New Documents Show Obama Involved In The Flynn Scandal

[OldLady]

Steele didn't HAVE sources! He made up shit and pretended it came from unnamed Russian sources! He admitted that when he got sued for libel in the British Courts!

got a link and a direct quote on that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So Obama chased out Flynn because he opposed the Iran deal. That makes Obama a criminal. Yet it was perfectly alright for Trump to fire how many people, like Sessions, Tillerson, et al. for not going along with Trump's agenda.

Maybe that is what Presidents do? Seems to be.

And as far as the Russia probe, are you seriously criticizing Obama and the Intelligence Agencies and the FBI from looking into the widespread Russian interference in the election they had uncovered? Would you have ignored it? Both the articles you supplied were from 2018 AFTER the infamous Trump Tower meeting with that Russian lawyer. Do you see no possible tie to the Trump campaign when the emails SAID the Russian government was assisting the Trump campaign?

"So Obama chased out Flynn because he opposed the Iran deal. That makes Obama a criminal. Yet it was perfectly alright for Trump to fire how many people, like Sessions, Tillerson, et al. for not going along with Trump's agenda."

You're confusing two separate issues.

But....confusion seems to be your mode and madness.

I never said Obama couldn't fire any who didn't fit in his vision, did I.



"And as far as the Russia probe, are you seriously criticizing Obama and the Intelligence Agencies and the FBI from looking into the widespread Russian interference in the election they had uncovered? "

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.



Now....for any others who suffer from the same short-term memory loss that clearly interferes with any learning on your part:
Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K
Facebook had previously announced that $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads from June 2015 to May 2017 by Russian-linked disinformation sources, while an additional $50,000 was spent by Russians that signals indicate weren’t or were only weakly connected to an organized disinformation campaign.

Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K | TechCrunch

Russian information troll farm the Internert Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While there might have been other Russian disinformation groups, the IRA...

techcrunch.com

There were 100 thousand Facebook adds by Russian sources……out of billions of ads….

What's the percentage?



"We know, for example, that some institution linked to the Russian government — likely the infamous Internet Research Agency — bought ads on Facebook between 2015 and 2017, with the assumed intent of stoking anger and partisanship. We know that the ads concerned wedge issues like immigration, the Second Amendment, and police brutality; we even know what some of the Russian pages and accounts were. And we know that around 3,000 ads were purchased at a cost of around $100,000.

… the $100,000 spent by the Russian government is laughably small, no matter how precisely targeted. In contrast, the official Trump campaign spent $90 million on digital ads — and, unlike the Russians, had assistance from Facebook employees to target and deploy them effectively. “There’s no way $100,000 in ad budget impacted the election. It’s ridiculous,” García Martínez said."

Did Russia’s Facebook Ads Actually Swing the Election?

If you’re most worried about ads, you’re missing the bigger picture.

nymag.com

Buying ads is one thing. Having posters posing on FaceBook and no doubt here as well arguing in ways to either divide us OR champion Trump cost how much? That's not added into the equation, yet they had an entire building full of people dedicated to it. That had a lot more impact. How many people pay attention to ads? Some maybe, but the constant claims made by Russian posers to poison social media? THAT is what had real influence.

So it happened. The next logical step is figuring out if the candidate being favored --or anyone else-- was "in on it." That is what the Mueller report did. It made perfect sense to look at his campaign. He was not found guilty of anything. A few of his campaign people were caught in shady deals, but not in relation to the Russian influence. So it has been over and done with for quite some time.

I still don't see why you are bringing it up again.

This is the only actual evidence of the Kremlin's plans and desires:


Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.

Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????


QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

My understanding is that Steele, who is an ex-spy, used his old contacts in Moscow to get the information. They were intelligence contacts willing to talk to a foreign agent (Steele). You think they cleared that with Putin? lol

That is why Steele put up the clear disclaimer when the dossier went to the FBI that IT HAD NOT BEEN CORROBORATED.

Sure the Democrats would find those rumors useful, you would think, but they never released it, did they? Was any of the dossier used during the campaign? NO.

I don't mind educating you......if only it would stick.
That seems to be one of your problems.


Steele is a life-long Communist.

He was used by the Kremlin to bring the dossier to the Clintonites, for use against Trump.

1. [Supposed author of the dossier,] Steele was a “confirmed socialist” in college at Oxford when he was hired by MI6, another point of suspicion for someone who would be dispatched to Moscow as a spy and later serve as head of the Russian desk at MI6, all extremely sensitive positions." The Final Truth about the “Trump Dossier”



2.. Christopher Steele, Hillary's employee, got the 'dossier' via
Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch linked to Vladimir Putin, according to a new report.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE REPORTEDLY WORKED FOR SANCTIONED RUSSIAN OLIGARCH
Christopher Steele Reportedly Worked For Sanctioned Russian Oligarch


3. Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.

Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????

QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.



4. If any collusion occurred, it was through Democrats, the only folks for whom we have actual evidence of collusion.



5. Here's the quote that should not be overlooked:
Christopher Steele told [the DoJ] he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”


. Here is the question that has never been asked:
Steele is not even an American citizen…..what is behind this hatred of Trump, and his passion to end his chances of becoming President?

To understand Steele’s hatred of Trump, and, alternatively, his love of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, one need understand who this man is, and his worldview......and it is all about Russia- the country, their aim for world domination, who they bribed (Clinton) and why Trump is an obstacle to this.



Get it?????

 

[the other mike]

You're confusing two separate issues.

How so?

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.

Of course there was interference. A foreign government incognito influencing our voters on social media and hacking into the DNC and then releasing it to the world is unacceptable.

With all due respect, Old Lady...Russia interfering in our elections isn't something new. They've attempted to do so for decades now. What's amusing however is that the very same Obama who assured us that we nothing to worry about when it came to Russian interference BEFORE the election when the experts were predicting a Clinton landslide...suddenly becomes deeply concerned about it when Trump upsets Clinton! Let's be honest here for once! Russian "interference" is simply the excuse that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party used to explain why the American people wouldn't vote for their candidate!

I don't agree with you on that.

The fact that they've attempted interference before doesn't mean they should have, and once they hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, they were caught red handed. That was illegal. And an organized, official effort of "posers?" That's okay with you? It's not with me.

The Mueller investigation was not the Democrats' attempt to "blame" the Russians for Trump's win. It was to figure out the extent of what happened and if any American citizens were involved. The report did that.

They hacked the DNC because Podesta's brother had business dealings in Russia and Hillary, Huma, and Wasserman-Schultz had not followed security measures.

Russia
did not
hack
the
DNC server.

That's a lie.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails

CrowdStrike's Shawn Henry was interviewed by House Intelligence Committee members in December 2017

justthenews.com

 

[Bush92]

“…a guilty plea is supposed to be knowing and voluntary….we have evidence that it was coerced….”

Sorry, but you don't.

But this really isn't a matter for which the facts make a difference for Trump and Barr's purposes. Because their's is a PR battle. The final outcome of the Flynn case is immaterial. They have already gotten out of it what they wanted.

1. Muddy the waters.
2. Perpetuate the fundamentally dishonest claim that the FBI is corrupted.
3. Use the DOJ to keep deceitfully undermining Mueller's work.
4. Throw red meat to The Following.
5. Promote the image of criminals as victims.

FBI is clearly corrupted and politicized.
What did Mueller's work produce? Nothing.
Muddy the waters is liberal media and House Democrats tactic.
Racism is the red meat of the left. It's all they scream about.

 

[the other mike]

It's why they went after Flynn, and why they're still going after Stone so hard and Julian Assange.

A million to one -- when Barr and Durham went to Italy and UK they dug up some things we may never hear about, like what happened to Seth Rich , Joseph Mifsud and then it gets deeper into Ukraine, the late John McCain, etc....

Prosecutors refute Roger Stone's claim that Russia didn't hack DNC

Ultimately they say Stone presented no evidence "that suggests that Russia was not involved in the hack."

www.politico.com

 

[Bush92]

So Obama chased out Flynn because he opposed the Iran deal. That makes Obama a criminal. Yet it was perfectly alright for Trump to fire how many people, like Sessions, Tillerson, et al. for not going along with Trump's agenda.

Maybe that is what Presidents do? Seems to be.

And as far as the Russia probe, are you seriously criticizing Obama and the Intelligence Agencies and the FBI from looking into the widespread Russian interference in the election they had uncovered? Would you have ignored it? Both the articles you supplied were from 2018 AFTER the infamous Trump Tower meeting with that Russian lawyer. Do you see no possible tie to the Trump campaign when the emails SAID the Russian government was assisting the Trump campaign?

"So Obama chased out Flynn because he opposed the Iran deal. That makes Obama a criminal. Yet it was perfectly alright for Trump to fire how many people, like Sessions, Tillerson, et al. for not going along with Trump's agenda."

You're confusing two separate issues.

But....confusion seems to be your mode and madness.

I never said Obama couldn't fire any who didn't fit in his vision, did I.



"And as far as the Russia probe, are you seriously criticizing Obama and the Intelligence Agencies and the FBI from looking into the widespread Russian interference in the election they had uncovered? "

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.



Now....for any others who suffer from the same short-term memory loss that clearly interferes with any learning on your part:
Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K
Facebook had previously announced that $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads from June 2015 to May 2017 by Russian-linked disinformation sources, while an additional $50,000 was spent by Russians that signals indicate weren’t or were only weakly connected to an organized disinformation campaign.

Trump and Clinton spent $81M on US election Facebook ads, Russian agency $46K | TechCrunch

Russian information troll farm the Internert Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While there might have been other Russian disinformation groups, the IRA...

techcrunch.com

There were 100 thousand Facebook adds by Russian sources……out of billions of ads….

What's the percentage?



"We know, for example, that some institution linked to the Russian government — likely the infamous Internet Research Agency — bought ads on Facebook between 2015 and 2017, with the assumed intent of stoking anger and partisanship. We know that the ads concerned wedge issues like immigration, the Second Amendment, and police brutality; we even know what some of the Russian pages and accounts were. And we know that around 3,000 ads were purchased at a cost of around $100,000.

… the $100,000 spent by the Russian government is laughably small, no matter how precisely targeted. In contrast, the official Trump campaign spent $90 million on digital ads — and, unlike the Russians, had assistance from Facebook employees to target and deploy them effectively. “There’s no way $100,000 in ad budget impacted the election. It’s ridiculous,” García Martínez said."

Did Russia’s Facebook Ads Actually Swing the Election?

If you’re most worried about ads, you’re missing the bigger picture.

nymag.com

Buying ads is one thing. Having posters posing on FaceBook and no doubt here as well arguing in ways to either divide us OR champion Trump cost how much? That's not added into the equation, yet they had an entire building full of people dedicated to it. That had a lot more impact. How many people pay attention to ads? Some maybe, but the constant claims made by Russian posers to poison social media? THAT is what had real influence.

So it happened. The next logical step is figuring out if the candidate being favored --or anyone else-- was "in on it." That is what the Mueller report did. It made perfect sense to look at his campaign. He was not found guilty of anything. A few of his campaign people were caught in shady deals, but not in relation to the Russian influence. So it has been over and done with for quite some time.

I still don't see why you are bringing it up again.

This is the only actual evidence of the Kremlin's plans and desires:


Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.

Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????


QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

My understanding is that Steele, who is an ex-spy, used his old contacts in Moscow to get the information. They were intelligence contacts willing to talk to a foreign agent (Steele). You think they cleared that with Putin? lol

That is why Steele put up the clear disclaimer when the dossier went to the FBI that IT HAD NOT BEEN CORROBORATED.

Sure the Democrats would find those rumors useful, you would think, but they never released it, did they? Was any of the dossier used during the campaign? NO.

I don't mind educating you......if only it would stick.
That seems to be one of your problems.


Steele is a life-long Communist.

He was used by the Kremlin to bring the dossier to the Clintonites, for use against Trump.

1. [Supposed author of the dossier,] Steele was a “confirmed socialist” in college at Oxford when he was hired by MI6, another point of suspicion for someone who would be dispatched to Moscow as a spy and later serve as head of the Russian desk at MI6, all extremely sensitive positions." The Final Truth about the “Trump Dossier”



2.. Christopher Steele, Hillary's employee, got the 'dossier' via
Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch linked to Vladimir Putin, according to a new report.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE REPORTEDLY WORKED FOR SANCTIONED RUSSIAN OLIGARCH
Christopher Steele Reportedly Worked For Sanctioned Russian Oligarch


3. Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.

Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????

QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.



4. If any collusion occurred, it was through Democrats, the only folks for whom we have actual evidence of collusion.



5. Here's the quote that should not be overlooked:
Christopher Steele told [the DoJ] he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”


. Here is the question that has never been asked:
Steele is not even an American citizen…..what is behind this hatred of Trump, and his passion to end his chances of becoming President?

To understand Steele’s hatred of Trump, and, alternatively, his love of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, one need understand who this man is, and his worldview......and it is all about Russia- the country, their aim for world domination, who they bribed (Clinton) and why Trump is an obstacle to this.



Get it?????

Steele a 100% Marxist SOB!

 

[Oldestyle]

Steele didn't HAVE sources! He made up shit and pretended it came from unnamed Russian sources! He admitted that when he got sued for libel in the British Courts!

got a link and a direct quote on that?

If you really need to see it, Old Lady, I'll spend the time to go dig it out! This was all hashed and rehashed years ago! Were you not here then?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're confusing two separate issues.

How so?

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.

Of course there was interference. A foreign government incognito influencing our voters on social media and hacking into the DNC and then releasing it to the world is unacceptable.

With all due respect, Old Lady...Russia interfering in our elections isn't something new. They've attempted to do so for decades now. What's amusing however is that the very same Obama who assured us that we nothing to worry about when it came to Russian interference BEFORE the election when the experts were predicting a Clinton landslide...suddenly becomes deeply concerned about it when Trump upsets Clinton! Let's be honest here for once! Russian "interference" is simply the excuse that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party used to explain why the American people wouldn't vote for their candidate!

I don't agree with you on that.

The fact that they've attempted interference before doesn't mean they should have, and once they hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, they were caught red handed. That was illegal. And an organized, official effort of "posers?" That's okay with you? It's not with me.

The Mueller investigation was not the Democrats' attempt to "blame" the Russians for Trump's win. It was to figure out the extent of what happened and if any American citizens were involved. The report did that.

They hacked the DNC because Podesta's brother had business dealings in Russia and Hillary, Huma, and Wasserman-Schultz had not followed security measures.

Russia
did not
hack
the
DNC server.

That's a lie.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails

CrowdStrike's Shawn Henry was interviewed by House Intelligence Committee members in December 2017

justthenews.com

Now for the technical proof that the Left lied.

“…decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

…a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, ….what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack



No hack possible!!!!!

 

[berg80]

Stzrok will be watching Trump's inauguration speech from prison next year.

That delusional, right wing wet dream is about as likely to come to fruition as the others. Locking up Hillary. Sending McCabe, Comey, Page, etc. to prison.

You completely miss the value of making gullible fools wish for such things.

It's the baseless smears against those people that is important to those making the accusations. They are never able to prove the allegations made against folks like Strzok. But the accusers don't care about that.

Right wing media spends enough time throwing shit against the wall to ingrain the accusations in to the Trumpleton's memory. THAT'S THE GOAL.

So when time passes, and the allegation turn out to be completely unfounded, Trumpleheads hear Strzok's name and reflexively think............."oh yeah, that corrupt FBI guy"..........even though the allegations have fallen apart months ago.

 

[the other mike]

Stzrok will be watching Trump's inauguration speech from prison next year.

That delusional, right wing wet dream

Since when is justice a 'right wing' idea ?

 

[berg80]

You're confusing two separate issues.

How so?

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.

Of course there was interference. A foreign government incognito influencing our voters on social media and hacking into the DNC and then releasing it to the world is unacceptable.

With all due respect, Old Lady...Russia interfering in our elections isn't something new. They've attempted to do so for decades now. What's amusing however is that the very same Obama who assured us that we nothing to worry about when it came to Russian interference BEFORE the election when the experts were predicting a Clinton landslide...suddenly becomes deeply concerned about it when Trump upsets Clinton! Let's be honest here for once! Russian "interference" is simply the excuse that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party used to explain why the American people wouldn't vote for their candidate!

I don't agree with you on that.

The fact that they've attempted interference before doesn't mean they should have, and once they hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, they were caught red handed. That was illegal. And an organized, official effort of "posers?" That's okay with you? It's not with me.

The Mueller investigation was not the Democrats' attempt to "blame" the Russians for Trump's win. It was to figure out the extent of what happened and if any American citizens were involved. The report did that.

They hacked the DNC because Podesta's brother had business dealings in Russia and Hillary, Huma, and Wasserman-Schultz had not followed security measures.

Russia
did not
hack
the
DNC server.

That's a lie.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails

CrowdStrike's Shawn Henry was interviewed by House Intelligence Committee members in December 2017

justthenews.com

Now for the technical proof that the Left lied.

“…decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds.

…a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second.

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, ….what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack



No hack possible!!!!!

See post 90, #1.

We have obtained such a review in the last week from Nathan Freitas of the Guardian Project. He has evaluated both the VIPS memo and Lawrence’s article. Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties “must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.” His findings are published here.

We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo. This is not the first time a VIPS report has been internally disputed, but it is the first time one has been released over the substantive objections of several VIPS members. With that in mind, we asked Drake and those VIPS members who agree with him to present their dissenting view. We also asked VIPS members who stand by their report to respond.

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

www.thenation.com

 

[berg80]

Since when is justice a 'right wing' idea ?

Never. Justice is antithetical to today's right wingers. But thanks for asking.

 

[Oldestyle]

Stzrok will be watching Trump's inauguration speech from prison next year.

That delusional, right wing wet dream is about as likely to come to fruition as the others. Locking up Hillary. Sending McCabe, Comey, Page, etc. to prison.

You completely miss the value of making gullible fools wish for such things.

It's the baseless smears against those people that is important to those making the accusations. They are never able to prove the allegations made against folks like Strzok. But the accusers don't care about that.

Right wing media spends enough time throwing shit against the wall to ingrain the accusations in to the Trumpleton's memory. THAT'S THE GOAL.

So when time passes, and the allegation turn out to be completely unfounded, Trumpleheads hear Strzok's name and reflexively think............."oh yeah, that corrupt FBI guy"..........even though the allegations have fallen apart months ago.

Baseless smears? Isn't that pretty much the Democratic handbook for the past decade, Berg?
Strzok used his position in the FBI to affect a US election. He's the poster child for political corruption of an agency that has always prided itself on NOT taking sides in politics!

 

[OldLady]

You're confusing two separate issues.

How so?

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.

Of course there was interference. A foreign government incognito influencing our voters on social media and hacking into the DNC and then releasing it to the world is unacceptable.

With all due respect, Old Lady...Russia interfering in our elections isn't something new. They've attempted to do so for decades now. What's amusing however is that the very same Obama who assured us that we nothing to worry about when it came to Russian interference BEFORE the election when the experts were predicting a Clinton landslide...suddenly becomes deeply concerned about it when Trump upsets Clinton! Let's be honest here for once! Russian "interference" is simply the excuse that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party used to explain why the American people wouldn't vote for their candidate!

I don't agree with you on that.

The fact that they've attempted interference before doesn't mean they should have, and once they hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, they were caught red handed. That was illegal. And an organized, official effort of "posers?" That's okay with you? It's not with me.

The Mueller investigation was not the Democrats' attempt to "blame" the Russians for Trump's win. It was to figure out the extent of what happened and if any American citizens were involved. The report did that.

How have you determined that it was Russia that hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, Old Lady? What do you base that on? The DNC refused to allow it's computers to be examined to make that determination which I find highly suspicious since one of the other explanations for how Wikileaks got the DNC emails is that they were leaked by a DNC insider unhappy with how Bernie Sanders had been treated by the Clinton minions in the DNC! I find it very plausible that people inside of the DNC were the ones who "hacked" the DNC computers. It's what the founder of Wikileaks himself has claimed all along.

I'm just going to refer you to the Intelligence Agencies that know stuff and investigated that hack. Who are you to question it? Were you one of the investigators? No, you are a partisan who wants to blame it on the opposing party instead. The founder of Wikileaks has the ethics of a sewer rat. It could have been a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed in his mom's basement too. You cannnot just fill in the blanks with whatever convenient guess fits your agenda and then call it "truth."

 

[berg80]

Now for the technical proof that the Left lied.

When you say the left, you understand that's a lie. I mean, you know you are lying by characterizing the unanimous conclusions of the major intel agencies as coming from the "left."

You see, I'm on to your wordsmithing game.

 

[OldLady]

Steele didn't HAVE sources! He made up shit and pretended it came from unnamed Russian sources! He admitted that when he got sued for libel in the British Courts!

got a link and a direct quote on that?

If you really need to see it, Old Lady, I'll spend the time to go dig it out! This was all hashed and rehashed years ago! Were you not here then?

I definitely would have remembered if Steele admitted it he made that shit up and pretended it came from unnamed Russian sources. However, since this is old news, please don't bother digging it out on my account. I am not at all interested in rehashing this. I am simply trying to put some of this insane gibbering on track with some facts. It's not working and I'm pretty much done trying.

 

[berg80]

Strzok used his position in the FBI to affect a US election.

Seriously, you are wearing me out with all these lies. The difference between us is when you write a baseless, unsubstantiated (no link) smear my tendency is to do a Google search to find facts to debunk it. It takes some time. By the time I'm ready to respond another lie has appeared on the thread. It's exhausting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're confusing two separate issues.

How so?

There was no such interference, so there was nothing to uncover, you dolt.

Of course there was interference. A foreign government incognito influencing our voters on social media and hacking into the DNC and then releasing it to the world is unacceptable.

With all due respect, Old Lady...Russia interfering in our elections isn't something new. They've attempted to do so for decades now. What's amusing however is that the very same Obama who assured us that we nothing to worry about when it came to Russian interference BEFORE the election when the experts were predicting a Clinton landslide...suddenly becomes deeply concerned about it when Trump upsets Clinton! Let's be honest here for once! Russian "interference" is simply the excuse that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party used to explain why the American people wouldn't vote for their candidate!

I don't agree with you on that.

The fact that they've attempted interference before doesn't mean they should have, and once they hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, they were caught red handed. That was illegal. And an organized, official effort of "posers?" That's okay with you? It's not with me.

The Mueller investigation was not the Democrats' attempt to "blame" the Russians for Trump's win. It was to figure out the extent of what happened and if any American citizens were involved. The report did that.

How have you determined that it was Russia that hacked the DNC and sold it to Wikileaks, Old Lady? What do you base that on? The DNC refused to allow it's computers to be examined to make that determination which I find highly suspicious since one of the other explanations for how Wikileaks got the DNC emails is that they were leaked by a DNC insider unhappy with how Bernie Sanders had been treated by the Clinton minions in the DNC! I find it very plausible that people inside of the DNC were the ones who "hacked" the DNC computers. It's what the founder of Wikileaks himself has claimed all along.

I'm just going to refer you to the Intelligence Agencies that know stuff and investigated that hack. Who are you to question it? Were you one of the investigators? No, you are a partisan who wants to blame it on the opposing party instead. The founder of Wikileaks has the ethics of a sewer rat. It could have been a 400 pound guy sitting on his bed in his mom's basement too. You cannnot just fill in the blanks with whatever convenient guess fits your agenda and then call it "truth."

I looked up 'gullible'....and there was your picture.


"I'm just going to refer you to the Intelligence Agencies that know stuff and investigated that hack. "

–We were initially told that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had independently confirmed that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and our 2016 presidential election.

But wait! We now learn that only three agencies have confirmed this intelligence finding (CIA, NSA, FBI).

Further, only one agency actually conducted the majority of the research that netted that conclusion: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The main intelligence gathering was conducted by the CIA. In other words, the FBI and the NSA simply said "we agree" that the CIA's work is credible. The three agencies did not independently make this same conclusion. The CIA coerced the FBI and NSA into compliance.

....Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sec. Jeh Johnson attempted to coerce several Secretaries of State about designating our voting systems as 'critical infrastructure' which would've subjugated those state's roles in the election to the federal government. To DHS's shock, the states outright rejected that request.



.... Democrats had plenty of cover to conflate these findings into an assertion of a Trump-collusion. This explains why none of the Obama-holdovers (including former FBI Director James Comey) were willing to formally admit they had no evidence (against Trump) and continued to act in a way that ultimately discredited President Trump.

Obama's Political Weapon Against Trump

“Trump caved to Putin.” That’s the media’s take of President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 Summit.Or, did Trump cave to the truth?We were initially told

townhall.com

Oh....and BTW....subsequently, we have also learned that the DNC is in charge of both the DoJ and the FBI: they refused...refused... requests that the DNC's servers be investigated. Imagine, if you refused the FBI.



Wise up.

 

[berg80]

I definitely would have remembered if Steele admitted it he made that shit up and pretended it came from unnamed Russian sources. However, since this is old news, please don't bother digging it out on my account. I am not at all interested in rehashing this. I am simply trying to put some of this insane gibbering on track with some facts. It's not working and I'm pretty much done trying.

It's heartening to see someone share in my frustration. It's virtually impossible to thoroughly refute all the lies these people tell. And frankly, my experience tells me it's pointless anyway. Factual refutation rarely if ever results in a right wing lie being extinguished. More likely the poster just scurries off to tell the same lie another day.

 

[berg80]

I looked up 'gullible'....and there was your picture.

So.......you're still dodging the refutation of the last lie you told.