• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bipartisan Senate report say 2017 intel assessment about Russian interference and Trump was accurate

Athanasius68 said:
There are three issues here:

1. Did Russia seek to interfere in the 2016 election?
2. If so, did they do so in order to help Trump be elected?
3. If so, did the Trump campaign, or anyone in the campaign, conspire in Russia's efforts?

After the election, President Obama directed the intelligence agencies to determine whether Russia had interfered in the election. They concluded that yes Russia had and for the purpose of benefiting Trump.
That is what the Senate committee was reviewing. And they determined that their conclusion was sound

But it said nothing about what which really matters: Did anyone in the Trump campaign, or the campaign as a whole, conspire with Russia.

The complaint has been the Obama Admin spun a tale of Trump & Co. complicity in said interference, and whether there was sufficient justification to tell such a story.
That's what Horowitz and Durhan are examining.

A report which concludes that Russia interfered in the election has nothing to do with whether it was correct to think the Trump campaign was complicit.
Click to expand...

Barr is chasing the rats into their holes. And when he nabs them, they will squeal like crazy.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The Senate report is silent on the issue which matters:
Did the Trump campaign CONSPIRE with Russia in the latter's efforts to screw with the election.

It's a fair question to ask why the FBI wanted the dossier included in intelligence assessment given that they have the opinion it was Russian disinformation.
Click to expand...

Robert Mueller himself declared Trump and his Campaign never worked with the Russians.
 
So all they're agreeing on is that Russia's actions helped Trump. How exactly is this supposed to be news, or to be considered new information in any way?

Also, what does this whole report have to prove now, or counter for that matter?
 
Oborosen said:
So all they're agreeing on is that Russia's actions helped Trump. How exactly is this supposed to be news, or to be considered new information in any way?

Also, what does this whole report have to prove now, or counter for that matter?
Click to expand...

Well I guess basically it is saying that both sides agree, trump is an iligitimate president illegally appointed by a hostile foreiign government...
 
Oborosen said:
So all they're agreeing on is that Russia's actions helped Trump. How exactly is this supposed to be news, or to be considered new information in any way?

Also, what does this whole report have to prove now, or counter for that matter?
Click to expand...

First of all why are you not directly posing your question to anyone specifically in this thread? That would seem to have at the very least a tinge of moral cowardice. If you have been following this thread you will see that there are indeed a number of posters here that it is indeed to 'news' to them that the Russians were focused on promoting Trump over Clinton in their interference campaign. Not to mention that President Trump has personally disavowed that either had happened. So what do you have to add to this discussion that is at all constructive?
 
Last edited:
GDViking said:
Well I guess basically it is saying that both sides agree, trump is an iligitimate president illegally appointed by a hostile foreiign government...
Click to expand...

You mind quoting where they come to that conclusion?
 
Atomic Kid said:
First of all why are you not directly posing your question to anyone specifically in this thread? That would seem to have at the very least a tinge of moral cowardice. If you have been following this thread you will see that there are indeed a number of posters here that it is indeed to 'news' to them that the Russians were focused on promoting Trump over Clinton in their interference campaign. Not to mention that President Trump has personally disavowed that either had happened. So what do you have to add to this discussion that is at all constructive?
Click to expand...

The ability to reply to the thread is something that anyone can do. Claiming some form of moral cowardice, over something that you yourself have done before. Is a childish example of how not to start a debate.

This also doesn't disprove the fact that Russia's actions during that time, didn't positively impact both candidates campaigns. You're also misrepresenting the fact that Trump disavowed having asked the Russian government for this help, as people tried to claim he did.

I'm merely pointing out that this report is nothing new.
 
Jean-s said:
Get yourself a TV. Donald Trump's minimizing the threat of Covid-19 has been well-reported even by Fox News.
Click to expand...

If you mean during the impeachment, when there were still no victims in the USA, certainly. He thought he shut the door to China.

Those watching ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS do not get the truth. A for the MSNBC crowd, they get told lies daily.
 
Oborosen said:
The ability to reply to the thread is something that anyone can do. Claiming some form of moral cowardice, over something that you yourself have done before. Is a childish example of how not to start a debate.

This also doesn't disprove the fact that Russia's actions during that time, didn't positively impact both candidates campaigns. You're also misrepresenting the fact that Trump disavowed having asked the Russian government for this help, as people tried to claim he did.

I'm merely pointing out that this report is nothing new.
Click to expand...

There is the truth and then there is what the MSM says. They hate Trump so much that good journalists write stories disclosing this to all who read.
 
GDViking said:
Well I guess basically it is saying that both sides agree, trump is an iligitimate president illegally appointed by a hostile foreiign government...
Click to expand...

You all told us over and over Hillary won. Apparently she ended up getting Russia's help to win the popular vote.
 
Is that the same Senate that reported that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners? :lamo Golly we know our government never deceives!
 
Atomic Kid said:
No he did not. Barr did.
Click to expand...

Mueller said there was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. He did say there were occasions when Russia reached out and the Trump campaign responded. And he said there were occasions when Russia reached out and the campaign did not respond.

In any event, the Senate review released the other day did not address this -- whether the campaign conspired with Russia. The committee addressed whether Russia sought to interfere.
 
Oborosen said:
The ability to reply to the thread is something that anyone can do. Claiming some form of moral cowardice, over something that you yourself have done before. Is a childish example of how not to start a debate.

This also doesn't disprove the fact that Russia's actions during that time, didn't positively impact both candidates campaigns. You're also misrepresenting the fact that Trump disavowed having asked the Russian government for this help, as people tried to claim he did.

I'm merely pointing out that this report is nothing new.
Click to expand...

Responding to a thread is usually done as commentary. Not to ask questions to no one. You do that when you don't want to debate. The report makes it exceeding clear that the Russians did interfere and that it was targeted to benefit one candidate over the other. And we all know which candidate it was they preferred. If you actually read the through the thread you would know that I, nor anyone else had stated or suggested that Trump had "asked" for the Russian government for help.

But when the Russians began to help, or offered help, in the form of "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. What did Trump Jr. say? He said that he would "love it". When a Russian cutout enticed Papadopoulos with the possibility of having access to to stolen DNC emails. Did Papadopoulos immediately turn him away. No he didn't. The Trump people may not solicited Russian assistance. But the hundreds of documented contacts between Russian nationals and cutouts and Trump campaign officials such as Roger Stone and Paul Manafort clearly suggests that they were happy to have it. No other presidential campaign in American history had ever done any such thing

This report highlights several points. 1. The Russians did run an interference campaign. Trump still denies this. 2. The Russian interference campaign was designed to help Trump and harm Clinton. 3. The counterintelligence investigations into the Russian campaign and the contacts between them and Trump campaign officials was properly predicated and free of political bias and/or political influence. 4. The conclusions reached by the intelligence community were the result of free and open debate and discourse.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Mueller said there was no coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. He did say there were occasions when Russia reached out and the Trump campaign responded. And he said there were occasions when Russia reached out and the campaign did not respond.

In any event, the Senate review released the other day did not address this -- whether the campaign conspired with Russia. The committee addressed whether Russia sought to interfere.
Click to expand...

No he did not. He said that he did not have enough evidence to meet the legal threshold to charge anyone with statutory conspiracy while also stating that collusion is not a statutory crime. He also made a statement that a lack of cooperation and obstructive efforts by the President and the people around him contributed to that effort being unsuccessful. He also documented the hundreds of contacts between Russian entities and Trump campaign officials and stated that at the very least there was an unstated understanding that they both stood to benefit from it.
 
dixon01767 said:
The intel assessment included no claims of Trump campaign involvement. The witch hunt against Trump does so..
Click to expand...

That's not their job. Their job is it gather information, analyze and present what the nature of the Russian campaign was, it's breadth and objectives, and what the extent of contacts between Russians and Trump campaign officials was. After that it's up to executive and judicial branches to determine if any crimes were committed.
 
Robertinfremont said:
God no. I do not favor Russia but clearly you favor Ukraine. I see what they do wrong. But when will you see the same thing.

I personally see the Democrats tirades like they were in 2016. When it is over, they will whine they again won the popular vote and like last time, it won't matter.
Click to expand...

Sorry. But if you don't favor Ukraine than you clearly must favor Russia. One is a friend and ally, one isn't. Go ahead and guess which is which.
 
Robertinfremont said:
There is the truth and then there is what the MSM says. They hate Trump so much that good journalists write stories disclosing this to all who read.
Click to expand...

Did you see Don Lemon's meltdown over the lockdown protestors?

That was a priceless piece of media right there.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Responding to a thread is usually done as commentary. Not to ask questions to no one. You do that when you don't want to debate. The report makes it exceeding clear that the Russians did interfere and that it was targeted to benefit one candidate over the other. And we all know which candidate it was they preferred. If you actually read the through the thread you would know that I, nor anyone else had stated or suggested that Trump had "asked" for the Russian government for help.

But when the Russians began to help, or offered help, in the form of "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. What did Trump Jr. say? He said that he would "love it". When a Russian cutout enticed Papadopoulos with the possibility of having access to to stolen DNC emails. Did Papadopoulos immediately turn him away. No he didn't. The Trump people may not solicited Russian assistance. But the hundreds of documented contacts between Russian nationals and cutouts and Trump campaign officials such as Roger Stone and Paul Manafort clearly suggests that they were happy to have it. No other presidential campaign in American history had ever done any such thing

This report highlights several points. 1. The Russians did run an interference campaign. Trump still denies this. 2. The Russian interference campaign was designed to help Trump and harm Clinton. 3. The counterintelligence investigations into the Russian campaign and the contacts between them and Trump campaign officials was properly predicated and free of political bias and/or political influence. 4. The conclusions reached by the intelligence community were the result of free and open debate and discourse.
Click to expand...

Forgot about Hillary's campaign that quickly did you?

I don't really care for a report that retreads the same crap over and over. it's obvious that this is just being moved out as another smear and after three years of one failed smear and scandal after the other. I really don't think anyone outside of the activist sphere really cares either.

Normal people are going to look at this and just roll their eyes. Because they're frankly tired of all the BS and all of the information that the far-left has tried to shove down their throats over the years.

I don't mind that Trump's people did such opposition research, because Hillary's did much of the same. Just like every other presidential campaign has experience for decades now. The only thing that slightly irks me about this is how much of a pass that Hillary got and all it did was make me roll my eyes, because it's more of the same double standard that I've been seeing for years now as well.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Sorry. But if you don't favor Ukraine than you clearly must favor Russia. One is a friend and ally, one isn't. Go ahead and guess which is which.
Click to expand...

The Ukraine is pissed that Obama allowed Putin to nab Crimea. End of story.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Sorry. But if you don't favor Ukraine than you clearly must favor Russia. One is a friend and ally, one isn't. Go ahead and guess which is which.
Click to expand...

Ukraine gladly holds open its hands for more and more money. Russia takes nothing from our country.

An no, I do not favor Russia. And Trump does not. Obama did though when he let Russia capture Crimea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom