The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[Pam]

I hope nobody on here believes this BS, but in case you do:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...y-4278a753a3af

Russiagate is like a mirage: from a distance it looks like something, but once you move in for a closer look, there’s nothing there. Nothing. Nothing solid, nothing substantial, nothing you can point at and say, “Here it is. This hard evidence justifies saturating the media waves with obsessive 24/7 coverage, escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower, stagnating political discourse in America and fanning the flames of a hysterical, xenophobic McCarthyist feeding frenzy.”

[GMan]

I hope nobody on here believes this BS, but in case you do:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/t...y-4278a753a3af

It's on the internet....it has to be true..... [[Sarcasm)

I will be glad when this all over and we can start focusing on the problems at hand and not over why the political establishment lost.

[Ray1936]

I enjoy greatly watching Youtube clips of Russian drivers and their insane way of running into each other. Not that all American drivers are experts, but watching those clips makes me believe the only treat Russia has to America is if they start driving over here.

[Richard]

Russian drivers are insane,it kinda like the Wild West days of driving.

[Richard]

So there was a congressional hearing on FISA and dealing with the collection of information on US citizens,if it occurs and how is it prevented from occurring.

That was the purpose of the hearing,but yet the democrats changed it or tried to turn it into the whole Russian thing.

At the very least we did find out that gathering information on US citizens did happen but the checks and balances in the system caught and purged that information.

What I found interesting was that we can track a terriost on foreign soil but once they are on US soil they become protected under FISA giving them essentially the same rights as a US citizen.

I think being the whole purpose of the hearings was to bring everything to light when it comes to national security and how it effects Americans and thier safety it is just sad that instead of receiving clarity on that the Dems decided that it is not in the best interests for Americans to know if they are being spied on by the government.

[GMan]

I enjoy greatly watching Youtube clips of Russian drivers and their insane way of running into each other. Not that all American drivers are experts, but watching those clips makes me believe the only treat Russia has to America is if they start driving over here.

Just in case, I have been brushing up on my Russian driving language skills Beeeaaaatch sp??? said with a vodka drawl

[Bong-Man]

lol....So I'm supposed to believe Caitlyn Johnstone's narrative of events ? Her claim to be a 'rogue journalist' seems to lean slightly right.

Trump can't even remember or acknowledge who initiated the White House dinner. I'm sure Jim invited himself and picked the main entrée too.....right thru the White House switchboard.

Why is it so hard to believe that a 10 minute conversation with Trump would prompt a law enforcement official to take notes ? He talks bullshit...they listen and write. Pretty simple really....a cop's dream.

A 'Leaker' ? Only when a politician takes aim at the credibility of America's most important law enforcement institution, which is exactly what Trump tried to do. That's what prompted the note taking, and a major factor in the appointment of special counsel.

Seems to me that most of the Senators who participated in the close session are pretty quiet, and I don't hear any of them claiming Mr. Mueller's special counsel role is now a waste of time. That investigation isn't on a twitter or internet timeline by the way.

According to the Senate Majority leader, we have a choice of viewing Trump as a liar or an incompetent buffoon. Please make your choice....I've made mine.

[bust]

Hilarious. And pathetic.

The two previous posters in denial about so-called "Russiagate" [[I'll reluctantly use the term as shorthand here because we're still only beginning to learn the extent of the scandal) are the same ones who advocate getting our political news from Russia Today.

This just in from the Russian news. [[Those pesky Russians I know)

A Q&A with Julian Assange.

https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assan...ll-transcript/

Well more news from the Ruskie site:
FBI clears Hillary again......

https://www.rt.com/usa/365568-fbi-ch...linton-emails/

Untouchable. Unbelievable but Untouchable....

Stop the insanity!

Interesting to think about what might have happened if Hill became commander in chief.

The confrontation with Russia might have happened if this buildup is true.

https://www.rt.com/news/366298-us-am...ipment-europe/

https://www.rt.com/usa/352710-wikile...hillary-email/

"Nearly 20,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee [[DNC) have been released by WikiLeaks. Many of the emails indicate that top DNC officials were hostile to the Bernie Sanders campaign."

That's no surprise...

One is such a genius she advocated tuning in to Russia Today for live results and analysis on election night.

Tonight on RT:

https://www.rt.com/usa/365753-report...erage-preview/

"On Tuesday, RT will host special coverage live from its studios in Washington, DC; New York City; and Los Angeles, California. Called Election 2016: Worldwide, it will be co-anchored by veteran hosts Larry King, Jesse Ventura and Ed Schultz."

I might have to watch that.

Never mind the hilarious part, it's just flat out pathetic.

[Richard]

Hilarious. And pathetic.

The two previous posters in denial about so-called "Russiagate" [[I'll reluctantly use the term as shorthand here because we're still only beginning to learn the extent of the scandal) are the same ones who advocate getting our political news from Russia Today.





One is such a genius she advocated tuning in to Russia Today for live results and analysis on election night.



Never mind the hilarious part, it's just flat out pathetic.

What is pathetic is people obsessing with Russia hacking,we do the exact same thing to them and everybody else in the world.

The point is not the aspect of Russia hacked us ,because they were doing it way before the election,it is learning thier capabilities and how to thwart them.

20 years ago kids were hacking the department of defense,but yet no other spy group was not? Nobody had a problem with it at that time.

A lot of the fake media sites during the election were done by one American to make money on advertising clicks,but yet there was no outrage.

But they do not need to hack because they seem to be getting plenty of help from American citizens in the divide the population to create instability which drives the markets down and fosters unrest.

So everything is right on schedule for them and thier goals are accomplished,once again compliments of the American public.

People cannot even see that the brand that Russia is selling did not work in thier own country but are quick to embrace it here.

The problem is thier is a side of this country that cannot stand who the currant president is and they will stop at nothing to show thier displeasure.

You see it on social media where people are begging the queen of England to assassinate a standing United States president when he visits there.

WW2 saw the deaths of 60,000,000 civilians and military personal and yet some have no issues with that as long as it takes out the currant president.

The moron that wrote her asking her to take possession of the United States in order to remove the currant president.

The girl recently arrested for giving classified documents to the media while wanting to burn the White House down and repeatedly posting on social media that Trump was not her president.

You see the difference,what is worse,Russian hacking that has been going on for decades or a percentage of this country's population that would have no problem with a nuclear attack in this country as long as it takes the guy out that they do not like.

Do not like the guy fine,that is ones right as a US citizen,but when that discust turns into actions that undermines and endangers this country and the rest of the population because you do not like the guy,that is not only pathetic but leading this country into a place that they are not going to like once they get there,and when it is all over with they most likely will not be around to see the results anyways.

[KJ5]

. Wake me up when this whole Russia business is over and the Democrats start trying to do something productive.

[canuck]

. Wake me up when this whole Russia business is over and the Democrats start trying to do something productive.

Nah... Keep on sleeping instead.

[GMan]

Bust, what you fail to recognize in reference to foreign media is that, when being cognizant of their bias you can still pick up information about the US. The fact that they are asking questions about the US political system that the mainstream media is not is indicative of how left biased the US media has become towards a socialist / globalist agenda.
While the US media is abuzz about a twitter fax paus, the foreign media is asking relevant questions about US dealings with globalist leaning powers. Why was the recent weapons deal to Saudia a mistake that was brokered by established government entities with President Trump the fiqurehead of the deal? Why is the media suddenly silent about the Trump / Russian narrative after Comey failed to deliver the goods?
Why was the US media silent when Hillary and her state department was meeting with the Russians brokering Uranium and oil dealings for powerful people in Washington that turn control over to foreign ownership?
Look further than CNN for answers.

[Pam]

QUOTE]So I'm supposed to believe Caitlyn Johnstone's narrative of events ? Her claim to be a 'rogue journalist' seems to lean slightly right.[/QUOTE]

She was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I don't think that puts her on the right.

One is such a genius she advocated tuning in to Russia Today for live results and analysis on election night.

I like Ed Schultz and Jesse Ventura, so what? We aren't allowed to look at RT just because some people want to re-start the Cold war?

The fact that they are asking questions about the US political system that the mainstream media is not is indicative of how left biased the US media has become towards a socialist / globalist agenda.

The US media is definitely biased but I wouldn't call it leftist or socialist.
The media supported candidate was Hillary not Bernie.

[GMan]

QUOTE]So I'm supposed to believe Caitlyn Johnstone's narrative of events ? Her claim to be a 'rogue journalist' seems to lean slightly right.

She was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I don't think that puts her on the right.



I like Ed Schultz and Jesse Ventura, so what? We aren't allowed to look at RT just because some people want to re-start the Cold war?



The US media is definitely biased but I wouldn't call it leftist or socialist.
The media supported candidate was Hillary not Bernie.[/QUOTE]
What else can you call the media Pam? They do not align with American interests and independence, that much is for sure.

Just because Hillary doesn't label herself a socialist, but instead chooses the label "Democrat" doesn't mean she isn't working to enrich herself by promoting globalist / socialist agenda. It's all about redistributing the wealth among the power brokers, and if the label Democrat works to acheive that goal, fine. If it's Rebublican that gets you to follow the goal fine.
That is why Trump is such a target to the power structure in Washington. He is re-defining the alliances and if America is not gonna foot the bill for the globalist's agenda, ALL THE BETTER!

[Pam]

What else can you call the media Pam? They do not align with American interests and independence, that much is for sure.

How about corporate tools working for the oligarchs and/or the deep state? To me, "leftist or socialist" would be someone like Sen. Sanders who wants policies that help ordinary people not the rich.

Just because Hillary doesn't label herself a socialist, but instead chooses the label "Democrat" doesn't mean she isn't working to enrich herself by promoting globalist / socialist agenda. It's all about redistributing the wealth among the power brokers, and if the label Democrat works to acheive that goal, fine. If it's Rebublican that gets you to follow the goal fine.

I believe Hillary is what is called a "neo-liberal" or Third Way Democrat. I call her a corrupt, corporate tool. She is working to enrich herself and that has nothing to do with socialism.

[GMan]

How about corporate tools working for the oligarchs and/or the deep state? To me, "leftist or socialist" would be someone like Sen. Sanders who wants policies that help ordinary people not the rich.




I believe Hillary is what is called a "neo-liberal" or Third Way Democrat. I call her a corrupt, corporate tool. She is working to enrich herself and that has nothing to do with socialism.

But Sanders does not care about helping the common people. He was just a useful tool to help the Dem party power interests coral votes to their preferred candidate Hillary.
Bernie and his wife have some interesting financial dealings themselves. Hardly a socialist other than by name only.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...veal-hypocrisy

http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/feds-in...-sanders-wife/

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017...investigation/

They are politicians, there to enrich themselves like all the others. You can include Trump in there also if it makes you feel better. Problem is, his enrichment will also enrich American interests better than the other candidates that ran.

[Pam]

But Sanders does not care about helping the common people. He was just a useful tool to help the Dem party power interests coral votes to their preferred candidate Hillary.
Bernie and his wife have some interesting financial dealings themselves. Hardly a socialist other than by name only.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...veal-hypocrisy

http://nypost.com/2017/04/28/feds-in...-sanders-wife/

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017...investigation/

They are politicians, there to enrich themselves like all the others. You can include Trump in there also if it makes you feel better. Problem is, his enrichment will also enrich American interests better than the other candidates that ran.

I disagree about Sanders. I look at his record not attempts to smear him in the media. The establishment Dems blocked him from winning. Many of his supporters refused to vote for Hillary so he was not a "useful tool" for sending any votes her way.

[GMan]

I disagree about Sanders. I look at his record not attempts to smear him in the media. The establishment Dems blocked him from winning. Many of his supporters refused to vote for Hillary so he was not a "useful tool" for sending any votes her way.

What about those articles is trying to smear him? It is just showing that he plays the game too. Sorry I don't think calling one selves a socialist is a good thing. If you want to help man then by all means be altruistic, but don't write the rules to hurt some while isolating yourself from the penalty of the rule.

His role in the Dem party was to make Hillary look like a better candidate plain and simple. His popularity was underestimated by the Dems though. Next time why don't they offer a candidate that calls themselves a socialist if that is what it takes.

[GMan]

OMG, I just realized the Russians are keeping me from doing my yard work!

[Pam]

His role in the Dem party was to make Hillary look like a better candidate plain and simple. His popularity was underestimated by the Dems though. Next time why don't they offer a candidate that calls themselves a socialist if that is what it takes.

Sanders ran as a Democrat but he was elected as an Independent. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. He did not "make Hillary look better". He made her look worse. His views on all the issues are more progressive than hers.

[GMan]

Sanders ran as a Democrat but he was elected as an Independent. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. He did not "make Hillary look better". He made her look worse. His views on all the issues are more progressive than hers.

Wow its 90'F outside!!!
Trump ran as a Republican but is more of a moderate, independant nationalist. He wouldn't run as an independent because that would have handed the W.H. to the Dems.

I Don't think Bernie could have won as an independent but he could have run as a green party candidate.
But who knows, he could have promised to wipe out student loan debts and bought all the young voters out.

[canuck]

OMG, I just realized the Russians are keeping me from doing my yard work!

Mow'em down.

[bust]

What is pathetic is people obsessing with Russia hacking,we do the exact same thing to them and everybody else in the world.

Richard, it's no surprise Russia hacks us. But it's a surprise how effective they were this time. We should be infuriated if it was enough to indirectly change the election result. And besides, the multiple investigations underway in Washington aren't just about Russians hacking, they're about whether members of the President's inner circle colluded with them -- to help orchestrate their desired election result and/or for their own financial gain. And that would be appalling, doncha think?

[bust]

Bust, what you fail to recognize in reference to foreign media is that, when being cognizant of their bias you can still pick up information about the US…

While the US media is abuzz about a twitter fax paus, the foreign media is asking relevant questions about US dealings with globalist leaning powers.

GMan, I avidly read and listen to foreign media. They are some of my primary sources of information. Russia Today is nowhere among them. Most people recognize the huge difference between legitimate news organizations and instruments of state propaganda. Obviously not everyone.

Russia’s RT Network: Is It More BBC or K.G.B.?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/w...bc-or-kgb.html

US intel report devotes 7 pages to Russia Today's role in influencing election outcome
http://www.businessinsider.com/russi...-report-2017-1

We should have known better a long time ago. Here's an article from March 5, 2015:

Inside Putin’s On-Air Machine.
http://time.com/rt-putin/

"The global news network RT is the Russian government's main weapon in an intensifying information war with the West—and its top editor has a direct phone line to the Kremlin."

"With RT in particular, Putin has created an alternate reality on TV and online—RT generates more YouTube views than any other news channel in the world—that resolutely casts Russia as victim and the West as villain."

"For him this project is about much more than vanity in an era when digital media are, as he unabashedly put it in October, “a formidable weapon enabling the manipulation of public opinion.”"

"The aim of RT is to “inundate the viewer with theories about Western plots, to keep them dazed and confused,” says Peter Pomerantsev, a British expert on Russian propaganda."

"Central to the RT worldview is the conviction that Western plotting is behind most of the world’s political violence. The terrorist attacks of 9/11? “Probably an inside job,” ran the title of an RT series on the subject in 2009. The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013? “Preparation for new wars and martial law in America,” said British RT host Daniel Bushell on his now discontinued show The Truthseeker."

"In many Western countries, the network has found a loyal following among viewers—from both the left and the right—who are mistrustful of their own governments and wary of prevailing takes on world events."

But the people tuning in are dupes, wasting their time consuming, as Time put it, "richly endowed propaganda dressed up as journalism."

Mind you I don't waste my time with CNN either. There remain some other US media outlets that focus on much more important matters than Twitter faux pas, and tackle questions like the ones you complained are not covered.

[bust]

I like Ed Schultz and Jesse Ventura, so what? We aren't allowed to look at RT just because some people want to re-start the Cold war?

If you insist. But be careful you're not fooled.

I was watching this yesterday. Now today Hillary falls again. Something is wrong with her. This dr. says Parkinson's.

https://youtu.be/Zr1IDQ2V1eM

I'm not buying the pneumonia story. She's been having odd symptoms for quite a while. Something else is wrong.

They lied yesterday! First they said it was the heat or dehydration or some shit, then they claim she had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday!

Pneumonia does not explain weird stuff like this:

https://youtu.be/tNsJ-Q-vX1U

It's on record that she has fallen several times, going back years.

Whatever they said, it should not have made her freeze up like that. And then she has to have a guy come out and pat her on the back to get restarted? WTF? At the very least-not presidential.

Here's another weird incident:

https://youtu.be/xjpnpS8ymb0

You might be able to brush it off if it was one thing, but multiple weird behaviors plus a history of falls sounds like it could be something to me. The lack of transparency on her health is just another part of her "modus operandi".

Doesn't seem like a coincidence: Russia Today published all kinds of articles raising suspicions about Hillary Clinton's health in the days and months leading up to election day. There are pages and pages of Google search results of them. Did you see any of these?

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=cd...A11%2F8%2F2016