ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
7 minutes ago, Doc said:
Like you guys were and have been wrong on Russian collusion, because it confirms your priors? Read the addition to my previous post. This was one of the worst collusions in history, akin to J6 being one of the worst insurrections in history. But if it plays to your beliefs, who cares, right?
The Trump campaign actively sought assistance from Russia to win the election. They met to try to get oppo info, they shared polling data, they tried to set up a secret back channel so they could communicate with the Russians without anyone finding out.But all that’s fine because he’s your guy, right? And you’d be totally fine if other candidates did it too, right?
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
It was the basis for several things but was ultimately found to be bogus so they tried to bury it.
They looked into it, found most of it to not be credible and moved on to the other heaps of evidence.I get that it’s fun to just read the news that confirms your priors but when we’re talking about investigations that have public reports, why wouldn’t you just read those instead of insisting on being wrong?
-
6 minutes ago, Doc said:
It played a central role.
It absolutely did not. The Senate Intelligence report and the Mueller Report are both public. You can go check them for yourself but you’re not going to find a ton about the Steele Dossier because it wasn’t a central part of the investigations.
The media blew up to be way bigger than it was.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
So then who's colluding with whom? And DJ got nothing from Veselnitskaya (since it was a setup) whereas Steele took a lot of bogus Russian disinformation and used it to get a sitting President removed.
What are you talking about? Do you think that the Steele Dossier was the trigger or basis for the Russia investigation? Because it wasn’t. It was largely discredited and dismissed by investigators.
However, there were dozens of actual contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign, which was very willing to accept their help.
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
Yup, Russians.
Yeah, that’s why you’re supposed to vet the info before making it public. -
1 hour ago, Doc said:
From where do you fancy Steele, a disgraced former British spy, got his dirt on Trump?
Igor Danchenko, among others. -
Pence continues to handle this correctly.
Pence says ‘mistakes were made’ in classified documents handling
“Pence said he decided to undertake the search of his home “out of an abundance of caution” after recent disclosures by Biden’s team that documents were found at his former office and in his Delaware home.
“I take full responsibility” over the documents that were discovered in Indiana, Pence said Friday. He said he had directed his counsel to work with the National Archives, Department of Justice and Congress and fully cooperate in any investigation.”
His situation seems to be very similar to Biden’s except he has better messaging.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
you talk about this very reasonably but in the twitter file thread also seem to state gov involvement in the decemination of information is a good thing. so dep on who is in power and their intent something like trumps collusion with russia can be amplified or suppressed under the guise of "public saftey" ect ect. so its contradictory to want facts presented as they stand on their merit and to also hand wave gov or any other entity with power to promote or destroy a company to have any outside influence of information. this goes for corporations giving ad money ect ect. if there is influence on info. all of it should be called out and fought against.
You’re misconstruing my point from that thread.
What I was trying to get across is that the FBI flagging posts that potentially violate Twitter’s TOS is not censorship or coercion because Twitter ultimately decides what to do with the flagged posts. We also know that Twitter knew it could push back on these requests because not only were they staffed with many ex-FBI employees who would know that the FBI can’t force them to act, but they also rejected most of the requests.
Most of the time, the requests went as follows:
FBI: Hey, you should check out this post
Twitter: Sure!
Twitter: After review, we are declining to take action.
-
36 minutes ago, Doc said:
And the meeting was about how to steal the election? And the solution was a few million in FB ads that did nothing to sway anyone's opinion?
It was about the Russians saying they had dirt on Hillary.
The right thing to do would be to decline and report the offer to the FBI. But the Trump campaign took the meeting instead.
-
21 minutes ago, Doc said:
So you/most Dems never for one second believed it existed or that it was a legitimate piece of kompromat that would make Trump collude with Russia?
I can only speak for myself, but the Steele Dossier was a piece of raw intelligence gathering. It’s basically just collecting all the rumors you can about someone. The next step would be to verify if those rumors were true, but that didn’t happen.
Steele was wrong to leak it because the public was just going to latch on to the salacious details without taking a step back and recognizing the report for what it was.
As someone who thought (and still thinks) that Trump sucks, I certainly wanted the report to be true and I kept waiting for other outlets to verify the stories but they never could.
That’s why the Mueller report dismissed most of the dossier and why the Clinton campaign didn’t use it: nothing in it could be proven to be true. Steele got ahead of himself by leaking it (I believe to John McCain) instead of verifying it first.
-
11 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
you say let facts drive those conclusions but the REAL problem with this country are "facts" no longer exist from a non partisan consistent source. are doctors giving facts? cdc? i see alot of "those close to the situation" "experts say". many ways to make audience believe utter garbage with zero REAL sources or proof. which news organizations do you think are always giving you unbiased straight forward facts? there is no clear answer to me so if you have one id love to hear.
i think people such as yourself may also consider a conglomerate as the truth. if many are saying the same thing it must be the truth. the minority are the quacks but covid shows clearly, if anything could be pulled from the mess that this isnt nec true either.
all ill say is that info on this story was suspiciously vague. reporters reprimanded for simply saying what happened on the info he gave? stories deleted? one could easily see that as a cover up. im glad you found a reputable source that laid out all the info you needed. i would like to check this source to see what their "facts" were on other subjects that have NOW morphed into a completely different set. please share. maybe we all can get on the same page by these trusted sources you use that always gives proof and facts so immediatly. its what journalism was supposed to be so I'm genuinely interested.
In the case of a crime, when charges are filed they are often done so with sworn statements. While people can always lie, there is little penalty for lying on TV while there are hefty penalties for lying to law enforcement. It doesn’t mean people don’t lie to cops, but they are less likely to do so than to lie to a journalist.
So in cases such as these, I find it incredibly helpful to ignore the talking heads / media, and just go straight to the filings.
That’s what I did here and it’s what I did with the Sussman case. Both times, the outcome was very clear from the start despite the terrible media coverage.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
its a political message board so getting shoveled into a box of "your side" kinda comes with the territory. don't be so sensitive and see the overall point I'm making. theres a difference between a manufactured conspiracy and one that people come up with when that same media machine acts suspiciously interested in silencing ONLY when the political winds change directions. i think those you were mocking were doing something completely normal. filling the blanks with some sort of corruption/ fetish/ illegal activity. that is routinely the case when a story reveals it about the powerful and the media realizes it.......on one side of the isle. otherwise why not just tell it immediately with proof. plenty of ways, yet here we are months later finally getting it? hmmm
Shoveling people into sides is one of the biggest problems with this country. Sorting into “us vs. them” is terrible and harms all of us.
And if what “people were doing” was normal, then we are screwed as a country. Instead of letting the facts drive the conclusion, they were having the conclusion drive the facts.
The facts were pretty clear from the jump. Literally from the very beginning I was able to identify what the most likely outcome was by just looking at the official filings. But that apparently makes me a partisan hack. And now the evidence supports my original conclusion. This stuff isn’t hard if you actually want to know the truth. But so many people don’t.
It’s not skepticism or critical thinking. It’s just feelings over facts.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
im talking generally. the same way you seem to want to suggest people said he was let in. which given the available info isnt even a stretch at all. that video was available very early and could have ended any talk of him being let in like the hundreds of other narratives that people have no choice but fill in the blanks when reporters manipulate, knowingly lie and hide info to the public.
GENERALLY the media jumped on the narrative until they couldn't anymore. "it was a evil trumper" and leftists were happy to go along with that FIRST. like cops getting beaten with fire extinguishers when a head wound is the easiest thing in the world to know. therapeutics aka vaccines stop transmission while areas with high vax% had the same numbers. blurt out the president pees on hookers in russia. covid death tickers suddenly disapearing when a new administration takes over hmmm. on and on and on and on. hell youll look the other way on innocents being murdered based on them. shall i say examples?
im simply pointing out a side that is lead by the medias leash countless times should have nothing to say about conspiracies like they are above it or something.
Well, if you want to talk media criticism, I’m sure we will find a lot to agree on.
But when you quote my post and say “you” a lot while saying things I’ve never said, I’m going to call you out. I try to choose my words carefully and do not appreciate people insinuating that I said things I never said.
-
53 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:
funny how you guys are laughing up the conspiratorials but the first one was this is a evil far right trumper with the media as your becon. then facts came out about who this guy really was and only because they were withheld so long and silenced did others start. most of them true. underwear/ drinking/ allowed to call police.
yeah no conclusions on all that but it looks to me it was just a nutjob.
this is what happens when EVERYTHING is political and both sides jump on the first info out.
your doing it right and will get alot more practice cause this is how it goes for everything.
When have I ever said that DePape was a Trumper?I said he was a crazy person.
I have said from the very start that the most likely explanation is that he was a crazy person who broke into the house to get to Nancy Pelosi. The facts supported that at the time, and the new evidence shows that to be clearly the case.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Doc said:
The "pee tape" says hi...
Yup. Something else that was salacious that people wanted to believe despite the lack of evidence. Feelings over facts-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Of course the conspiracy freaks are still making shite up, its what their entire lives are based on. I was a bit suspicious at first but when these videos came out its all clear now. The guy was after Nancy and once the cops showed up he tried to take out the husband.
For some reason, we expect people to act in specific or rational ways in all situations, especially intense or dangerous ones.It may, at first, seem like Pelosi should have fought DePape when he came in. Or tried to lock himself in another room.
But he’s an elderly man and DePape had already found a way into his house. It’s likely that Pelosi’s goal was to just keep the situation from escalating until the cops arrived.
Listening to the 911 call, you can hear Pelosi trying to walk the line between telling the operator to send someone and not angering DePape. The operator even tries to hang up a few times before Pelosi convinces her to stay on.
In that situation, simply saying to DePape, “let’s sit down and chat until my wife gets home” while really waiting on the police seems like a smart thing to do.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Here’s a good summary of what was made public with links to the videos and audio recordings:
Pelosi Attack Live Updates: Body Camera Footage of Hammer Assault Released
Everything is consistent with a crazy guy breaking into the house and an elderly man trying to avoid angering him while trying to get help.
The simplest explanation, supported by the facts.
While there are some questions that may remain (what’s with the glass of water), they likely have pretty banal expectations (maybe Pelosi was trying to keep the guy calm and poured a couple of glasses of water while waiting for police).
Of course, this won’t convince the crazies, but nothing ever will.
-
2
-
-
Just now, B-Man said:
You never listed to me before,
You should definitely give em your 2 cents.
I did write them a letter back in 2017. Never got a response though. -
4 minutes ago, B-Man said:
I wanna thank the GOP for making it easy for me in 2024.
Any donations will be directly to the candidate.
None for the Republican Party.
I shall join you in not donating any money to the Republican Party-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:
Yep, still a hoax in this thread too. And swamp juries will always help bolster the illusion.
Keep swallowing that load deep leftists!
Prosecutor brings a case so weak that his subordinates quit because they don’t want to be a part of it. Then loses the case.
Galaxy brained geniuses: it was the jury’s fault.
-
21 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:
Russia meddling in US election is true- they wanted to weaken whoever the president was and they found willing idiots all over the place.
Yup and that is definitely worth investigating. -
Looks like they released the video of DePape breaking into the house from the outside.
I’m assuming what really happened is that they were in a secret sexual relationship, got in a fight, and then DePape went outside, and decided to break back in because he realized that Pelosi had his glass of water.
Am I doing this right?
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
I believe that it's an honest question to ask Pelosi.
If you feared for your life at the hands of an armed intruder why did you also take time to fix yourself a drink?
Seems like a reasonable question to ask. Well to reasonable people it is anyway.
I’m sure it’ll be asked at trial and may have already been asked by investigators. -
Just now, BillsFanNC said:
It signifies nothing more than that you're a complete moron. Not unlike the Hamlin conspiracy theorists, so nice catch there.
No seriously. Just say what you mean. You still believe that this was a lovers quarrel, don’t you?-
2
-
Russia Was Not a Democratic Hoax
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
For anyone interested in actually learning the truth instead of spewing nonsense, you can check the reports yourself and see both that the Steele Dossier was not the center of the investigations and that the Trump campaign was attempting to work with the Russians to win the election.
Senate Intelligence Report on Russia
Mueller Report on Russia