What if it was not the Russians?

I’m sure that Putin and Russia would stop meddling in our elections if President Trump
Would just tell Putin to “Cut it out!”

:lmao:
 
The Senate intelligence committee released their assessment that the Russians tried to influence the election, concurring with the Intelligence community.

“We see no reason to dispute the conclusions,” Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said in a statement.

“There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections.”

As part of its investigation into Russian meddling, the committee has for several months been reviewing the January 2017 assessment compiled by top U.S. intelligence officials.
The assessment found that Russia sought to interfere in the election for three reasons: to undermine U.S. democracy, to damage Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintonand to help Trump win the White House.

On Wednesday, committee lawmakers met behind closed doors with former top intelligence officials who played a major role in compiling the assessment. In a joint statement following that meeting, Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) signaled their agreement with the findings.

“After a thorough review, our staff concluded that the [intelligence community assessment] conclusions were accurate and on point,” Warner said. “The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”
Click to expand...
 
I think we've known about the Russians hacking for quite some time now. The narrative though has been 98.6% about Donald Trump actively colluding with the Russians. I seem to recall much tamping down or downplaying two things: 1) Hillary's reckless use of her own servers 2) It all happened on Obama's watch.
 
bystander said:
I think we've known about the Russians hacking for quite some time now. The narrative though has been 98.6% about Donald Trump actively colluding with the Russians. I seem to recall much tamping down or downplaying two things: 1) Hillary's reckless use of her own servers 2) It all happened on Obama's watch.
Click to expand...

We've known about it but this wasn't a settled issue for many on this board who continue to this day to advance a Seth Rich - inside job conspiracy theory. This thread was started as a direct dispute of the Intelligence community claims of Russian interference in the elections, and directly the DNC hacking. In fact, JoeFan continues to raise doubts based on his continued following of Mueller's charges of the 13 Russians.

Though the news coverage of Mueller's investigation has been on collusion, the scope of it started as Russian meddling and any potential collusion with the Trump org. It's the latter that has gotten the lion share of the news cycles fueled by the actual indictments (eg. Papadopolous) and other assorted interactions (Don Jr. meeting @ Trump Tower).

Mueller hasn't issued any sort of report but their view is clear on 2 fronts: 1) Russia was directly interfering in the election via Facebook, Twitter and other front groups and 2) Russia hacked the DNC.

The importance of this statement today by the Senate Intelligence Committee is that it was done in a bi-partisan manner, unlike the House Intelligence Committee where each party put out their own politically driven drivel.
 
Seattle Husker said:
We've known about it but this wasn't a settled issue for many on this board who continue to this day to advance a Seth Rich - inside job conspiracy theory. This thread was started as a direct dispute of the Intelligence community claims of Russian interference in the elections, and directly the DNC hacking. In fact, JoeFan continues to raise doubts based on his continued following of Mueller's charges of the 13 Russians.

Though the news coverage of Mueller's investigation has been on collusion, the scope of it started as Russian meddling and any potential collusion with the Trump org. It's the latter that has gotten the lion share of the news cycles fueled by the actual indictments (eg. Papadopolous) and other assorted interactions (Don Jr. meeting @ Trump Tower).

Mueller hasn't issued any sort of report but their view is clear on 2 fronts: 1) Russia was directly interfering in the election via Facebook, Twitter and other front groups and 2) Russia hacked the DNC.

The importance of this statement today by the Senate Intelligence Committee is that it was done in a bi-partisan manner, unlike the House Intelligence Committee where each party put out their own politically driven drivel.
Click to expand...

I'm for bi-partisanship all the way. And if Trump colluded then I guess you get Pence. Meantime we're as divided as ever.

My personal feeling is that everyone is trying to hack us; the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, Iran etc etc etc. Cyber warfare shouldn't be a big shock. It's the fact that they possibly were so effective on Obama's watch that has me curious in terms of the lack of ANYTHING remotely close to the attacks on Trump over UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS while we know that Obama and Hillary were lackadaisical (to be kind) without recourse from their own party.
 
Brennan and Clapper has orchestrated this entire fbi spying operation into the Trump campaign before they had any evidence. In fact they likely seeded the operation by telling people “confidential” info about the “Russian” hacking and then when these people repeated the stories, they themselves created the need for an investigation. It was a trap by Brennan and Clapper from the beginning.
 
Seattle Husker said:
What was the triggering event that prompted Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel?
Click to expand...

I think where you're going with is that Trump's firing of Comey was seen as a political act so Rosenstein (who was in charge of the investigation due to the recusal of Sessions) appointed an outside investigator in Mueller who was seen as bi-partisan and trust-worthy by both sides of the aisle.
 
bystander said:
I think where you're going with is that Trump's firing of Comey was seen as a political act so Rosenstein (who was in charge of the investigation due to the recusal of Sessions) appointed an outside investigator in Mueller who was seen as bi-partisan and trust-worthy by both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

We need to keep reminding ourselves that Mueller was viewed as trustworthy when appointed by all sides. This is important in light of Trump's (and supporters) attempt to paint him as partisan and untrustworthy.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is important in light of Trump's (and supporters) attempt to paint him as partisan and untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

Bashing the investigator only makes one look guilty. That's what the the Clintons did. If Trump is clean (and at least so far no one has found evidence of his guilt), he should downplay the whole thing and move on with other priorities.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Bashing the investigator only makes one look guilty. That's what the the Clintons did. If Trump is clean (and at least so far no one has found evidence of his guilt), he should downplay the whole thing and move on with other priorities.
Click to expand...

That's logical. In the end, Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury for trying to hide the Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't where the investigation started but where it ended.

POTUS attack the special prosecutor more to sway public opinion than as a legal tactic. If polls are to be believed, Trump is winning that battle with his base.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Time to move on to another strategy to discredit Mueller. Will Gowdy be called a RHINO or part of the deep state? Can't decide.
Click to expand...


Makes me wonder how he comes to this conclusion when we know for a fact he did not see any documents on his trip.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Makes me wonder how he comes to this conclusion when we know for a fact he did not see any documents on his trip.
Click to expand...

Devin Nuned was with him. Ask yourself why he's gone silent after previously being so vocal. Isn't that odd for someone who has previously lived out on a limb?
 
Seattle Husker said:
Devin Nuned was with him. Ask yourself why he's gone silent after previously being so vocal. Isn't that odd for someone who has previously lived out on a limb?
Click to expand...

Neither one saw any documents. It was nothing more than a short briefing. Nunes has been quiet for about a month or two now and he's hardly been out on a limb. The Grassley-Graham memo was probably more damning of the FBI than his memo was.
 
Garmel said:
Neither one saw any documents. It was nothing more than a short briefing. Nunes has been quiet for about a month or two now and he's hardly been out on a limb. The Grassley-Graham memo was probably more damning of the FBI than his memo was.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, I don't know what Nunes and Gowdy did or did not see. Gowdy hasn't outlined the briefing from what I've read.

Nunes has been anything but quiet the past "month or two". He claimed that he'd hold the FBI in contempt for not replying to his subpoenas for information. Here is an interview on FoxNews Nunes did a week prior to the briefing in which he was pushing the "spy" narrative.

 
Seattle Husker said:
First and foremost, I don't know what Nunes and Gowdy did or did not see. Gowdy hasn't outlined the briefing from what I've read.
Click to expand...

Uh, I've seen it reported by many outlets, including MSM sources. Gowdy didn't see anything according to the news. I like how you've been harsh with Gowdy until he says something that you agree with. You trust him now. *snicker* I'm still trying to figure out where he's getting his info.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top