BillsFanNC Posted August 2 Author Posted August 2 After spending nearly 10 years screaming that the Hillary Clinton-funded Steele dossier somehow proved Trump colluded with Russia, corrupt corporate media are now trying to claim there was never an operation to frame Trump as a Russian agent. They can’t refute any of the new evidence, so their response is to claim the entire last decade never happened. Shocking levels of dishonesty. 1
B-Man Posted August 2 Posted August 2 4 minutes ago, TH3 said: This is so GREAT! When is the first arrest? Have you forgotten ?
B-Man Posted August 2 Posted August 2 ‘It Was a Cover-up, Plain and Simple’: The Russian Collusion Hoax Explained. If you’re wondering why the Democrats tried so hard to stop Trump from returning to the Oval Office, the past few weeks have made it very clear. The Russia collusion hoax has finally been exposed as the sham it always was—a massive intelligence scandal designed to undermine Donald Trump and to protect Hillary Clinton—all with the consent and coordination of the FBI and high-ranking officials in the Obama administration, including Obama himself. Journalist Matt Taibbi, who was once a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has put all the recently uncovered pieces of the puzzle together in a damning post on Racket News. “Now, we know,” he writes. “With the help of the declassified Durham material, we can explain the whole affair in three brushstrokes.” According to Taibbi, it began with a political calculation: “Hillary Clinton and her team apparently hoped to deflect from her email scandal and other problems via a campaign tying Trump to Putin.” That much has been long suspected. But what came next is where the real scandal begins. “American security services learned of these plans,” Taibbi explains. And instead of exposing the scheme for what it was—a dirty campaign trick—“authorities used state resources to massively expand and amplify her scheme.” In other words, they didn’t stop it. They ran with it. And they had help. In early 2016, Clinton’s campaign was already in crisis. She was under investigation for using a private server as secretary of state, risking national security. The scandal exploded when it was revealed she deleted over 30,000 emails—and had the server wiped weeks after a congressional subpoena. “The last stage required the enthusiastic cooperation and canine incuriosity of the entire commercial news business,” he writes, “which cheered as conspirators made an enforcement target of Trump, actually an irrelevant bystander.” https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/08/02/it-was-a-cover-up-plain-and-simple-the-russian-collusion-hoax-explained-n4942334
Big Blitz Posted August 2 Posted August 2 44 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: This why you simply ignore them The NY Times finally covers it! To only tells us it was all fabricated by Russia! North Korean News! 1
TH3 Posted August 2 Posted August 2 You guys are REALLY ONTO SOMETHING! Do the authorities know about this?
BillsFanNC Posted August 2 Author Posted August 2 🎯 Exactly. What should we expect out of the media at this point? Our bad for lying to you for a decade? 😂 They've been fully in on the hoax from day one and will continue to shun journalistic integrity in order to serve the narrative. It’s sad that we have to constantly go through this exercise with media figures obsessed with false narratives. Sean is correct, as he lays out the fact pattern about the attempted takedown of President Trump. I STRONGLY caution you against accepting media driven narratives about the collusion hoax, given their roles in promoting the hoax in the first place, and the discovery of new information since the Director and I took over.
TH3 Posted August 2 Posted August 2 22 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: 🎯 Exactly. What should we expect out of the media at this point? Our bad for lying to you for a decade? 😂 They've been fully in on the hoax from day one and will continue to shun journalistic integrity in order to serve the narrative. It’s sad that we have to constantly go through this exercise with media figures obsessed with false narratives. Sean is correct, as he lays out the fact pattern about the attempted takedown of President Trump. I STRONGLY caution you against accepting media driven narratives about the collusion hoax, given their roles in promoting the hoax in the first place, and the discovery of new information since the Director and I took over. Bongino sure had that Epstein thing dead to rights….
BillsFanNC Posted August 2 Author Posted August 2 Chances that Catherine Herridge would be permitted to do this reporting today if still at CBS? Zero point zero. My 2016 reporting takes on new relevance with the release of the Durham Annex. - President Obama did not want his legacy damaged by the Clinton email investigation. - Clinton emails apparently vetted and approved for his BlackBerry. @FBIDDBongino “President Obama’s high-security BlackBerry used a special process known as “whitelisting” that only allowed it to take calls and messages from pre-approved contacts, two former senior intelligence officials with knowledge of the set-up told me in 2016 – pointing to the detail as further proof the Obama White House knew Hillary Clinton’s private account was used for government business. As the administration now acknowledges, Obama and Clinton emailed each other while she was helming the State Department. If received on his BlackBerry, the “whitelisting” safeguard means Clinton and other contacts would have had to be approved as secure for data transmission – covering everything from emails to texts to phone calls. The Obama BlackBerry would have also been configured to accept the communications. “Think of whitelisting like a bouncer in the VIP line at the party. If you are on the list you get in, if you are not, you get bounced to the pavement,” said Bob Gourley @bobgourley former chief technology officer (CTO) for the DIA. A second former intelligence official, who asked to speak on background, described the same process for the president’s BlackBerry, adding the timing is important. If Clinton email .com were “whitelisted” before March 2015, it would further undercut administration statements. President Obama initially claimed in March 2015, when the details of Clinton’s secret server were first made public by the New York Times, that he only learned about the system from news reports, along with everyone else.” foxnews.com/politics/sourc…
The Frankish Reich Posted August 2 Posted August 2 On 7/31/2025 at 2:12 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I'm absolutely ok with a criminal referral where appropriate, a plea deal if it makes sense, a vindication after all the evidence is heard and considered (though I worry about a DC jury being objective should it come to that), and/or jail time if the charges fit. As usual with these people, I don't believe that "no one is above the law" (quite the opposite in fact), but perhaps with a new sheriff in town we can get some of this nefarious conduct out in the daylight. @The Frankish Reich what say you? So I took some time to read that Annex stuff. I think Ross Douthat just about sums up where I'm at on all of this: Then consider Russiagate, where we have cycled from one conspiratorial reading of the 2016 election to another: The resistance theory about malign Russian influence over Trump’s campaign or Trump himself, which birthed the Robert Mueller investigation and a climate of hysteria, has given way to the Trumpist theory that the Obama administration conspired to promote a false narrative about collusion in order to cripple the Trump presidency from the start. In each case, the theories have been interpreting the same underlying conspiracy, largely hidden in 2016 but more visible since — a Russian information operation to undermine American democracy. But both theories, at least as I read the evidence, have ended up assigning too much conspiratorial agency to their domestic enemies, and too little to the Russians themselves. The anti-Trump side looked at how eagerly the Trump campaign responded to the 2016 email hacks and WikiLeaks dumps and assumed, they must be in cahoots with Putin. And now the pro-Trump side looks at the misinformation and motivated reasoning involved in the inception of the Russia investigation and assumes, they must have known that this was a fake story from the start. But in both cases, it’s quite possible that the only self-conscious Machiavellians were the Russians; it was their conspiracy, in which both Republicans and Democrats collaborated as marks. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/02/opinion/conspiracy-theories-epstein-russia.html Bottom line: - Russia did try to "influence" the election by making Hillary look bad (and in a 2-person race, by definition make Trump look good) - Trump's people eagerly played cheerleader - When it became clear that Trump's people (Manafort, Don Jr.) got a little too cozy with Russian assets, the Democrats eagerly played cheerleader - Politics is a dirty game Remember, Trump wasn't impeached over "Russia, Russia, Russia." It turns out that Russia did try to influence the election, and Trump's campaign was involved in a couple of ham-handed efforts at lending support ("collusion"), but, as the Mueller Report concluded years ago, that never amounted to much. Democrats had more than enough to genuinely believe that there was more there, but they also understood that simply the implication that there was more there was helpful to their cause. No one is pure as the driven lake-effect snow here, and that includes Trump.
BillsFanNC Posted August 3 Author Posted August 3 A liberal never to be heard from again on a far left network. All he had to do is ask for evidence.....and poof. Banned.
Recommended Posts