grow over
time? Assuming the stories are true politicians who have engaged in this
kind of behavior from Bill Clinton to Anthony Wiener to Al Franken and
celebrities David Letterman, Matt Lauer, Charle Rose, Liberals one and
all, should suffer the consequences of bad behavior.

Add Bill Clinton and Hillary the Fixer to the list and big mouth James
Carville who called their victims "trailer park trash" to the list of
shame. If Trump is guilty of sexual harassment he can go too. Let Mike
Pence take it from here. He would make a splendid President.

> Trump admitted his crimes himself, and in Moore's case, there were up
> to 30 corroborating witnesses gathered by the Washington Post.

A lawyer would correct your statement to 30 alleged witnesses.

> An overwhelming number. It has also been stated by an attorney that only
> about 3% of women that bring this kind of info forward are lying. The odds
> alone convict those two.

Gosh, if an attorney offered that opinion then it must be true!

> And since Franken is on his way out, pushed out by the democrats, it's
> time for the Republicans to push Trump and Moore out too. But naturally
> they will defend the abusers so they can continue in power.

Franken admitted he was guilty and said he was sorry. Where is your
compassion for this Liberal gone astray?

> As to Clinton lying about Benghazi, it would seem hard to prove since
> the Republicans held a hearing for up to 18 months and still couldn't find
> enough dirt on her to get her in trouble with the law.

If we believe sources close to the situation two weeks before the attack
US State Department was warned of the impending threat from many sources
in Benghazi. Clinton was head of that department. Her excuse she was too
busy with wedding planning and she was just the Secretary in that
department anyway, so why blame her?

> And if you're going to say she eeled out of it, then she proved her ability
> as a successful politician.

Which definition of eeling did you mean?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Eeling

> Something Trump still has to prove.

Prove he can do eeling too? But according to you Hillary is a pro and
he's just an amateur so not a fair comparison. If I understand your point
eeling is slimy business and Hillary has much more practice for reasons
we're all aware of.

I prefer an old fashioned simile. To paraphrase your point, Hillary
weaseled out of it so she deserves a promotion to Weasel-in-Chief of the
US Military, a top position to inject the Executive Branch of government
with weaselitus. I see your point. There is continuity and consistency
to that suggestion.

Meddle in what way? The Internet is worldwide and the Russians can
broadcast TV News from Russia about the weather, economy and US elections.
They editorialize just like we do. I've asked several times on the
Newsgroup what exactly did the Russians do to make any US citizens vote
for Trump instead of Hideaway Hillary? Democrats now blame FBI Comey for
her downfall.

The Democrats are mad at Republicans over Congressional hearings over
Benghazi and her Home Server Scandal. Did the Russians tip off the press
about that? If so that means they hacked her server which never should
have been vulnerable in the first place if Hillary followed proper
protocol and security guidelines. Therefore, she logically has only
herself to blame for that blunder. From what I can tell she has a smooth
spot on her brain where wrinkles should be.

> > > > Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware
> > > > of his desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
> > > > reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
> > > > beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
> > > > customer for US products.
> Total baloney. The Russians have never had any problem stealing any
> technology they wanted from us. Why buddy up to us for what they can
> get for nothing?

Putin wants US technology and expertise in the oil business. He doesn't
trust the Chinese and has troubles in the Caucus region. Putin trusts
Tillerson and likes Trump. A deal with the US might be popular with the
Russian people in search of a robust economy and a lucrative market to
sell Russian products to.

> > > Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
> > > sanctions. That's about $62B US.
> > > > This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
> > > > set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
> > > > "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
> > > > Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
> > > > Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.
> Are you blind to the direction Putin has made clear he wants to go in?
> He has no problem walking into Crimea and grabbing it, and now he's
> looking to walk into Ukraine and do the same thing.

You don't know Russian history. The Crimea historically belonged to
Russia not the Ukraine. Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Ukraine to
dodge some international debt. He did this unilaterally with an executive
order. The rest of the Kremlin was outraged but could do nothing about it
at the time. Putin was aware of this history of course. He knew all he
had to do is have a free election to get it back. He didn't bother
stealing the election or advertising and he was right. The economic
benefits to Russian management were well known and the Crimea election was
a landslide over economic issues.

I had all this explained to me by a Ukrainian doctor whose father was
Russian and mother was Ukrainian. If Putin stops with this transaction no
problems. If he tries to envelop all the Ukraine there will be civil war,
something he does not need because he already has one going on in the
North Caucasus region. If he could make a deal with Trump it would enhance
his position with NATO and open new markets for the Russian economy.

> He's made it clear he's not interested in being friends for any reason.

Not true.

> He's only interested in running the world, but will settle for sharing it
> with China for now,

Maybe, right now Putin could use an economic partner with the best
technology to efficiently get oil out of the ground and good refineries to
efficiently process it into petrol for sale to the highest bidder. What
the Russians need more than anything is the same magic pills we need,
profits to expand the economy. Profits empower any economy and done right
spread the wealth to all levels of productivity.

> since Trump has backed us out of contention and leadership in the world,
> and made us look like chickens afraid to deal with the big world outside.

Obama already did that. Trump is doing damage control for a lot of bad
judgment by Kerry and Obama.

> > > WTF are you talking about? Don't even mention JFK's name in the same
> > > sentence with Donald Trump.
> > So now you are the self imposed speech Nazi for the Newsgroup? No more
> > First Amendment rights on this Google Group! Have you notified McAdams
> > and Google of your putsch on the ROC policy?
> > Stop trying to bully everyone on this discussion forum. Mind your manners
> > and behave yourself. You can't change history no matter how many tantrums
> > you have. President Kennedy wanted tax cuts across the economy to revive
> > US productivity and it worked great! Reagan was a copycat success.
> > Trump took notice and borrowed the same policy to reenergize our current
> > economy which is limping along.
> > President Kennedy initiated a new policy with Russia of peaceful
> > coexistence. Reagan followed his lead and supported Gorbachev initiatives
> > of perestroika and glasnost. Trump wants to finish that process using
> > economic agreements with Putin. NATO needs oil to stay viable as an
> > economic partnership. As trade partners the US can influence Russian
> > policy with a big carrot instead of a big stick. Peace and prosperity for
> > both economies can generate an era of peaceful coexistence. Now
> > Democrats are trying to screw up that opportunity by sounding like the
> > new war mongers of US politics.
> That's all blaoney. Putin has no intention of working on relations
> with the USA, and has pretended to that many times in the past. He played
> that card with Trump and the very next day had his planes bomb a hospital
> in Syria.

Obama foreign policy opened the door to Russia in Syria. Trump is trying
to do something about that but North Korea has become the immediate
problem demanding US Military attention and assets.

> Trump is not trying for any legitimate connection with Russia, he's
> being manipulated by Putin for some reason and is avoiding saying
> anything bad about him. Whether the 'Dossier' is the reason I don't
> know, but it's very possible.
> Chris

Don't need a 'Dossier', latest rumor: Melania is KGB. Her Russian aunt
is none other than Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova. Remember you saw it
first right here on this wild and crazy Newsgroup. Heard it on a rideo.

[bigdog]

I have no idea whether all or even some of these allegations about Roy
Moore are true or not. It would be an easy way to sabotage a campaign by
persuading a small group of woman to make allegations against a candidate
shortly before an election. I'm not saying I believe this happened, only
that it is a possibility. The fact that one of the accusers admitted to
adding to the inscription in the yearbook certainly shoots down her
credibility and casts doubt about the whole fiasco. I also wonder why the
yearbook hasn't been made available to an independent handwriting expert
to analyze. So far we have the opinion of a selected handwriting expert.
It is definitely a red flag.

[bigdog]

She proved her abilities as a politician on 11/08/2016 when she dumped an
election most pundits thought she couldn't lose. She snatched defeat from
the jaws of victory. Of all the silly claims you've made over the years,
calling Hillary a successful politician is one of the most ridiculous.
Even people who support her lament what a weak candidate she is.
Ultra-liberal commentator Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out before the
primaries even began last year that in every election Hillary has ever run
in, her poll numbers peaked at the beginning of the campaign and either
plateaued or dropped from that point. That was true of both her Senate
campaigns and every primary she contested against Obama. That proved to be
the case in most of her contests with crazy Bernie too. Hillary is one of
the worst politicians who ever came on the national stage. Her shrewdest
political move was marrying a future governor and president. If she hadn't
done that, she couldn't have gotten elected dog catcher.

[Anthony Marsh]

Defenders of rapists always say that.

Influence.

> The Democrats are mad at Republicans over Congressional hearings over
> Benghazi and her Home Server Scandal. Did the Russians tip off the press
> about that? If so that means they hacked her server which never should

Yes.

> have been vulnerable in the first place if Hillary followed proper
> protocol and security guidelines. Therefore, she logically has only
> herself to blame for that blunder. From what I can tell she has a smooth
> spot on her brain where wrinkles should be.
>

And yet tou give a pass to everyone else who did the same thing.
It's kinda awkward to carry around 5 cell phones and remember what each
one is for.

>>>>> Russians follow US elections with keen interest they would be aware
>>>>> of his desire to develop a more fruitful working relationship. Russian oil
>>>>> reserves would benefit from US technology. By establishing a mutually
>>>>> beneficial relationship Trump wanted to convert an old enemy into a new
>>>>> customer for US products.
>> Total baloney. The Russians have never had any problem stealing any
>> technology they wanted from us. Why buddy up to us for what they can
>> get for nothing?
>
> Putin wants US technology and expertise in the oil business. He doesn't
> trust the Chinese and has troubles in the Caucus region. Putin trusts
> Tillerson and likes Trump. A deal with the US might be popular with the
> Russian people in search of a robust economy and a lucrative market to
> sell Russian products to.
>

Just like Watergate, follow the money.

>>>> Russia was not allowed to drill for oil in the Arctic due to the
>>>> sanctions. That's about $62B US.
>>>>> This Trump policy is nothing new. It is the same policy President Kennedy
>>>>> set in motion with his American University speech of June 10, 1963 titled
>>>>> "A Strategy of Peace". So the question is why do you criticize President
>>>>> Trump for his plan to implement a policy initiated by President Kennedy?
>>>>> Seems like a "Great Minds Think Alike" situation to me.
>> Are you blind to the direction Putin has made clear he wants to go in?
>> He has no problem walking into Crimea and grabbing it, and now he's
>> looking to walk into Ukraine and do the same thing.
>
> You don't know Russian history. The Crimea historically belonged to
> Russia not the Ukraine. Khrushchev gave the Crimea to the Ukraine to
> dodge some international debt. He did this unilaterally with an executive

I do know history and I don't complain about that. We bought Alaska from
the Russians so you think they should be allowed to invade Alaska and take
it back, especially the pipeline. Mexicans are still complaining about
what the US took.

Cute. Sleeper agent?
KGB is soo last century, dude.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Russian were grooming Trump as an asset long before he decided to
run. He would be useful for money laundering.