Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. But Comey is a perjurer who is lying under oath and making things up. That's why we have to trust what Trump says about this on Twitter. WFW said it, so it must be true.
  2. I said that trump had a 1-in-3 chance of winning the election. You're the one who falsely said Trump would win 450EC votes, that Republicans would gain seats in the Senate and the House, and that Clinton would be indicted. Nobody was more wrong than you were about the election.
  3. He's a troll. He's here to troll. It's what he does. The only reason I respond to him now is to smack down obvious falsehoods that he spouts.
  4. The FBI has been conducting a criminal investigation into Trump-Russia relations for six months. That's kind of the opposite of a "conspiracy" or a "coup". Of course, Trump falsely accusing Obama of wiretapping his phones at Trump Tower...THAT is a conspiracy theory. The FBI, DOJ, and NSA all said that Trump lied about that. They also confirmed that a criminal investigation about Trump-Russia relations is ongoing.
  5. As I've been saying, we need to be careful with this. Clinton clearly said that there was no classified information on her email server. There was. That is a lie? A false statement is not always a lie. A false statement under oath is not always perjury.
  6. Ah, thanks, I misread. Still, he remained a close advisor to Trump throughout the campaign, as I understand it.
  7. Um, what are you talking about? He was an official member of the Trump campaign until August 2016 and remained a close advisor to Trump after he left the campaign.
  8. Does the fact that Roger Stone, a long-time Trump friend and campaign advisor, had back channel conversations with Wikileaks while the hacked emails were being released not bother you or raise suspicion?
  9. In fairness, lying seems to be a prerequisite for a position in the Trump campaign and White House. Maybe they were just demonstrating their ability to serve in his administration?
  10. My apologies. What was the point?
  11. Also, the article isn't nearly as favorable as you seem to think. Even it says that discussions with Trump campaign team were more fruitful.
  12. So you now believe Russian officials? It's possible that there were contacts with the Clinton campaign, but a British conservative newspaper reporting what the Russian officials claim is pretty weak stuff. Much weaker than the evidence about Trump connections that you are so dismissive of.
  13. Also... Clinton emails - the FBI said that cases like hers are never prosecuted even though there could be technical violations of the law. WRONG DOING!! Flynn conversations - violated the Logan Act, but it's never prosecuted even though there was probably a technical violation of that law. NO ILLICIT WRONG DOING!! Do you really not see the different standard?
  14. Illicit means illegal or against the law. The FBI said Clinton didn't violate the law. Thus, according to your standard, there was no illicit wrongdoing with Clinton. You keep pointing to that post without the links but won't say specifically what you think is wrong or is questionable. Here's a link to the NYTimes story about Flynn's conversation with the ambassador where he recommended Russia not retaliate against the sanctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html Now that I provided a link with documentation, maybe you can do the same regarding your claims regarding Uranium One. "Google it" wouldn't be persuasive to you, so please don't take a different standard regarding your accusations. You say "there's a money trail". You said Republicans should have "nailed her to the wall" over it. Okay, what SPECIFICALLY did Clinton do that involved wrong doing? This is the changing standards that I'm talking about...with Clinton, it's "Google it" and "nail her to the wall" even though you admit it could be "coincidental timing" but also claim "there is a money trail". You make an affirmative allegation that Clinton did something wrong in this case and that Republicans should "nail her to the wall". But you won't back it up with anything. In other words, with Clinton you accept wrong doing but won't provide any evidenc other than vague "money trail" statements and "Google it". But with Trump and Russia, even though there have been dozens of links to document the meetings and contact, you're all "I've seen nothing damming" and "I don't see anything" and "no illicit wrongdoing". It's a double standard...you hold yourself to a much lower standard of proof when it comes to claims about Clinton and hold others to a ridiculously high standard when it comes to claims about Trump. Just be consistent.
  15. There have been dozens of links posted over the past month or so. For the second time, point to any part of what I wrote that you think is wrong and I'll document it. What I've done is brought together things that have been documented into a "big picture" post. If I had the dozens of links in that post, somebody would have tl;dr me. At this point, "I haven't seen anything" is really you saying "I refuse to look". It's there. I'm happy to document anything you think is wrong, but until you point to something you think is wrong I can't document it for you. That's the wholesale denialism that I mentioned. Saying "your evidence just isn't that damming" is, again, saying "I'm not going to look at anything". I said that the FBI cleared Clinton of any wrong doing. No illicit wrongdoing, as you would say. That was regarding the emails. You keep mentioning Uranium One but refuse to say specifically what wrongdoing you are accusing Clinton of doing and what she did that Republicans should have "nailed her to the wall" for. So you're throwing out baseless speculation as evidence of wrong doing and ignoring documented facts regarding Trump campaign's communications with Russian officials. It's silly.
  16. I've documented every single thing that I claimed in that post...multiple times. If you doubt any of it then you are welcome to point out which things you don't think are true. At this point, you're just engaging in wholesale denialism. Which is ironic, considering that you continue to make completely baseless accusations about Clinton and the Clinton Foundation regarding Uranium One. Your standard for judging Clinton wrong doing is based on factless speculation. But when documented evidence about Trump campaign people's contacts with top Russian officials - including the White House ADMITTING these contacts occurred - you're all like, "nope, nothing to see, I don't see any evidence, I see nothing here, no illicit wrongdoing." Sorry, I like you, but you're being ridiculous.
  17. At this point, I'm not clear what your denials are based on. Are you saying the intelligence community is wrong about Russia's involvement with the hacking? That same intelligence has said for months that Trump campaign people routinely met with Russian officials. The White House has now acknowledged that those conversations took place. So you can't say "well it's all speculation' now that the White House has admitted the meetings and conversations took place. Are you saying all of these conversations and discussions were perfectly innocent? That might be, but the evidence could also point to Trump camapign collusion with Russia regarding foreign policy. We already know that Flynn helped coordinate Russia's response to Obama's sanctions. We also know that the Russian ambassador met Trump campaign people at the convention at the same time that Trump was pushing for a pro-Russia change in the RNC platform, the ONLY change they pushed to make. Why would Trump push this one change, that Russia wanted, at the convention? It seems simplistic to say, "well I don't know why they pushed this change but there's nothing suspicious about this change that I can't explain". So what exactly are you denying in terms of the Russia-Trump connections? What do you think was going on with all of these meetings that were occurring at the same time that Russia was releasing hacked emails to influence the outcome of the election? I'd LOVE to hear a credible explanation about why all of this is innocuous and innocent. Haven't heard one yet.
  18. I thought you were leaving.
  19. I've also been very hesitant to bring this up, but I think it needs to be considered: WTF was the Russian ambassador, somebody known by the intelligence community to be a spy recruiter and a spy himself, doing at the RNC convention? All caveats here: This could be normal. Maybe he attended the DNC convention. Maybe diplomats from lots of countries attend these conventions. So there could be nothing unusual about that. But that's something that at least needs to be answered. If this was unusual then it's even more suspicious.
  20. "I'm not seeing this 'accuracy'"??? Are you serious? The White House ADMITTED those reports were true...that's why Flynn resigned and Sessions had to hold the presser today. After lying and telling falsehoods about campaign contacts with Russia, the White House has ADMITTED that four top aides met with the Russian ambassador.
  21. I didn't say that Sessions lied. I said that Trump and his administration lied. The point is that all of those anonymous sources have proven to be accurate time and again. All of the denials and claims by Trump and the administration have proven to be lies. You can no longer dismiss information that's coming out in the media because it's anonymous sources. They have been accurate and the Trump administration has not. And once again, what the FBI says is "nothing illicit" involves legality. What I'm talking about are the close relationships the Trump campaign has with Russia. Flynn might not have broken the law, but what he did was shady as **** and moreover adds to the growing list of questionable and shady contacts between Trump people and the Russians.
  22. That's just factually untrue. I've explained that in the past. Those anonymous sources have been right this whole time. They reported that Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador. The administration lied and said it didn't happen. Now we know it did. Those anonymous sources said that Sessions talked with Russian ambassador. The administration lied and said there were no contacts. Now we know there were. Those anonymous sources said that there have been extensive contacts between Trump campaign people and Russia. The White House and Trump lied and said there were no conversations. Now we know that at least four (and perhaps more) Trump campaign people met with the Russian ambassador, including at the RNC convention at the same time that Trump was pushing for a change in the GOP platform that was pro-Russia. At what point do you stop denying these reports given all the things that have turned out to be true?
  23. Mmmmm hmmmm...keep talking. Stuff's coming out everyday that makes those kinds of comments look ridiculous. Consensus finding by the intelligence community and admissions by Trump administration itself about contacts with Russia = Birtherism. Idiocy.
  24. Keep saying that. There's not a s***load of smoke around this now and we're confirming that the facts are very, very different from what Trump's been spouting over the past several months.
  25. We know that Trump campaign people had meetings and conversations with Russians going back to July.