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

[NOLA Dude]

I believe in the U.S. system of justice. I believe grand jury testimony including that of the Trump campaign officials. I believe their meetings with Russian intelligence were not about "adoptions."

What could possibly be discussed in those hundreds of meetings? Why were Trump campaign officials willing to go to jail for lying about those meetings?

It's like you weren't aware that the Mueller investigation happened and he said this:

 

[NOLA Dude]

Its been refuted lol.. trumps own first term investigation cleared everything. Mueller cleared everytbing and the gop senate cleared up everything..

Great you are here to push a narrative like mycroft.

None of this info is new. Zero.

The Hillary created and Obama executed Russia collusion hoax is being exposed and this is the best talking point the left can come up with?

 

[Xilnik]

The Senate Intelligence report was supposedly able to find what Mueller was unable to find despite Mueller having unlimited resources and more investigative powers than the Senate Intelligence Committee. Also, the Senate Intelligence report didn't prove coordination or conspiracy nor did it provide documented proof to back its claims. Yeah okay

I see your strawman still wears a tinfoil hat. I never argued that it validated the spin placed on it by the media. I argued that the investigation itself was primarily nonpartisan despite media from both parties trying to make it so.

Left-wing media sources were convinced it would show Trump and his cabinet conspired with Russia to gain him the presidency. The investigation's angle was more focused on what Russia hoped to gain than on what US political figures hoped to gain. While they did investigate the latter, the primary concerns were in the former. Most of the right-wing spin afterwards focused on media talking points more than the investigation itself. If you were less biased, you'd see that media on both sides of the aisle had an agenda that fed into political extremes. Sadly, Gabbard is falling right into that same trap instead of looking at things objectively. I expect more from our country's leadership.

 

[TamleeB]

No one of consequence.

Really? Because you say so?

 

[Xilnik]

You should ask Paul Sperry.

Sorry, I don't have to post the way you want me to. Thats not how it works.

Can you point to to any of your posts where you criticize people on the left of posting tweets "without any context" or is it just partisan babble?

I laid out six clear questions about the timing, intent, and process integrity of the claim you posted. If it had any real substance, you could address even one. Instead, you’re trying to shift the conversation to my supposed partisanship via another strawman.

The real question is: why aren't you asking Paul Sperry for evidence? "My dog ate the context" isn't going to fly here.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Oh man. This is a new detail I didn't know about until now and it further discredits the Senate Intelligence report that didnt even provide documented proof to back up its claims.

 

[soap box]

The Senate Intelligence report was supposedly able to find what Mueller was unable to find despite Mueller having unlimited resources and more investigative powers than the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Can you say what the committee was supposedly able to find that Mueller wasn't able to find?

Also, the Senate Intelligence report didn't prove coordination or conspiracy nor did it provide documented proof to back its claims. Yeah okay

From their report -
"The Committee asked the NIOs who worked on the ICA how they handled the question of whether activities were being coordinated between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. The NIO for Russia and Eurasia responded that "it did not come up.... We didn't have any evidence for that. There was not information that pointed us in that direction." The NIO for Cyber Issues stated "we rely on our FBI colleagues to bring it up. But it was not discussed."' As noted elsewhere, neither the Fusion Cell members nor the ICA authors were read into the FBI's investigation."


volume 4

Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

 

[NOLA Dude]

Brennan is the one who needs to be prosecuted the most besides Obama, but Obama has immunity.

 

[NOLA Dude]

I laid out six clear questions about the timing, intent, and process integrity of the claim you posted. If it had any real substance, you could address even one. Instead, you’re trying to shift the conversation to my supposed partisanship via another strawman.

The real question is: why aren't you asking Paul Sperry for evidence? "My dog ate the context" isn't going to fly here.

 

[MTAtech]

According to those familiar, Trump and Gabbi are lying and it was neither a hoax nor built on scant evidence. Russia really did interfere with the 2016 election.

Gabbard and White House 'lying' about intel on Russian interference in 2016, ex-CIA official says

"We definitely had the intel," Susan Miller, who helped oversee the 2017 intelligence assessment of Russia's efforts in the 2016 election, told NBC News.

www.yahoo.com

 

[NOLA Dude]

According to those familiar, Trump and Gabbi are lying and it was neither a hoax nor built on scant evidence. Russia really did interfere with the 2016 election.

Gabbard and White House 'lying' about intel on Russian interference in 2016, ex-CIA official says

"We definitely had the intel," Susan Miller, who helped oversee the 2017 intelligence assessment of Russia's efforts in the 2016 election, told NBC News.

www.yahoo.com

A CIA official accusing someone else of lying.

 

[Xilnik]

You don't question any of that? Why wasn't it introduced during the hearings? Why was Bolton the only person who saw the alleged memo? Why hasn't any of this information surfaced prior to recent events if it is as damning as suggested?

So far, all you've really shown is the potential for bureaucratic oversight negligence and agency disorganization. That will likely amount to internal investigations and maybe some internal litigation, but even that litigation likely goes nowhere due to reasonable doubt surrounding Brennan's testimony. Nothing shown by you, Gabbard, or X tweets so far points to some great conspiracy except for in your minds. I'm more interested in hard evidence than conjecture. You should be too, but that's never been your MO.

 

[MTAtech]

A CIA official accusing someone else of lying.

So, is Susan Miller a liar? If you think so, prove it -- don't just use guilt by association and innuendo.

Otherwise, Ms. Miller's words have substance. Those words are that the DNI head is lying.

 

[iguanaman]

its not a russian hoax then.
how did they interfere on behalf of clinton? of course you can't prove HOW MUCH it impacted anything, but that's not the issue.
did obama claim to know exactly HOW MUCH it impacted? or what was the lie/crime here?

There is plenty of proof that the DNC hack and the amplification by Russian trolls impacted the votes of Bernie supporters. 12% of them voted for Trump and that was enough to swing the 3 Blue States that gave Trump the win. His margin of victory was less than the number of Bernie supporters that voted for him in all 3 States. Who knows how many Sanders supporters just stayed home also?

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof​

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

 

[iguanaman]

They have the same pattern on every thread depending on if its anti-Trump or pro-Trump.

For the anti-trump threads its like the bat signal. They all come running to try to be the first ones to get in their juvenile insults, talking points and brain dead thoughts while they participate in the circle jerk.

For the pro-trump threads its an urgent bat signal for them all to as fast as possible flood the thread with juvenile insults, brain dead talking points, trolling and deflections as much as possible. They key is to try to derail the thread so any legitimate discussion is drowned out by their trolling.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

All this is is a vast conspiracy theory with no real evidence. All the evidence points to massive Russian interference in the election to help Trump win and it worked. Just ask the Senate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a “hoax.”

While Mueller’s was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn’t happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election

 

[NOLA Dude]

There is plenty of proof that the DNC hack

They didn’t even have proof the DNC was hacked.

and the amplification by Russian trolls impacted the votes of Bernie supporters. 12% of them voted for Trump and that was enough to swing the 3 Blue States that gave Trump the win. His margin of victory was less than the number of Bernie supporters that voted for him in all 3 States. Who knows how many Sanders supporters just stayed home also?

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof​

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

The effects of the Russian interference was vastly overstated.

 

[NOLA Dude]

All this is is a vast conspiracy theory with no real evidence. All the evidence points to massive Russian interference in the election to help Trump win and it worked. Just ask the Senate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a “hoax.”

While Mueller’s was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn’t happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election

The same Senate Intelligence Committee report that claimed the Steele Dossier wasn't in the Intelligence Community Assessment?

The Steele Dossier was in the ICA.

 

[LouC]

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

There was no "Russia Hoax".

 

[NOLA Dude]

I see your strawman still wears a tinfoil hat. I never argued that it validated the spin placed on it by the media. I argued that the investigation itself was primarily nonpartisan despite media from both parties trying to make it so.

Left-wing media sources were convinced it would show Trump and his cabinet conspired with Russia to gain him the presidency. The investigation's angle was more focused on what Russia hoped to gain than on what US political figures hoped to gain. While they did investigate the latter, the primary concerns were in the former. Most of the right-wing spin afterwards focused on media talking points more than the investigation itself. If you were less biased, you'd see that media on both sides of the aisle had an agenda that fed into political extremes. Sadly, Gabbard is falling right into that same trap instead of looking at things objectively. I expect more from our country's leadership.

The same Senate Intelligence report that claimed the Steele Dossier wasn't in the ICA?

The Steele Dossier was in the ICA. Oops

 

[NOLA Dude]

So, is Susan Miller a liar? If you think so, prove it -- don't just use guilt by association and innuendo.

Otherwise, Ms. Miller's words have substance. Those words are that the DNI head is lying.

Who knows if she's lying or not, but I don't usually believe anything CIA officials say without proof.

 

[NOLA Dude]

You don't question any of that? Why wasn't it introduced during the hearings? Why was Bolton the only person who saw the alleged memo? Why hasn't any of this information surfaced prior to recent events if it is as damning as suggested?

I take anything with a grain of salt from anonymous sources including this, but Sperry has broken several details and stories on this subject.

You should ask Sperry those questions.

So far, all you've really shown is the potential for bureaucratic oversight negligence and agency disorganization.

What a way to paper over a former President and Secretary of State making up a Russia collusion narrative to smear and hopefully remove an incoming President.

That will likely amount to internal investigations and maybe some internal litigation, but even that litigation likely goes nowhere due to reasonable doubt surrounding Brennan's testimony.

Whats the reasonable doubt? Brennan clearly lied when he testified to Congress that the Steele Dossier wasnt in the ICA.

Nothing shown by you, Gabbard, or X tweets so far points to some great conspiracy except for in your minds. I'm more interested in hard evidence than conjecture. You should be too, but that's never been your MO.

Sorry your talking points don't discredit declassified Obama documents. Swing and a miss.

 

[NOLA Dude]

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

There was no "Russia Hoax".

There was a Russia collusion hoax.

 

[LouC]

There was a Russia collusion hoax.

No, there really wasn't.

 

[NOLA Dude]

No, there really wasn't.

Not quite. Mueller:

 

[eohrnberger]

Meh.
This is the type of governance you can expect from democrats:
scummy, abusing government power and government agencies for the furtherance of their political power and their political agenda at the cost of the nation's and it's electorate's interests.