Login

10-31-2019, 02:56 AM

Quote:
@mblack said:I am now very confused. From your article...

After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.
Further down in the same article...
Quote:Nunes points out that his warnings about Russia fell on deaf ears for years. “And all of a sudden I’m a Russian agent,” says the congressman.
So

Is Nunes a credible source? I am assuming yes because you are citing an article that quotes him quite a bit.

Yes, Nunes is credible.
2. Did Russia meddle in the 2016 elections or was it Ukraine?
Both. Of course the Russians meddled, they meddle every election. Trump supporters have never argued vs that.
And yes, Ukraine also meddled...for Hillary. So says liberal Politico. Here >  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u...ire-233446
Your article states it was Russia but the President and his aides say it was Ukraine and his supporters agreed that the whole Russia think was a hoax and said we should wait for proof.
You're conflating two separate events with different emphases. What Trump supporters have argued (during the Mueller probe, in which they were vindicated) , was TRUMP
   INVOLVEMENT/CONSPIRACY in "meddling" was a hoax.
3. Has Russia hacked our systems or not? Your article cites three instances thus they are a threat (something Trump does not agree not true and if course his supporters support his version lol).
The DNC was hacked. Fact. The DNC turned the autopsy over to Ukrainian Crowdstrike, not the FBI. Why?
And btw, Obama said Russia's influence was non-consequential https://time.com/4535623/president-obama...ranscript/ ...and so did Rosenstein, during
the Mueller probe indictment announcements https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/02/16/de...acted.html  .....

10-31-2019, 03:12 AM

This article completely contradicts the work Barr and co are doing... you know, that whole effort to clear Russia from the 2016 election meddling.

Huh? Barr and Durham are doing no such thing. Barr and Durham are (now CRIMINALLY) investigating the origins of the Mueller/IC investigations.
You keep referring to "effort to clear Russian from 2016 election meddling", and this has been asked/answered ad-nauseum...by Mueller.

It also makes you wonder what Rudy is doing trying to proof that the hacking was done by Ukraine.
I remind you again of the 2017 Politico article https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/u...ire-233446
And that (apparently) the Ukrainians have offered evidence to our IC, and they (Obama IC) hadn't seemed interested. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/...-democrats Rudy was tapped as a go-around our corrupt IC. Not unique in history, or criminal.

So either the article is misleading or Nunes is wrong or nor credible.
How do you arrive at those non-sequiturs? You ask some good questions (above) but now blow it with those conclusions.
Another possible option is...the very top actors of the Obama hold-over IC community conspired/staged a palace coup.
Laugh all you want...but that very notion is now moved into CRIMINAL investigation by the DOJ OIG, the DOJ AG, and 2 US Attorney Generals.
Soon, to be heard from.

Lastly, the content if your article contradicts the title of your post. Your article has ample examples to show that the Russia meddling was not a hoax. The title "The Russian Hoax" is not the conclusion anyone would come up with after reading the article... "The Plot against Trump" maybe?

What did Mueller find? Indeed, a Russian troll farm in which they ID'd about 13 Russian individuals they indicted. These 13 Russians will never be extradited for trial. Empty indictments.
I think an audit found these 13 Russians had a minimal (about $3k) impact, on the election? (best recollection, I could be wrong)

I await your response.

I do appreciate you ask questions without ad-hominem name calling, mblack. Refreshing.

11-01-2019, 12:30 PM

Apparently the “whistleblower” was the CIA spy inserted in to the whitehouse that Page and Strzok planned years ago.

LOL

11-01-2019, 10:23 PM

Quote: @A1Janitor said:
Apparently the “whistleblower” was the CIA spy inserted in to the whitehouse that Page and Strzok planned years ago.

LOL

So what parts has the whistleblower gotten wrong?

Everything that's coming out so far supports his claims.

Multiple eye witnesses have confirmed the quid pro quo, you just (conveniently) don't want to believe they told the truth under oath, unlike serial liar Trump who not only refuses to testify under oath, has you whipped into a frenzy of ridiculous conspiracy theories which none have been proven as true.

So gullible it's comical.

It's all coming out! Pay attention! Derp derp