It's Official, Russians Corrupted The Election

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Me burying my head in the sand??? I guess you don't do irony. A recap on your positions on the Russia issue over time - you first called any Russian involvement in the election fake news.

It was, and it still is. Comey again stated that there's no evidence that any of the voting was compromised. When asked specifically, he also stated that there's no way to assess the impact of any Russian propaganda efforts. Couple that with the fact that Ms Clinton still won the popular vote, and that Russian's didn't target any down-ballot races in their "efforts", yet Republicans still won those handily, and any objective assessment of the facts leads to the inescapable conclusion that the "Russian thing" is not much more then a bunch of lefty hyperventilation.

So, slow down and catch your breath, Finn.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Secondly, you called the intelligence community's finding that Russia favored Trump fake news (both claims now enjoy support by everyone but you and your Trumpenfuhrer).

No one's disputing content, but there's plenty of room to dispute effectiveness and results.

Originally Posted by finnbow

Now, you claim that no Trump minions were involved while at the same time, Sean Spicer is active throwing Manafort and Flynn under the bus.There's a strong likelihood that you'll be proven wrong once again. The FBI doesn't relish investigating a sitting President, but in Comey's own words, he's forced to so because of probable cause of crime or the involvement of foreign agents.

OK, then show me the evidence of collusion. Where is it - other than a bought and paid for dossier including rich info about - among other things - prostitutes peeing on bed sheets - which no one except the left wants to believe. Show me all of the evidence of deep, dark meetings between Trump or his team and those Pesky Ruskies plotting to screw poor Hillary.

Originally Posted by finnbow

FWIW, Clapper clarified the other day that his statement meant that he had no conclusive evidence on the day he left office, January 20. He hasn't been in the loop since January 20. Comey statement Monday seems to indicate that further information is coming in since January 20.

When asked the question directly - Does evidence exist TODAY - his response was "Not that I'm aware of." So, that "truth is optional" sack of crap try to "clarify" what day he was lying and which day he wasn't, but it makes little difference.

Originally Posted by finnbow

We'll see, won't we? Your denials aren't going to help your Trumpenfuhrer. All they do is show your own gullibility and loyalty to him. Stay tuned and see whether John McCain is correct about more shoes dropping on this story. I'm betting there will be more news as opposed to an immediate throwing-in of the towel, notwithstanding Devin Nunes efforts to undermine the inquiry.

Right, because pretty much all you have is your "We'll see", which translates into "Please, please, please be true!!"

As far as Nunes, I think he's far closer to the truth of all this than, for example, Schiff.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No one's disputing content, but there's plenty of room to dispute effectiveness and results.

Red herring. As Comey said, there's is no evidence (nor any way to prove) the degree to which Russia's efforts impacted the result, nor is it the subject of the investigation. The issue is whether Russia tried to do so and to what degree, if any, that Trump's minions coordinated (Comey's word) with the Russians.

When asked the question directly - Does evidence exist TODAY - his response was "Not that I'm aware of." So, that "truth is optional" sack of crap try to "clarify" what day he was lying and which day he wasn't, but it makes little difference.

At this point, it doesn't matter a whit what Clapper said. It's what Comey and Congressional investigations find.

As far as Nunes, I think he's far closer to the truth of all this than not.

Nunes said yesterday that his revelations had nothing to do with Russia and that the transcripts resulted from legal surveillance. In any event, he apologized for his severe breach of protocol yesterday. He probably did more than anyone else to ensure an independent inquiry with his idiotic actions yesterday.

[CarlV]

Interesting op-ed


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/o...n-the-air.html

As The A.P. puts it, Manafort offered to “influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics to benefit the Putin government.” (Manafort told The A.P. that his work was being falsely portrayed as nefarious.)

This is guesswork, but it might have seemed natural for Trump aides to try to milk Russian contacts for useful information about the Clinton campaign. Likewise, the Russians despised Hillary Clinton and would have been interested in milking American contacts for information about how best to damage her chances.

At some point, I suspect, members of the Trump team gained knowledge of Russian hacking into Clinton emails, which would explain why Trump friend Roger Stone tweeted things like “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Red herring. As Comey said, there's is no evidence (nor any way to prove) the degree to which Russia's efforts impacted the result, nor is it the subject of the investigation. The issue is whether Russia tried to do so and to what degree, if any, that Trump's minions coordinated (Comey's word) with the Russians.

You have no idea what the FBI is investigating. Comey also stated quite clearly that he "can't comment on what they are doing or who's conduct they are examining." For all we know, the focus of the examination could be on who the Dem party insider was that enabled access to Podesta's emails, or who the Dem party insider was that enabled access to the Dem email server.

Originally Posted by finnbow

At this point, it doesn't matter a whit what Clapper said. It's what Comey and Congressional investigations find.

Seemed like a big issue to you a couple of posts ago. What changed?

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nunes said yesterday that his revelations had nothing to do with Russia and that the transcripts resulted from legal surveillance. In any event, he apologized for his severe breach of protocol yesterday. He probably did more than anyone else to ensure an independent inquiry with his idiotic actions yesterday.

I could care less about "protocol", and a focusing on "protocol" is an attempt to distract and deflect. What really needs to be determined is how and why those intercepts were distributed within the Intel community, why they were distributed in potential violation of the Espionage Act, and under whose authority they were distributed in violation of the Espionage Act.

[whell]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Interesting op-ed


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/o...n-the-air.html

Yeah, 'cuz 10 years ago when Manafort did all this, it was clear that Trump would become President in 2017.

[bobabode]

Poor Whell's gonna need a gallon of Pepto Bismal before this is all over.

[Pio1980]

Pepto Dismal, perhaps?

[Pio1980]

Meanwhile;
Former Russian Lawmaker Is Shot To Death Outside Hotel In Kiev http://n.pr/2o8B2Pm

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Poor Whell's gonna need a gallon of Pepto Bismal before this is all over.

Nah, you guys and your out of control paranoia are better than laughing gas.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Nah, you guys and your out of control paranoia are better than laughing gas.

Sure, Spicy.