Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Zombie]

Where are you getting this from? All I've seen is an article CNN ran earlier about a call regarding Venezuela. Sounded pretty benign to me.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...port-agreed-no-collusion-white-house-n1001706

Sanders said that the two leaders discussed whether the administration would allow former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress as Democrats ramp up their oversight investigations into the administration. McGahn was a key witness in one of the 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump Mueller outlined in the report.


Lolol. Nothing to see here folks, totally normal topic of conversation for Putin and Trump.

 

[Red]

It never occurred to any of these people that the reason fewer black people voted in 2016 is that they didn't like Hillary? Seems so obvious. It's hard to believe that Russians could say things on social media that would prevent black people from voting. Can you explain how this would work?

From the Ebony article, one of the two links I left for you:

"How did the Russians use these fake accounts? They spread disinformation designed to hurt Hillary Clinton. These sites spread false rumors that “Hillary received $20,000 donation from the KKK towards her campaign” and advocated that Black voters stay home or vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. "

The same article did place blame on Clinton:

"African-Americans represent 25 percent of all Democratic voters and Democratic presidential candidates need strong support from the African-American community to win. African-American voters put Obama over the top in 2012. But Obama energized the Black community in ways that Clinton did not. Much of the Clinton campaign’s focus was directed at attracting the support of White suburban women. This came at the expense of shoring up the support of African-Americansand other core Democratic groups.

This gamble failed to pay off. Clinton lost the majority of White women and lost support among African-Americans. Her failure is especially glaring given the massive increase in Black turnout during the 2018 midterms."

To provide a fuller answer regarding Russia targeting of black voters would require a great deal of work and research on my part. I'm not going to do that for you. Sorry, but you can do that. I thought I was simply pointing out another component of the Russian active measures campaign against our democracy in 2016. Any further research will have to come as a result of your own efforts, unless someone else wishes to weigh in.

 

[Red]

Is it of any concern to you that the Obama FBI opened an investigation into a rival political candidate's campaign? Does it matter to you that the basis for that investigation has now been disproven? Will you be okay if Trump uses the FBI to spy on the campaign of his eventual Democratic challenger? I suppose that if Trump is able to create some opposition research (verifiable or not) that suggests that his rival may have done something suspicious you're going to be okay with using whatever part of the Federal Intelligence Machine that might be necessary in order to stop this potential threat to our democracy.

You know, there are two competing narratives on the menu at the moment. The narrative you're describing here is the one you have decided you are most comfortable with, I assume. I don't buy into it at all, so no, this deep state fantasy does not concern me in the least. The basis for the investigation was valid. No conspiracy found does not mean the basis for opening the investigation in the first place was invalid. There were so many contacts and connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. I expect our intelligence agencies to open an investigation under those circumstances. But, to emphasize, your bull**** is really of no concern to me whatsoever. I believe the truth will out. Might take years, but the truth will out, and this deep state fantasy will be left in the dustbin of history, where in belongs. And that's that as far as I'm concerned, respectfully submitted....

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

That article has been corrected.

 

[Stars Fan]

It's so ****ing bizarre. Why is Trump discussing his legal strategy with Vladimir Putin, the man he has been suspected of conspiring with? Even if Trump is completely innocent of wrong doing himself, he should at least have our backs wrt Russia’s role in the whole affair.

Why isn't the President telling Putin to stay out of our elections? Rather than slapping him on the back telling him "no collusion" we won! Oh and btw how should i handle this McGhan thing? Smh. Ronald Reagan must rolling in his grave.

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Hotdog]

Its clear this thing is over. All that is left is the Dems grasping at straws. Desperately looking for anything to cling to. The complaints are constantly changing. The goal posts keep moving. The narrative keeps shifting.

After all this. Im still confused as to why the Dems are so mad about the Donald "colluding" with communists.

 

[Stoked]

Its clear this thing is over. All that is left is the Dems grasping at straws. Desperately looking for anything to cling to. The complaints are constantly changing. The goal posts keep moving. The narrative keeps shifting.

After all this. Im still confused as to why the Dems are so mad about the Donald "colluding" with communists.

Half of it is stoking that fire. Got to keep the hate, the energy, strong for 2020.

 

[The Thriller]

Trump going on his knees and opening his mouth wide open for Putin and republicans shrugging this off is perhaps the most bizarre thing I’ve seen in politics in my lifetime.

It’s almost like he called Putin up to get their stories straight rather than telling Putin to back off America or else.

But you know, tax cuts, conservative judges, and owninthelibs

 

[Zombie]

Why isn't the President telling Putin to stay out of our elections? Rather than slapping him on the back telling him "no collusion" we won! Oh and btw how should i handle this McGhan thing? Smh. Ronald Reagan must rolling in his grave.

#D.O.N. is the answer to all our challenges!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

As the toilet guy pointed out the McGahn stuff was not actually part of the call. That was a mistake in the reporting originally.

That said, the idea that Trump and Putin had a call and "agreed" there was no collusion is ****ing laughable. It's nuts to me that our President is more worried about his own vindication than the security of our elections. I mean it's not surprising, but it's nuts.

 

[The Thriller]

As the toilet guy pointed out the McGahn stuff was not actually part of the call. That was a mistake in the reporting originally.

That said, the idea that Trump and Putin had a call and "agreed" there was no collusion is ****ing laughable. It's nuts to me that our President is more worried about his own vindication than the security of our elections. I mean it's not surprising, but it's nuts.

Right?

Trump is off calling Putin and refuses to tell him to back off or else.

North Korea is back to launching missiles.

Meanwhile, trump’s twitter feed is cluttered with conspiracy retweets, him whining about James Woods having his account suspended on twitter, and what George pappadopolis said on Hannity.

Our country has real national security issues but trump and the republicans don’t seem to even care.

 

[Red]

It comes as no surprise that a few posters have locked into the use of the term "spying", by AG Barr in his recent Senate Testimony, and the Trump tweet storm that followed, bellowing in so many words that "Obama spied on me", and as well the most recent NY Times article discussing the use of an informant by the FBI to question George Papadopolous, in order to bolster their apparent support of the Deep State narrative, the narrative that was hatched by Trump and his right wing media outlets well before the release of the Mueller report. That narrative was all part of the Trump counteroffensive against the Mueller probe. No surprise if I feel that narrative is buffalo biscuits, and simply an effort to control the narrative in Trump's favor.

This short clip from the PBS Newshour may help in understanding the recent Times piece, without simply assuming it actually supports the Deep State narrative.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

From the Ebony article, one of the two links I left for you:

"How did the Russians use these fake accounts? They spread disinformation designed to hurt Hillary Clinton. These sites spread false rumors that “Hillary received $20,000 donation from the KKK towards her campaign” and advocated that Black voters stay home or vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. "

The same article did place blame on Clinton:

"African-Americans represent 25 percent of all Democratic voters and Democratic presidential candidates need strong support from the African-American community to win. African-American voters put Obama over the top in 2012. But Obama energized the Black community in ways that Clinton did not. Much of the Clinton campaign’s focus was directed at attracting the support of White suburban women. This came at the expense of shoring up the support of African-Americansand other core Democratic groups.

This gamble failed to pay off. Clinton lost the majority of White women and lost support among African-Americans. Her failure is especially glaring given the massive increase in Black turnout during the 2018 midterms."

To provide a fuller answer regarding Russia targeting of black voters would require a great deal of work and research on my part. I'm not going to do that for you. Sorry, but you can do that. I thought I was simply pointing out another component of the Russian active measures campaign against our democracy in 2016. Any further research will have to come as a result of your own efforts, unless someone else wishes to weigh in.

I will just settle for the obvious conclusion that black voters didn't turn out to vote for Clinton primarily because she sucked.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You know, there are two competing narratives on the menu at the moment. The narrative you're describing here is the one you have decided you are most comfortable with, I assume. I don't buy into it at all, so no, this deep state fantasy does not concern me in the least. The basis for the investigation was valid. No conspiracy found does not mean the basis for opening the investigation in the first place was invalid. There were so many contacts and connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. I expect our intelligence agencies to open an investigation under those circumstances. But, to emphasize, your bull**** is really of no concern to me whatsoever. I believe the truth will out. Might take years, but the truth will out, and this deep state fantasy will be left in the dustbin of history, where in belongs. And that's that as far as I'm concerned, respectfully submitted....

What do you think the "insurance policy" that Strozk and Page discussed in Andy's office was? Why don't you think that the FBI alerted officials of the Trump campaign (including officials who had long-time security clearance) that they believed that Russian's had infiltrated the campaign and that an investigation was being conducted? Why was the FBI sending in agents to bait Trump campaign members into bad behavior? What evidence do you believe that the FISA warrant was based on?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It comes as no surprise that a few posters have locked into the use of the term "spying", by AG Barr in his recent Senate Testimony, and the Trump tweet storm that followed, bellowing in so many words that "Obama spied on me", and as well the most recent NY Times article discussing the use of an informant by the FBI to question George Papadopolous, in order to bolster their apparent support of the Deep State narrative, the narrative that was hatched by Trump and his right wing media outlets well before the release of the Mueller report. That narrative was all part of the Trump counteroffensive against the Mueller probe. No surprise if I feel that narrative is buffalo biscuits, and simply an effort to control the narrative in Trump's favor.

This short clip from the PBS Newshour may help in understanding the recent Times piece, without simply assuming it actually supports the Deep State narrative.

I feel certain that if the sorts of operations that we now know that the FBI conducted against the Trump campaign were conducted against a Democratic campaign that you would have no qualms in calling it spying, because that's exactly what it was. Dems are all freaked out about that word because when Trump first brought it up they used it to paint him as a buffoon for even suggesting such a thing could happen. They hate that their words have turned around to bite them in the ***.

 

[Red]

What do you think the "insurance policy" that Strozk and Page discussed in Andy's office was? Why don't you think that the FBI alerted officials of the Trump campaign (including officials who had long-time security clearance) that they believed that Russian's had infiltrated the campaign and that an investigation was being conducted? Why was the FBI sending in agents to bait Trump campaign members into bad behavior? What evidence do you believe that the FISA warrant was based on?

Joe, I'm sure these questions are of interest to you, maybe even reflecting pressing issues on your part. But, for me to begin addressing them will likely require a lot of work, another one of my "novellas", as my comments have been termed by some, and, in general, since we are inhabiting different echo chambers, what really is the point?

It sounds like you have already located answers that satisfy you, although you don't describe those answers. But from your comments, I'm guessing you have done some reading/research of your own. But, you want me to jump through hoops for you. I have never asked you to jump through hoops, have never addressed you with a series of questions in similar fashion. Here you ask me 4 questions, and you expect me to just answer them for you, regardless of the time and effort that will take. As if I owed you a thing.

I feel I put a lot into the political threads on this forum. I'll grant most of my comments are probably not worth the cyberspace they inhabit, but it takes work, and I do put an effort in. Now, why the hell should I feel obligated to address 4 questions from you, when you clearly already have your own answers in mind?

 

[Red]

I feel certain that if the sorts of operations that we now know that the FBI conducted against the Trump campaign were conducted against a Democratic campaign that you would have no qualms in calling it spying, because that's exactly what it was.

I did not realize that you felt you knew me at all, let alone knew how I would respond to specific situations. And no, I do not think it was "spying" at all. If I had been the boss of the FBI, I would have put agents on the case. I would have wanted surveillance on Carter Page for one, the FBI had already contacted him years earlier to inform him they knew the Russians were trying to recruit Page as an asset, just in case he did not realize it. And Pampadopolis tells the Australian ambassador that someone is offering him Clinton emails, and you think the FBI has no business looking at Pampadopolous? What a joke! Give me a break.

And BTW, we still know nothing regarding the counterintelligence aspects to this investigation. And, therefore, for all I know, Trump may still be a subject of a counterintelligence investigation.

So Donald Trump, and 18 of his associates, have at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and Wikileaks during the campaign and transition, and the best you can come up with is "the sorts of operations that we now know the FBI conducted against the Trump campaign", as if all those contacts should warrant no concern whatsoever. And your use of the term "against" is just as loaded as Barr's use of the term "spying". But, you're pissed, apparently, and for some reason unknown to me, you've chosen me as somehow the face of what it is that you're so pissed about.

You feel "certain" you know me so well. No, you do not. Feel certain to your heart's content, but you're full of it.

 

[One Brow]

It never occurred to any of these people that the reason fewer black people voted in 2016 is that they didn't like Hillary? Seems so obvious.

Until you try to reconcile that with the primary voting.

It's hard to believe that Russians could say things on social media that would prevent black people from voting. Can you explain how this would work?

First, do you accept that propaganda can be an effective tool for altering behavior?

You discourage people from voting by making them think their votes are irrelevant.

 

[Red]

I will just settle for the obvious conclusion that black voters didn't turn out to vote for Clinton primarily because she sucked.

Excellent!! I hope next time it occurs to you to settle for the obvious conclusion, and save yourself the trouble of asking me....

 

[Zombie]

That article has been corrected.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[One Brow]

Is it of any concern to you that the Obama FBI opened an investigation into a rival political candidate's campaign?

Had the campaign been the original target, it would be. Should the FBI shut down any investigation when a political campaign gets involved?

By the way, what's your evidence that Obama ordered the investigation?

Does it matter to you that the basis for that investigation has now been disproven?

Had the campaign been the original target, it would be. Should the FBI shut down any investigation when a political campaign gets involved?

Will you be okay if Trump uses the FBI to spy on the campaign of his eventual Democratic challenger?

If the campaign is the original target, it would be. How about you?

I suppose that if Trump is able to create some opposition research (verifiable or not) that suggests that his rival may have done something suspicious you're going to be okay with using whatever part of the Federal Intelligence Machine that might be necessary in order to stop this potential threat to our democracy.

Did you have something comparable that Clinton created? If you say the Steele report, that would just be ignorance to think that Clinton created it or that none of it was verifiable.