When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

Groping is small potatoes compared to raping.

 

And what size root vegetable is the equivalent of peeping in on underage girls at a teen beauty pageant?

 

A parsnip. 6-7 inches long.

 

That's it? That's all you got. Trump makes Bill look like a beginner.

Hey? How's that wall a com'in?

 

Right. Trump could've just put on a little eye-liner and joined the girls in the restroom ... like any respectable democrat would've done. Mr Weiner! No photos, please!

 

Who did Trump rape? I voted for Johnson, but I am curious.

The wall is a good idea, as the Chinese figured out thousa.ds of years ago, but America is committing suicide so I do not expect the wall to be built.

What will happen is that Congress will authorize $$$ for drones and more agents and call it a day.

 

Not at all. They will cling to the collusion myth and make themselves laughing stocks in the process. Democrats will go to their graves believing in collusion.

 

This huge hue and cry by democrats that "the Russians did it" is going to come back and bite them in the butt. The investigation will lead to and and expose all the crooked dealing of the Obama admin.

 

It would have been a routine function. Oh, and contrary to your claim, it IS customary for the Diplomatic Corp to sit on the floor of the House. In fact, they sit across the aisle from the Supreme Court.

 

Thanks for validating why the Russian Ambassador sat with the Democrats, and did not sit with the Diplomatic Corp.

 

I offered no such validation. The Diplomatic corp typically sit to the left of the Speaker's Chair, as do the Democrats.

You've already made a thorough fool of yourself trying to pretend that you have a valid point.

I'd quit while I was still behind if I were you, unless, of course, you can produce documentary evidence of your idiotic made up claim!

 

No I made you look like the fool with the set up. How does it feel to played as a mark? Tricked, played for a sucker. How you looking now other than like a mope?


Russian Ambassador sits with the Democrats.....

The ambassador that Jeff Session communicated with, sat with the democrats during Trump's speech to congress 3 days ago. I think we are starting to see the missing link between the US and Russia connection. The missing link has all along been the Democratic party.



https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4125496


Russian Ambassador Spotted At Trump’s Speech Sitting With ...
www.cscmediagroupus.com › Politics

Guess Who Sat With Russian Ambassador at Trump's Speech?
thepoliticalinsider.com/guess-who-sat-with-russian-ambassador-at...

Russian Ambassador Spotted At Trump’s Speech Sitting With ...
www.cscmediagroupus.com › Politics


Here's a List of Democrats Who Also Met With The Russian Ambassador

1. Senior Obama advisor John Holdren

2. Senator Claire McCaskill

3. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

4. Former Senator Mary Landrieu

5.Senator Amy Klobuchar

6. Senator Dianne Feinstein

7. Senator Jack Reed

8. Senator Bob Casey

9. Senator Maria Cantwell

10. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

Earlier this week, Kislyak sat with Democrats during President Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress......snip~

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...also-met-with-the-russian-ambassador-n2293775

That's what I thought.....next time try and bring some intelligence with your game. As I do like taking advantage of your kind.

 

All you did was demonstrate that you were stupid enough to fall for an idiotic right wing meme, and all you offered to support your claim was a bunch of trashy clickbait fake news sites.

You really do look completely stupid at this point.

 

He was accused of that too.

 

Once again, an investigation is merely a course of actions to uncover the truth. If you are being investigated and you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. There's more than enough information for probable cause considering 1. we know that Russia took part in attempting to meddle with our elections, and 2. the investigations have already uncovered illegal activity by state officials. As for how we know this national security adviser accepted payment from Russia.. he admitted

As for the sanctions thing, it is illegal for a US official to discuss matters with foreign officials that contradict the current administration. This is illegal for obvious reasons, if the current administration is negotiating with a foreign country, they don't want lower officials sabotaging those negotiations by assuring them that the next administration will be removing their sanctions. It is important to note that the conversation regarding sanctions occurred when the Obama administration was still in office... and it is definitely not fake news or an anonymous source, considering the FBI denied him a security clearance for this very reason.. oh yeah, and he was forced to resign.

I think it's incredible that someone would declare it to be fake news, it demonstrates a lack of understanding for what has been going on.

The joint statement actually came from the Director of National Intelligence saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia attempted to meddle with our elections. That joint statement represents 17 intelligence agencies, this isn't something that is in question.

 

LIED? How do we know they lied? As Comey said about Hillary, it's hard to prove intent.
Can *YOU* prove they lied?

 

First, the old "if you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about *IS* what the secret police *always* say.
Scooter Libby was innocent of outing Valerie Plame yet the "investigation" found him guilty of another crime.

Russia attempting to meddle in our election is *NOT* probable cause to assume collusion by Trump campaign except in the dreams your fevered mind conjures up!

Exactly *what* illegal activities have the investigations uncovered by state offiicials? Not a single charge has been made against anyone. Again, all you have are *allegations*, not evidence and certainly no proof!

Who admitted being paid by the Russians and for what? Cite please!
How do *you* or anyone know what contradictions in current policy were discussed by Trump campaign officials? I haven't seen any transcripts showing that such occurred!

I'll repeat one more time. You have been brainwashed by FALSE NEWS from the lamestream media to assume allegations are proof of a crime - even when what is alleged isn't a crime!

 

sigh...

October 7th, 2 not 17:
Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

December 29th, 3 not 17:

Joint DHS, ODNI, FBI Statement on Russian Malicious Cyber Activity


So maybe I'm missing a Russian hacking joint statement that actually has the sign off of 17 intelligence agencies. If so, you're free to show me. But so far you've not been forthcoming. Why this is so important to you I've no idea.

 

He admitted to groping women. Remember? His words.

The wall? I will agree with you. More drones. Not sure about more agents.

 

Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian “hacking” claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the “fact” is just assumed,

U.S. corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.

There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the...

“Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election” (Yahoo).

“Russian attempts to disrupt the election” (New York Times).

“Russian… interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election” (ABC).

“Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election” (The Intercept).

“a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia’s election-meddling” (Time).

“Russian interference in the US election” (CNN).

“Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election” (American Constitution Society).

“Russian hacking in US Election” (Business Standard).”

“Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking” we’re told by the New York Times, but what is “election hacking”? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?

The “Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections” even exists as a factual event in
Wikipedia
, not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.

Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand “I don’t do evidence,” testified that “the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that.” He provided no evidence.

Activists have even planned “demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election.” They declare that “every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election.” (March for Truth.)

Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.

Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the “Russian influence on the election” is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It’s as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.

A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-27/believing-russian-hacking-claim

 

Once again, we're creating a false equivalency. The secret police were an authority force that worked without any oversight or accountability, and they would arrest people without due process of law. The investigation is none of that, it's simply an official course of action to uncover the truth. No one is being charged of any wrong doing unless it is proven they did something illegal, and in that case they are given their proper due in court. The investigation is not to assume there was a collusion, in fact it is quite the opposite, it is to investigate and find out if there was a collusion involving any state or campaign officials. Again, no one is legally charged of any wrong doing unless it is proven that they did in fact partake in illegal activities. Furthermore, if we've already uncovered that Russia did meddle with our elections(which we have), then of course we're going to investigate further. It would be irrational not to.

As for who admitted to being paid by Russians? Michael Flynn did in an interview with Dana Priest. The transcript goes as follows

PRIEST: Tell me about the RT [state-run Russian Television] relationship?

FLYNN: I was asked by my speaker’s bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity. I get paid so much. The speaker’s bureau got paid so much, based on our contract.

PRIEST: Can you tell me how much you got for that?

FLYNN: No.

you can read the full interview here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...oday-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.48037db7e330

Russia Today is of course a state owned media, meaning Michael Flynn was accepting payments from a foreign government, which is illegal for someone in his position to do. At one point in the interview Flynn acknowledges that they are a state run media source, meaning he was aware that he was receiving money from a foreign government. This isn't false news, the military has been investigating Flynn's activity since before he was chosen as a national security adviser for the Trump administration

The Department of Homeland Security and the broader intelligence community represents 17 agencies. This isn't something that is up for debate... like literally, your link says "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions"

What is the USIC? well..

"The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities considered necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and national security of the United States"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

So yes.. a joint statement from the USIC and the Department of Homeland Security represents 17 agencies. This isn't even a debate, this is me educating you about civics and government. This is embarrassing.. just stop

 

"16 separate US government agencies". Do you see where I highlighted the key word? Use common sense. What intelligence do you think the Coast Guard, sonar and all picked up with regards to the Russian Interference? We of course don't know(presuming they picked up something), but we both know this is absurd. Don't stretch absurdities. They made a joint statement, to make it a strong statement. Not because every single kook and cranny of the US Government investigated Russian interference lol.

I mean, it's no big secret. Paulson first pulled it with the 700 million(since trillion) stimulus, and the Obama Administration pulled it with the Joint Statement. But it should be obvious to anyone with clear-headed reasoning that all 17 agencies did not participate.

 

I already acknowledged in post #67 and #91 that this does not mean there was a joint investigation of any kind. No one here is saying that there was 17 separate investigations, or that all 17 agencies took part in the investigations. It was a joint statement, not a joint investigation.

 

But people want to say "all 17 concurred", as though all 17 had some universal agreement. That's not how hierarchy, and particularly political hierarchy works. The FBI, CIA, NSA reviewed the intelligence and then Obama had the bright idea of going to the other 14 and saying "Hey, sign off on this would ya?" And that's what they did.

Does it invalidate the intelligence? No, of course not. But does it oversell the intelligence? Yes, to print a much more stronger conclusion than what they have. It's the Iraq war all over again lol. And having learned from the Authorization of 2003, I/we should know when parts of the government want to oversell their case.

 

At the very least I want Rachel Maddow fired.