The corporate media have insisted for years that Russia hacked the 2016 election or colluded with Trump to steal it. The hoax was already thoroughly debunked, but documents released by Tulsi Gabbard on Friday revealed that the Obama administration “manufactured” the evidence behind the narrative.
A House report Gabbard declassified on Wednesday further revealed how the Obama administration manipulated the contents of an intelligence report to push the claim that Putin “aspired” to help Trump. The “only classified information” cited as evidence for the assertion was “one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence” in a “substandard” report. Nonetheless, the corporate media for years acted as willing propaganda arms for the Democrat Party, uncritically and relentlessly peddling the claim that Russia helped Donald Trump win in 2016.
Following the release of the DNI report on Friday and the House report on Wednesday, legacy outlets unsurprisingly rushed to downplay the bombshells. While the media continue to run cover for themselves and the Obama administration, here is a reminder of seven Democrat mouthpieces who perpetuated the Russia collusion hoax.
Yes. Watch the videoDid they actually say "Hacked"? Or did they say that Russia tried to interfere by using false posts in social media?
Why was the lie promoted that Russia hacked the election?Only in the minds of people whose brains long ago lost the capability of rational thought. Conservative media makes people stupid.
Point me to where in the intelligence reports that you and Gabbard are claiming were manipulated it says that Russia hacked the election. Or have you already given up on that claim?Why was the lie promoted that Russia hacked the election?
The Russians hacking the election lie was promoted.Point me to where in the intelligence reports that you and Gabbard are claiming were manipulated it says that Russia hacked the election. Or have you already given up on that claim?
Why are you and Gabbard pushing lies that intelligence reports were manipulated?The Russians hacking the election lie was promoted.
Why?
So you refuse to answer the question.Why are you and Gabbard pushing lies that intelligence reports were manipulated?
In addition. Brennan used a knowingly discredited stelle dossier. That’s called manipulating intelligenceWhy are you and Gabbard pushing lies that intelligence reports were manipulated?
Can't watch it currently, did they retract the statement?Yes. Watch the video
If they did really doesn’t matter. The horse had left the barn.Can't watch it currently, did they retract the statement?
I just think it's so telling that you have changed the nature of your claim in less than 24 hours. The intelligence documents are in fact consistent. So now you are turning to media hyperbole to try to cover for your failure to prove Gabbard's claim. The answer to your question is I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Now answer mine: why are you and Gabbard pushing lies about manipulation of intelligence reports?So you refuse to answer the question.
Not surprising you can’t bring yourself to do so. The facts are the dissemination of information was indeed manipulated as the attached video shows.
Where did the media get the lie from that said Russia hacked the 2016 election?
Actually, a retraction is an admission that they were wrong in their earlier comments and wanted to correct them.If they did really doesn’t matter. The horse had left the barn.
To answer. The Steele dossier has long been debunked.I just think it's so telling that you have changed the nature of your claim in less than 24 hours. The intelligence documents are in fact consistent. So now you are turning to media hyperbole to try to cover for your failure to prove Gabbard's claim. The answer to your question is I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Now answer mine: why are you and Gabbard pushing lies about manipulation of intelligence reports?
We know the answer. Partisan trolling, and defending your pedophile.
The intent was to damage Trump. It wasn’t just a case of bad reporting.Actually, a retraction is an admission that they were wrong in their earlier comments and wanted to correct them.
You can't say "no take backs" unless you apply that everywhere.
It's laughable at this point that the main defense this administration has of an issue their president created is re-litigating old issues. Much of this has proven how right Trump was about what he thinks of his base and how easily he feels he can manipulate them to parrot whatever he says, as is proven in this and other threads. But sure, let's go down memory lane and waste time and money rehashing things just because they serve to distract from Trump's self created fiasco and the rogue MAGA supporters who chose not to believe his deflections on releasing the Epstein files.I just think it's so telling that you have changed the nature of your claim in less than 24 hours. The intelligence documents are in fact consistent. So now you are turning to media hyperbole to try to cover for your failure to prove Gabbard's claim. The answer to your question is I don't know, but it doesn't matter. Now answer mine: why are you and Gabbard pushing lies about manipulation of intelligence reports?
We know the answer. Partisan trolling, and defending your pedophile.
AI? LMAO. It’s regurgitating the lie.
And you have proof of their intent?The intent was to damage Trump. It wasn’t just a case of bad reporting.
That is why there has been a criminal referral to DOJ thus launching the Strike Force to investigate. Proof yet to come.And you have proof of their intent?
An early start for the fishing trip I see. Got that boat fixed?LMAO.
A list of rubes and fake news sites who just got owned.
———————————-
7 Media Mouthpieces Touted Lie That Russia 'Hacked' '16 Election
Even as the media run cover for the Obama administration, here is a reminder of seven Dem mouthpieces who perpetuated the Russia hoax.thefederalist.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?