• 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!

Report: Russia Hoax Was Built On ‘One Scant, Unclear, And Unverifiable Fragment Of A Sentence’

soap box said:
His lie is proof that he wanted to hide his connections to Putin and Russia. That was her campaign platform. She questioned the allegiance and loyalty of trump to our nation. Look at everything he's done since. His actions since 2016 have been confirming evidence that he favors Putin. Clinton was right about Trump and Russia.

He lied to deceive voters so that they would not know he actually did have connections to Russia. I believe the voters deserved to know.But trump lied in order to hide the truth.
Click to expand...
bullshit. Trump gave Ukraine Javelin which was responsible for stopping the Russian armor invasion. Obama would not do it
 
iguanaman said:
So committing treason on live TV makes it OK? :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Speaking of collusion with a foreign government to affect and election:

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Why don't you point out what's inaccurate in that article if its so bad?
Click to expand...
I don't have all to debunk bullshit. There is a never-ending supply of that on the internet. I could spend all day, every day doing that and I wouldn't run out of stuff to do. I come to this forum to talk about and debate NEWS.

This "article" is WORSE than reading the report directly from the administration. They make no effort to fact check their source, and they actually waste most of the space filling the article with emotionally loaded terms that have no informational value. This is not journalism in any sense of the word. This is straight propaganda.
 
Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.

Presidential Daily Brief,dated Dec. 8, 2016.

"Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes," it stated.

The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities "probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates." the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "based on some new guidance," decided to "push back publication" of the Presidential Daily Brief.
~~
Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: "Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)"

The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia.

After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment "per the president’s request" that detailed the "tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election."

"ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS," the record states.

Later, Obama officials "leaked false statements to media outlets" claiming that "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election."
~~
Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months."

Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was "politicized" because it "suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election."

Officials also said it deceived the American public "by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities," when the intelligence community "did, in fact, assess for impact." The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,"

the ICA had assessed that "Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC," while "failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution."

Officials said the intelligence was "politicized" and then "used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more."
www.foxnews.com

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified Trump-Russia docs: Here’s what they say

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month she says reveal Obama administration officials “manufactured" intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
NOLA Dude said:
Speaking of collusion with a foreign government to affect and election:

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Click to expand...
Ukrainians don't like Manafort.

Imagine my shock.
 
anatta said:
Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated, "Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.

Presidential Daily Brief,dated Dec. 8, 2016.

"Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes," it stated.

The brief noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed that any Russian activities "probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates." the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "based on some new guidance," decided to "push back publication" of the Presidential Daily Brief.
~~
Dec. 9, 2016, a meeting convened in the White House Situation Room, with the subject line starting: "Summary of Conclusions for PC Meeting on a Sensitive Topic (REDACTED.)"

The meeting included top officials in the National Security Council, Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice, then-Secretary of State John Kerry, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, among others, to discuss Russia.

After the meeting, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Clapper’s executive assistant emailed intelligence community leaders tasking them to create a new intelligence community assessment "per the president’s request" that detailed the "tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election."

"ODNI will lead this effort with participation from CIA, FBI, NSA, and DHS," the record states.

Later, Obama officials "leaked false statements to media outlets" claiming that "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election."
~~
Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months."

Intelligence officials told Fox News Digital that the ICA was "politicized" because it "suppressed intelligence from before and after the election showing Russia lacked intent and capability to hack the 2016 election."

Officials also said it deceived the American public "by claiming the IC made no assessment on the ‘impact’ of Russian activities," when the intelligence community "did, in fact, assess for impact." The unpublished December PDB stated clearly that Russia ‘did not impact’ the election through cyber hacks on the election,"

the ICA had assessed that "Russia was responsible for leaking data from the DNC and DCCC," while "failing to mention that FBI and NSA previously expressed low confidence in this attribution."

Officials said the intelligence was "politicized" and then "used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more."
www.foxnews.com

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified Trump-Russia docs: Here’s what they say

DNI Tulsi Gabbard declassified a slew of documents this month she says reveal Obama administration officials “manufactured" intelligence to push the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Hack the election is vague
Hack dnc servers is different
Crowdstrike analysis said Russia hacked them and released damaging info which helped trump
 
Did anyone post the proof of Obama's crime yet?
Right wing Blather doesn't count
 
anatta said:
Kyiv doesnt like Manafort. The eastern oblasts were fine with him as he represented the Party of Regions
Click to expand...
The Party of Regions. .. the Russian backed Oligarch party.
 
Jezcoe said:
The Party of Regions. .. the Russian backed Oligarch party.
Click to expand...
Nothing new in Ukrainian political life to this day: the point is Ukraine is not one country by language, economic ties or alliegence to Kyiv
we saw this constatntly with the east supporting the Russian separatists.. who knows now -but the Party of Regions was legit
 
anatta said:
Nothing new in Ukrainian political life to this day: the point is Ukraine is not one country by language, economic ties or alliegence to Kyiv
we saw this constatntly with the east supporting the Russian separatists.. who knows now -but the Party of Regions was legit
Click to expand...
I am not saying that they weren't legit... they were the Russian backed Oligarch party.
 
exoplanet said:
I don't have all to debunk bullshit. There is a never-ending supply of that on the internet. I could spend all day, every day doing that and I wouldn't run out of stuff to do. I come to this forum to talk about and debate NEWS.
Click to expand...
You guys who constantly complain about sources are NEVER able to point out anything inaccurate.

You arent fooling anyone. We can all see thats a juvenile message board tactic to try to discredit something you are unable to do on your own. 🥱
exoplanet said:
This "article" is WORSE than reading the report directly from the administration. They make no effort to fact check their source, and they actually waste most of the space filling the article with emotionally loaded terms that have no informational value. This is not journalism in any sense of the word. This is straight propaganda.
Click to expand...
Oh for real? Do you prefer the corporate media sources that were funded by the CIA front USAID?
 
NOLA Dude said:
You guys who constantly complain about sources are NEVER able to point out anything inaccurate.

You arent fooling anyone. We can all see thats a juvenile message board tactic to try to discredit something you are unable to do on your own. 🥱

Oh for real? Do you prefer the corporate media sources that were funded by the CIA front USAID?
Click to expand...

While the CIA and USAID have a history of collaboration, USAID is not a direct front for the CIA. USAID is an independent federal agency focused on foreign aid and development. However, there have been instances where USAID's programs were used, or perceived to be used, as cover for CIA operations, particularly during the Cold War.
 
soap box said:
His lie is proof that he wanted to hide his connections to Putin and Russia. That was her campaign platform. She questioned the allegiance and loyalty of trump to our nation. Look at everything he's done since. His actions since 2016 have been confirming evidence that he favors Putin. Clinton was right about Trump and Russia.

He lied to deceive voters so that they would not know he actually did have connections to Russia. I believe the voters deserved to know.But trump lied in order to hide the truth.
Click to expand...
And what exactly were the connections with Russia that would leave the clueless Opposition to believe Russia actually did something to help Trump in 2016?
The Mueller investigation clearly stated there was no Russian collusion in 2016.
Why do you continue to beat a dead horse?
 
Jezcoe said:
Ukrainians don't like Manafort.

Imagine my shock.
Click to expand...
I see you are frantically doing your best to deflect and distract from the Hillary created Russia collusion, but even for you this is a weak one.

The takeaway is that the Democrats got dirt from a foreign country to help in the election. Foreign Election interference. OMG!

I'm so surprised you glossed over that 😆
 
NOLA Dude said:
Which ones pushed the Hillary created Russia collusion hoax and which ones didn't?
Click to expand...
Which ones pushed that the Steele dossier was the sole basis of the Russia investigation? Which ones pushed that the Mueller Report exonerated President Trump? Which ones now push that the Federal agencies fabricated evidence despite multiple Federal agencies and international agencies substantiating evidence of Russia's involvement?

New York Times has a history of admitting their mistakes while offering context and corrections. Your sources have a history of doubling down on their mistakes while spreading disinformation. If you're going to look at news sources objectively and single out their mistakes, you should do so across the board instead of only focusing on those who write articles that refute your biases.
 
Xilnik said:
Which ones pushed that the Steele dossier was the sole basis of the Russia investigation?
Click to expand...
The Federalist didn't report that.
Xilnik said:
Which ones pushed that the Mueller Report exonerated President Trump?
Click to expand...
I could see why they said that. Mueller report:

1000008786.webp
1000008785.webp
Xilnik said:
Which ones now push that the Federal agencies fabricated evidence despite multiple Federal agencies and international agencies substantiating evidence of Russia's involvement?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the DNC hack where the CrowdStrike CEO admitted under oath they didn't have evidence Russia hacked the DNC?

The same CrowdStrike that refused multiple requests from the FBI to examine their server?

Since the FBI never had access to the server, they can't claim anything definitely about Russia supposedly hacking the DNC. And your girl Tulsi just released that they had low confidence in that claim.
Xilnik said:
New York Times has a history of admitting their mistakes and offering context and corrections. Your sources have a history of doubling down on their mistakes and spreading disinformation. If you're going to look at news sources objectively and single out their mistakes, you should do so across the board instead of only focusing on those who write articles that refute your biases.
Click to expand...
I would say it differently:

The New York Times has a history of being a mouthpiece for the military industrial complex, special interests and the deep state and when their lies are exposed they later issue corrections.
 
Expose everyone involved!




1000008896.webp
1000008897.webp
 
NOLA Dude said:
😆

The Hillary created Russia collusion hoax lives on through liberals who have been so propagandized that they think its still true even after it being exposed as complete BS.

You are reaching. It must be hard to come to grips with the Clinton Intelligence Plan being exposed as the Russia collusion hoax.
Click to expand...

Hilary was correct. Trump lies. Everything he's done favors Putin.

I would like you to prove that his trolls were working for Clinton.

Find and post any examples of Russian trolls posting for Clinton. There are none. Putin wanted trump to win.

Trump lied about his business dealings in Russia because the campaign issue questioned his loyalty and we still are facing the same question.

The voters deserve to know but he lied to this country about his relationship to Putin. But it's been obvious ever since because Clinton was right about Putin and Trump.

Ready for your examples of Russian trolls working for Clinton.
 
NOLA Dude said:
Click to expand...

Yet the Russians did bombard social media with anti-Hillary content.

You don’t think they did that without Putin’s approval, do you? That resources were allocated to the project without his knowledge?

Is it really significant that he didn’t make an announcement? Wouldn’t that undermine the effort of the web warriors and make the operation a waste of money and time.

Tactically a statement like that would end up benefitting Hillary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom