Tiberius Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 🤡 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Wow. It made a factual comment. As it is a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Ron Burgundy Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 16 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Wow. It made a factual comment. As it is a clown. Erkel strikes again! Wow what a zinger! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 The entire Russian narrative was not only a political hoax. But an attempt to cover up the actual crime of spying on the opposition party member running for office 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: The entire Russian narrative was not only a political hoax. But an attempt to cover up the actual crime of spying on the opposition party member running for office Did Russian GRU operative hack Clinton campaign documentation and emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Maybe the Mueller report should have been in another language other than English? Nevermind, the TDS is too advanced. And people wonder why I put these dimwits on ignore... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 5 minutes ago, BillStime said: Did Russian GRU operative hack Clinton campaign documentation and emails? Yes. Are you naïve enough to believe Russian GRU operatives didn't try to hack into the Trump campaign documentation and emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 10 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Yes. Are you naïve enough to believe Russian GRU operatives didn't try to hack into the Trump campaign documentation and emails? Oh, they most certainly did... but why didn't they release those documents and emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 27 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Maybe the Mueller report should have been in another language other than English? Nevermind, the TDS is too advanced. And people wonder why I put these dimwits on ignore... So stupid. That's not the Mueller reports, its Barr "interpreting" it in Trump's favor Clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: So stupid. That's not the Mueller reports, its Barr "interpreting" it in Trump's favor Clown Something that has become pretty common is to set a baseline on an issue that is either incorrect or exaggerated because it allows you to make the point you want to make. It's just strawman stuff all the way down. For the Russia investigation, many on the Right assume the narrative of far-Left loonies was the basis of the investigation (think Occupy Democrats, Krassenstein grifters, and even Hillary, etc.) who said things along the lines of Trump taking orders from Putin. That way, when there's a lack of evidence to disprove the extreme position, they can claim victory over the entire issue, ignoring the reality of the situation. What the Mueller Report found is that Russia tried to interfere in the election to Trump's benefit and that the Trump Campaign was open to (or even welcoming of) that support. It also detailed several crimes committed by Russians, members of the Trump Campaign, and by Trump himself. But because it didn't prove the extreme / exaggerated claim that Trump and Putin were working hand-in-hand, the Right declared victory, completely ignoring anything else discovered in the investigation. The idea that Trump and Putin had entered into a conspiracy was always way out there. There wasn't any need for an agreement between the parties: they wanted the same thing and they were going to act to achieve it. Why would they need a formal agreement on it when they were going to do it anyway? If Mueller was telling the truth when he said there wasn't an agreement between Trump and Putin (he was), then why do they think basically everything else in the report is a lie (it isn't)? In the end, you get people stupidly using the Mueller Report to disprove the Mueller Report either through a lack of reading comprehension or a malicious desire to mislead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 hours ago, Pokebball said: Did you purposefully leave out the Clinton campaign's willingness to accept such help or was that simply an oversight? Yeah but that kind of foreign election interference is completely OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Something that has become pretty common is to set a baseline on an issue that is either incorrect or exaggerated because it allows you to make the point you want to make. It's just strawman stuff all the way down. For the Russia investigation, many on the Right assume the narrative of far-Left loonies was the basis of the investigation (think Occupy Democrats, Krassenstein grifters, and even Hillary, etc.) who said things along the lines of Trump taking orders from Putin. That way, when there's a lack of evidence to disprove the extreme position, they can claim victory over the entire issue, ignoring the reality of the situation. What the Mueller Report found is that Russia tried to interfere in the election to Trump's benefit and that the Trump Campaign was open to (or even welcoming of) that support. It also detailed several crimes committed by Russians, members of the Trump Campaign, and by Trump himself. But because it didn't prove the extreme / exaggerated claim that Trump and Putin were working hand-in-hand, the Right declared victory, completely ignoring anything else discovered in the investigation. The idea that Trump and Putin had entered into a conspiracy was always way out there. There wasn't any need for an agreement between the parties: they wanted the same thing and they were going to act to achieve it. Why would they need a formal agreement on it when they were going to do it anyway? If Mueller was telling the truth when he said there wasn't an agreement between Trump and Putin (he was), then why do they think basically everything else in the report is a lie (it isn't)? In the end, you get people stupidly using the Mueller Report to disprove the Mueller Report either through a lack of reading comprehension or a malicious desire to mislead. So you're saying both Trump and Putin worked independent of each other, had no formal arrangement, but shared the same goal which was to get Trump elected. And worked in separate and independent "swim lanes" to make it happen? You should run this theory by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton who to this day are still peddling the belief that Trump colluded with the Russians and by default Putin himself to steal the election. In their minds the Mueller report "proved" they colluded but there wasn't evidence beyond a doubt required to bring charges. This is still the prevailing Democrat narrative 7 year later. What's missing from the explanation is the prequel, how it all began. Skipping to the critical point in time, agents at the FBI filed an application for a FISA warrant under false pretense and committed a Federal crime in the process in order to eavesdrop on Cater Page. A person that was suggested to the FBI was working with Russians to dig up dirt on the opposition. They knew he was a CIA asset while leaving that detail out of the warrant application (because that detail likely would result with the judge denying the application). One thing Page was doing was de-briefing his CIA contacts on Russian activities. That was left out of the warrant too. As a result of acquiring the warrant, they could spy on Page and anyone he spoke to in the Trump campaign. You might want to ask 1) why did the FBI knowingly file a FISA warrant application under false pretense?, 2) following up the chain of command where did this order originate? What Mueller's team didn't investigate or report is more telling than what it did. You see the real collusion wasn't between Trump and Putin. It was between the DNC (Clinton campaign) and the FBI. They totally ignored this connection for reasons that are painfully obvious. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Just now, All_Pro_Bills said: So you're saying both Trump and Putin worked independent of each other, had no formal arrangement, but shared the same goal which was to get Trump elected. And worked in separate and independent "swim lanes" to make it happen? You should run this theory by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton who to this day are still peddling the belief that Trump colluded with the Russians and by default Putin himself to steal the election. In their minds the Mueller report "proved" they colluded but there wasn't evidence beyond a doubt required to bring charges. This is still the prevailing Democrat narrative 7 year later. What's missing from the explanation is the prequel, how it all began. Skipping to the critical point in time, agents at the FBI filed an application for a FISA warrant under false pretense and committed a Federal crime in the process in order to eavesdrop on Cater Page. A person that was suggested to the FBI was working with Russians to dig up dirt on the opposition. They knew he was a CIA asset while leaving that detail out of the warrant application (because that detail likely would result with the judge denying the application). One thing Page was doing was de-briefing his CIA contacts on Russian activities. That was left out of the warrant too. As a result of acquiring the warrant, they could spy on Page and anyone he spoke to in the Trump campaign. You might want to ask 1) why did the FBI knowingly file a FISA warrant application under false pretense?, 2) following up the chain of command where did this order originate? What Mueller's team didn't investigate or report is more telling than what it did. You see the real collusion wasn't between Trump and Putin. It was between the DNC (Clinton campaign) and the FBI. They totally ignored this connection for reasons that are painfully obvious. Sounds familiar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Something that has become pretty common is to set a baseline on an issue that is either incorrect or exaggerated because it allows you to make the point you want to make. It's just strawman stuff all the way down. For the Russia investigation, many on the Right assume the narrative of far-Left loonies was the basis of the investigation (think Occupy Democrats, Krassenstein grifters, and even Hillary, etc.) who said things along the lines of Trump taking orders from Putin. That way, when there's a lack of evidence to disprove the extreme position, they can claim victory over the entire issue, ignoring the reality of the situation. What the Mueller Report found is that Russia tried to interfere in the election to Trump's benefit and that the Trump Campaign was open to (or even welcoming of) that support. It also detailed several crimes committed by Russians, members of the Trump Campaign, and by Trump himself. But because it didn't prove the extreme / exaggerated claim that Trump and Putin were working hand-in-hand, the Right declared victory, completely ignoring anything else discovered in the investigation. The idea that Trump and Putin had entered into a conspiracy was always way out there. There wasn't any need for an agreement between the parties: they wanted the same thing and they were going to act to achieve it. Why would they need a formal agreement on it when they were going to do it anyway? If Mueller was telling the truth when he said there wasn't an agreement between Trump and Putin (he was), then why do they think basically everything else in the report is a lie (it isn't)? In the end, you get people stupidly using the Mueller Report to disprove the Mueller Report either through a lack of reading comprehension or a malicious desire to mislead. I do have a question for you- how was the interference in 2016 any different than the interference in every election since at least Reagan? The only major difference I see is that one of the campaigns was dumb enough to get hacked with classified information. Russians lied about Trump in the Steele Dossier, Russians lied about Hillary also. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 30 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: So you're saying both Trump and Putin worked independent of each other, had no formal arrangement, but shared the same goal which was to get Trump elected. And worked in separate and independent "swim lanes" to make it happen? You should run this theory by people like Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton who to this day are still peddling the belief that Trump colluded with the Russians and by default Putin himself to steal the election. In their minds the Mueller report "proved" they colluded but there wasn't evidence beyond a doubt required to bring charges. This is still the prevailing Democrat narrative 7 year later. What's missing from the explanation is the prequel, how it all began. Skipping to the critical point in time, agents at the FBI filed an application for a FISA warrant under false pretense and committed a Federal crime in the process in order to eavesdrop on Cater Page. A person that was suggested to the FBI was working with Russians to dig up dirt on the opposition. They knew he was a CIA asset while leaving that detail out of the warrant application (because that detail likely would result with the judge denying the application). One thing Page was doing was de-briefing his CIA contacts on Russian activities. That was left out of the warrant too. As a result of acquiring the warrant, they could spy on Page and anyone he spoke to in the Trump campaign. You might want to ask 1) why did the FBI knowingly file a FISA warrant application under false pretense?, 2) following up the chain of command where did this order originate? What Mueller's team didn't investigate or report is more telling than what it did. You see the real collusion wasn't between Trump and Putin. It was between the DNC (Clinton campaign) and the FBI. They totally ignored this connection for reasons that are painfully obvious. Most of this is actually covered in the Mueller Report. I cannot emphasize enough that people should actually read it if they want to talk about it correctly. It's not that long and you can always just start with the Executive Summaries. "Collusion" is not a term in federal law. The media is really bad at covering law stuff and even worse when it involves politics. Politicians also use incorrect or inflammatory language when it benefits them. That's why Mueller looked at the investigation through the lens of conspiracy law, not collusion. The report also notes that the origin of the Russia investigation was the FBI learning of George Papadopoulos's claim that the Trump Campaign had been told that Russia wanted to assist it by damaging Clinton. As to the idea of the origins being the Carter Page FISA, not only is that debunked by Mueller in the above link, but the report from Trump's DoJ reviewing the origins and appropriateness of the investigations also agrees that Crossfire Hurricane was started because of Papadopoulos in July 2016. It also notes that the first Page FISA was applied for in October 2016, several months after Crossfire Hurricane had already started. As to what some Dems are saying, unfortunately, I do not control the Democratic Party. If I did, Hillary wouldn't have been the nominee in 2016 and Schiff would be losing to Katie Porter right now. Alas, I lack the power to make people say what I want them to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 9 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: I do have a question for you- how was the interference in 2016 any different than the interference in every election since at least Reagan? The only major difference I see is that one of the campaigns was dumb enough to get hacked with classified information. Russians lied about Trump in the Steele Dossier, Russians lied about Hillary also. I'd say scale and willingness by a campaign to accept interference. As far as I can tell, the IRA is fairly unprecedented. I'm not aware of such an organization playing in a US election at that scale before. The advent of the internet and social media presented an effective opportunity that we hadn't seen before and were definitely not prepared for. In addition to that, the Trump Campaign had an unprecedented willingness to meet with foreign agents promising politically beneficial information. There were dozens of contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives when the normal thing to do would be to report such attempted contacts to law enforcement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 In addition to that, the Trump Campaign had an unprecedented willingness to meet with foreign agents Lmao. The "foreign agent complied" dossier was funded by Clinton and approved by the white house. Using all 5eye intelligence and in turn, Russian intelligence that provided it to them. Or some elaborate conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: In addition to that, the Trump Campaign had an unprecedented willingness to meet with foreign agents Lmao. The "foreign agent complied" dossier was funded by Clinton and approved by the white house. Using all 5eye intelligence and in turn, Russian intelligence that provided it to them. Or some elaborate conspiracy. Is there some competition between the resistance Libs and MAGA to see who can misunderstand the Steele dossier the most? Hard to tell who’s winning, but reality is certainly losing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Is there some competition between the resistance Libs and MAGA to see who can misunderstand the Steele dossier the most? Hard to tell who’s winning, but reality is certainly losing. The "pee tape" part of it was a nice touch... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 https://public.substack.com/p/cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump Receipts to show it was what led to the dossier. And how the Dems approached foreign agents for dirt on the opposition party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: https://public.substack.com/p/cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump Receipts to show it was what led to the dossier. And how the Dems approached foreign agents for dirt on the opposition party. Yeah, but again, that's totally different. Their collusion and Russian disinfo was completely warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 I love when the King shows up, looks down his nose at people while making snide comments that show that it, once again, hasn't the slightest clue of what it's talking about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 12 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: https://public.substack.com/p/cia-had-foreign-allies-spy-on-trump Receipts to show it was what led to the dossier. And how the Dems approached foreign agents for dirt on the opposition party. Ah yes, unnamed sources to a Substack. That definitely beats investigations, real documents, and testimony. The Steele Dossier was unverified oppo research so unreliable that the Clinton Campaign buried it and got in trouble for doing so. Steele shopped it around but nobody would publish it because nothing in it could be independently verified. Then BuzzFeed did a very stupid thing and published it and we’ve all been worse off for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 How 'bout that 9-0 drubbing King? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) The dossier was made and presented by foreign agents paid for by an American political party candidate. FBI used info to get fisa to spy on a CIA asset inserted in the trump team. Even a year later Mueller claimed he investigated it all, and the FBI investigation, and still pushed the lie that the dossier was organic. When did he know? Sussman testimony? If we are doing a history summary And it's still " Russia did it". Edited March 6 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said: The dossier was made and presented by foreign agents paid for by an American political party candidate. FBI used info to get fisa to spy on a CIA asset inserted in the trump team. Even a year later Mueller claimed he investigated it all, and the FBI investigation, and still pushed the lie that the dossier was organic. When did he know? Sussman testimony? If we are doing a history summary And it's still " Russia did it". Durham is laughing at you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: The dossier was made and presented by foreign agents paid for by an American political party candidate. FBI used info to get fisa to spy on a CIA asset inserted in the trump team. Even a year later Mueller claimed he investigated it all, and the FBI investigation, and still pushed the lie that the dossier was organic. When did he know? Sussman testimony? If we are doing a history summary And it's still " Russia did it". Man, you really will believe anything, won’t you? The dossier was trash oppo that fell apart the minute anybody looked into it. Steele thought he was some super spy getting all kinds of info because he was too dumb to realize that he was being fed lies. The pee tape story should have tipped him off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 6 hours ago, ChiGoose said: I'd say scale and willingness by a campaign to accept interference. As far as I can tell, the IRA is fairly unprecedented. I'm not aware of such an organization playing in a US election at that scale before. The advent of the internet and social media presented an effective opportunity that we hadn't seen before and were definitely not prepared for. In addition to that, the Trump Campaign had an unprecedented willingness to meet with foreign agents promising politically beneficial information. There were dozens of contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives when the normal thing to do would be to report such attempted contacts to law enforcement. Hillary literally paid for the Steele Dossier, which is Russian disinformation, and you think Trump was the new "scale and willingness"? Secondly acceptance of foreign interference is applauded when it is believed to help liberals, such as foreign nationals whom work in Hollywood praise them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 59 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Hillary literally paid for the Steele Dossier, which is Russian disinformation, and you think Trump was the new "scale and willingness"? Secondly acceptance of foreign interference is applauded when it is believed to help liberals, such as foreign nationals whom work in Hollywood praise them. Hillary paid Fusion GPS for oppo research. When they came up with the Steele dossier, the Clinton campaign attempted to bury it. That is obviously very different than people saying “hey, I work for the Russian government and I want to help you win the election” and the campaign responding with “sounds good!” 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 8 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Hillary paid Fusion GPS for oppo research. When they came up with the Steele dossier, the Clinton campaign attempted to bury it. That is obviously very different than people saying “hey, I work for the Russian government and I want to help you win the election” and the campaign responding with “sounds good!” They paid for it...and it somehow managed to get out. Spillage, I guess... No one really cares about Don Jr's ill-advised setup, er, meeting with Fusion GPS cohort Veselnitskaya. It was a one-off and no information was obtained. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 5 minutes ago, Doc said: They paid for it...and it somehow managed to get out. Spillage, I guess... No one really cares about Don Jr's ill-advised setup, er, meeting with Fusion GPS cohort Veselnitskaya. It was a one-off and no information was obtained. Veselnitskaya, who received special permission from Obama AG Lynch to enter the US, then met with Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting. This is never mentioned by useful idiots. I wonder why? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 👆🤡🤣The cult is panicked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 31 minutes ago, Doc said: They paid for it...and it somehow managed to get out. Spillage, I guess... No one really cares about Don Jr's ill-advised setup, er, meeting with Fusion GPS cohort Veselnitskaya. It was a one-off and no information was obtained. Already told you how it got out. This is all publicly known stuff. And there were many meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. I don’t understand the willful ignorance. I guess people would rather be told they are right than actually be right. It’s really kinda sad. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 Ie. Five eyes intelligence got bad data from their Russian intelligence assets. But the FBI and our intelligence ran with it anyways. And old man McCain handing it off to politico. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 11 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Ie. Five eyes intelligence got bad data from their Russian intelligence assets. But the FBI and our intelligence ran with it anyways. And old man McCain handing it off to politico. Do you honestly, truly believe that the *FBI* is in the tank for Democrats? Is that something people actually believe? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) Based off the actions of the last few years they seem to be an asset of the Dems and the entities they represent. Every day provides more proof Do you still believe the discredited narrative that Russia had an actual impact on the 2016 election? Edited March 6 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 The effin King! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 25 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Based off the actions of the last few years they seem to be an asset of the Dems and the entities they represent. Every day provides more proof Do you still believe the discredited narrative that Russia had an actual impact on the 2016 election? Ahhhhhh. You live in a fantasy world where you've isolated yourself away from reality. That makes sense. I was trying to understand how someone could believe that the FBI, an organization that has always leaned to the political Right, has basically always been headed by a Republican, and whose head in 2016 broke longstanding protocol to denigrate the Clinton campaign in the days leading up to the election (potentially sealing Trump's victory) was actually a tool of the Democrats. Is being gullible a requirement for being conservative these days, or does it just make things easier? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 (edited) Lmao. The king is referencing one statement in 2016 by a discussed liar while ignoring all the biased actions the 8 years since. The fact you don't even see it only shows your sad biases. Sorry . bills time agreeing with that, is kind of proof it's a bunch of BS and way outside the realm of reality. Edited March 6 by Tommy Callahan 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Already told you how it got out. This is all publicly known stuff. And there were many meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. I don’t understand the willful ignorance. I guess people would rather be told they are right than actually be right. It’s really kinda sad. Right and Clinton and/or the Dems had nothing to do with it leaking. Talk about willful ignorance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts