Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Asked for help from a foreign country in order to directly help him win the USA presidential election.Not that any of this nitpicking over what euphemism Donald used has anything to do with the issue here - that as a candidate, Donald asked for help from the Russian government.
Just a reminder what the thread topic is.
YES - that is CNN reporting:
Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.Durham’s 300-plus page report also states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence,” to launch the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump and Russia but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.“Indeed, based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” Durham said in his report.
Yep, the past few posts have been discussing the publicly available evidence that runs counter to the bolded red quote from Durham's report.Just a reminder what the thread topic is.
Is the report based on facts, or is it just more right wing mythology targeting low-information voters?
I trust that you understood what I meant, and this is sarcasm.
I explain myself because I want to be understood.
And you don't seem to be following the logic of my reasoning because your responses are irrelevant to the point. The point being that nobody in the general public knew it was Russia until the forensics were published by crowd strike on June 14.
Okay, but the discourse implies you were saying that Papadopoulos could have heard it from Assange or Hillary.
This is why I said you don't seem to be following my reasoning because speculating about it doesn't factor into my reasoning, since it only matters what Papadopoulos says he learned of and believed to be true in May, before anybody knew it was the Russians.
Note that the documents the Australian's presented in late July didn't say where Papadopoulos heard it from, so there's no reason to speculate.
The presidential candidates always get their briefings after the National conventions, but this was an unprecedented scale of events.
Indeed, it is a problem when an adversary is covertly influencing the outcome of an election,
and again this is on a scale that is unprecedented. The important thing to note is that the FBI's deliberation is focused upon how to counter Russia.
WikiLeaks having documents in March does not address whether it's Russia that stole the documents.
Certainly, the Hillary campaign didn't know until crowd strike made a forensics determination. If you actually think Trump knew it was Russia in March, then you are admitting you think he lied to America.
Glad to see you on record acknowledging that. Because yes there was evidence in July that Russia was interfering in the election, which is a crime.
Documented means the Australians had documented their accounts contemporaneously. Verified pertains to what Papadopoulos heard in May, that Russia was going to criminally interfere, and the verification is that the crime was happening at the time the FBI received the documents from the Australians. And I agree it's not evidence that Trump was involved, I'm only saying it was evidence that Papadopoulos heard in May that Russia was going to interfere in the election to hurt Hillary.
I don't understand why you would ask this. Because you should know what the predicate for the investigation was, and the predicate states what was said, and moreover Papadopoulos confirmed what the predicate said in his testimony to Mueller.
Don junior and Manafort knew because they met with the Russian representatives. Don junior even stated publicly that they offered dirt on Hillary. I stated that the email shows the Trump campaign knew Russia was helping them in early June of 2016 and it clearly does.
I'm referring to Don junior and all who read the email, how email is offering information that would incriminate Hillary, and that it's part of the Russian government's support in favor of Trump.
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
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.
This email above clearly indicates that Russia wants to help the Trump campaign.
This is what I said: "The evidence shows that Trump would not admit Russia interfered".
Trump obviously knew the actions taken by Russia in his own reactionary statement is referencing the theft of documents from the DNC server and disseminating them online, since he's denying that it was Russia.
Post #120
Speculation is presented as a hypothetical. If the News media slandered Trump, he could sue them. But that is irrelevant to my point which is that he started the Russia hoax by claiming the Democrats made up the story that Russia infiltrated the DNC.
I'm talking about the email from Russia offering official documents that they claimed would incriminate Hillary, and the subsequent meeting with Russian representatives. I didn't say it was incriminating, I said the email about offering dirt on Hillary showed that the Trump campaign knew that Russia wanted to hurt Hillary and help them.
All Trump had to do is state publicly that his campaign had no ties or communications with Russians and the Russians would have the kompromat to threaten revealing that he was not being truthful to the American public.
I don't see how any of this is relevant to how Trump started the Russian hoax. All I saw in the media was the logical progression of hypotheticals that begin with wondering why the Russians would hack the DNC.
The article you provide doesn't show anyone blaming Trump. It is accusing Russia of wanting to help Trump win.
"Why would Russian President Vladimir Putin want to help Donald Trump win the White House? That's the accusation from Democrats this week..."
Every official report contradicts Trump's claim that it was a hoax invented by the Democrats.
Feb. 16, 2017 Trump tweet:
The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!
To be precise, Trump said The Democrats had to come up with a story as to why they lost the election, and so badly (306), so they made up a story - RUSSIA. Fake news!
What I'm saying is, since the "story" was reported by the Democrats in June 2016, before the election had even taken place and no one had yet lost, it could not possibly qualify as being invented as an excuse for losing.
Yes, that's right. Russia was indicted for the criminal activity of election interference, wherefore Trump is wrong that it was a made-up story by the Democrats.
I think that as a candidate for President, Trump should have at least taken seriously the published forensics reporting Russia as the orchestrator of the crime of interfering in the election rather than being obtuse and dismissing it out of hand.
And I think as President he should have trusted the U.S. Intelligence community over Putin.
The first thing Trump wanted from Zelensky was to look into crowd strike and the server of the DNC.
From my reading of the report and various analyses of it, it is a selective discourse on facts that props up and maintains the extant right-wing mythology to target low-information voters and feed the propagation of disinformation about 2016.
The point is simple. The forensics by crowd strike were published on June 14, 2016. Therefore, the general public was unaware it was Russia behind the stealing of documents from the DNC server and releasing them online before that date. I'm not addressing any ideas of collusion floating around. I'm just stating that fact and building all my reasoning upon that fact.You're correct in that I don't understand what your point is. There's plenty of media sources floating all sorts of ideas regarding collusion between Trump and Russia in the months prior to June 2016.
Papadopoulos is only relevant as pertains to the predicate (the documentation from the Australians) for opening the Crossfire hurricane investigation. It doesn't matter what Papadopoulos was charged with since it's not relevant to the opening of crossfire Hurricane.Yeah...he was found guilty of lying to the FBI, but when I last looked into the case, it was sealed and it didn't explain what he was lying about. It's worth noting he wasn't charged with any sort of crime that involved coordinating with Russia.
Again, it doesn't matter what Papadopoulos was charged with since the predicate for the investigation is the documentation from the Australians which gives an account of what they heard Papadopoulos say. They heard him convey that Russia had Hillary emails and Russia was going to release them anonymously to Hurt Hillary.Which is? Has the case been unsealed and made open to the public?
The documents only show that in early May 2016 Papadopoulos said that he had heard that Russia had Hillary emails and was going to release them online to hurt Hillary's campaign. I don't see those documents as an allegation of a crime against Papadopoulos.Documents? You say "documents" as if the Australians provided anything other than allegations.
Yes, I know, but the only relative issue in regard to the predicate for opening crossfire hurricane is what Papadopoulos had heard in late April, 2016, Which is BEFORE June 14, 2016. The Documentation of the Australian diplomats show Papadopoulos had heard about Russia interfering to hurt Hillary before forensics showing it was Russia behind the attack on the DNC.It was after the emails were made public that an Australian diplomat had contacted the FBI and related information that he claimed Papadopoulos gave him months earlier regarding Russias.
For the purpose of understanding the reason crossfire hurricane was opened it's irrelevant to me what Papadopoulos lied about. I know that for one thing he lied about the date he heard from Mifsud, but as I said it's irrelevant. I already know the predicate doesn't articulate that Trump is involved. We can read and see it for ourselves:He said, and I quote....
Downer told The Australian in a 28 April 2018 interview that "nothing [Papadopoulos] said in their meeting indicated Trump himself had been conspiring with the Russians to collect information on Hillary Clinton".
Now...if the case has been unsealed and the information regarding whatever Papadopoulos lied about it is available....feel free to point it out.
Exactly.Presidential candidates would have to be nominated first....otherwise they would be nominees getting defensive briefings.
This is irrelevant to the predicate for the opening of crossfire hurricane. All that matters is that there was clear evidence that Russia was interfering in the election.There's no evidence that Russia influenced the election. Also, posting factual information online about a candidate is better known as reporting.
This is irrelevant to the predicate for the opening of crossfire hurricane.I wouldn't say it's unprecedented anymore. When it comes to spreading disinformation on a mass scale...the Democratic Party holds the record for its work in 2020.
I mean whatever Russia was releasing online which would include any emails.By documents do you mean "emails"?
The fact remains that Trump was denying that the Russians were behind the attack on the DNC from when it was announced and even over 3 years later.I'm saying there's an endless number of ways and reasons why Trump would have suspected the Russians.
Again, that was the narrative propagated by the left for most of 2016.
If you believed that the attack on the DNC and the release of stolen documents was not the Russians interfering, and that it was a hoax invented by the Democrats as Trump claimed, then you were claiming Russia hadn't broken any laws.Yeah...if you want to go into the incident where they staged opposing protests in the same location I'd enjoy talking about it.
I don't recall ever claiming Russia hadn't broken any laws.
Not at all. I said the documents from the Australian diplomats was evidence that Papadopoulos heard in May that Russia was going to interfere in the election to hurt Hillary. I don't see that as an allegation of a crime. I provided the actual predicate (paragraph 15) above, you show me if you see an allegation.Then you're still struggling with the difference between allegations and evidence.
Confession? Made under duress? That sounds like you're projecting. I grant you that Mifsud did not provide anything as far as I'm aware. But that doesn't mean Papadopoulos was forced to say anything.Did he? He eventually said what he had heard from Misfud....something that the FBI had sent agents undercover to confirm but couldn't. I'd be more confident in the "confession" if it wasn't made under duress.
I've showed you in bold and underscored it.Lol what part of the email shows that?
I didn't say they accepted their offer or took their help at the meeting. I'm saying the email shows the Trump campaign is aware that Russia was offering to help them and hurt Hillary in early June of 2016.The email shows a phone call occurred and an offer was made. It doesn't say "we accepted their offer" or "we took their help".
Like I said the only relevance is that the Trump campaign is aware that Russia wants to help them and hurt Hillary in early June of 2016.That would be a more similar situation to what the Hillary campaign did....when she paid for information on Trump from foreign actors. Do we have any evidence that Trump paid for information about Hillary and then used it as a pretext to accuse Hillary of working with a foreign nation to win the election?
That is my point, the campaign is aware that it is RUSSIA that wants to interfere to help them and hurt Hillary.You have an email showing that Russia offered to interfere. That's not the same as interference.
Respectfully I'm not assuming anything, I'm just stating the facts.No...he doesn't. You're assuming a lot based on an offer to meet and exchange information that never occurred.
The above observation where Trump denies that Russia is behind the "hacking" of the DNC is not based on any offer to meet and exchange information. I suspect there's a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying.You're assuming a lot based on an offer to meet and exchange information that never occurred.
I don't see how this response has any relation to what it is in response to.In other words...you don't believe Russians when they claim to have dirt on your candidate...but when they have dirt on the candidate for the other party?
Suddenly it's not disinformation anymore and they're super reliable.
Why would Russia want Trump is a legitimate question. I think it's clear Putin wanted sanctions for invading Crimea to be removed.Right.
I don't care to speculate about things that cannot be proven. I can only surmise it hurt Hillary more than helped Hillary.Ok...Russia is certainly guilty of hacking and other crimes.
That doesn't make them the reason why the Democrats lost.
The point is simple. The forensics by crowd strike were published on June 14, 2016. Therefore, the general public was unaware it was Russia behind the stealing of documents from the DNC server and releasing them online before that date. I'm not addressing any ideas of collusion floating around. I'm just stating that fact and building all my reasoning upon that fact.
Papadopoulos is only relevant as pertains to the predicate (the documentation from the Australians)
for opening the Crossfire hurricane investigation. It doesn't matter what Papadopoulos was charged with since it's not relevant to the opening of crossfire Hurricane.
Again, it doesn't matter what Papadopoulos was charged with since the predicate for the investigation is the documentation
from the Australians which gives an account of what they heard Papadopoulos say. They heard him convey that Russia had Hillary emails and Russia was going to release them anonymously to Hurt Hillary.
The significance of the documents
is that they are contemporaneous accounts of what the diplomats heard Papadopoulos tell them in early May and documented BEFORE Crowd Strike had published their forensics identifying Russia as being behind the attack on the DNC.
The documents
only show
that in early May 2016 Papadopoulos said that he had heard that Russia had Hillary emails and was going to release them online to hurt Hillary's campaign. I don't see those documents as an allegation of a crime against Papadopoulos.
Yes, I know, but the only relative issue in regard to the predicate for opening crossfire hurricane is what Papadopoulos had heard in late April, 2016, Which is BEFORE June 14, 2016.
The Documentation
of the Australian diplomats show
For the purpose of understanding the reason crossfire hurricane was opened it's irrelevant to me what Papadopoulos lied about.
I know that for one thing he lied about the date he heard from Mifsud, but as I said it's irrelevant. I already know the predicate doesn't articulate that Trump is involved. We can read and see it for ourselves:
"Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Paragraph Five is an abstract from the cable and was quoted verbatim in the Crossfire Hurricane Opening EC, stating in its entirety that: Mr[.] Papadopoulos was, unsurprisingly, confident that Mr[.] Trump could win the election. He commented that the Clintons had "a lot of baggage" and suggested the Trump team had plenty of material to use in its campaign. He also suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs[.] Clinton (and President Obama). It was unclear whether he or the Russians were referring to material acquirnd publicly of [sic] through other means. It was also unclear how Mr[.] Trump's team reacted to the offer. We note the Trump team's reaction could, in the end, have little bearing of [sic] what Russia decides to do, with or without Mr[.] Trump's cooperation.
Exactly.
This is irrelevant to the predicate for the opening of crossfire hurricane. All that matters is that there was clear evidence that Russia was interfering in the election.
This is irrelevant to the predicate for the opening of crossfire hurricane.
I mean whatever Russia was releasing online which would include any emails.
The fact remains that Trump was denying that the Russians were behind the attack on the DNC from when it was announced and even over 3 years later.
If you believed that the attack on the DNC and the release of stolen documents was not the Russians interfering,
and that it was a hoax invented by the Democrats as Trump claimed,
then you were claiming Russia hadn't broken any laws.
Not at all. I said the documents
from the Australian diplomats was evidence
I've showed you in bold and underscored it.
I didn't say they accepted their offer or took their help at the meeting. I'm saying the email shows the Trump campaign is aware that Russia was offering to help them and hurt Hillary in early June of 2016.
By the way Don junior said, "if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer", but that's irrelevant to my point.
Like I said the only relevance is that the Trump campaign is aware that Russia wants to help them and hurt Hillary in early June of 2016.
That is my point, the campaign is aware that it is RUSSIA that wants to interfere to help them and hurt Hillary.
Respectfully I'm not assuming anything, I'm just stating the facts.
Here's the reaction from Trump reported by Fox News after the Democrats reveal the crowd strike forensics determining that it's Russia. And we can see Trump knows that the crowd strike report is referencing the attack on the DNC server.
June 17 2016 Fox news reports:
First we were told that a Russian hacker had broken into the Democratic National Committee’s computers and gotten hold of its oppo file on Donald Trump.
Trump, for his part, isn’t buying the DNC explanation that this is the work of some nefarious outside hacker. “Much of it is false and/or entirely inaccurate,” he says in a statement. “We believe it was the DNC that did the ‘hacking’ as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader. Too bad the DNC doesn’t hack Crooked Hillary’s 33,000 missing emails.”
The above observation where Trump denies that Russia is behind the "hacking" of the DNC is not based on any offer to meet and exchange information. I suspect there's a misunderstanding as to what I'm saying.
I don't see how this response has any relation to what it is in response to.
Why would Russia want Trump is a legitimate question. I think it's clear Putin wanted sanctions for invading Crimea to be removed.
I don't care to speculate about things that cannot be proven. I can only surmise it hurt Hillary more than helped Hillary.
Facts are not assertions. Apparently, you assume I'm making assertions. As a means of establishing a working timeline of the known events, I'm only interested in when the general public was factually made aware of the forensics report and not the various speculations that were occurring prior to that.Well there's your problem.
Plenty of media sources claiming expert analysis and inside information were claiming it was Russia.
Your assertions about whatever the general public was "aware" of don't mean anything.
According to the facts as presented in all official reports, the statement above that it's an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor, must itself be based on bias and not objective reality. Any reasoning based on falsehood ends in a contradiction, so allow me to point out the facts here.You keep saying "documentation" as if the Australians were recording the conversation with Papadopoulos. There's no recording...and therefore, no documentation. That's an allegation by a politically biased foreign actor.
As I have proven above, the facts show there was no allegation of conspiring with Russian representatives in Paragraph 5.Of course it matters. They charged him with lying to the FBI. That's not conspiring with Russian representatives.
See above, the facts show that there was no allegation made by the Australians, they just provided raw information in the form of documented accounts. When we believe in a falsehood, it manifests emotions that are not based in reality, which is why so many people are demented.Allegation. No documentation was provided by the Australians.
Again, it's not an allegation, it's contemporaneous evidence of an encounter and an abstract account of what occurred during that encounter.No documents. Allegations.
If I write a fictional story on paper...that doesn't make it true, even if I claim it is.
This is a fruitless avenue of discussion since it didn't happen that way in reality.This would have been meaningful if they shared it BEFORE it happened. They didn't though...so it's just an allegation.
childeye 2 said:
I don't see those documents as an allegation of a crime against Papadopoulos.
Nor do I....those are allegations though...not documentation. Even worse, if they don't allege a crime, why did the FBI move to a full criminal investigation? We would call that a witch hunt.
This is just more bias and more dementing. The Australian documentation about Russia offering the Trump campaign assistance against the Hillary campaign was recorded in May 2016 on the timeline, and the Hillary campaign reported publicly of the Russian interference on June 14 of the timeline. The reality is that the Hillary campaign began saying over a month later, the same narrative Papadopoulos had been saying over a month earlier.They were running with the same narrative the Hillary campaign ran with.
The investigation wasn't into Trump so that part of your statement is wrong. However, the information from the Australians presented did imply that Papadopoulos had knowledge in early May about possible Russian interference in a free and fair election. It was a unanimous decision, with a need to know as a matter of national security, and even the Durham report says they were obligated to investigate.There wasn't evidence that Russia was involving Trump or that they were in cahoots. That's what you would need to investigate his campaign.
It's entirely possible he's correct. The Russians were claiming to have information about Hillary cooking up the email release to blame Russia and smear Trump. I don't know if that was misinformation or if they had something. I'm sure you remember this...
Probably was? Possibly not? Definitely not? Either Russia infiltrated the DNC as crowd strike forensics show, and the FBI has verified, and also every official report has claimed, and also every intelligence agency has claimed, or the DNC "hacked" itself Like Donald said.I think it probably was....did those indictments result in any confessions?
It's certainly a possibility. Turns out our intelligence community isn't so good at keeping secrets or informing thr public about facts.
I'm definitely not claiming that.
The reason for the investigation was "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. "That's why they ran multiple attempts to elicit a similar disclosure from Papadopoulos to undercover agents. He didn't. Instead, he vehemently denied Russian involvement and said that it was all lies from the Hillary campaign. That's a rather odd flip flop.
Actually I think it was the "Russia, if you're listening..." comment he made on live TV that is referenced most of the time. At least from my memory.View attachment 332357
This is the comment that was twisted into the commonly repeated "Trump invited Russia to hack us" propaganda.
No, the Durham report specifically cites, “Russia, if you’re listening" as drawing the attention of the FBI, who at the time were in the midst of a criminal investigation into Russia stealing documents from the DNC and releasing them through WikiLeaks. The tweet you posted was a blatant attempt at clean-up.View attachment 332357
This is the comment that was twisted into the commonly repeated "Trump invited Russia to hack us" propaganda.
Thanks for the reminder that Mueller never found something that he painstakingly explained in his report isn't a criminal code.Just a reminder what the thread topic is.
And oddly enough, Russia complied in releasing stolen material.View attachment 332357
This is the comment that was twisted into the commonly repeated "Trump invited Russia to hack us" propaganda.
Same message. Not inviting them to hack, but maybe they could find the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted after they were subpoenaedActually I think it was the "Russia, if you're listening..." comment he made on live TV that is referenced most of the time. At least from my memory.
Trump asked Russia to find Clinton’s emails. On or around the same day, Russians targeted her accounts
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in a July 27, 2016, news conference.www.pbs.org
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.
The DNC servers were hacked the next day.
He absolutely did invite them to hack. They literally did so the very next day. How else would they get the allegedly deleted emails?Same message. Not inviting them to hack, but maybe they could find the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted after they were subpoenaed
Regardless, do you really believe the Russians were waiting for permission?
Listen to the words -He absolutely did invite them to hack. They literally did so the very next day. How else would they get the allegedly deleted emails?
Yes it is. And they did so. I know you think Trump was being all nuanced and whatnot, but he wasn't as Trump is incapable of nuance. They did exactly what he invited them to do.Listen to the words -
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,
I hope you can find the emails - is not an invitation to hack. It is a direct dig against Clinton who deleted 30,000 emails after receiving a subpoena to preserve them.
Did you miss that part?
Understand also - he was referencing Hillary's illegal server in her bathroom and not the DNC.
He was throwing a dig against the woman who destroyed subpoena's evidence. Remember this is when the Russia, Russia, Russia began.
No it is not - it is the left and their media lapdogs twisting a snide remark. Remember - the server Trump was referring to was gone - wiped clean by Hillary's team - it DID NOT exist -Yes it is. And they did so. I know you think Trump was being all nuanced and whatnot, but he wasn't as Trump is incapable of nuance. They did exactly what he invited them to do.
I seem to recall that an old RNC email server had been hacked too, but those never got made public since that’sNo it is not - it is the left and their media lapdogs twisting a snide remark. Remember - the server Trump was referring to was gone - wiped clean by Hillary's team - it DID NOT exist -
A completely different served was hacked.
And if you really think the Russians heard him on TV and said "hey! sounds like a good idea, let's do it!", I have some ocean front property in Kansas I'd like you to buy.
Also remember this was not the first hack
The Democratic National Committee cyber attacks took place in 2015 and 2016,[1] in which two groups of Russian computer hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network, leading to a data breach. Cybersecurity experts, as well as the U.S. government, determined that the cyberespionage was the work of Russian intelligence agencies.
Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian intelligence agencies separately infiltrated the DNC computer systems. The American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which removed the hacking programs, revealed a history of encounters with both groups and had already named them, calling one of them Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear, names which are used in the media.[2][3][4][5][6]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?