The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

**Honky Tonk** · July-11-17, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Trump is a lot of awful things, but the fact that enough Americans came out to vote for him over the "qualified" candidate, knowing they risk blowing up the system, should convince the Democrats and Hillary supporters that they're doing something wrong and need to change.

Exactly, +5...

**Richard** · July-12-17, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a New Deal Democrat, my reason for bringing Hillary and how awful of a candidate she was is that the Democratic Party of today give people no reason to vote for them [[being Republican-lite), other than "We're not Trump" or "Russia." You can't beat something with nothing.

Trump is a lot of awful things, but the fact that enough Americans came out to vote for him over the "qualified" candidate, knowing they risk blowing up the system, should convince the Democrats and Hillary supporters that they're doing something wrong and need to change.

It would hard to convince them of anything because the only reason that Hillary is not president is because of Russian meddling or voter fraud ,they cannot see if the party was willing to throw Mr Sanders under the bus why would they think twice about throwing joe public under the same.

**Honky Tonk** · July-12-17, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

It would hard to convince them of anything because the only reason that Hillary is not president is because of Russian meddling or voter fraud ,they cannot see if the party was willing to throw Mr Sanders under the bus why would they think twice about throwing joe public under the same.

The only thing Mrs. Clinton was able to convince me of was not to vote for her.

**Zacha341** · July-12-17, 07:49 AM

^^^ Why not HT? She came with the name, the experience, the money, the connections! And the nerve to run!! Hah!

**Bong-Man** · July-12-17, 08:40 AM

After re-reading the original article in this thread, I count at least 14 points of her 27 that Donald Jr. and crew blew away with their stupidity and arrogance this week. Most of the other points concern "the deep State". And how fitting to have the 'fake' New York Times force the President's own son to spill the beans. When you see Trey Gowdy shaking his head in disgust and amazement, you've got some trouble ahead and behind.

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot a man and they'd still vote for me". The most truthful thing the man has ever said.

No matter how this plays out, I can honestly tell you one thing. I don't care if the President is Nixon, Obama, or Trump....I don't want or need to hear from my President on a daily basis. At least this series of events will take care of that insanity for a short while.

**noise** · July-12-17, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

It would hard to convince them of anything because the only reason that Hillary is not president is because of Russian meddling or voter fraud ,they cannot see if the party was willing to throw Mr Sanders under the bus why would they think twice about throwing joe public under the same.

Well, it's a poor political tactic to give the real reason Hillary lost: there are enough idiots in this country willing to vote for an even worse candidate.

Of course, this would be a non-issue had they just run a somewhat decent candidate instead of Hillary.

**noise** · July-12-17, 09:29 AM

I know this will never happen, but maybe this new scandal will make Trump supporters stop calling themselves patriots. Accepting information from foreign nationals that can influence US elections is the opposite of patriotic. Especially when you've maintained those meetings never happened for months on end.

**GMan** · July-12-17, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by noise

I know this will never happen, but maybe this new scandal will make Trump supporters stop calling themselves patriots. Accepting information from foreign nationals that can influence US elections is the opposite of patriotic. Especially when you've maintained those meetings never happened for months on end.

Well what do you call the Hillary supporters who relied on
a report denouncing Trump's supposed forays with Russian prostitutes that was put together by a foreign agent who received help from Russia?

**Bong-Man** · July-12-17, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by GMan

Well what do you call the Hillary supporters who relied on
a report denouncing Trump's supposed forays with Russian prostitutes that was put together by a foreign agent who received help from Russia?

We don't call them Chelsea.

**Richard** · July-12-17, 11:31 AM

And here is a picture of the Russian lawyer.

It would appear that she is more tied to the Democratic Party then we are led to believe.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/tr...tm_campaign=LC

**noise** · July-12-17, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by GMan

Well what do you call the Hillary supporters who relied on
a report denouncing Trump's supposed forays with Russian prostitutes that was put together by a foreign agent who received help from Russia?

Are you asking me about her supporters who had feelings about publicly-disseminated information? Or are you asking me about the people who may have sought "opposition research"? There are some realities of political campaigns that I do not like, no matter how pervasive they may be.

Keep in mind, Russia has made it clear they wanted to influence our election. This was known. Government involvement is an important factor here.

It should be known that I'd be happy with all of them going down. HC, DT, Dem, or Rep.

**noise** · July-12-17, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Richard

And here is a picture of the Russian lawyer.

It would appear that she is more tied to the Democratic Party then we are led to believe.

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/tr...tm_campaign=LC

Well, yes, a picture with a circle around her from a blog known for spreading false stories is certainly convincing.

**Richard** · July-12-17, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by noise

Well, yes, a picture with a circle around her from a blog known for spreading false stories is certainly convincing.

So you are saying that the picture is fake,and any everyday citizens can take a seat there?

**313WX** · July-12-17, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

It would hard to convince them of anything because the only reason that Hillary is not president is because of Russian meddling or voter fraud ,they cannot see if the party was willing to throw Mr Sanders under the bus why would they think twice about throwing joe public under the same.

Don't forget Millennials, Racism, Sexism, Bernie Bros and Purists.

**noise** · July-12-17, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

So you are saying that the picture is fake,and any everyday citizens can take a seat there?

Of course not. Quit being obtuse.

**Honky Tonk** · July-12-17, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

So you are saying that the picture is fake,and any everyday citizens can take a seat there?

NO! But I'm pretty sure that red circle is. Well, maybe not. It could be a hula hoop or something...

**GMan** · July-13-17, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by noise

Are you asking me about her supporters who had feelings about publicly-disseminated information? Or are you asking me about the people who may have sought "opposition research"? There are some realities of political campaigns that I do not like, no matter how pervasive they may be.

Keep in mind, Russia has made it clear they wanted to influence our election. This was known. Government involvement is an important factor here.

It should be known that I'd be happy with all of them going down. HC, DT, Dem, or Rep.

So you are cognizant that both sides involved foreign intelligence to use as "opposition research." Both sides seemed willing to involve Russia. Both sides are linked together. One sides exposure should lead to the others exposure as complicant as well.

Welcome to the "Deep State."

It's interesting to note that one side reached out to Russia and one was contacted by Russia.

**GMan** · July-13-17, 09:13 AM

Let's add this angle to the debate; O and the dems wanted the use the Russian info to sink D.T. but bought a defective dossier product, so enter the collusion angle by setting up a meeting between D.T. jr and foreign operative. Once contact initiated, sell the collusion angle.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...met-with-trump

**aj3647** · July-13-17, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

I'm wondering how Democrats swallowed the neocon foreign policy takeover of the Democratic party. Liberals used to be supportive of ending wars and detente. Now Russia, according to the Hillary people, is our "enemy". This morning, I read that "ISIS has finally admitted that its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead" killed by a Russian bomb. It sounds more like Russia is on our side

Your own freaking link disputes what you are saying. Yes, Russia did claim a month ago that they killed Baghdadi in an airstrike near Raqqa, in Syria. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. ISIS is also not saying that this is what happened. Your own article states that ISIS is admitting that Baghdadi is dead, but that he was killed in a coalition airstrike in the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Russia has no military forces in Iraq, Russia has no planes in Iraq, Russia hasn't dropped a single bomb in Iraq. If Baghdadi was killed in an airstrike in Ninevah Province, then the credit for killing him most likely goes to the Iraqi Air Force.

I would also point out that Baghdadi's death has not been independently confirmed by anyone, and that the U.S. military has not yet concluded whether he is alive or dead.

But it's interesting that you automatically gave credit to Russia based solely on the word of the Russians. "Russians killed Baghdadi!" Evidence: "Russia said so."

Russia most certainly is NOT on our side. The only side Russia is on is their own.

**noise** · July-13-17, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by GMan

So you are cognizant that both sides involved foreign intelligence to use as "opposition research." Both sides seemed willing to involve Russia. Both sides are linked together. One sides exposure should lead to the others exposure as complicant as well.

Welcome to the "Deep State."

It's interesting to note that one side reached out to Russia and one was contacted by Russia.

I'm also aware that there are differences in both situations and details matter when it comes to the law.

I like how you conveniently refer to the individuals involved as simply "Russia" without nuance. Because this also matters.

**GMan** · July-13-17, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by noise

I'm also aware that there are differences in both situations and details matter when it comes to the law.

I like how you conveniently refer to the individuals involved as simply "Russia" without nuance. Because this also matters.

That is simply what the media is doing to fit a narrative.
Convenient isn't it?

**oladub** · July-13-17, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Your own article states that ISIS is admitting that Baghdadi is dead, but that he was killed in a coalition airstrike in the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Russia has no military forces in Iraq, Russia has no planes in Iraq, Russia hasn't dropped a single bomb in Iraq. If Baghdadi was killed in an airstrike in Ninevah Province, then the credit for killing him most likely goes to the Iraqi Air Force...

Russia most certainly is NOT on our side. The only side Russia is on is their own.

The enemy of our enemy is our friend in this case. From the article, "Russia's army said Sukhoi warplanes carried out a 10-minute raid on May 28 at a location near the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, where group leaders had gathered to plan a pullout from the area."

Were it not for Obama/Hillary's idiotic attempt to overthrow Assad resulting in the expansion of ISIS, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Were Hillary President, she would no doubt be welcoming ISIS guys mixed in with the rest of the refugees her policies created.

John Kerry even admitted that the US let ISIS grow to put pressure on Assad to step down but Russia ruined Obama's gambit by assisting Assad against ISIS:

The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger. Daesh was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth and that’s why Russia came in. Because they didn’t want a Daesh government. And they supported Assad.
And we know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that DAESH [the IS] was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened.[[We) thought, however. We could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.”-SOS John Kerry

**Bong-Man** · July-13-17, 12:25 PM

I found the clips of Trump's claims last Summer about some dirt on Clinton that he was going to release very interesting, as it relates to the Russian timeline given. If you look back, he issued the same warning in the Spring when it came to speculating on a pending release of information towards him. My impression was that someone was threatening or about to release the infamous 'urination video'.

McCain looked as happy as an 8 year old kid that just got a mini-bike for Christmas as this new episode unfolded. His comments of, "more shoes to drop"...."the tip of the iceberg", give me the impression that we have a long way to go in this investigation.

As a life-time democrat, I'll get no satisfaction if something ever happens to President Cheato. President Pence would have a much easier time consolidating the Republican Party to action on their agenda. He's admittedly a conservative's dream. I'm betting there's quite a few Republicans currently in office who feel the same way.

**noise** · July-13-17, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by GMan

That is simply what the media is doing to fit a narrative.
Convenient isn't it?

If that's what the media is doing, good for them. Because that narrative is apparently truth.

This is what happens when people who are not well-informed, with no real knowledge of the law, and who are hopelessly partisan get all of their information from biased sources.

**GMan** · July-13-17, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by noise

If that's what the media is doing, good for them. Because that narrative is apparently truth.

This is what happens when people who are not well-informed, with no real knowledge of the law, and who are hopelessly partisan get all of their information from biased sources.

You do realize that bias influences all sources don't you?