Hawley: we need to end the FBI as we know it, there need to be prosecutions & consequences for Hillary, Brennan briefed Obama, almost got away with it

[Mac1958]

Often their links are to Fox News or Breitbart as their OP link, but when you check these links, the original story was from the New York Times or other MSM outlet. The OP link is the conservative spin on the original story.

Case in point: New York Times says Hunter’s laptop is real. New York Times says the 25% of the documents on hunters laptop can be proven to be genuine. The leap between what the New York Times said, and the spin FOX put on it, is wider than the Grand Canyon.

There are more verifiable facts in the Steele Dossier than there are on Hunter’s laptop.

There is nothing their right wing media tells them that isn’t washed, spun and completely turned inside before it’s released to them for consumption.

And that includes every single one of the more than 25 investigations against the Clintons none of which found any criminal behaviour other than a lie about a consensual blow job, in a civil law suit. The Republican Party still considers that the crime of the century!

This manifests in the way they construct their various conspiracy theories: They'll take this verifiable fact over here, and that verifiable fact over there, and then draw THAT conclusion way OVER THERE. The distance between the facts and the conclusion is irrelevant.

And where did they get this conditioning? Talk radio, then Fox, then the internet. They'll tell you they don't consume those sources, and that's a flat-out lie.

Their media has done something far worse than feed them lies, as bad as that is. It has taught them thought processes, so that they can create their OWN lies.

 

[Dragonlady]

Did you read this part in the report?

View attachment 786062

Opposition research. All candidates do it.

Just as I predicted. Cherry picked statements from the report and no context to assuage trumpers disappointment in another failed investigation.

Realistically speaking, why would the Clinton campaign need to invent a story to discredit Donald Trump, when there was so much real evidence of his criminal behavior, the Trump University lawsuit, his tax evasion schemes, his employment of illegal immigrants, 3000+ Court cases, his six bankruptcies, and the fact that American banks refuse to lend to him.

Why would they go to such lengths and expense to invent a story about Russia which like any lie, could blow up in their faces, when the truth about Trump was so much worse?

Hillary Clinton says there was no such plan. And there is reason to believe that the information that Durham claims was given to White House officials was Russian propaganda design to discredit the Clinton Campaign.

It may very well be the Durham is deliberately misrepresenting what Obama and the White House was told about the “Clinton Plan”. It’s entirely possible that Intel agencies brief them on a piece of Russian propaganda that they had found circulating to discredit the Clinton campaign. Which is why the White House didn’t take it seriously.

Never forget that set three senior prosecutors who had worked with John Durham for more than 20 years, resigned from this investigation because of undue pressure for criminal findings and prosecution of Democrats.

 

[Dragonlady]

This manifests in the way they construct their various conspiracy theories: They'll take this verifiable fact over here, and that verifiable fact over there, and then draw THAT conclusion way OVER THERE. The distance between the facts and the conclusion is irrelevant.

And where did they get this conditioning? Talk radio, then Fox, then the internet. They'll tell you they don't consume those sources, and that's a flat-out lie.

Their media has done something far worse than feed them lies, as bad as that is. It has taught them thought processes, so that they can create their OWN lies.

I’ve never considered that before but you’re absolutely right. It’s like a letterhead template.

When Peters Sweitzer wrote “Clinton Cash”, he admitted in interviews that he didn’t have a shred of evidence to back up a single thing he said, he just “connected the dots”.

That’s a phrase. we’ve been hearing often in connection with the Biden memorandum. When I heard Swietzer say this, my first thought was “you’re not connecting the dots, you’re connecting the flyspecks on your computer screen”.

It’s always a half truth, wrapped in adjectives, adverbs and accusations, and seasoned with conspiracy theories and anti-government paranoia.

In a media literacy class I took, They told us to find out what really happened in the newspaper story, go through the story and strike out all of the adjectives and adverbs, and read it that way.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Realistically speaking, why would the Clinton campaign need to invent a story to discredit Donald Trump, when there was so much real evidence of his criminal behavior, the Trump University lawsuit, his tax evasion schemes, his employment of illegal immigrants, 3000+ Court cases, his six bankruptcies, and the fact that American banks refuse to lend to him.

Why would they go to such lengths and expense to invent a story about Russia which like any lie, could blow up in their faces, when the truth about Trump was so much worse?

Hillary Clinton says there was no such plan. And there is reason to believe that the information that Durham claims was given to White House officials was Russian propaganda design to discredit the Clinton Campaign.

It may very well be the Durham is deliberately misrepresenting what Obama and the White House was told about the “Clinton Plan”. It’s entirely possible that Intel agencies brief them on a piece of Russian propaganda that they had found circulating to discredit the Clinton campaign. Which is why the White House didn’t take it seriously.

Never forget that set three senior prosecutors who had worked with John Durham for more than 20 years, resigned from this investigation because of undue pressure for criminal findings and prosecution of Democrats.

It's very possible Durham took some liberties with the report. I mean really, he spent 4 years on it and probably thought he had to at least imply nefarious activity but thr point is even if Hillary did talk to Obama about it; who cares?

Just talking about does not mean their was some huge conspiracy. Why wouldn't a presidential candidate speak to a current president of the same party about opposition research?

This all seems to me that trumpers are desperate to save face after the report essentially came up empty and are flailing to make it some sort of malevolent story to assuage their hurt feelings.

Remember, if you are in a cult, like trumpers essentially are, you can never be wrong.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[BlindBoo]

According to the Durham Report, the plan by Hillary Clinton to create a false story linking Donald Trump to Russia was briefed in August of 2016 by CIA Director John Brennan to President Obama, VP Biden, AG Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director Comey.

The report describes a dramatic moment in one of Durham’s interviews. During the 2016 campaign, the U.S. intelligence community learned of Russian intelligence analysis alleging that Clinton’s team planned to stir up scandal about Trump’s Russia ties to distract the public from her email server problems.

Takeaways from the Durham report on the Trump-Russia probe

Why Durham played defense, who gave him the cold shoulder and what the report means for a key surveillance authority.

www.politico.com

The unverified Russian claim has been previously disclosed, and Democrats have derided it as incendiary disinformation from a foreign adversary that was seeking to meddle in the election. In 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed then-President Barack Obama on it.

So what law was broken with the president being briefed by the CIA on this Russian analysys?

 

[BlindBoo]

What do you think a Deep State refers to

The pencil neck geeks, ops I mean civil servants, that work in what was known in the pre Hyper-hyperbole days as the federal bureaucracy.

 

[bodecea]

According to the Durham Report, the plan by Hillary Clinton to create a false story linking Donald Trump to Russia was briefed in August of 2016 by CIA Director John Brennan to President Obama, VP Biden, AG Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director Comey.

Has Hawley stopped running away yet?

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Billiejeens]

The deep state coup filed in 2016, succeeded in 2020, with 2024 yet to be determined. Stay tuned.
We know that the "Free Press" are deep state propaganda outlets.

Very understandable when thought of as a Cult.

 

[Billiejeens]

Has Hawley stopped running away yet?

You understand that the video was manipulated to impress fucking retards -
Like you
yes?

 

[BothWings]

The pencil neck geeks, ops I mean civil servants, that work in what was known in the pre Hyper-hyperbole days as the federal bureaucracy.

Kind of like this creepazoid.

 

[Billiejeens]

The fact that 51 national security "experts" signed a memo saying that Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian Disinformation, thereby protecting the Biden's "influence peddling" operation to the detriment of the US national security says that there is in-fact a "deep state" that protects Biden and persecutes Trump.

They were experienced enough to not say that it was a fact.
But resembled propaganda.

But yeah.

 

[Marener]

They were experienced enough to not say that it was a fact.

Yes, it's almost as if they were being honest about their judgement.

A foreign concept to some of you.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You understand that the video was manipulated to impress fucking retards -
Like you
yes?

How was the video manipulated? Do you have a link?

 

[BothWings]

Or this one:

What blithering idiots like August West don't understand (or perhaps pretend not to understand), is that the German Nazi party started out very much as a small cult, effectively a Deep State, which defied the existing government to gradually push an agenda up and into the mainstream, just as the Democrats do now in our MSM, and use shame and ridicule like August West just did to try to dissuade me from pointing out the truth. It took them years to take over the mainstream, but gradually they have normalized all the societal demons which facilitate their power and if you point it out youre an instant hater/racist/sexist/fascist. It's like the Nazis are back but are using reverse psychology instead of Kristallnacht to take over. The latter may still be coming for those who call them out on it. It took the Nazis over two decades to build themselves up from a sleazy cult into an elite circle of bureaucrats with millions of followers and control of the one of the most powerful militaries in the world. We are seeing the same pattern in our country now. The Nazis eventually destroyed their own country and that's what the New Democrats are doing to us now. They started as an evasive Deep State, took over the Democratic Party, started positioning RINOs in the Republican Party, took over most MSM, and from there they have created the Fourth Reich. Eventually the world may gang up on the U.S. to stop it just as the Allies did to the Nazis.

 

[Billiejeens]

Yes, it's almost as if they were being honest about their judgement.

A foreign concept to some of you.

They already admitted that they lied for political purposes.
Damn you stupid.

 

[BlindBoo]

Kind of like this creepazoid.

View attachment 786074

You think millions of our dedicated civil servants are like murderous Nazi bastards?

What planet are you fucking whack jobs from anyway? We haven't had any wholesale slaughters since Manifest Destiny was achieved a century and a half ago.

 

[Billiejeens]

You think millions of our dedicated civil servants are like murderous Nazi bastards?

What planet are you fucking whack jobs from anyway? We haven't had any wholesale slaughters since Manifest Destiny was achieved a century and a half ago.

It only takes the ones in leadership positions.

 

[Marener]

They already admitted that they lied for political purposes.
Damn you stupid.

That's just not true. Even Durham couldn't blame political bias, but used the phrase "confirmation bias" which is probably a fair criticism of everyone in law enforcement.