The term "fake news" was cooked up so you have an excuse to ignore criminality
« prev   poltics   next »

9
2

The term "fake news" was cooked up so you have an excuse to ignore criminality

By anonymous following x   2017 Feb 19, 10:51am 7,537 views   127 comments   watch   quote     share    


How many Trump supporters here will support prosecution for treason if it can be proven that the Trump administration colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election?

1. The fact that Flynn was speaking to Russian intelligence isn't in dispute. He was thrown under the bus for it.
2. The fact that the Russians were engaged in hacking and selective release of DNC emails isn't in dispute. Even Trump admits this now.
3. Donald Trump is furiously trying to gut intelligence agencies to prevent further inquiry. http://nypost.com/2017/02/16/trump-to-launch-major-review-of-spy-agencies-amid-illegal-leaks/

There's plenty here to justify an investigation. It's not even a close call, Hilary Clinton was mercilessly investigated for an email scandal with far less evidence than this. My question to the peanut gallery is what happens if it's proven that Trump was colluding with Russia to take the election? What happens if this turns into textbook treason? Will you continue to make excuses?

#poltics

« First    « Previous     Comments 87 - 126 of 126     Last »

88   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"There is no community assessment."

Of course there is. It has been reported many, many, many times that all intelligence agencies are in agreement. I could provide another 50 sources showing this, but I don't think it matters how many sources I provide--you seem to be immune to facts.

89   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 9:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

My quote was from your first source. "The evidence does not support firm judgments." Undeniable proof of difference of opinions in the intelligence community.

You either cant or wont differentiate between facts and theories. You are perpetuating fake news.

Russia hacked dnc is the accepted fact. Everything else is a theory. Everything else is fake news based on conjecture.

90   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 9:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"Russia hacked dnc is the accepted fact. Everything else is a theory. Everything else is fake news based on conjecture."

Wrong. The same people who have examined the evidence and accepted that Russia hacked the DNC is a fact also believe that the motive behind the attack was to harm Clinton in the election. That is a fact. There is human intelligence that verifies it.

91   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 9:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

You incorrectly represent this conjecture as a community assessment.

You further incorrectly put trust in intelligence community assessments. Weapons of mass destruction were an accepted intelligence community assessment.

Wikileaks is the only source w a perfect record. Disagreeing w their statement that this was not a Russian source is just your delusion feeding itself.

There's more evidence to suggest Seth Rich than Russia as the source. To suggest you know either to be true is pure fake news.

92   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

OK so now we're back to you not even believing Russia is the source? Like I said--it's no point discussing this with you as you are not interested in the truth.

93   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 10:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Russia is the source is a matter of ODDS not BELIEF. Attributing odds to a belief, either for or against, is proof that your logic is wrong. Not just flawed, wrong.

No one knows Russia is the source. Some suspect Russia. Others suspect Seth Rich.

They don't know, neither do you.

At least think about it logically and leave beliefs out of it.

94   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 10:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"No one knows Russia is the source. Some suspect Russia. Others suspect Seth Rich."

That's ridiculous. Nobody who has seen all the evidence suspects Seth Rich. The only people who even mention Seth Rich are nutjobs reading Breitbart.

What I DO know is that EVERYONE, including Trump, who has seen all the evidence believes it was Russia. That is the logic.

95   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 11:11am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

What I DO know is that EVERYONE, including Trump, who has seen all the evidence believes it was Russia.

Why do you keep lying? The only possible answer is you do not understand the difference between facts and conjecture. Russia is the source = conjecture. You also willfully put words into "everyone"'s mouths w amazing ease. Pure delusion. Trump, his team, the intelligence communities... none of them have said what you represent them as having said.

"Everyone, including TRUMP," does NOT think Russia was the source. FACT. Wikileaks specifically said Russia was not the source. FACT. So far they have not lied. FACT.

They agree that some specifically identified DNC hacks can be traced to a russian source(s). Everything else is fake news. Trump also mentioned other hacks traced to other sources. The emails revealed in the wikileaks show team hillary discussing known hacks coming from Russia, Iran, and China.

As Trump put in your posted video. This was normal.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/trump-acknowledges-russia-was-behind-dnc-hack/?ref=patrick.net

This is the video you are referring to wherein Trump supposedly acknowledges Russia hacking. I suggest you watch your own source. Then go back and rewatch the Priebus response.

Then go back and rethink your logic -Or- keep sticking your head in the sand. Up to you

96   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 11:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"Everyone, including TRUMP," does NOT think Russia was the source. FACT"

Why don't you quote me correctly instead of trying to twist my words. That's pathetic.

"This is the video you are referring to wherein Trump supposedly acknowledges Russia hacking"

Supposedly? The source to which I refer is Priebus saying that Trump accepts the intelligence community findings.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313214-priebus-says-he-thinks-trump-accepts-the-findings-of-the-intelligence

There's another source for you. Notice, even Priebus calls it the "intelligence community findings" because everyone is in agreement. Priebus goes on to say that Trump is not denying that Russia was behind the hacks of the DNC.

I'm tired of this nonsense. You're as bad as TLL Lips.

97   Heres Your Card   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 21, 11:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

I'm tired of this nonsense. You're as bad as TLL Lips.

That's not possible.

98   Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Feb 21, 12:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams

99   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 12:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

The source to which I refer is Priebus saying that Trump accepts the intelligence community findings.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313214-priebus-says-he-thinks-trump-accepts-the-findings-of-the-intelligence

"“I think he accepts the finding,” Priebus said. “He’s not denying entities in Russia are behind these particular hackings.” And here we are again. They agree entities in Russia are involved in these hacks. This doesnt mean Russia worked with wikileaks. It also doesnt mean this was DNC's only hack. The wikileaks discussed 3 acknowledged hacks from supposedly russia, iran, and china.

So Wikileaks could have been sourced via any hacker w a server in russia, iran, or china, OR any insider with access. The Russia theory is all confirmation bias. Its neither proven nor universally agreed to be the best current theory.

100   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 21, 1:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

"The Russia theory is all confirmation bias. Its neither proven nor universally agreed to be the best current theory."

wtf? All intelligence services in the US AGREE it was Russia. How is that not universally agreed?

In any event. You win. I'm done.

101   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Feb 22, 7:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says

it

There's the hacking done by multiple hackers... then there's the leaks. The "IT" that they AGREE on is that 1 of the many hacks came from a russian source.

No one AGREES that the leaks came from russia. Wikileaks has never lied and says it was not russia.

joeyjojojunior says

You win.

I'm glad you are starting to think logically.

104   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 May 11, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

He with the Air force one gets to ignore the most criminality aye Woggy?

105   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 9:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Tenpoundbass says

He with the Air force one gets to ignore the most criminality aye Woggy?

106   TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 9:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says

So Wikileaks could have been sourced via any hacker w a server in russia, iran, or china, OR any insider with access. The Russia theory is all confirmation bias. Its neither proven nor universally agreed to be the best current theory.

Or any 300lb Hacker with diet coke, or any gathering of Finns formerly on the 1001 Commodore 64 Demo squad.

With passwords like "Obama08" and "Passw0rd" hacking the Podesta, DNC, and Hillary's mail servers hardly required Gary McKennon or Adrian Lamo level abilities.

The real question is: "Who didn't hack into these systems."

We need to have Government Agents examine the DNC Server. When is the DNC turning them over so we can get to bottom of the hacking?

107   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 12:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

We need to have Government Agents examine the DNC Server.

Why switch the subject like that?

Is this thread about all things that Trump opponents might possibly be found as criminal or about a particular thing that Trump's campaign did which it turns out from considerable evidence is criminal?

If you can't bear to look at that until all other possible criminals are fully investigated then you should ask yourself why!

108   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 12:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

MMR says

Germany press was anything but cheerleading in favor of hitler though

American press fawned over Hitler as well as powerful American capitalists who realized tremendous return on investments until December 8, 1941, because of Pearl Harbor and as Japan sent their bombers to the Philippines in the hopes of destroying all the warships and planes that were kept there.

Hitler was offering our wealthy opportunities and productivity from hundreds of forced labor camps all over eastern Europe. --those slave camps were responsible for Germany's rise to power for WWII, and they contained any and all people who were deemed inconvenient for the purposes of making Germany great again. No kidding, that was Hitlers rant too.

109   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 12:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

jazz music says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

We need to have Government Agents examine the DNC Server.

Why switch the subject like that?

Becuase its directly relevant to the dems fixation on Russia. The fact that the DNC won't share their server which should help verify or squash their story, is quite relevant.

In fact. If we are to use Dem conspiracy logic, we should assume the dems are lying and hiding evidence of a martian conspiracy. I mean, what else could they be hiding? I'm shocked the NYT hasn't written that article yet

110   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 12:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

@CBOEtrader your post implies that Democratic party are the only ones who care whether Trump was colluding with Russia to take the election?

So what makes you think that?

Do you prefer national attention be diverted to DNC servers and the prosecution of leakers instead?

111   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 1:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

jazz music says

@CBOEtrader your post implies that Democratic party are the only ones who care whether Trump was colluding with Russia to take the election?

Your inferences are off. Be more specific. Perhaps use the quote function if you want me to clarify my words.

jazz music says

Do you prefer national attention be diverted to DNC servers and the prosecution of leakers instead?

Your use of the words diverted and instead are very leading... This is your false narrative showing its ugly face.

IF the DNC claims russia hacked their servers, AND they want to suggest this as a critical point for Russia to further manipulate our elections WHY WOULDNT THEY LET THE FBI LOOK AT THEIR SERVERS?

The only answer is they are hiding something. Most likely they know Russia will be completely exonerated

112   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 1:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says

The only answer is they are hiding something.

Puh-leeeze--You know that is bullshit I don't see you offering government agencies to investigate the contents of your computers. How ridiculous!

113   FortWayne   ignore (0)   2017 May 11, 1:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Russia thing is fake news. It takes focus from what this country needs... jobs and better economy

Democrats are just full of themselves as usual

114   TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

jazz music says

Why switch the subject like that?

Why switch the subject.

Counterintelligence and Cyberwarfare Expert analysis of the DNC Server is the KEY to the Russia Hacking Investigation

It's the one hard physical piece of evidence. Why the hell isn't the FBI getting it voluntarily, or via a warrant? You'd think the DNC would be begging the FBI to take a peek.

Unless of course, it's either inconclusive or otherwise points to multiple hacks at multiple times from multiple entities, in which case not only does it help destroy the "Russia Done Hacked Us" narrative, but it points to the incompetence of the Democratic Leadership, on top of their corruption.

Another thing the Media isn't covering much: The Bernie Donor's lawsuit. The Legal Defense Team for the DNC just said they could disregard the primaries and nominate whoever they wanted in a smoke filled back room, and Democratic Voters and Donors would just have to shove those cigars in their orifice if they don't like it.

115   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 1:45pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

FortWayne says

Russia thing is fake news. It takes focus from what this country needs... jobs and better economy

Democrats are just full of themselves as usual

You cannot accept the fact that Russia is innocent of fucking with our election and simultaneously believe that all four major security agencies are competent in any way. In fact to be consistent, you must denounce the CIA, FBI, NSA, and HS as nothing more than loose collections of bumbling fools who cannot tell evidence from a ham sandwich.

I consider that assertion to be plainly stupid therefore I'm going to go with Russia needs to be investigated for possible conspiracy and treason. No one is saying that they don't make mistakes and I don't need to be reminded about Iraq again. However in the case of Iraq it was George Bush and Cheney desperately pushing the narrative and ordering these agencies to confirm their conclusion. (presumably implied with jobs on the line) Today we have exactly the opposite situation where people are risking their careers to assert evidence of Russian hacking and involvement.

116   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 1:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Russia needs to be investigated for possible conspiracy and treason

Trump Russia needs to be investigated for possible conspiracy and treason

117   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 1:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

In fact to be consistent, you must denounce the CIA, FBI, NSA, and HS as nothing more than loose collections of bumbling fools who cannot tell evidence from a ham sandwich.

Trump has said basically as much, and then turned around and said he was the CIA's biggest fan or some such nonsense.

118   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 3:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Trumps answers so far have been disturbingly bitchy-sounding non-answers and then the firings are the more poignant answer that makes him look bad. All he has to do to finish this up is to answer the direct questions as articulated by Joe Kennedy III below. Here are the public facts.

intelligence agencies have unanimously decided, after their analysis, that Russian government and Russian intelligence agencies deliberately interfered with our Democratic process, to erode faith in our democracy, and to erode our confidence in our institutions.

As a result of this interference that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from an investigation about/into the Trump administration’s contact with Russia. The leader in the investigation, Devon Nunes, of the House Intelligence Committee, was forced out of his position because of his inability to effectively lead that investigation.

We’ve seen resignations and dismissals of high-ranking campaign officials and Trump associates from Paul Manfort to Carter Page and of course, Michael Flynn, the former National Security Adviser, after he lied to the Vice President of the United States, who then, based off of that false information mislead, unwittingly, mislead the American public.

Far more troubling than those facts, that we know and what we have seen, however, are the dismissals of Sally Yates, then acting (DOJ) Attorney General, “Preet” Bharara, former U.S. Attorney General for New York, and of course, Director James Comey, head of the FBI, the person leading the investigation into Donald Trump and his associates’ interactions and alleged interactions with Russia.

Now look, Russia’s goal from the beginning was to erode our faith in institutions and our country, our democracy, and the mechanisms we have, in order to protect our democracy. What we have seen, and every day since then, in all these questions as they continue to swirl, is that they continue to make that success because this administration refuses to come clean and answer basic questions with regards to their own actions, with that of a known adversary and our chief political rival around the world.

This is the very least that the American public should expect from their government:

· What did you know?

· When did you know it?

· What are your contacts with the Russian government?

· Who in this administration has made contacts with the Russian government intelligence agencies?

· What are your business ties to those organizations?

· What incentives to you have to, perhaps. be more beholding to Russian interests, than the interests of the American pubic?

119   TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 May 11, 7:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

#FakeNews

Very important story there, CNN. Are you sure your Fake News Ass isn't jumping on anything to try to Stump the Trump?

Nahhh, couldn't be.

120   jazz_music   ignore (2)   2017 May 11, 8:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bunny with a pancake, now how about this?

· What did you know?

· When did you know it?

· What are your contacts with the Russian government?

· Who in this administration has made contacts with the Russian government intelligence agencies?

· What are your business ties to those organizations?

· What incentives to you have to, perhaps. be more beholding to Russian interests, than the interests of the American pubic?

121   komputodo   ignore (0)   2017 May 11, 9:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

How many Trump supporters here will support prosecution for treason if it can be proven that the Trump administration colluded with Russian intelligence to throw the election?

You're funny...PROVEN? In this day and age, nothing can be PROVEN...They could catch clinton with his pants down and his dick in Monica's snout and still it couldn't be PROVEN that he was having sex... uhhh...It was a hologram...uhhh I was just checking her tonsils with my dick...uhhh I was just teaching her how to suck cock for her wedding day...Why don't you quit beating around the bush and just admit you are butt hurt that cankles lost and get on with your life... It's getting tedious.

122   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 May 12, 4:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says

The only answer is they are hiding something. Most likely they know Russia will be completely exonerated

Why won't the rnc do the same? They were reportedly hacked as well.

123   Entitlemented   ignore (0)   2017 May 12, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

proven that Trump was colluding with Russia to take the election?

If we can ignore the rule of law like the hooded infantidels, then you just work off heresay.

A first year paralegal would know that you must have evidence if you think that Trump worked with Russia to win the election. Did Russia fund ads for Trump?

In God we trust, if your going to make accusations of collusions you need evidence.

124   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 May 12, 12:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Entitlemented says

A first year paralegal would know that you must have evidence if you think that Trump worked with Russia to win the election. Did Russia fund ads for Trump?

I don't need jack shit anymore. If Donald Trump fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, he needs to be impeached. Corruption and obstruction of justice and there's even a clear precedent with Nixon.

Since the charges are so serious, there's no defense against an independent investigation which should begin shortly.

This game is finished, you just don't know it yet.

125   Entitlemented   ignore (0)   2017 May 12, 12:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

First Hillary won because the polls proved that she was walking away with the vote.

Then Hillary lost because Comey made public new allegations on an associates husbands computer. Comey made her lose.

Then Hillary lost because she did not reach out to the working class that lost jobs but supported Obama. The working class who are unemployed made her lose.

Then Hillary lost because of hacking the DNC was exposed by Wikileaks. Russia and Wikileaks made her lose.

Then Hillary lost because because many of her base thought that she was too close to banking lobbyists. Those against paid bank speeches made her lose.

Then Hillary may have aced out Bernie in an unfair primary. Those who liked Bernie made her lose.

Then Hillary did not chose Bernie as a running mate. The failure to pick the candidate that could capture more votes made her lose.

Then Hillary picked a running mate that was seen as a big time lawyer, but did poorly in debates. The performance of the VP candidate made her lose.

126   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 May 12, 12:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

That's very nice.

If Donald Trump fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, he needs to be impeached. Corruption and obstruction of justice and there's even a clear precedent with Nixon.

Since the charges are so serious, there's no defense against an independent investigation which should begin shortly. You can offer no reason why it should be opposed.

This game is finished, you just don't know it yet.

~ END

« First    « Previous     Comments 87 - 126 of 126     Last »


Comment as anon_9bcb5 or log in at top of page: