Still confused on Jack Smith Washington Case.........

[DawgWCK]

I understand the Florida case, Trump while a private citizen did not comply with request to return classified material and may have tried to conceal it. However, i still don't understand the J6 Washington case. The line that the Judge and Kemp used - no one is above the law and / or being President is not a get out of jail card, although sounding noble seems to blow back the notion that a President, although good or bad can get Impeached but can now get arrested and jailed for his/her decisions at the time of President. Bush knew we were torturing enemy combatants, Obama spied on and most likely tried to flip an election, Biden opened up the Southern Border to Non-citizens and Trump pushed the envelope way to far without documented evidence to remain as President of which an impeachment trial occurred. Forget Trump for a second, if the Supreme Court finds that President's do not have immunity then i don't see how all of future presidents don't stand a high probability of being charged soon after their term for unlawful acts that occurred under their watch, especially Republican Presidents in a DC court. This seems to be opening pandoras box to me. Clearly this immunity doesn't follow you after your Presidency, but this might be to much.............

 

[atlanta cock#]

I understand the Florida case, Trump while a private citizen did not comply with request to return classified material and may have tried to conceal it. However, i still don't understand the J6 Washington case. The line that the Judge and Kemp used - no one is above the law and / or being President is not a get out of jail card, although sounding noble seems to blow back the notion that a President, although good or bad can get Impeached but can now get arrested and jailed for his/her decisions at the time of President. Bush knew we were torturing enemy combatants, Obama spied on and most likely tried to flip an election, Biden opened up the Southern Border to Non-citizens and Trump pushed the envelope way to far without documented evidence to remain as President of which an impeachment trial occurred. Forget Trump for a second, if the Supreme Court finds that President's do not have immunity then i don't see how all of future presidents don't stand a high probability of being charged soon after their term for unlawful acts that occurred under their watch, especially Republican Presidents in a DC court. This seems to be opening pandoras box to me. Clearly this immunity doesn't follow you after your Presidency, but this might be to much.............

Obama was directly involved in spying on Trump. If Trump can be prosecuted for J6 (and I understand you can indict a ham sandwich, etc.), how can Barry's actions be summarily ignored? The Russia hoax was exposed long ago. We all know it was fake, yet Obama used it as pretext to illegally spy on Trump who is not only a US citizen, but also the duly elected POTUS.

Hate on Trump all you want, but this is outrageous, unconstitutional and illegal.

 

[willdup]

I understand the Florida case, Trump while a private citizen did not comply with request to return classified material and may have tried to conceal it. However, i still don't understand the J6 Washington case. The line that the Judge and Kemp used - no one is above the law and / or being President is not a get out of jail card, although sounding noble seems to blow back the notion that a President, although good or bad can get Impeached but can now get arrested and jailed for his/her decisions at the time of President. Bush knew we were torturing enemy combatants, Obama spied on and most likely tried to flip an election, Biden opened up the Southern Border to Non-citizens and Trump pushed the envelope way to far without documented evidence to remain as President of which an impeachment trial occurred. Forget Trump for a second, if the Supreme Court finds that President's do not have immunity then i don't see how all of future presidents don't stand a high probability of being charged soon after their term for unlawful acts that occurred under their watch, especially Republican Presidents in a DC court. This seems to be opening pandoras box to me. Clearly this immunity doesn't follow you after your Presidency, but this might be to much.............

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

 

[DawgWCK]

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

I’m not debating if these are legitimate charges, I’m debating where a President could / should be charged while he was executing the office of President. Impeachment, i would argue is the way to go in lieu of charging him with crimes post presidency. Should the Supreme Court rule against Trump but he subsequent win the Presidency , his 2024 justice department will most likely look hard into charging Biden for something, perhaps Obama too. I think there is some vengeance in these charges, understandably but unwise.

 

[zingerdawg]

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

You are leaving out that the Durham report trounced the fbi handling of the Trump investigation. A investigation was never warranted. That was his finding. He even laughed when asked about some of the things done by the fbi over stepping their authority. We also have never addressed the fake cia docs used in a complete lie to effect an election. You gloss right over that. These are all facts. Prosecuted or not it doesn’t matter. It is still unethical. The cia bs probably changed the election results. They even bragged about doing just that after the fact.

These guys spent 40 million dollars back of taxpayer money to try to get him. 40 million. For a fake investigation.

 

[cherrydawg]

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

What ever you say will schiff

 

[cherrydawg]

You are leaving out that the Durham report trounced the fbi handling of the Trump investigation. A investigation was never warranted. That was his finding. He even laughed when asked about some of the things done by the fbi over stepping their authority. We also have never addressed the fake cia docs used in a complete lie to effect an election. You gloss right over that. These are all facts. Prosecuted or not it doesn’t matter. It is still unethical. The cia bs probably changed the election results. They even bragged about doing just that after the fact.

These guys spent 40 million dollars back of taxpayer money to try to get him. 40 million. For a fake investigation.

You can't argue with him. He only believes the spin and lies of the left. Just ignore him and tell him sure mr. will schiff.

 

[willdup]

I’m not debating if these are legitimate charges, I’m debating where a President could / should be charged while he was executing the office of President. Impeachment, i would argue is the way to go in lieu of charging him with crimes post presidency. Should the Supreme Court rule against Trump but he subsequent win the Presidency , his 2024 justice department will most likely look hard into charging Biden for something, perhaps Obama too. I think there is some vengeance in these charges, understandably but unwise.

I believe the argument is that Trump has no role in overseeing federal elections, and as such was acting as a candidate and not the POTUS, but I’m not sure about that.

Regardless, the entire immunity discussion hinges on whether a POTUS can be prosecuted for breaking the law. The last time we faced this issue was Nixon, and he was pardoned by Ford so we never played the scenario out.

You are leaving out that the Durham report trounced the fbi handling of the Trump investigation. A investigation was never warranted. That was his finding. He even laughed when asked about some of the things done by the fbi over stepping their authority. We also have never addressed the fake cia docs used in a complete lie to effect an election. You gloss right over that. These are all facts. Prosecuted or not it doesn’t matter. It is still unethical. The cia bs probably changed the election results. They even bragged about doing just that after the fact.

These guys spent 40 million dollars back of taxpayer money to try to get him. 40 million. For a fake investigation.

Durham did not really find that an investigation was never warranted, he found that the investigation proceeded more than it should have, which is a huge difference. He also excluded entirely highly material facts regarding contacts between the Campaign and foreign nationals and admitted that those contacts did not factor into his findings, which makes zero sense.

We seem to have a gap between highly unethical and illegal. You can’t argue that the Trump campaigns engagement with Russian assets wasn’t highly unethical, but apparently it isn’t illegal. I guess the same can be said for the FBI’s actions in its investigation of Trump.

Live with one, live with both, I guess.

 

[zingerdawg]

I believe the argument is that Trump has no role in overseeing federal elections, and as such was acting as a candidate and not the POTUS, but I’m not sure about that.

Regardless, the entire immunity discussion hinges on whether a POTUS can be prosecuted for breaking the law. The last time we faced this issue was Nixon, and he was pardoned by Ford so we never played the scenario out.


Durham did not really find that an investigation was never warranted, he found that the investigation proceeded more than it should have, which is a huge difference. He also excluded entirely highly material facts regarding contacts between the Campaign and foreign nationals and admitted that those contacts did not factor into his findings, which makes zero sense.

We seem to have a gap between highly unethical and illegal. You can’t argue that the Trump campaigns engagement with Russian assets wasn’t highly unethical, but apparently it isn’t illegal. I guess the same can be said for the FBI’s actions in its investigation of Trump.

Live with one, live with both, I guess.

Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe | CNN Politics

Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.

amp.cnn.com

The connection with Russia turned out to be a nothing burger. It has been over blown with the election. Totally proven that there is no evidence that it changed any election results.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

I know you keep repeating this like it was a huge event. He said it was total bs. I don’t care about the charges. He made liars out of so many democrats. And showed they are also full of shit. Saying they had iron clad proof.

What he concluded is better than 50 indictments against fbi agents.

 

[willdup]

Special counsel John Durham concludes FBI never should have launched full Trump-Russia probe | CNN Politics

Special counsel John Durham concluded that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, according to a report compiled over three years by the Trump-administration appointee and released on Monday.

amp.cnn.com

The connection with Russia turned out to be a nothing burger. It has been over blown with the election. Totally proven that there is no evidence that it changed any election results.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

I know you keep repeating this like it was a huge event. He said it was total bs. I don’t care about the charges. He made liars out of so many democrats. And showed they are also full of shit. Saying they had iron clad proof.

What he concluded is better than 50 indictments against fbi agents.

We’ve already spent time on this, but I’ll go ahead and share a response. Durham Found that there was justification for the preliminary investigation that occurred. What he determined was that there was not enough evidence to proceed into a full investigation, which again, is very different than a finding of no justification for any investigation at all.

Durham also found that there was in fact, significant Russian interference in the election and interaction between the Trump campaign and foreign nationals tied to Russia.

Importantly, what Durham did not find was any sort of highly illegal, deep state conspiracy against Donald Trump, which is what Trump insisted had taken place. Durham did not find that occurred in anyway.

 

[zingerdawg]

We’ve already spent time on this, but I’ll go ahead and share a response. Durham Found that there was justification for the preliminary investigation that occurred. What he determined was that there was not enough evidence to proceed into a full investigation, which again, is very different than a finding of no justification for any investigation at all.

Durham also found that there was in fact, significant Russian interference in the election and interaction between the Trump campaign and foreign nationals tied to Russia.

Importantly, what Durham did not find was any sort of highly illegal, deep state conspiracy against Donald Trump, which is what Trump insisted had taken place. Durham did not find that occurred in anyway.

Sometimes I wonder how two people can comprehend something so differently. You sugarcoat things. So I post an article. From freaking cnn. That says the investigation never should have happened. You spin that. Ok. Spin it all you want. It is right there in the headline. Should they have checked into it. Of course. They had no choice after the Hillary server thing. Should have taken a week and no full investigation was warranted. 40 million burned up to ash. Right there in black and white. They tried to bribe people will. To go against him.

Then you say he found no evidence that anyone was going after Trump when they should have been. When his entire report says the exact opposite. I literally have posted it in black and white. This isn’t tv analyst spin day. It is right there. People in Congress. You know who. Flat lied. And you want to spin the lies. That is your prerogative. But they are still lies.

You are really backing the boy cried wolf story. Quite the strategy.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

Proving them will be complicated though.

 

[Moosefish]

Importantly, what Durham did not find was any sort of highly illegal, deep state conspiracy against Donald Trump, which is what Trump insisted had taken place. Durham did not find that occurred in anyway.

This is a interesting development, published late yesterday. Two of the three reporters published the 'Twitter Files', and aren't known as right-wing conspiracy nuts (Taibbi used to be a Rolling Stone writer, fwiw). Supposedly even more is coming: (EDIT: HERE is another story connecting the story below to other related issues)

Last year, John Durham, a special prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ), concluded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should never have opened its investigation of alleged collusion by then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and Russia in late July of 2016.

Now, multiple credible sources tell Public and Racket that the United States Intelligence Community (IC), including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), illegally mobilized foreign intelligence agencies to target Trump advisors long before the summer of 2016.

Until now, the official story has been that the FBI’s investigation began after Australian intelligence officials told US officials that a Trump aide had boasted to an Australian diplomat that Russia had damning material about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

In truth, the US IC asked the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance to surveil Trump’s associates and share the intelligence they acquired with US agencies, say sources close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HSPCI) investigation. The Five Eyes nations are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

After Public and Racket had been told that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director, John Brennan, had identified 26 Trump associates for the Five Eyes to target, a source confirmed that the IC had “identified [them] as people to ‘bump,’ or make contact with or manipulate. They were targets of our own IC and law enforcement — targets for collection and misinformation.”

“They were making contacts and bumping Trump people going back to March 2016,” a source close to the investigation said. “They were sending people around the UK, Australia, Italy — the Mossad in Italy. The MI6 was working at an intelligence school they had set up.”

The IC, a source said, considered the 26 Trump campaign people identified to “bump” or “reverse target,” or manipulate through confidential human sources (CHSs), to be easy marks because of their relative inexperience.

Doing so was illegal, both because US law prohibits such intelligence gathering unless authorized by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant and because the weaponization of the IC for political purposes constitutes election interference.

The FBI has already admitted that it should not have sought FISA warrants to wiretap Carter Page, a Trump foreign policy advisor. FBI had included in its FISA warrant application for Page noncredible intelligence from a confidential human source (CHS) named Christopher Steele, a former British spy.

A source told Public and Racket that IC officials had targeted Page because they viewed him as inexperienced. “You look at some of the people who were there,” the person said. “They weren’t sophisticated or experienced at disinformation or at [dealing with] IC people planting ideas or befriending you.”

In 2018, HPSCI released a 243-page clearing Trump of allegations that he and his team colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. House Republicans had made a deal with the CIA to place their documents inside a safe within the CIA’s vault.

I can't keep track...are we believing unnamed sources this week or not?

 

[zingerdawg]

This is a interesting development, published late yesterday. Two of the three reporters published the 'Twitter Files', and aren't known as right-wing conspiracy nuts (Taibbi used to be a Rolling Stone writer, fwiw). Supposedly even more is coming: (EDIT: HERE is another story connecting the story below to other related issues)











I can't keep track...are we believing unnamed sources this week or not?

From the outside looking in this all sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. And maybe it ends up that way. The cia has already admitted to lying to effect an election. This doesn’t seem so far fetched with that info behind it.

 

[Moosefish]

From the outside looking in this all sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. And maybe it ends up that way. The cia has already admitted to lying to effect an election. This doesn’t seem so far fetched with that info behind it.

Assuming their sources are correct...the whole thing is nuts. If you didn't see it, the additional link I edited in at the top does a good job of fitting this in with other things we know. I hope it's all not true. But, there is too much smoke about things that were initially sworn to be on the up & up. The Fusion GPS fiasco & Nellie Ohr (the wife of an official) then giving that info to those in the Justice Department is already confirmed & already really, really bad.

There is so much, it 's difficult to keep it all straight & know what piece fits where.

 

[OriginalGatorHator]

The case is pretty simple - Trump is a political enemy of the regime. The regime prosecutes its political enemies.

They just threw pro life protestors in prison for 11 years, are throwing J6 protestors under the bus, and jailed that guy in PA for making memes in 2016.

It has nothing to do with the application of law and everything to do with power.

BTW there are over 30,000 federal statutes. If the regime wants to prosecute you they will because everyone has violated one of these statutes.

 

[55dawg]

The charges aren't actually that complicated. The evidence presented in the trial will determine a finding of guilt or innocence, but the charges are clearly articulated.

Trump had four years with control of the FBI and DOJ and three years of a special prosecutor to investigate and pursue charges related to any 2016 election interference. There's a reason Durham came up with nothing prosecutable after three years.

The fact is that Trump's campaign, including his sons, had what could be deemed at best highly unusual contacts with foreign nationals. There is a reason that his campaign manager Paul Manafort was deemed a "severe counter-intelligence risk". And we know that Russia did in fact make a multi-pronged effort to help Trump get elected.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty to be concerned about.

• one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.
• one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.
• one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.
• one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

Now that’s funny. Today we learned Russia actually wanted Hillary to win. The CIA knew and covered up.

 

[willdup]

Now that’s funny. Today we learned Russia actually wanted Hillary to win. The CIA knew and covered up.

Source?

 

[DTwnDawg]

CIA and foreign intelligence agencies illegally targeted 26 Trump associates before 2016 Russia collusion claims: report

The US Intelligence Community asked foreign spy agencies to surveil 26 associates of Donald Trump in the run-up to the 2016 election, which triggered the allegations that the former president’s cam…

nypost.com

CIA Had Foreign Allies Spy On Trump Team, Triggering Russia Collusion Hoax, Sources Say

Last year, John Durham, a special prosecutor for the Department of Justice (DOJ), concluded that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should n...

www.allsides.com

 

[zingerdawg]

Source?

Putin. He said it. Also said he prefers Biden to Trump. Believe it or not.

 

[Moosefish]

Putin. He said it. Also said he prefers Biden to Trump. Believe it or not.

Note: We only believe Putin/Russia when it benefits our collective political beliefs. What we don't do is acknowledge that all Putin really wants is collective chaos in the US elective system (an actual non-politically biased IC finding about Russian activities in '16 & beyond)

 

[ugadoc]

Obama was directly involved in spying on Trump. If Trump can be prosecuted for J6 (and I understand you can indict a ham sandwich, etc.), how can Barry's actions be summarily ignored? The Russia hoax was exposed long ago. We all know it was fake, yet Obama used it as pretext to illegally spy on Trump who is not only a US citizen, but also the duly elected POTUS.

Hate on Trump all you want, but this is outrageous, unconstitutional and illegal.

I hope if a Republican wins they go after Obama Biden Hillary and all the heads of the alphabet agencies and throw all their asses in jail. They actually have committed crimes and it’s about time someone grows a pair and gives the Dems a big dose of their own medicine. It’s the only way to make them stop!

 

[ugadoc]

Putin. He said it. Also said he prefers Biden to Trump. Believe it or not.

Of course he does. Biden is a brainless buffoon.

 

[willdup]

Putin. He said it. Also said he prefers Biden to Trump. Believe it or not.

Again, I’d like to see the source that claims Putin wanted Clinton to win in 2016. He undertook a very well documented effort to assist Trump, including the hack and release of Dem emails that just happened to go public the same day as the p**sygrab tape. Now claiming the Putin actually wanted Hillary to win is some crazy revisionist history.

Note: We only believe Putin/Russia when it benefits our collective political beliefs. What we don't do is acknowledge that all Putin really wants is collective chaos in the US elective system (an actual non-politically biased IC finding about Russian activities in '16 & beyond)

Wrong. I never believe a word Putin says.

Here he is lying in front of the world, and Trump supported him and not our own intelligence services because Putin’s lies helped cover up Russia’s effort to get Trump elected. We now know that Trump had to be aware, given the numerous contacts between his campaign and Russian assets. Appalling.

 

[zingerdawg]

Again, I’d like to see the source that claims Putin wanted Clinton to win in 2016. He undertook a very well documented effort to assist Trump, including the hack and release of Dem emails that just happened to go public the same day as the p**sygrab tape. Now claiming the Putin actually wanted Hillary to win is some crazy revisionist history.


Wrong. I never believe a word Putin says.

Here he is lying in front of the world, and Trump supported him and not our own intelligence services because Putin’s lies helped cover up Russia’s effort to get Trump elected. We now know that Trump had to be aware, given the numerous contacts between his campaign and Russian assets. Appalling.

View embedded media

Russia's Putin says he prefers 'more predictable' Biden over Trump in U.S. election

"[Biden] is more experienced and more predictable. He is an 'old school' politician," Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

www.cnbc.com

Haha. Damn man. I know you will say I don’t believe Putin for one damn minute. But the actual words from the source’s mouth says you and others have been full of shit for a really long time. Been laughing after reading this all morning. But, but, but, Russian collusion and hacking. And killary told us he was um a Russian spy. Real estate agent by day. Russian spy by night.

 

[willdup]

Russia's Putin says he prefers 'more predictable' Biden over Trump in U.S. election

"[Biden] is more experienced and more predictable. He is an 'old school' politician," Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

www.cnbc.com

@55dawg posted multiple times that we now know that Putin really wanted Clinton to win in 2016 and the CIA covered it up. Putin now coming out and saying he wants Biden has nothing to do with that.

And do you really think that Putin wants Biden, or believes that an endorsement for Biden is going to help him? In fact, do you believe anything he says, and if so, why? I posted the video of him lying about 2016 efforts to support Trump. Nothing that comes out of his mouth, particularly regarding US politics, is to be believed.

 

[willdup]

Russia's Putin says he prefers 'more predictable' Biden over Trump in U.S. election

"[Biden] is more experienced and more predictable. He is an 'old school' politician," Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

www.cnbc.com

Haha. Damn man. I know you will say I don’t believe Putin for one damn minute. But the actual words from the source’s mouth says you and others have been full of shit for a really long time. Been laughing after reading this all morning. But, but, but, Russian collusion and hacking. And killary told us he was um a Russian spy. Real estate agent by day. Russian spy by night.

The guy you’ve decided to start believing just murdered another opposition figure.

But sure, I totally believe the murdering war criminal who worked hard to help Trump twice that he suddenly supports Biden.

 

[zingerdawg]

The guy you’ve decided to start believing just murdered another opposition figure.

But sure, I totally believe the murdering war criminal who worked hard to help Trump twice that he suddenly supports Biden.

View embedded media

He didn’t work that hard to help. Damn. The guy hacked the dominion machines in five minutes. Those super secure machines showed no proof of Russian tampering. Let’s be real here. If Putin did support biden and killary he failed. He also failed once to help trump. These folks checking the dominion machines started doing so because of the 16 election. Someone needs a refund. Haha. This one is too good. Putin says you are full of it. All a bunch of lies and fake dossier’s

 

[willdup]

He didn’t work that hard to help. Damn. The guy hacked the dominion machines in five minutes. Those super secure machines showed no proof of Russian tampering. Let’s be real here. If Putin did support biden and killary he failed. He also failed once to help trump. These folks checking the dominion machines started doing so because of the 16 election. Someone needs a refund. Haha. This one is too good. Putin says you are full of it. All a bunch of lies and fake dossier’s

That’s quite a word salad of random thoughts.

One of the things Chat GPT is fantastic at is summarizing information and topics. Let’s review your suggestion that Russia didn’t do much to help Trump in 2016.

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 United States presidential election are well-documented, involving a multifaceted approach aimed at supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign, undermining Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and more broadly sowing discord within the American political landscape. The key methods employed by Russia included:

1. **Social Media Campaigns**: Russian entities, notably the Internet Research Agency (IRA), conducted extensive social media operations to spread disinformation, amplify divisive issues, and promote pro-Trump content while disparaging Clinton. They created and operated fake accounts on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, targeting polarizing topics such as race relations, gun rights, and immigration.

2. **Hacking and Leaks**: Russian hackers, associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU, breached the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign officials. They stole emails and documents, which were subsequently leaked through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2.0. These leaks were timed to maximize the damage to the Clinton campaign and to sway public opinion.

3. **Propaganda and Misinformation**: Beyond social media, Russian efforts included using state-funded media outlets like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik to disseminate pro-Trump narratives, conspiracy theories, and false information aimed at undermining the electoral process and trust in the democratic institutions of the United States.

4. **Direct Contacts and Alleged Collusion**: There were numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian nationals or individuals with ties to the Russian government. While the Mueller investigation detailed these contacts, it did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

5. **Cyber Attacks on Voting Infrastructure**: Russian hackers also targeted U.S. election infrastructure, including state and local electoral boards, though there is no evidence that vote tallies were altered. Their activities raised concerns about the security and integrity of the election process.

The collective impact of these efforts was significant, leading to widespread investigations, including the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. The Mueller Report concluded that Russia indeed conducted operations to interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, although it did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired with Russia in these efforts. The U.S. intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee have corroborated the findings regarding Russian interference.

These actions have had lasting implications for U.S.-Russia relations, prompting sanctions against Russia and ongoing debates about election security, the integrity of democratic institutions, and the need for vigilance against foreign interference in future elections.

 

[Don Ellis]

That’s quite a word salad of random thoughts.

One of the things Chat GPT is fantastic at is summarizing information and topics. Let’s review your suggestion that Russia didn’t do much to help Trump in 2016.

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 United States presidential election are well-documented, involving a multifaceted approach aimed at supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign, undermining Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and more broadly sowing discord within the American political landscape. The key methods employed by Russia included:

1. **Social Media Campaigns**: Russian entities, notably the Internet Research Agency (IRA), conducted extensive social media operations to spread disinformation, amplify divisive issues, and promote pro-Trump content while disparaging Clinton. They created and operated fake accounts on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, targeting polarizing topics such as race relations, gun rights, and immigration.

2. **Hacking and Leaks**: Russian hackers, associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU, breached the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign officials. They stole emails and documents, which were subsequently leaked through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2.0. These leaks were timed to maximize the damage to the Clinton campaign and to sway public opinion.

3. **Propaganda and Misinformation**: Beyond social media, Russian efforts included using state-funded media outlets like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik to disseminate pro-Trump narratives, conspiracy theories, and false information aimed at undermining the electoral process and trust in the democratic institutions of the United States.

4. **Direct Contacts and Alleged Collusion**: There were numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian nationals or individuals with ties to the Russian government. While the Mueller investigation detailed these contacts, it did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

5. **Cyber Attacks on Voting Infrastructure**: Russian hackers also targeted U.S. election infrastructure, including state and local electoral boards, though there is no evidence that vote tallies were altered. Their activities raised concerns about the security and integrity of the election process.

The collective impact of these efforts was significant, leading to widespread investigations, including the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. The Mueller Report concluded that Russia indeed conducted operations to interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, although it did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired with Russia in these efforts. The U.S. intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee have corroborated the findings regarding Russian interference.

These actions have had lasting implications for U.S.-Russia relations, prompting sanctions against Russia and ongoing debates about election security, the integrity of democratic institutions, and the need for vigilance against foreign interference in future elections.

So if I am reading all of this correctly

What exactly was Adam Schiff doing marching around the country announcing he had evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.

According to what you just posted, that is false.

 

[zingerdawg]

That’s quite a word salad of random thoughts.

One of the things Chat GPT is fantastic at is summarizing information and topics. Let’s review your suggestion that Russia didn’t do much to help Trump in 2016.

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 United States presidential election are well-documented, involving a multifaceted approach aimed at supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign, undermining Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and more broadly sowing discord within the American political landscape. The key methods employed by Russia included:

1. **Social Media Campaigns**: Russian entities, notably the Internet Research Agency (IRA), conducted extensive social media operations to spread disinformation, amplify divisive issues, and promote pro-Trump content while disparaging Clinton. They created and operated fake accounts on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, targeting polarizing topics such as race relations, gun rights, and immigration.

2. **Hacking and Leaks**: Russian hackers, associated with the Russian military intelligence agency GRU, breached the computer networks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign officials. They stole emails and documents, which were subsequently leaked through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer 2.0. These leaks were timed to maximize the damage to the Clinton campaign and to sway public opinion.

3. **Propaganda and Misinformation**: Beyond social media, Russian efforts included using state-funded media outlets like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik to disseminate pro-Trump narratives, conspiracy theories, and false information aimed at undermining the electoral process and trust in the democratic institutions of the United States.

4. **Direct Contacts and Alleged Collusion**: There were numerous contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian nationals or individuals with ties to the Russian government. While the Mueller investigation detailed these contacts, it did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

5. **Cyber Attacks on Voting Infrastructure**: Russian hackers also targeted U.S. election infrastructure, including state and local electoral boards, though there is no evidence that vote tallies were altered. Their activities raised concerns about the security and integrity of the election process.

The collective impact of these efforts was significant, leading to widespread investigations, including the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. The Mueller Report concluded that Russia indeed conducted operations to interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump, although it did not establish that the Trump campaign criminally conspired with Russia in these efforts. The U.S. intelligence community and the Senate Intelligence Committee have corroborated the findings regarding Russian interference.

These actions have had lasting implications for U.S.-Russia relations, prompting sanctions against Russia and ongoing debates about election security, the integrity of democratic institutions, and the need for vigilance against foreign interference in future elections.

All turned out to be bullshit. Talking about word salad. What do you call all those words to explain something that turned out to be wrong. Fake dossier’s. Meeting with Russians agents that turned out to be more about kid’s soccer supposedly. I know you believe it. There are very few people that believe any of that anymore. Glad you are holding on. Healthy.

Did you really reference the mueller report.

Why the Mueller Investigation Failed

President Trump’s obstructions of justice were broader than those of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, and the special counsel’s investigation proved it. How come the report didn’t say so?

www.newyorker.com

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Any cyber attacks were considered trolling more than tampering. They were shown not to have affected the election at all. We were told by president Carter that the election was fixed by the Russians. Tons of lies as usual. Very little truth coming from the folks accusing the lying orange man. As much shit and money wasted trying to get him, the time, they could have easily fixed the border. Or even put a dent in the homeless issue. TDS is still the choice.

 

[willdup]

So if I am reading all of this correctly

What exactly was Adam Schiff doing marching around the country announcing he had evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.

According to what you just posted, that is false.

I think the answer to your question hinges on the definition of criminal collusion.

Did the Trump campaign knowingly meet Russian assets multiple times? Yes.

Did the Trump campaign welcome Russian interference? Yes.

Was Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort deemed a “grave counter intelligence threat” based on his extensive financial ties to known Russian assets and collaborators? Yes.

Did the Trump campaign work with Russia to plan or commit a criminal act? The evidence did not support those charges.

I find the activities that we have confirmed between the Trump campaign and Russia to be highly concerning and by my measure it should have been disqualifying. Apparently the law disagrees.

Again, I’ll lean on Chat GPT for a more detailed answer below:

The investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, concluded without finding evidence sufficient to charge the campaign with criminal conspiracy in regards to Russia's election interference efforts. The key reasons for this outcome include:

1. **Definition of Collusion**: "Collusion" is not a specific offense or a term used in U.S. federal criminal law. The investigation instead looked for evidence of conspiracy against the United States or coordination with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

2. **Lack of Direct Evidence**: Mueller's report stated that although there were multiple contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to Russia, the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. In legal terms, establishing conspiracy would require proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit an illegal act and steps were taken to further that agreement.

3. **Legal and Evidentiary Standards**: The investigation had to adhere to high legal and evidentiary standards. To charge someone with a crime, prosecutors must have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Mueller Report explicitly mentions that the evidence obtained did not reach the threshold needed to charge any member of the Trump campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government related to election interference.

4. **Obstruction of Justice Consideration**: While the report did not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also did not exonerate him on the matter of obstruction of justice. The Mueller Report outlines several instances where President Trump's actions could potentially be seen as obstructive to the investigation. However, due to Department of Justice guidelines against indicting a sitting president and complexities around the evidence, the Special Counsel did not make a determination on charging the President with obstruction.

5. **Independent Decisions by Russian Actors**: The report details extensive Russian interference activities but also indicates that these were carried out independently of the Trump campaign. While there were willingness and openness to accept help from Russia (as seen in the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016), the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy.

The conclusion of the Mueller investigation on the issue of conspiracy with Russia was a significant moment in U.S. political history, prompting widespread debate and discussion. It is important to note that the lack of a conspiracy charge does not imply an endorsement of the campaign's behavior, as Mueller pointed out that the Russian interference efforts were real and significant, and that accepting foreign assistance poses risks to the integrity of American democracy.

 

[willdup]

All turned out to be bullshit. Talking about word salad. What do you call all those words to explain something that turned out to be wrong. Fake dossier’s. Meeting with Russians agents that turned out to be more about kid’s soccer supposedly. I know you believe it. There are very few people that believe any of that anymore. Glad you are holding on. Healthy.

Did you really reference the mueller report.

Why the Mueller Investigation Failed

President Trump’s obstructions of justice were broader than those of Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, and the special counsel’s investigation proved it. How come the report didn’t say so?

www.newyorker.com

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Any cyber attacks were considered trolling more than tampering. They were shown not to have affected the election at all. We were told by president Carter that the election was fixed by the Russians. Tons of lies as usual. Very little truth coming from the folks accusing the lying orange man. As much shit and money wasted trying to get him, the time, they could have easily fixed the border. Or even put a dent in the homeless issue. TDS is still the choice.

Feel free to share anything from a credible source that refutes the facts I posted regarding Russian interference efforts. You can’t, because not even Trump is bothering to refute what Russia did and how his campaign engaged with Russian assets.

You have a tendency to change the subject, so to be clear, I’m asking you to refute the five different ways that I detailed that Russia worked to help Trump in 2016. Not how effective they were, not whether Trump criminally colluded, just the five extensive efforts made by Russia to help Trump.

 

[oldmandawg]

So if I am reading all of this correctly

What exactly was Adam Schiff doing marching around the country announcing he had evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.

According to what you just posted, that is false.

Knowingly lied to the American people and that's without dispute. Yet he very well may be the next Senator from California. Beyond rediculous.

 

[zingerdawg]

Feel free to share anything from a credible source that refutes the facts I posted regarding Russian interference efforts. You can’t, because not even Trump is bothering to refute what Russia did and how his campaign engaged with Russian assets.

You have a tendency to change the subject, so to be clear, I’m asking you to refute the five different ways that I detailed that Russia worked to help Trump in 2016. Not how effective they were, not whether Trump criminally colluded, just the five extensive efforts made by Russia to help Trump.

Russian interference had no meaningful effect on 2016 election result, study finds

A new study challenges assumptions that Russian social media operations had a significant impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

therecord.media

Change the subject?. You brought in five bullet points. You changed the subject. Here is proof above. I was just originally laughing at how Putin totally blew up your narrative and others. You totally changed that topic. I don’t blame you.

Notice how that article is from 2023. They can say it now without fear of being cancelled. It is nice to see the media feel like they can tell the truth for a change.

 

[willdup]

Russian interference had no meaningful effect on 2016 election result, study finds

A new study challenges assumptions that Russian social media operations had a significant impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

therecord.media

Change the subject?. You brought in five bullet points. You changed the subject. Here is proof above. I was just originally laughing at how Putin totally blew up your narrative and others. You totally changed that topic. I don’t blame you.

Notice how that article is from 2023. They can say it now without fear of being cancelled. It is nice to see the media feel like they can tell the truth for a change.

That report analyzes only two of the five efforts by Putin. I’ve been very consistent in saying that, if any Russian efforts to influence the election had an impact, it was most likely the hack and release of Dem emails, which is not examined by your report. It is a fact that the Podesta emails created noise to help minimize the impact of the pu**sygrab tape. Was it enough to turn the election? Can’t say, but it definitely helped dull the impact of the Access Hollywood tape.

So we can go round and round here.

It is a fact that Putin worked to help Trump and hurt Clinton in 2016. That’s established.

It is a fact that the Trump campaign knew Russia was making efforts to help and welcomed that help. That’s also established.

It’s a fact that Putin is a lying, murderous war criminal. Hopefully you don’t need supporting links to agree with that one.

But now that Putin is saying he supports Biden, that “totally blows up my narrative.” Putin’s words blow up my narrative that he wanted Trump to win in 2016. Huh.

There’s a long-standing Russian term for people who would believe that anything Putin says proves or disproves any fact regarding any topic.

 

[Don Ellis]

I think the answer to your question hinges on the definition of criminal collusion.

Did the Trump campaign knowingly meet Russian assets multiple times? Yes.

Did the Trump campaign welcome Russian interference? Yes.

Was Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort deemed a “grave counter intelligence threat” based on his extensive financial ties to known Russian assets and collaborators? Yes.

Did the Trump campaign work with Russia to plan or commit a criminal act? The evidence did not support those charges.

I find the activities that we have confirmed between the Trump campaign and Russia to be highly concerning and by my measure it should have been disqualifying. Apparently the law disagrees.

Again, I’ll lean on Chat GPT for a more detailed answer below:

The investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, concluded without finding evidence sufficient to charge the campaign with criminal conspiracy in regards to Russia's election interference efforts. The key reasons for this outcome include:

1. **Definition of Collusion**: "Collusion" is not a specific offense or a term used in U.S. federal criminal law. The investigation instead looked for evidence of conspiracy against the United States or coordination with the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

2. **Lack of Direct Evidence**: Mueller's report stated that although there were multiple contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to Russia, the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. In legal terms, establishing conspiracy would require proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement to commit an illegal act and steps were taken to further that agreement.

3. **Legal and Evidentiary Standards**: The investigation had to adhere to high legal and evidentiary standards. To charge someone with a crime, prosecutors must have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Mueller Report explicitly mentions that the evidence obtained did not reach the threshold needed to charge any member of the Trump campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government related to election interference.

4. **Obstruction of Justice Consideration**: While the report did not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also did not exonerate him on the matter of obstruction of justice. The Mueller Report outlines several instances where President Trump's actions could potentially be seen as obstructive to the investigation. However, due to Department of Justice guidelines against indicting a sitting president and complexities around the evidence, the Special Counsel did not make a determination on charging the President with obstruction.

5. **Independent Decisions by Russian Actors**: The report details extensive Russian interference activities but also indicates that these were carried out independently of the Trump campaign. While there were willingness and openness to accept help from Russia (as seen in the Trump Tower meeting in June 2016), the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy.

The conclusion of the Mueller investigation on the issue of conspiracy with Russia was a significant moment in U.S. political history, prompting widespread debate and discussion. It is important to note that the lack of a conspiracy charge does not imply an endorsement of the campaign's behavior, as Mueller pointed out that the Russian interference efforts were real and significant, and that accepting foreign assistance poses risks to the integrity of American democracy.

the investigation did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

The above is the outcome of the investigation in black and white as fact. So Schiff, instead of ALSO revealing this above statement, in his numerous national television interviews, gave his interpretation of the findings, passed off as fact, as what he believes to be Trump and Russian Collusion.


Interesting.

In that sense there are no receipts of Trump and Russian Collusion to help win or win the election. But we allow a member of the Intelligence Committee to go on national television, for years, and attempt to pass along Trump/Russian collusion as fact.

 

[Don Ellis]

Anyway I just find it interesting that

One can use common sense/logic/connect the dots/intuition/where there is smoke there is fire.....whatever term or phrases we use to form an opinion that Trump and Russia Colluded together to win the election.

But that same logic does not get used in the Biden Family payout scheme. We have to see receipts of Joe's wrong doing there.

 

[Moosefish]

@willdup

Here's the issue w/ anything you link on this issue: If the new report that I linked previously is to be believed (and subsequent parts of the story have been released), then any reporting on this issue in the past 7 years is based on poisoned fruit.

HERE is the newest part of their investigation/story.

Per the story above, there was disagreement and a lack of consensus on the conclusion that John Brennan wanted to be factual: that Russia wanted Trump to win. The intelligence community (led by Brenan) wanted to get Trump, but that did not align with the intel that the Kremlin wanted Hillary Clinton to win, because they viewed her potential presidency as more manageable.

So, Brennan decided to handpick his analysts to compartmentalize selective intelligence to back his Trump-Russia bias, thereby cooking the intelligence and ironically doing the work of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in marginalizing the work of the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency who did not support the CIA’s main Trump/Russia conclusion.

I'll save you from having to sign up for a free trial or subscribing, a few highlights:

The Trump-Russia scandal made its formal launch on January 6th, 2017, when the office of the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper published what’s called an “Intelligence Community Assessment,” or “ICA,” as it’s universally known in Washington.

Release of the ICA dominated headlines, fixed Donald Trump in the minds of millions of Americans as a Manchurian candidate controlled by Vladamir Putin, and upended his in-coming administration.

The report declared that Russia and Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton and “harm her electability,” thanks to their “clear preference for President-elect [Donald] Trump.”

It was powerful stuff. And it was dead wrong.

Former CIA Director John Brennan and the ICA authors “embellished” their conclusion by upgrading unreliable sources to reliable, the source said. “They upgraded in the writing of their report to let those sources have more credibility and a higher rating. We caught them on 3-4 items where those people didn’t have a credible historic reporting line and changed the source rating for that Brennan report.”

Dissent, even within Brennan’s group of 24 “hand-picked” analysts — not from 17 agencies but just four, and really just three, when one considers the ODNI is just a coordinating agency — was overruled.

...the ICA is a report within the IC, resting between the National Intelligence Estimate, which offers a three-to-five-year projection of certain security trends. In contrast, the Special National Intelligence Assessment, or SNIE, provides a one-to-two-year outlook. The shortest intelligence report is the ‘community brief,’ which rose from the ashes of the 9/11 terror attacks. Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag added that the ICA rests between the SNIE and ICB. They also noted that the report, which was 20-30 pages in length, did not include the multiple disagreements among those within the IC about the CIA’s conclusion about Russia’s activities during the 2016 election. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research, the NSA director, two top CIA officials for Russian operations, and the Defense Intelligence Agency all got overruled by Brennan

Multiple sources said Brennan’s exclusion of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR) were and are red flags pointing to a manipulated conclusion.

“The real story is that Brennan and Clapper succeeded in marginalizing both the State Department and the DIA, which has primary responsibility for the GRU,” says former CIA official Ray McGovern.

Former Russian ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock in 2018 described being told by a “Senior official” that “the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it.”

“State and defense are the two big players,” agrees another former diplomat with a connection to the case. The CIA in recent times has occasionally kept State out of the loop out of concerns about leaks, but to keep out the DIA was “crazy,” the source said.

A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also reviewed the ICA in a 158-page report released in 2020 and pronounced it a “sound intelligence product.”

However, there’s significant independent verification of the idea that the “Russia favored Trump” conclusion was indeed “cooked.” Former Director Brennan’s own book, Undaunted, describes how he not only overruled NSA director Mike Rogers but “two senior managers for the CIA mission center for Russia,” whom he decided had “not read all the available intelligence.”

It’s well-known that the NSA and Rogers never moved off their conclusion that there was not “sufficient evidence to support a high-confidence judgment that Russia supported Trump,” as Brennan put it. They expressed only “moderate” confidence in the idea.

In the first week in December, the CIA and FBI each gave secret briefings to the Senate. These presentations appeared to conflict so much on the question of whether or not the interference was to help Trump that the differing accounts were leaked to the Washington Post, which quickly published “FBI and CIA Give Differing Accounts on Russia’s Motives.”

A week later, on December 16th, 2016, the Post published a different story, called “FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump,” announcing the FBI change of mind. Unnamed officials surfaced to explain that lawmakers who felt the FBI and CIA had differing accounts “misunderstood,” telling the paper, “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place.”

When Comey testified in the House and revealed the existence of an investigation into Trump in a blockbuster televised proceeding in March, 2020, he made a point of fixing the date of the FBI’s certainty about Russia’s motives in December, 2016, i.e. after the election.

Sources believe Brennan relied a great deal on one human asset, allegedly in Russia, who allegedly had access to the very desk of Vladimir Putin and was publicly described as “instrumental” to the CIA’s judgment on Russia’s motives.

This “highest level source for the US inside the Kremlin” was deemed so important that a high-level operation was apparently executed to “exfiltrate” him from Russia, reportedly – the story was leaked to CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others – out of fears for his life. The official was later identified by the Russian newspaper Kommersant as a mid-level diplomat named Oleg Smolenkov and was so frightened for his safety he bought a house under his own name in Stafford, Virginia, the news reaching the world via Realtor.com.

Again, these are respected journalists, not known for right-wing conspiracy theories.

 

[willdup]

@willdup

Here's the issue w/ anything you link on this issue: If the new report that I linked previously is to be believed (and subsequent parts of the story have been released), then any reporting on this issue in the past 7 years is based on poisoned fruit.

HERE is the newest part of their investigation/story.

Per the story above, there was disagreement and a lack of consensus on the conclusion that John Brennan wanted to be factual: that Russia wanted Trump to win. The intelligence community (led by Brenan) wanted to get Trump, but that did not align with the intel that the Kremlin wanted Hillary Clinton to win, because they viewed her potential presidency as more manageable.

So, Brennan decided to handpick his analysts to compartmentalize selective intelligence to back his Trump-Russia bias, thereby cooking the intelligence and ironically doing the work of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in marginalizing the work of the State Department and the Defense Intelligence Agency who did not support the CIA’s main Trump/Russia conclusion.

I'll save you from having to sign up for a free trial or subscribing, a few highlights:















Again, these are respected journalists, not known for right-wing conspiracy theories.

That's a lot, and I want to give it a proper reading.

I'll say that Taibbi, Shellenberger and Gutentag's last bombshell project, the Twitter Files, didn't really deliver what was promised at the beginning. But I'll read what they have to say with an open mind.