Jump to content

The Michael Sussman Trial: Special Counsel Durham's Probe Into The Origins of Russia Collusion Hoax.


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

5. A better case might be made that the Clinton campaign allegedly worked with foreign actors and our own Government to influence the 2016 campaign.

 

Not at all. That would be a much worse case to make. Which is why it hasn't been made by an investigated body.

 

Steele was not working on behalf of the British government. He was not part of a concerted effort by the UK to elect Clinton. He was a contractor doing oppo research. In that research, he was given information that may amount to crimes or compromise if they were true so he provided that information to the FBI. That is exactly what he should have done and what anybody should do in that situation. Ultimately, the FBI can investigate and determine the truth. With the Alfa Bank thing, they quickly decided it was not true.

 

I said foreign actors and our government.  I never said that Steele was working for his government.  Did Mueller ever say that any Russian in contact with the Trump campaign was working for the Russian Government?  Maybe, I don't remember. 

 

In any event, Steele (foreign actor) knew exactly where he got his bogus info -- Danchenko  (RUSSIAN foreign actor who's next up for trial in October). Steele and his Fusion GPS friends -- working for the Clinton campaign -- took his bogus info and peddled it at the same time to the FBI, the DOJ (though the Ohrs) and the press.  The game was to start enough of a whisper campaign so that it blossomed into investigations and reporting on investigations.  Well done, overall.  Our government ran with all of these "Good Samaritan leads" well beyond the time when the information was known by our government to be bogus.  Look up the Carter Page portion of 2016.  I never said that the UK made any effort to influence the election.  I did say that there's a strong appearance that our own government had a hand in the election.  Probably unwittingly at the start, but there were leaks from the FBI to the press, as documented by Horowitz' investigation.

 

At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things.  But Trump may not have.  You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.

 

Edited by snafu
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I said foreign actors and our government.  I never said that Steele was working for his government.  Did Mueller ever say that any Russian in contact with the Trump campaign was working for the Russian Government?  Maybe, I don't remember. 

 

In any event, Steele (foreign actor) knew exactly where he got his bogus info -- Danchenko  (RUSSIAN foreign actor who's next up for trial in October). Steele and his Fusion GPS friends -- working for the Clinton campaign -- took his bogus info and peddled it at the same time to the FBI, the DOJ (though the Ohrs) and the press.  The game was to start enough of a whisper campaign so that it blossomed into investigations and reporting on investigations.  Well done, overall.  Our government ran with all of these "Good Samaritan leads" well beyond the time when the information was known by our government to be bogus.  Look up the Carter Page portion of 2016.  I never said that the UK made any effort to influence the election.  I did say that there's a strong appearance that our own government had a hand in the election.  Probably unwittingly at the start, but there were leaks from the FBI to the press, as documented by Horowitz' investigation.

 

At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things.  But Trump may not have.  You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.

 

 

1. Did Mueller ever say that any Russian in contact with the Trump campaign was working for the Russian Government? 

 

Yes. The Mueller report actually starts with about 60 pages on what the Russians were doing to hurt Clinton and benefit Trump, which then moves into their connections with the Trump campaign.

 

2. Steele dossier / Clinton campaign

 

Here's where I have some trouble understanding the argument. The Clinton campaign hires Fusion GPS to do oppo research (possibly because Fusion GPS was already doing it on behalf of Republican actors during the primary, Clinton wanted that work to continue).  Fusion GPS then hires an ex-spy to find information on Trump. Steele talks to his contacts and gets back information that, though unverified, would be alarming if true. Given his concern, he tips off the FBI.

 

Absolutely none of that is crime. Nor is it underhanded. Nor is it even a problem. Like I've said, we want people to report suspicious things to authorities, don't we? 

 

Given the sheer number of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there were a lot of things the FBI was tipped off about, even outside the Steele dossier. Some of it was debunked, other claims turned out to be credible. But just because someone brought a claim that was ultimately debunked does not mean they were part of some grand plot.

 

I know people want to make this into some big conspiracy and Clinton pulling all the strings and the FBI was in the tank for her. But she lost the election, in a big part because the head of the FBI came out right before the election and said he was reopening an investigation into her. Why would that happen if there was some big deep state effort to get her elected? The idea that Clinton is so powerful and cunning that she can manipulate all of these people but still lose an election to someone who had been considered a joke for most of the election is really hard to square.

 

3. At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things.  But Trump may not have.  You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.

 

Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation. The evidence is overwhelming and it's really not much of a question at this point. If you don't agree, I suggest reading Volume II of the report. As to the Clinton campaign, I think there is a big misunderstanding on how oppo research works and when it is right and proper to notify authorities. If an oppo researcher finds potential crimes and reports it to the FBI, then that's a good thing.

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Colluding with a foreign country is NOT treason.

 

Treason is defined by 18 USC § 2381 as:

 

While Russia may be an adversary, we were not at an open state of war with them. Nor does accepting help in an election likely meet the standard of "giving aid and comfort" since it would be Trump, not Russia, that is primarily benefitting.

 

You could consider rigging an election and installing a puppet as President of another country as an act of war.  And why would Russia install Trump if not to get something from it?

 

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I am not speculating: Mueller stated explicitly in the report that he was not making a charging decision because he could not indict the president even if the evidence warranted it. He did, however, state that he had the ability to clearly state that the president did not commit any crimes if the evidence supported that statement, but that the evidence in the report did not support that determination.

 

I'm saying that congress is political, and often spineless. Instead of doing a proper wide-ranging investigation, they were mostly content to let Mueller do it, hoping he would come out and say the president should be indicted (something he wouldn't even consider even if it was warranted). They wanted someone else to do the work so they could keep their hands clean and avoid political problems. When the political winds didn't blow their way, they decided not to act and justified it by saying a conviction in a partisan senate was impossible anyway. In short: they were cowards.

 

 

Barr's summary of the report did not accurately reflect the details and context within the report, something that frustrated Mueller.

 

As for the Trump family, Mueller did investigate Don Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller concluded that, while the actions that Don Jr. took may have violated federal election law, that law has a mens rea component: the individual has to know that what they are doing is illegal. Mueller was skeptical they could prove that Don Jr. knew what he was doing wrong and so they declined to charge him. He was too dumb to crime.

 

There isn't much on Ivanka as it doesn't appear she was involved much with the Russia related activities within the campaign. I don't recall much of anything about Eric, though I'm not sure how involved he was in the campaign.

 

In regards to the claim that this was all cooked up by the Clinton campaign, the article you cite includes the following:

 

The Steele Dossier took on a life of its own in the media because it was truly scandalous. But I think it often gets misconstrued as to what it was and what it was not. It was a raw intelligence document provided by an ex-spy on behalf of a client (Fusion GPS / Clinton Campaign / Whichever GOP campaign originally requested the document). Essentially, Steele talked to his contacts who gave him information and he documented it. It is not an analysis document that assesses the validity of the information, just that information he was told that may or may not be true. It also wasn't what started the Russia investigation. It definitely should have been handed to the FBI to investigate but it was problematic when it was leaked to the media (*cough* John McCain *cough*) because it was then stripped of context and blown out to be either a 100% fact based document that showed that Trump likes watersports in Moscow or 100% fake that shows a grand conspiracy to hurt Trump. It was neither of those things.

 

At the time that Russia was working to help get Trump elected, several members of the campaign welcomed the help from Russians and met with them for those purposes. That is very well documented. It seems unlikely to me that Clinton somehow manipulated the Russians and the Trump campaign into working together so that she could tarnish Trump. I've never met a Democrat who is that competent.

 

I think it's not only reasonable, but expected, that if you believe someone is committing crimes, that you report them to the authorities. If a campaign is doing oppo research and they find members of their opposition campaign doing shady things or possibly committing crimes, they absolutely should report that to the FBI.

 

As for Sussman, I have no strong opinion on his guilt or innocence. I would not be outraged if he was found guilty, nor would I celebrate should he be acquitted. While I find the case itself interesting, I have a hard time bringing myself to care very much about Sussman himself, one way or the other. I laid out the arguments being presented by both sides earlier in this thread and I think both are believable. It'll come down to the facts and what convinces the jury. Where I disagree with many on this thread is that the Sussman case is anything other than a single case of a guy lying to the FBI. I do not expect this to snowball into some big thing that takes down a bunch of people.

 

He actually clarified the bolded part in the afternoon portion of his testimony to Congress: “As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You could consider rigging an election and installing a puppet as President of another country as an act of war.  And why would Russia install Trump if not to get something from it?

 

I don’t think that interfering with an election constitutes an act of war. If we had that on the books, the US would be plenty guilty too.

 

I also don’t think Russia viewed this as a way to install a puppet president in the US. Trump was not Putin’s puppet no matter what some people on the left claimed.

 

From what I can tell, Russia, like many people, assumed Clinton was going to win. Supporting Trump was likely more about damaging her so that her administration is hobbled from day one than it was actually electing Trump. 
 

In the eyes of the Kremlin, Trump was a useful idiot. Someone who had similar aims (hurt Clinton) and could provide a benefit to Russia’s goals. This is also why Mueller was unable to find a tacit agreement between the campaign and Russia: there was no need to affirmatively reach a conspiracy when everyone is headed in the same direction anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

1. Did Mueller ever say that any Russian in contact with the Trump campaign was working for the Russian Government? 

 

Yes. The Mueller report actually starts with about 60 pages on what the Russians were doing to hurt Clinton and benefit Trump, which then moves into their connections with the Trump campaign.

 

2. Steele dossier / Clinton campaign

 

Here's where I have some trouble understanding the argument. The Clinton campaign hires Fusion GPS to do oppo research (possibly because Fusion GPS was already doing it on behalf of Republican actors during the primary, Clinton wanted that work to continue).  Fusion GPS then hires an ex-spy to find information on Trump. Steele talks to his contacts and gets back information that, though unverified, would be alarming if true. Given his concern, he tips off the FBI.

 

Absolutely none of that is crime. Nor is it underhanded. Nor is it even a problem. Like I've said, we want people to report suspicious things to authorities, don't we? 

 

Given the sheer number of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, there were a lot of things the FBI was tipped off about, even outside the Steele dossier. Some of it was debunked, other claims turned out to be credible. But just because someone brought a claim that was ultimately debunked does not mean they were part of some grand plot.

 

I know people want to make this into some big conspiracy and Clinton pulling all the strings and the FBI was in the tank for her. But she lost the election, in a big part because the head of the FBI came out right before the election and said he was reopening an investigation into her. Why would that happen if there was some big deep state effort to get her elected? The idea that Clinton is so powerful and cunning that she can manipulate all of these people but still lose an election to someone who had been considered a joke for most of the election is really hard to square.

 

3. At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things.  But Trump may not have.  You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.

 

Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation. The evidence is overwhelming and it's really not much of a question at this point. If you don't agree, I suggest reading Volume II of the report. As to the Clinton campaign, I think there is a big misunderstanding on how oppo research works and when it is right and proper to notify authorities. If an oppo researcher finds potential crimes and reports it to the FBI, then that's a good thing.

I believe you are being honest and I appreciate what you are saying in many ways but when you say

"Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation" 

Makes a few points clear

1(you think he had an obligation to work with the investigation that was hamstringing his administration based on lies. 

2) this was not opposition research unless you think every bit of slander can be repeated. This info was known to be lies which is why it has to be presented to the FBI in a dishonest manner for it to be considered.

3) the Mueller probe was extremely partisan and never straight with the American people, hence men like Schiff having so many leaks based on lies. The final report has to show his $32 million was not just the wild goose chase it was.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I believe you are being honest and I appreciate what you are saying in many ways but when you say

"Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation" 

Makes a few points clear

1(you think he had an obligation to work with the investigation that was hamstringing his administration based on lies. 

2) this was not opposition research unless you think every bit of slander can be repeated. This info was known to be lies which is why it has to be presented to the FBI in a dishonest manner for it to be considered.

3) the Mueller probe was extremely partisan and never straight with the American people, hence men like Schiff having so many leaks based on lies. The final report has to show his $32 million was not just the wild goose chase it was.

 


I appreciate your candor and I do my best to argue in good faith. I spent most of my adult life as a Republican, only leaving the party when it was clear it had sold its soul. 
 

We know for a fact that the FBI was not taking every single tip as gospel. In the Sussman case, he provided information to the FBI that there was a secret connection between Trump tower servers and Alfa Bank. The FBI took that, looked into it, and determined it was not true. 
 

That is good! That’s how it’s supposed to work! Someone comes across a possible issue or crime, they call it in, the professionals investigate it and it goes from there. 
 

So yes, if someone brings something to the FBI and the FBI finds it credible enough to start talking to the people allegedly involved (i.e. the Trump campaign), they should absolutely cooperate. Instead, Trump blatantly flaunted the law and committed multiple acts of obstruction. He absolutely should have been prosecuted. 
 

What did Mueller say that was a lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mueller report lies off the top of my head. Most are lies of omission.

 

Claimed Russia hacked DNC server. Yet they never examined the server. Therefore can't make that claim.

 

Joseph Mifsud is portrayed as a Russian spy. No mention of his attachment to Italian intelligence or his previous experience as FBI asset.

 

Trump tower meeting with Natalie Veselnitskaya. No mention of her being granted special waiver to enter US by Obama DOJ that made meeting possible. No mention that Veselnitskaya met with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS the day before and the day after the Trump tower meeting. 

 

Steele dossier never mentioned once in the report.

 

The premise that it's somehow illegal or improper to merely be in contact with Russians. Hillary would be in hot water as well if held to same standard.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


I appreciate your candor and I do my best to argue in good faith. I spent most of my adult life as a Republican, only leaving the party when it was clear it had sold its soul. 
 

We know for a fact that the FBI was not taking every single tip as gospel. In the Sussman case, he provided information to the FBI that there was a secret connection between Trump tower servers and Alfa Bank. The FBI took that, looked into it, and determined it was not true. 
 

That is good! That’s how it’s supposed to work! Someone comes across a possible issue or crime, they call it in, the professionals investigate it and it goes from there. 
 

So yes, if someone brings something to the FBI and the FBI finds it credible enough to start talking to the people allegedly involved (i.e. the Trump campaign), they should absolutely cooperate. Instead, Trump blatantly flaunted the law and committed multiple acts of obstruction. He absolutely should have been prosecuted. 
 

What did Mueller say that was a lie?

Mueller himself did not flat out lie but someone was leaking what was being investigated to people like Schiff and pretending things like the Alfa bank connection was real. I think where you and I greatly differ is acceptance of why it was "deemed credible" by the FBI, since nothing was verified that mattered, and why it became partisan so quickly, since the FBI is not supposed to political but obviously it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I know people want to make this into some big conspiracy and Clinton pulling all the strings and the FBI was in the tank for her. But she lost the election, in a big part because the head of the FBI came out right before the election and said he was reopening an investigation into her. Why would that happen if there was some big deep state effort to get her elected? The idea that Clinton is so powerful and cunning that she can manipulate all of these people but still lose an election to someone who had been considered a joke for most of the election is really hard to square.

 

3. At the beginning of your post, you said the Trump Campaign did bad, possibly criminal, things.  But Trump may not have.  You won't say the same thing for the Clinton Campaign.

 

Trump clearly illegally obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation. The evidence is overwhelming and it's really not much of a question at this point. If you don't agree, I suggest reading Volume II of the report. As to the Clinton campaign, I think there is a big misunderstanding on how oppo research works and when it is right and proper to notify authorities. If an oppo researcher finds potential crimes and reports it to the FBI, then that's a good thing.


I understand how oppo research normally works.  The Clinton campaign and the DNC appear to have taken their oppo research too far.  Yes, it is important for people to report suspicions to authorities — not make things up and report stories and fictions. Not to use investigative agencies as pawns for political gain.
 

I only read the headlines of the Sussman trial yesterday, though it looks like Clinton was in the loop with her campaign, according to her campaign manager’s testimony.  I’m actually surprised by that.  And Clinton didn’t lose because of Comey.  Clinton lost because she was an unlikeable abysmal failure as a candidate.

 

As for Trump’s obstruction of justice — that came after he was elected.  None of it has anything to do with Russian interference.  The question is how can Trump obstruct something that isn’t there to find. Again, I’m not saying that the Trump campaign were pure.  I’m saying that you’re qualifying one campaign as somehow less scummy than the other — and somehow it is proper to investigate one campaign and not the other.
 

All I heard for five years was “smoke/fire” with regard to Trump’s campaign. This thread is about Sussman and the DNC.  Smoke/fire.  
Nice convo ChiGoose. 🍺🍺.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

FBI knew alfa bank story was crap almost immediately after they recieved data and white paper from sussman

 

They also knew Steele dossier was crap after interviewing Danchenko, Steeles source, in January 2017.

 

They knew the Steele dossier was fake and therefore they were compelled to inform the FISA court of this new knowledge. But instead they doubled down and applied for another FISA warrant on Carter Page by knowingly using made up BS.

 

By the time Mueller was appointed SC the FBI knew alfa bank and Steele dossier were BS. 

 

Biggest scandal in us history. And you'd never have a clue about any of it if you rely on legacy media and left wing social media to tell you A story instead of THE story.

 

 

Edited by DRsGhost
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I am not speculating: Mueller stated explicitly in the report that he was not making a charging decision because he could not indict the president even if the evidence warranted it. He did, however, state that he had the ability to clearly state that the president did not commit any crimes if the evidence supported that statement, but that the evidence in the report did not support that determination.

 

I'm saying that congress is political, and often spineless. Instead of doing a proper wide-ranging investigation, they were mostly content to let Mueller do it, hoping he would come out and say the president should be indicted (something he wouldn't even consider even if it was warranted). They wanted someone else to do the work so they could keep their hands clean and avoid political problems. When the political winds didn't blow their way, they decided not to act and justified it by saying a conviction in a partisan senate was impossible anyway. In short: they were cowards.

 

 

Barr's summary of the report did not accurately reflect the details and context within the report, something that frustrated Mueller.

 

As for the Trump family, Mueller did investigate Don Jr. for the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller concluded that, while the actions that Don Jr. took may have violated federal election law, that law has a mens rea component: the individual has to know that what they are doing is illegal. Mueller was skeptical they could prove that Don Jr. knew what he was doing wrong and so they declined to charge him. He was too dumb to crime.

 

There isn't much on Ivanka as it doesn't appear she was involved much with the Russia related activities within the campaign. I don't recall much of anything about Eric, though I'm not sure how involved he was in the campaign.

 

In regards to the claim that this was all cooked up by the Clinton campaign, the article you cite includes the following:

 

The Steele Dossier took on a life of its own in the media because it was truly scandalous. But I think it often gets misconstrued as to what it was and what it was not. It was a raw intelligence document provided by an ex-spy on behalf of a client (Fusion GPS / Clinton Campaign / Whichever GOP campaign originally requested the document). Essentially, Steele talked to his contacts who gave him information and he documented it. It is not an analysis document that assesses the validity of the information, just that information he was told that may or may not be true. It also wasn't what started the Russia investigation. It definitely should have been handed to the FBI to investigate but it was problematic when it was leaked to the media (*cough* John McCain *cough*) because it was then stripped of context and blown out to be either a 100% fact based document that showed that Trump likes watersports in Moscow or 100% fake that shows a grand conspiracy to hurt Trump. It was neither of those things.

 

At the time that Russia was working to help get Trump elected, several members of the campaign welcomed the help from Russians and met with them for those purposes. That is very well documented. It seems unlikely to me that Clinton somehow manipulated the Russians and the Trump campaign into working together so that she could tarnish Trump. I've never met a Democrat who is that competent.

 

I think it's not only reasonable, but expected, that if you believe someone is committing crimes, that you report them to the authorities. If a campaign is doing oppo research and they find members of their opposition campaign doing shady things or possibly committing crimes, they absolutely should report that to the FBI.

 

As for Sussman, I have no strong opinion on his guilt or innocence. I would not be outraged if he was found guilty, nor would I celebrate should he be acquitted. While I find the case itself interesting, I have a hard time bringing myself to care very much about Sussman himself, one way or the other. I laid out the arguments being presented by both sides earlier in this thread and I think both are believable. It'll come down to the facts and what convinces the jury. Where I disagree with many on this thread is that the Sussman case is anything other than a single case of a guy lying to the FBI. I do not expect this to snowball into some big thing that takes down a bunch of people.

Again, without malice, the reality is a politically motivated investigation resulted in political accusations best described as “We can’t not not say there was no guilt” with a 4 page summary revealing no collusion and no obstruction. 

 

If Mueller was frustrated, he and his investigators failed in the investigation. 
 

All this DJT Jr was too dumb to be caught, and DJT left no paper trail leads back to the same point.  No collusion, no obstruction, but a whole lot of accusations and speculation to feed supporters of the tribunal.  

Should the connection between Steele and the Clinton campaign been revealed when the CIA  briefed Obama and Biden on it early in the investigation?  That was a key piece of information during some very dark days in the country. 


 

 

Edited by leh-nerd skin-erd
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

FBI knew alfa bank story was crap almost immediately after they recieved data and white paper from sussman

 

They also knew Steele dossier was crap after interviewing Danchenko, Steeles source, in January 2017.

 

They knew the Steele dossier was fake and therefore they were compelled to inform the FISA court of this new knowledge. But instead they doubled down and applied for another FISA warrant on Carter Page by knowingly using made up BS.

 

By the time Mueller was appointed SC the FBI knew alfa bank and Steele dossier were BS. 

 

Biggest scandal in us history. And you'd never have a clue about any of it if you rely on legacy media and left wing social media to tell you A story instead of THE story.

 

 


So, the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times?

 

Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

 

Or is that part of the STORY you choose to ignore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I don’t think that interfering with an election constitutes an act of war. If we had that on the books, the US would be plenty guilty too.

 

I also don’t think Russia viewed this as a way to install a puppet president in the US. Trump was not Putin’s puppet no matter what some people on the left claimed.

 

From what I can tell, Russia, like many people, assumed Clinton was going to win. Supporting Trump was likely more about damaging her so that her administration is hobbled from day one than it was actually electing Trump. 
 

In the eyes of the Kremlin, Trump was a useful idiot. Someone who had similar aims (hurt Clinton) and could provide a benefit to Russia’s goals. This is also why Mueller was unable to find a tacit agreement between the campaign and Russia: there was no need to affirmatively reach a conspiracy when everyone is headed in the same direction anyway. 

 

Many on the left still believe that Trump was a Putin puppet who gave him special favors, which would make it act of war, or at least make Trump a traitor who should have been prosecuted after he was out of office, especially if they had all this evidence like Schiff and others claimed.  You admit he wasn't, so that's good to know that you didn't fall for it.

 

As for what the Kremlin was trying to do, it was trying to sow discord in the US, as it has been trying to do for decades.  There was no need to collude, just toss a few million at Facebook ads and do the usual hacker stuff, none of which should have been enough to overcome the $1B Hillary, who had been in the spotlight for the better part of 3 decades, spent on her campaign.  Her problems were mostly self-inflicted/a product of her misconduct being exposed rather than fabricated. 

 

And the real useful idiots were the Dems, with an assist from Michael Steele, with their lies about collusion because they couldn't believe/stand that Hillary lost.  They ended up doing exponentially more damage than the Kremlin could have ever done on their own. 

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillStime said:


So, the Trump campaign didn’t meet with the Russians 140+ times?

 

Coordinate campaign data and Wikileaks drops?

 

Simple yes or no will suffice.

 

Or is that part of the STORY you choose to ignore?

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To echo a refrain from my former non ghost "self"...

 

She wasn't supposed to lose.

 

If Hillary wins all of this massive corruption never sees the light of day. Trump shocks the world and wins and they are forced into a cleanup operation and got caught.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...