• 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!

[W:55] Tulsi Gabbard Releases Evidence Of ‘Years-Long Coup’ On Trump

Athanasius68 said:
The issue here isn't whether Russia had interfered in the election.
The issue was whether Trump and/or his campaign had conspired (collude was the term used) with the Russian efforts.

Gabbard did not release anything that we didn't already know.

So what we already know is:
1. There was never a Trump/Russia conspiracy.
2. There was never evidence to think there was.
3. President Obama himself knew that the Clinton campaign was simply making it all up.
Click to expand...
What we also know is that the first IC assessment didn't put credence into, not support of, the Trump/Russia conspiracy.
On becoming aware of this, Obama wanted an IC assessment which did, and ordered his IC minions to go off and create one which did, which is what Obama wanted.

Athanasius68 said:
None of this is criminally actionable (unless the Trump Admin can figure out to call it a civil rights violation)
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that such a conspiracy isn't legally actionable by the DOJ. We'll have to see what their investigation comes up with, and what decision about the this case the DOJ concludes with.
 
eohrnberger said:
Thus, approximately 70% of winners achieved at least 50% of the popular vote, and about 30% won with less than 50%.
Click to expand...
That's what I said, which was in response to your saying I didn't look it up. Thanks for letting me know you're full of shit.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh I've had it since after my initial comment cuz I figured someone here would be grasping at that straw.
I was hoping one of you would deny it existed so I could watch you drown in your own sea of laughing emojis.
Turned out to be you.

Glub Glub my friend, but you could have looked for it yourself to save your embarrassment.
Oh yes, I do know lefties.
Click to expand...

Did you hear anything he said?

He asked if he should have ignored everything they knew. Do you think he should have ignored everything they knew?

Obama told them to assemble all the reporting they could and declassify and include what they could. They did, so I don't see the problem. At all.

Do you think Obama, NSA, CIa and FBI should have chosen to ignore Putins' interference in the election?

Are you saying it shouldn't have been investigated?
 
soap box said:
Did you hear anything he said?

He asked if he should have ignored everything they knew. Do you think he should have ignored everything they knew?

Obama told them to assemble all the reporting they could and declassify and include what they could. They did, so I don't see the problem. At all.

Do you think Obama, NSA, CIa and FBI should have chosen to ignore Putins' interference in the election?

Are you saying it shouldn't have been investigated?
Click to expand...

What was investigated was Trump complicity in such interference.
 
Mika-El said:
How soon you forget how every time Trump's popularity you think went or goes up or Biden's went down, you were on this board referring to it as the be all end all and now that there is an open Maga revolt showing in the polls you fluff it off.

Trixie what goes up has now come down. In Trump's case he hasn't been able to get it up in years. There is no point telling him to get a hold of himself, he could never find it under all that fat.
Click to expand...

I think it was on this thread where a poster mentioned Trump's poll numbers jumped four points in the last few days. (post 1941)
The rest of your post reads as TDS-complaining. Sorry but I can't help you.
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
What was investigated was Trump complicity in such interference.
Click to expand...
I think its more so a case of expected conclusions.

More so the second IC assessment had an expected / demanded conclusion, which it delivered, where as the first one didn't, and both were, supposedly, based on the same set of data.

That expected / demanded conclusion of the second IC assessment needed to include support Hillary's 'Russian Collusion' hoax.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The concern was without factual basis
Click to expand...

By the time L. Graham encouraged McCain to turn the dossier over the FBI, it didn't matter. They already were quite familiar with the faux Steele document when on July 2016 he met with an FBI contact in London and provided initial reports. It was the fake, unverified document everyone milked for the next four years and that was because of Obama and his partisan intel bitches.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think its more so a case of expected conclusions.

More so the second IC assessment had an expected / demanded conclusion, which it delivered, where as the first one didn't, and both were, supposedly, based on the same set of data.

That expected / demanded conclusion of the second IC assessment needed to include support Hillary's 'Russian Collusion' hoax.
Click to expand...

If you mean the December 9 meeting compared to the final 2017 ICA?

If so, how are they different?
 
soap box said:
If you mean the December 9 meeting compared to the final 2017 ICA?

If so, how are they different?
Click to expand...
The first didn't include the Steele Dossier, discounted as not being legitimate intel, where the second one did, elevating its credibility, which appears to have been the entire point with the second ICA.
 
eohrnberger said:
The first didn't include the Steele Dossier, discounted as not being legitimate intel, where the second one did, elevating its credibility, which appears to have been the entire point with the second ICA.
Click to expand...

To the bolded, not at all. It was demoted to annex.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report includes sworn testimony that, if I may paraphrase, they chose to include it instead of hide it.
Nobody working on the ICA believed the Dossier was necessarily true, and no one was arguing that is was reliable or useful. Nobody misunderstood where it came from, and that the Dossier didn't have to be true because it was oppo. But its existence was known. The argument was if it should be hidden or available to people with the security clearance to see for themselves. The consensus is in the quotes in the following link. Apparently Comey, not Brennan, initially spoke up for the inclusion of the Dossier.



The eyewitnesses told the Senate committee these quotes in the latter half here:

Post in thread 'Obama’s Intel Agencies Interfered In The 2016 Election, And Of Course The Media Don’t Care' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/obama’s-intel-agencies-interfered-in-the-2016-election-and-of-course-the-media-don’t-care.573858/post-1081838769


The conclusions of the ICA and the Senate Intelligence Committee report don't make any accusations against Trump. The blame keeps going to the Dossier, but nobody used it after the events in October and November. The House intelligence committee report related different results of the use of the Dossier, and commentary as you know. The House report hardly says much at all about the Dossier itself, as you can imagine.

That's why I am asking, is there any conclusion in any report that uses anything in the Steele dossier as a source?
 
Last edited:
Athanasius68 said:
What was investigated was Trump complicity in such interference.
Click to expand...

Who are you going to blame? Neither Clinton or Obama accused him with complicity, and there was no accusation in any of the reports.

I would blame the media. What's the grounds for blaming Obama? What did Clinton and Obama say about complicity?
 
soap box said:
To the bolded, not at all. It was demoted to annex.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report includes sworn testimony that, if I may paraphrase, they chose to include it instead of hide it.
Nobody working on the ICA believed the Dossier was necessarily true, and no one was arguing that is was reliable or useful. Nobody misunderstood where it came from, and that the Dossier didn't have to be true because it was oppo. But its existence was known. The argument was if it should be hidden or available to people with the security clearance to see for themselves. The consensus is in the quotes in the following link. Apparently Comey, not Brennan, initially spoke up for the inclusion of the Dossier.



The eyewitnesses told the Senate committee these quotes in the latter half here:

Post in thread 'Obama’s Intel Agencies Interfered In The 2016 Election, And Of Course The Media Don’t Care' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/obama’s-intel-agencies-interfered-in-the-2016-election-and-of-course-the-media-don’t-care.573858/post-1081838769


The conclusions of the ICA and the Senate Intelligence Committee report don't make any accusations against Trump. The blame keeps going to the Dossier, but nobody used it after the events in October and November. The House intelligence committee report related different results of the use of the Dossier, and commentary as you know. The House report hardly says much at all about the Dossier itself, as you can imagine.

That's why I am asking, is there any conclusion in any report that uses anything in the Steele dossier as a source?
Click to expand...
The first ICA properly discarded the Steel Dossier, reaching their initial conclusion.
Obama directs a re-evaluation of that ICA - odd that a president somehow thinks he knows more about it than the IC?
The second ICA didn't discard the Steel Dossier and comes to a different conclusion, apparently the politically demanded conclusion, once which supports and lends more credibility than it deserved, push narrative of the Russian Conclusion hoax.

Your position is 'Nothing to see here'?
<smh> 1 + 1 still equals 2, you know.
 
Oswald was Innocent said:
Factcheck is not a trustworthy source.
Click to expand...
They are, but Tulsi is not.


Oswald was Innocent said:
They lean left. They cannot help themselves when it comes to Trump, “fact-checking” hyperbolic statements, or creating straw man claims and arguments that are easy to disprove and favor the left when disproved. They are hardly different from Snopes in this regard.
Click to expand...
Facts and reality “lean left” in your world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom