User talk:BankPR65

June 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at One America News Network, you may be blocked from editing. SamHolt6 (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. - MrX 🖋 13:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edits appear to have added the same unsoruced claims as a cut and paste.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If you keep on adding unsrouced claims you are gona get a block, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough is enough

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI
You have repeatedly added this misinformation to articles:


 * "As of February 13, 2019, The accusations of Russian collusion were proven FALSE by all government committees. It is theorized that claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 election resulting in Donald Trump's victory was fabricated by Democratic party leaders in an attempt to divert the blame of Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 election."

For your own clarification, you should know that the allegations of collusion are disputed. There is no definitive decision yet. There are at least two parts to this: (1) allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians (abundant examples of such, and many secret meetings and lying about them, and convictions for such doings), and (2) whether Trump "directly" knew about it and/or ordered it. The last is not proven yet. We know that in dealing with leaders in organized crime cases, proving "direct" connections between the actions of subordinates and the participation/knowledge of their boss is very difficult. (With Al Capone they couldn't prove he actually murdered as many people as he did, so they convicted him for tax evasion.) This case is being treated just like an organized crime investigation by the Special Counsel and New York prosecutors because all aspects of the case are so similar to such cases.

We do know from many years of experience and documentation that Trump uses others to do his dirty work, so a "direct" connection can be hard to prove unless witnesses and fellow conspirators turn against him. Several are cooperating with prosecutors.

What you are referring to is discussed here:


 * "The aide went on to pan NBC’s headline, “Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia.”


 * "The word 'direct' is doing a lot of work here," the aide told Bertrand."

This is also informative. It's always appeared to be, as alleged, about a quid pro quo deal: Russia would help Trump win if Trump would lift the sanctions, and if he succeeded, the Dossier alleges he'd also get 19% of Rosneft (about $11 BILLION). Right after he was elected, Rosneft was partially liquidated and 19.5% was transferred through a series of shady transfers through shell companies and ended up in a Cayman Islands account. That was public knowledge and documented by the press. We don't know what's happened to that money.

For Putin, it's always been about lifting the sanctions and disrupting democracy. Putin's long vetting of Trump showed to him that Trump would disrupt western democracies and weaken them. That's why he supported Trump's election, and Trump publicly stated he would lift the sanctions. So far he has been prevented from doing it completely, although he just lifted the sanctions on Deripaska. The sanctions are the key to this whole mess.

So please don't come to Wikipedia and spread unfounded ideas. It's complicated. So far, nearly everything points to the accuracy of the major allegations in the Trump–Russia dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)