Diplomats' Texts Lay Out Trump Ukraine Scheme In Stark Detail | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Rachel Maddow reports on newly published transcripts of text messages between Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland and others, in which Donald Trump's demand for investigations into Joe Biden's son and a debunked conspiracy theory in exchange for foreign aid and a White House meeting for Ukraine are discussed in plain terms, even as Sondland made late changes to his testimony to the Donald Trump impeachment committees.

What a copout Ron to say "debunked conspiracy theory." It's not a theory, rather an inquiry, not a conspiracy, rather an informed inquiry, not debunked, rather an informed inquiry into a question unanswered by Mueller, namely WHERE IS THE PROOF IT WAS RUSSIA??

17 U.S. Government agencies is the proof. There’s more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.

Do you know who are those 17 U.S. Government agencies are Steve?

17 agencies are not "proof" Ron. When Bill Barr (with Ukraine's aid) has found proof, you will see what proof is.

I asked you a question Steve: Do you know who are those 17 U.S. Government agencies are Steve?

I asked first Ron. Where is the proof? I note (N.B.) that the FBI neither examined the server nor took possession of it.

Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU), The Daily Beast has learned. It’s an attribution that resulted from a fleeting but critical slip-up in GRU tradecraft...Guccifer 2.0 sprang into existence on June 15, 2016, hours after a report by a computer security firm forensically tied Russia to an intrusion at the Democratic National Committee. In a series of blog posts and tweets over the following seven months—conspicuously ending right as Trump took office and not resuming—the Guccifer persona published a smattering of the DNC documents while gamely projecting an image as an independent Romanian hacktivist who’d breached the DNC on a lark....

Guccifer famously pretended to be a “lone hacker” who perpetrated the digital DNC break-in. From the outset, few believed it. Motherboard conducted a devastating interview with Guccifer that exploded the account’s claims of being a native Romanian speaker. Based on forensic clues in some of Guccifer’s leaks, and other evidence, a consensus quickly formed among security experts that Guccifer was completely notional.

Ehmke led an investigation at ThreatConnect that tried to track down Guccifer from the metadata in his emails. But the trail always ended at the same data center in France. Ehmke eventually uncovered that Guccifer was connecting through an anonymizing service called Elite VPN, a virtual private networking service that had an exit point in France but was headquartered in Russia. But on one occasion, The Daily Beast has learned, Guccifer failed to activate the VPN client before logging on. As a result, he left a real, Moscow-based Internet Protocol address in the server logs of an American social media company, according to a source familiar with the government’s Guccifer investigation. Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow.

New Evidence: Yes, the Russians Hacked the DNC Servers https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/20...

YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED.

Now Steve, Do you know who are those 17 U.S. Government agencies are Steve?

Your answer is incorrect Ron. Ukraine is at odds with Russia. The hack itself, as well as the Guccifer 2.0 persona, were ploys by the Ukrainians to frame the Russians.

Are you saying that Guccifer 2.0, the “lone hacker” who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU) is not a FACT?

Also Are you saying that U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow is FALSE?

What are you saying abd bring your proof with you on your next reply.

Yes Ron, your reports are FALSE. Brennan and Comey conspired to hide the truth from you, that the Ukrainians hacked the DNC. The proof is being collected at this moment by John Durham. But first you will see Durhams roadmap when the Inspector General releases his report about how Brennan and Comey defrauded the FISA court and the American people.

What!!! No Proof!!! (LOL)

Where is your proof Steve?

Now Steve, Do you know who are those 17 U.S. Government agencies are Steve?

What!!! No Proof!!! (LOL)

Where is your proof Steve?

I asked first Ron, where is YOUR proof? Where is the server? Why did the FBI accept Crowdstrike's supposed forensics instead of conducting their own. You have NO proof but Durham will clear up this little mystery too. You never will.

And the American people will owe a debt of gratitude to Zelenskyy for his aid, thanks to President Trump.

Steve, don't you understand that 17 U.S. Government agencies is The Proof?

The U.S. intelligence community recently reaffirmed its conclusion that senior officials in Russia were behind hacks during the 2016 presidential campaign into the Democratic National Committee and emails belonging to associates of Hillary Clinton.

In my proof Steve, I will also share with you the name of those 17 U.S. Government agencies who told The American people it was the Russians and I will also tell you their function is our government.

There’s more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-17-in...


Trump, Russia and the U.S. Election https://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-ru...

Now Where is your proof Steve that is was not THE RUSSAINS?

Let's start with this Ron:

"JAN. 6, 2017

Reporting from Washington — Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered an intelligence operation against the U.S. presidential campaign and ultimately sought to help Donald Trump win the White House, according to a new U.S. intelligence report released Friday, shortly after the president-elect appeared to dismiss its key findings."

If true, then what the hell did Mueller spend TWO YEARS and $40 MILLION on??

Isn't that enough Steve?

Why did Trump turn his back on his own government intelligent report about the findings what the Russians had done on Trump's behalf?

The report itself says you have NO PROOF Ron.

"Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods."

Oops, I guess that means SEVENTEEN AGENCIES confirm that you have no proof.

Why did Trump turn his back on his own government intelligent report about the findings what the Russians had done on Trump's behalf? Isn't that enough Steve?

Did you read: There’s more than the CIA and FBI: The 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-17-in...


Trump, Russia and the U.S. Election https://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-ru...

Did you see this blog's video report Steve? Because this information will come out to the public.

Why did Brennan and Comey hit Trump with the sleazy, slanderous dossier? Trump can't depend on one word from those two, OR therefore, the fifteen others Ron.

I've seen this report twice now Ron, once on Tuesday and now again here. Rachel is mistaken, there is NO consensus testimony. Lindsay is correct as is the President. There is nothing amiss with the call.

Since you have seen it twice, then you know that impeachment committees are starting to release the transcripts from the witness testimony that was taken behind closed doors and you can't say there is NO consensus testimony, when you have no knowledge of THE FACTS.

You are acting like the investigation got Trump actions down, they got the plot, They got the basic down right on TRUMP, now is it time to cause confusion in the ranks because the word is out as a talking point to confuse the issue and that is what you are trying to do.

There's no consensus testimony Ron because we haven't heard from any witnesses call by the Republicans. Not to worry, the House will continue this sham, but when it gets to the Senate it will all be for naught. I think it's funny the Democrat's think they can fool us. Over here we are neither reading the transcripts nor planning to watch the televised drama of what has already been leaked in its entirety.

These are impeachment committees closed door hearing information that was discovered, That means the public, for the first time will hear directly from Trump's people about what happen and why. The evidence will be out there for all Americans to see, as Trump's poll numbers keep falling as people learn more about Trump's dealings and the way he handle Ukraine Affair.

I normally think soundbites are a travesty Ron but in the case of these sham proceedings, including the televised proceedings, soundbites are more than adequate. We already know enough just from what Schiff has leaked. The "open" hearings will be a total bust, just like the ones for Mueller, John Dean, and Cory Lewandowski. Watch the ratings.

P.S. All but a couple are NOT "Trump's people" Ron. They are or were, nothing but deep state bureaucrats.

So it will be a mixture of both.

Steve, there are questions that are going to determine the president's ultimate fate.

1. Is whether the public testimony part of this, may shift public opinion even more decisively against the president here, whether it may ultimately shake some of the reflexive republican support for the president

2. the second factor is even more instrumental to the president's fate, which is whether republicans Senators may untimely find the behavior that has been uncovered in this impeachment inquiry could ultimately be too much for even them to stomach.

You did see this information in this report, not didn't you Steve?

I saw it when it aired Ron, but sometimes Rachel puts me to sleep. I'd have to review your video to be sure. Is there something you'd like me to watch for?

Your 2 questions are related. 1. You will not move public opinion enough to sway enough Senators. 2. See the answer for question 1. So, there must be some other reason for this sham, huh Ron?

YES!!! I want you to become knowledgeable about this topic. Steve, if you can't do that, then why are you here?

Now Ron, why did you throw that trick question at me. Are you calling me a LIAR that I said I watched it twice?

So, there must be some other reason for this sham, huh Ron?