Russia Was Not a Democratic Hoax

[B-Man]

 

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Russia Was Not a Democratic Hoax

 

 

Yes.

 

Yes it was.

 

and everyone knew it.

 

 

.

 

 

Durham FAILED you pathetic simp

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

Durham: Obama, Biden, Clinton, Comey, Lynch ALL knew ‘Trump/Russia collusion’ was BS from the start

 

In the last few years the Democrats and media have all been hyperventilating over “election interference” and “Russia collusion,” and it won’t surprise you to know that those claims about Trump/Republican election meddling were 100 percent pure projection.

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2023/05/15/durham-obama-biden-clinton-comey-lynch-all-knew-trump-russia-collusion-was-bs-from-the-start/

[BillsFanNC]

@SectionC3

 

HOAX.

 

[Irv]

I'm wondering how badly Trump will pummel Demented Biden (if the Demented One lives that long) even more now.  What a big bunch of bull####.  Democrat liars.  What a mess.  

[BillStime]

 

[SCBills]

2 hours ago, Irv said:

I'm wondering how badly Trump will pummel Demented Biden (if the Demented One lives that long) even more now.  What a big bunch of bull####.  Democrat liars.  What a mess.  

You overestimate the intellectual curiosity of Americans and underestimate the ability of our media to craft a narrative and effectively propagandize the public. 
 

Have to hope something like this wakes up just enough normies to make a difference, but I have my doubts. 
 

[B-Man]

 

 

The Russia Hoax Really Was A Hoax

by Mark Wauck

 

So that’s the big news after all these years—the Russia Hoax really was a hoax. As if anyone with an IQ above room temperature ever doubted it.

 

According to Just the News, the report concludes that the FBI had no verified intelligence or evidence when it opened up an investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign in the summer of 2016. Durham placed blame on the FBI and DOJ for failing to follow their own standards in a probe which should have never taken place - including the agency's surveillance of an American citizen without basis.

 

https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/bull-durham-master-of-the-bleeding?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=473679&post_id=121655901&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

 

 

.

[JaCrispy]

17 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

 

Durham FAILED you pathetic simp

 

The cope is strong with this one…🤣🤣🤣

 

[B-Man]

 

What Durham proved 

 

 

Special counsel John Durham exposed Monday how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to rig the 2016 presidential election.

 

His 316-page report proves federal law enforcement was weaponized by shielding the Hillary Clinton campaign and persecuting the Donald Trump campaign.

Yet despite the damning evidence, most of the media are treating the Durham report as a “nothingburger.”

 

FBI racketeering repeatedly rescued Hillary Clinton.

 

The Clinton Foundation raked in hundreds of million dollars of squirrely foreign contributions while she was secretary of state and revving up her presidential campaign.

 

The Durham report found that “senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how [the Clinton Foundation investigation was] handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months leading up to the election.”

 

On top of that dereliction, “the FBI appears to have made no effort to investigate . . . the Clinton campaign’s purported acceptance of a [illegal] campaign contribution that was made by the FBI’s own long-term [confidential human source] on behalf of Insider-I and, ultimately, Foreign Government.”

 

Top FBI officials also saved Hillary Clinton by scorning the federal statute book and treating her pervasive, perpetual violations of federal laws on classified documents as a harmless, unintentional error.

 

Shortly after FBI chief James Comey announced no charges against Hillary, “Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server,” according to the Durham report.

 

CIA chief John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama and other top officials on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal . . . to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

 

The Clinton campaign helped bankroll the notorious Steele dossier, which made sweeping, unsubstantiated and salacious accusations against Trump.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/durham-proves-that-hillary-and-the-fbi-tried-to-rig-the-2016-election/

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

16 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

So frustrating I know, but the fact is it wasn’t proven Mueller’s report didn’t come away, proving anything with charges being brought
 

Much the same way Durham failed just like the Mueller report. The Durham report insinuates a lot, but there’s nothing there that’s criminally chargeable

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

So frustrating I know, but the fact is it wasn’t proven Mueller’s report didn’t come away, proving anything with charges being brought
 

Much the same way Durham failed just like the Mueller report. The Durham report insinuates a lot, but there’s nothing there that’s criminally chargeable

We didn't need the Mueller report to prove Trump and Russia were working to the same ends. Anyone with a brain can see they were (are) 

[John from Riverside]

Just now, Tiberius said:

We didn't need the Mueller report to prove Trump and Russia were working to the same ends. Anyone with a brain can see they were (are) 

I hear what you’re saying, but without actual proof, we’re just spreading conspiracies, and we’re no better than the people that do that when we start spreading things that we don’t have concrete evidence
 

There are enough bull#### things that Trump has done that are easily identifiable and provable

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

I hear what you’re saying, but without actual proof, we’re just spreading conspiracies, and we’re no better than the people that do that when we start spreading things that we don’t have concrete evidence
 

There are enough bull#### things that Trump has done that are easily identifiable and provable

No, he was obviously taking help from the murderous terrorist Putin 

[Tommy Callahan]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, he was obviously taking help from the murderous terrorist Putin 

What you are dealing with is called Cognitive dissidence.   its valid.

 

According to Frantz Fanon, cognitive dissonance occurs when “people hold a core belief that is very strong [and] when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted [so] they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn’t fit with that core belief” (Fanon 1952)

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

What Durham proved 

 

 

Special counsel John Durham exposed Monday how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to rig the 2016 presidential election.

 

His 316-page report proves federal law enforcement was weaponized by shielding the Hillary Clinton campaign and persecuting the Donald Trump campaign.

Yet despite the damning evidence, most of the media are treating the Durham report as a “nothingburger.”

 

FBI racketeering repeatedly rescued Hillary Clinton.

 

The Clinton Foundation raked in hundreds of million dollars of squirrely foreign contributions while she was secretary of state and revving up her presidential campaign.

 

The Durham report found that “senior FBI and Department officials placed restrictions on how [the Clinton Foundation investigation was] handled such that essentially no investigative activities occurred for months leading up to the election.”

 

On top of that dereliction, “the FBI appears to have made no effort to investigate . . . the Clinton campaign’s purported acceptance of a [illegal] campaign contribution that was made by the FBI’s own long-term [confidential human source] on behalf of Insider-I and, ultimately, Foreign Government.”

 

Top FBI officials also saved Hillary Clinton by scorning the federal statute book and treating her pervasive, perpetual violations of federal laws on classified documents as a harmless, unintentional error.

 

Shortly after FBI chief James Comey announced no charges against Hillary, “Clinton allegedly approved a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to tie Trump to Russia as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server,” according to the Durham report.

 

CIA chief John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama and other top officials on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal . . . to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

 

The Clinton campaign helped bankroll the notorious Steele dossier, which made sweeping, unsubstantiated and salacious accusations against Trump.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/05/15/durham-proves-that-hillary-and-the-fbi-tried-to-rig-the-2016-election/

Just let me know when the charges will be brought

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

What you are dealing with is called Cognitive dissidence.   its valid.

 

According to Frantz Fanon, cognitive dissonance occurs when “people hold a core belief that is very strong [and] when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted [so] they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn’t fit with that core belief” (Fanon 1952)

How about when evidence is not presented that goes along with your beliefs, so you start doing serious, mental gymnastics trying to twist it
 

The Durham report turned up basically nothing if they don’t have something to be able to charge anybody on it’s nothing

[aristocrat]

 

[snafu]

[Tiberius]

44 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

What you are dealing with is called Cognitive dissidence.   its valid.

 

According to Frantz Fanon, cognitive dissonance occurs when “people hold a core belief that is very strong [and] when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted [so] they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn’t fit with that core belief” (Fanon 1952)

That's called gaslighting 

 

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim's mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.