The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery

[Pam]

So then the goal posts got moved by Pam to "what about the Podesta emails?" Only someone who is truly insane would think that Seth Rich spear-phished John Podesta, because to imply that that was one of the "leaks" that stopped after Rich died would be to imply that Rich was somehow involved in the Podesta hack.

You said there was only one leak and asked what other leaks there were. I wasn't trying to imply Seth Rich was behind all of them. I have actually forgotten what came out when last year.

[aj3647]

This might have been said to promote interest in the emails which if by any account I believe came too late to have any effect on the election.

The DNC emails were released by Wikileaks on July 22, 2016. That's over three months before the election.

The John Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks on October 7, a full month before the election.

Both were released in plenty of time to be digested and reported ad nauseum before even early and absentee voting had begun in the Presidential election.

Too late to have any effect though? You seem to throw out lots of "conjecture" I noticed. Seth Rich leaked the emails, Awan leaked the emails...have you considered the possibility that Russia did it? You know, since that's the conclusion of every single U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agency as well as just about every top private cyber-security firm based on all available evidence? I know it's not the baseless conspiracy theories that you exclusively dabble in, but at least consider the possibility.

[aj3647]

The FBI has executed a search warrant and raided the home of Paul Manafort as part of the Russia investigation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8ed_story.html

First the Grand Jury, now this. Next stop: felony indictments for Flynn and Manafort.

[GMan]

The DNC emails were released by Wikileaks on July 22, 2016. That's over three months before the election.

The John Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks on October 7, a full month before the election.

Both were released in plenty of time to be digested and reported ad nauseum before even early and absentee voting had begun in the Presidential election.

Too late to have any effect though? You seem to throw out lots of "conjecture" I noticed. Seth Rich leaked the emails, Awan leaked the emails...have you considered the possibility that Russia did it? You know, since that's the conclusion of every single U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence agency as well as just about every top private cyber-security firm based on all available evidence? I know it's not the baseless conspiracy theories that you exclusively dabble in, but at least consider the possibility.

You give the general public too much credit in citing the emails for changing the election. Most people already knew how dirty HRC was. The release of the emails just confirmed what most suspected. How many people even read them?

As for considering the Russians as the source of the email release, Yes I have considered it. I try to consider all angles.
What I don't do is just subscribe to it as the only possibility. Also my paycheck unlike some of those alphabet agencies doesn't rely on that being the narrative.
There is always more to a story than meets the eye. The press is trying too hard to sell this as the only possibility and that raises my suspicion given their closeness to the former candidate and her party.

Let's see what the Manafort raid uncovers and where that leads.

[aj3647]

You give the general public too much credit in citing the emails for changing the election. Most people already knew how dirty HRC was. The release of the emails just confirmed what most suspected. How many people even read them?

Who said the emails "changed" the election? Here we go moving the goal posts again. YOU said they weren't released in time to have an effect on the election, I proved you wrong. They were released in plenty of time to have an effect. An "effect" does not necessarily mean that they changed the outcome of the election. Two big data dumps like that, along with the corresponding media coverage, almost certainly had some type of effect on public opinion. But the point is, being released three months and one month before the election is plenty of time for any information to have an effect on an election.

OK, so you believe that the CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA/etc. are all lying to you. And you believe that the entire mainstream media is lying to you. And apparently you also believe that all the top cyber-security firms are lying to you. What about Republicans in Congress? While they continue to deny that Trump colluded with the Russians, Republicans in Congress fully admit that Russia interfered in our election via coordinated hacking efforts and disseminating fake news propaganda to influence the American electorate. THEY ADMIT THIS. Not Democrats, mind you, but Republicans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/congre...rticle/2006181

Oklahoma senator James Lankford, a member of the intelligence committee, said on CNN Thursday that there's no doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic campaign officials.

Here's Senator Marco Rubio talking about how he was targeted by Russian hackers when he was running against Trump in the primaries:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politi...earing-russia/

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: "We must punish Russia for interfering in our election" and "I'm 1,000 percent certain that the Russians interfered in our election."
http://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-grah...eddling-608900

The ship has sailed on this. The only people at this point who are still claiming that Russia didn't interfere at all in our election are the following: Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Alex Jones, and Vladmir Putin.

So think about that collection of above individuals that you find trustworthy and do some soul-searching.

[GMan]

Who said the emails "changed" the election? Here we go moving the goal posts again. YOU said they weren't released in time to have an effect on the election, I proved you wrong. They were released in plenty of time to have an effect. An "effect" does not necessarily mean that they changed the outcome of the election. Two big data dumps like that, along with the corresponding media coverage, almost certainly had some type of effect on public opinion. But the point is, being released three months and one month before the election is plenty of time for any information to have an effect on an election.

OK, so you believe that the CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA/etc. are all lying to you. And you believe that the entire mainstream media is lying to you. And apparently you also believe that all the top cyber-security firms are lying to you. What about Republicans in Congress? While they continue to deny that Trump colluded with the Russians, Republicans in Congress fully admit that Russia interfered in our election via coordinated hacking efforts and disseminating fake news propaganda to influence the American electorate. THEY ADMIT THIS. Not Democrats, mind you, but Republicans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/congre...rticle/2006181



Here's Senator Marco Rubio talking about how he was targeted by Russian hackers when he was running against Trump in the primaries:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politi...earing-russia/

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: "We must punish Russia for interfering in our election" and "I'm 1,000 percent certain that the Russians interfered in our election."
http://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-grah...eddling-608900

The ship has sailed on this. The only people at this point who are still claiming that Russia didn't interfere at all in our election are the following: Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Alex Jones, and Vladmir Putin.

So think about that collection of above individuals that you find trustworthy and do some soul-searching.

AJ I can see you are a very detailed person. Kudo's to you.
Influence over a system suggests change of some sort. To influence change and not have any appreciable effect on the outcome than why try and why investigate? Why not study what was "Successful" while not "changing" the outcome, with out trying to cripple this presidency?

Yes all the alphabet agencies are susceptible to "lying" as it furthers their power / influence over control of the budget.
Who pushes their narrative? How about defense related companies who make millions pushing for conflicts so they can sell weapons or components. There's plenty of yellowcake, er B.S. to be spread in the media to get public support for conflict so millions can be made. Looks like they are gonna get their conflict anyway. If not with Russia over Crimea, then N.K. and it's missile program.
So who wins when the Military Industrial Complex wins over the public will expressed by an "unchanged" election?

[Richard]

The FBI has executed a search warrant and raided the home of Paul Manafort as part of the Russia investigation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8ed_story.html

First the Grand Jury, now this. Next stop: felony indictments for Flynn and Manafort.

Maybe he learned from the Hillary camp and after the grand jury smashed his hard drives and deleted all of the paper trail emails.

It is not like he had warnings that prompted a pre dawn raid,I think they are trying to squeeze him to roll over on someone else that does not exist,or he had an extra stash of Kleenex in a safe.

[Richard]

Who said the emails "changed" the election? Here we go moving the goal posts again. YOU said they weren't released in time to have an effect on the election, I proved you wrong. They were released in plenty of time to have an effect. An "effect" does not necessarily mean that they changed the outcome of the election. Two big data dumps like that, along with the corresponding media coverage, almost certainly had some type of effect on public opinion. But the point is, being released three months and one month before the election is plenty of time for any information to have an effect on an election.

OK, so you believe that the CIA/FBI/NSA/DIA/etc. are all lying to you. And you believe that the entire mainstream media is lying to you. And apparently you also believe that all the top cyber-security firms are lying to you. What about Republicans in Congress? While they continue to deny that Trump colluded with the Russians, Republicans in Congress fully admit that Russia interfered in our election via coordinated hacking efforts and disseminating fake news propaganda to influence the American electorate. THEY ADMIT THIS. Not Democrats, mind you, but Republicans.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/congre...rticle/2006181



Here's Senator Marco Rubio talking about how he was targeted by Russian hackers when he was running against Trump in the primaries:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politi...earing-russia/

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: "We must punish Russia for interfering in our election" and "I'm 1,000 percent certain that the Russians interfered in our election."
http://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-grah...eddling-608900

The ship has sailed on this. The only people at this point who are still claiming that Russia didn't interfere at all in our election are the following: Donald Trump, Julian Assange, Alex Jones, and Vladmir Putin.

So think about that collection of above individuals that you find trustworthy and do some soul-searching.

Foreign powers have meddled in elections before we were even born as we have in theirs,the simple question has not been answered.

Did Russian meddling in the election effect the outcome?

The hard line is Russian unicorns conspired with president Trump to win the election.

[aj3647]

AJ I can see you are a very detailed person. Kudo's to you.
Influence over a system suggests change of some sort. To influence change and not have any appreciable effect on the outcome than why try and why investigate? Why not study what was "Successful" while not "changing" the outcome, with out trying to cripple this presidency?

With what data are we supposed to determine what effect the DNC emails and Podesta emails had on the outcome of the election? Maybe it changed the outcome, maybe it didn't, there's no way to know that. Add to that the fact that these two hacks were hardly the only forms of Russian interference, so when we investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election [[as Republican-led committees in both the House and Senate are already doing, independently of the Mueller investigation), it makes sense to investigate the effects of the totality of those efforts. That would include dozens of attempted hacks of state-level voter registration systems [[including at least one successful hack of data in Illinois, in which the Russians may have had access to voter registration data) and coordinated Russian efforts to produce and disseminate fake news via social media aimed at the American electorate, especially Facebook.

The argument you seem to be making is "if the Russian efforts to influence the election did not change the outcome, then who cares?" This is the absolute worst possible attitude to have. That's like looking at a failed terrorist attack and saying "well their homemade bomb didn't detonate, so who cares? Why investigate if it didn't work?"

You investigate and you react because to NOT do so would embolden the Russians to do this again. And given the lessons they learned from this election plus several years to prepare, they are only going to get better at hacking our systems and influencing our elections. We need to investigate so we know how to better ensure the integrity of our elections from foreign interference and we need to respond so the Russians know that they can't keep getting away with it. We're not the only country they are doing this so, the Russians have been doing the exact same thing in nations across Europe, trying to influence elections.

[aj3647]

Maybe he learned from the Hillary camp and after the grand jury smashed his hard drives and deleted all of the paper trail emails.

It is not like he had warnings that prompted a pre dawn raid,I think they are trying to squeeze him to roll over on someone else that does not exist,or he had an extra stash of Kleenex in a safe.

Putin thanks your for your Whataboutism, comrade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world

Whenever some new piece of bad news comes out about Russiagate, the default go-to defense from you guys seems to be "But what about Hillary Clinton???!!!" I don't care if Hillary Clinton murdered a dozen babies on live TV, it doesn't excuse anything that Donald Trump or his associates have done, are doing, or might do.

My question is: do you guys intentionally model your talking points after Russian propaganda techniques or is that just a happy coincidence?

[Richard]

Когда вы держите дверь открытой для них, кто настоящий товарищ

Why the Hillary rant,all I did was use that as an example,but you are right,she could murder 65 kids and you would not care.

I could have also said ,after the drug dealer left the grand jury,he went home and flushed the evidence down the toilet.

Grand jury can call a tomato,all they are doing is circumventing the need for proof or evidence to obtain search warrants,because a judge would not allow a fishing expedition as a reason for a search warrant.

[GMan]

The argument you seem to be making is "if the Russian efforts to influence the election did not change the outcome, then who cares?" This is the absolute worst possible attitude to have. That's like looking at a failed terrorist attack and saying "well their homemade bomb didn't detonate, so who cares? Why investigate if it didn't work?"

You investigate and you react because to NOT do so would embolden the Russians to do this again. And given the lessons they learned from this election plus several years to prepare, they are only going to get better at hacking our systems and influencing our elections. We need to investigate so we know how to better ensure the integrity of our elections from foreign interference and we need to respond so the Russians know that they can't keep getting away with it. We're not the only country they are doing this so, the Russians have been doing the exact same thing in nations across Europe, trying to influence elections.

I suggested no such thing as ignoring the attempt of influence. I simply question why it is being done in a manner to disrupt this presidency.
We are publicly showing our hand to the "suspected" Russian players well at the same time struggling to understand the scope of what happened.
That should give whoever time to cover tracks in this digital ecosystem.

[aj3647]

Grand jury can call a tomato,all they are doing is circumventing the need for proof or evidence to obtain search warrants,because a judge would not allow a fishing expedition as a reason for a search warrant.

Grand juries can't issue search warrants, only judges can do that. Do you even bother to do a google search and fact check your posts before you post them? You know that you lose credibility when you say things like this, right? It shows that you don't really care for the facts, nor can you be bothered to take 10 seconds to do a little research before spouting off.

https://www.wyattandblakelaw.com/pra...nvestigations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search...#United_States

You are clearly confusing "warrant" with "subpoena", which Grand Juries do have the authority to issue. But yes, Paul Manafort's search warrant was issued by a judge based on probable cause, as required by Title 18 of the U.S. Code and the United States Constitution. Now this is the part where you move the goal posts and complain about the judge who issued it being part of the "Deep State" or some such nonsense.

[Richard]

Grand juries can't issue search warrants, only judges can do that. Do you even bother to do a google search and fact check your posts before you post them? You know that you lose credibility when you say things like this, right? It shows that you don't really care for the facts, nor can you be bothered to take 10 seconds to do a little research before spouting off.

https://www.wyattandblakelaw.com/pra...nvestigations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search...#United_States

You are clearly confusing "warrant" with "subpoena", which Grand Juries do have the authority to issue. But yes, Paul Manafort's search warrant was issued by a judge based on probable cause, as required by Title 18 of the U.S. Code and the United States Constitution. Now this is the part where you move the goal posts and complain about the judge who issued it being part of the "Deep State" or some such nonsense.

I wonder if you view life through a bar straw.

An accident occurs 25 people are hurt,some say it was a red car that caused the accident and some say it was a blue car.

Your line of discussion would be towards the color of the car and use Wikipedia to back up the claims that the color of cars and not what caused the accident or who was hurt.

Same with the whole Russian thing.

Russia=Trump=Impeach= straight line of thought.

But yet you are quick to chastise others links or creditably.

But admittedly you are a good little socialist,you look down the narrow path with no broad horizons and are afraid to consider different objectives,and only follow lines of thought that you are directed to.

I jest in saying socialist and it does not make one a bad person to follow lines of conditioning,some find it easy to go that path while others prefer to take everything into context and look at the larger scope of things.

The world is not black and white and operates in the grey more then people care to admit or want to believe.

I am also one that believes this whole Russian aspect in the daily lives of Americans that have no clue about circumstances is detrimental to the security of this country.

We could have been ahead of the eight ball but now we are being crushed by it,but that was the whole point to begin with.

Russia and thier socialist American supporters + 1
America and democracy -5

[aj3647]

Ad hominem personal attacks because I called you out for being wrong on something. Nice. This is what I've come to expect from you though, so sadly it's not surprising.

Yes or no: Grand juries in the United States have the legal authority to issue search warrants. Yes or no? They either do, or they don't. You said they did, I said they didn't. Which one of us is correct?

Facts matter. If you insist on making stuff up, lying, or just throwing out grossly incorrect information because you can't be bothered to fact-check, then I will call you out on it. Now feel free to reply to my post, dodge every point I made, refuse to answer the question, and call me names. I've come to expect no better from you.

[Richard]

Ad hominem personal attacks because I called you out for being wrong on something. Nice. This is what I've come to expect from you though, so sadly it's not surprising.

Yes or no: Grand juries in the United States have the legal authority to issue search warrants. Yes or no? They either do, or they don't. You said they did, I said they didn't. Which one of us is correct?

Facts matter. If you insist on making stuff up, lying, or just throwing out grossly incorrect information because you can't be bothered to fact-check, then I will call you out on it. Now feel free to reply to my post, dodge every point I made, refuse to answer the question, and call me names. I've come to expect no better from you.

Read your posts,everything you accuse people of doing mirrors your form.

You seem to like to pick one word out of a conversation and become fixated on that completely missing the whole point of the discussion.

Your fact check consists of WAPO and Wikipedia,where do they get thier facts from?Because they print it,it becomes fact?

Why would the FBI need to go to the Grand Jury if they already have the power of a judge for a search Warrant ?

The answer is they did not have enough solid proof that a judge was willing to sign off on,so they had to go with a grand jury who gave them wiggle room to go fishing.

Twist and turn that how ever you like,which you already tried to do with the felony indictments comment.

So where are your facts,links,proof of felony indictments ? Or that was wishful thinking also?

[oladub]

You investigate and you react because to NOT do so would embolden the Russians to do this again. And given the lessons they learned from this election plus several years to prepare, they are only going to get better at hacking our systems and influencing our elections. We need to investigate so we know how to better ensure the integrity of our elections from foreign interference and we need to respond so the Russians know that they can't keep getting away with it. We're not the only country they are doing this so, the Russians have been doing the exact same thing in nations across Europe, trying to influence elections.

The US has a history of overthrowing and altering foreign governments. It is difficult for some of us to feign surprise and outrage if and when other countries do the same. Where I live, the police department advises residents to lock their car doors to reduce their chances of car break ins. Good advice. Had the previous administration [[ACA rollout, repeated thefts of OMB federal employee records, etc.), Podesta, Hillary, and the DNC better secured their computers, been more computer savvy, and used more secure and legal servers, we would not be having this discussion. While personal responsibility isn't a hallmark of liberalism, its a good place to start; better than arrogantly assuming that we are going to get actors like Russia, China, and Iran to change their spots, and "know that they can't keep getting away with it".

Can't get away with it? That's sounds like macho neocon talk. What exactly do you propose doing so all these countries "know that they can't keep getting away with it". I already suggested improving security and inferred role modeling. We shouldn't be tapping Merkel's phone and then act bent out of shape if other countries try to do the same to us. Whats your suggestion for not letting other countries get away with doing the same to us?

[TKshreve]

Whats your suggestion for not letting other countries get away with doing the same to us?

For starters, it would be nice to see some continuity of message from our government in lockstep. Most people would like the Russian interference [[and ties) investigated fully and exposed for what has truthfully happened.

Most people, being a huge issue.

Trump and his harem seem to spurn this perspective a little bit too overtly. What kind of message does that send to the world? What are the optics on that kind of stance? With all the spin, doublespeak, straw mans, etc. that pervade opinionated current events, it's easy for common logic to be pushed aside all to often. I always return to logic when the message has been convoluted by these above-mentioned techniques used to muddy the message.

I'll ask once more: as the elected* leader of the free world, why can't we come to expect from President Trump his dedication towards fully investigating [[and pursuing justice) onto those who've meddled with our electoral process?

If he is in the clear, as he's asserted at every step of the way, should he not invite the most stringent of investigations into the matter? Does he really not see an aggression onto our principles of freedom within this mess? Or does he have something to hide? Firing Comey was brazen, and very suggestive. I can't help but be reminded of Kwame's saga in several ways while watching Trump stomp around with little to no appreciation for the current climate of suspicion that blankets this story line.

This Nothingburger certainly has more flavor to it than some assert. ​
^credit for creativity to the right btw^

Confirmed or dismissed, whatever the facts and evidence bear out, I would oblige the final returns on an independent investigation, free of tampering and intimidation of course.

[Richard]

Thing is,from the start it was not a case of the Russians interference with the election,so let's investigate and see where it leads.

It immediately became a Trump collusion with the Russians to win the presidency,so the verdict was already in,and people wonder why he went on the defensive.

You see it here in the discussions,I do not like Trump and the only reason he is there is because he colluded with the Russians and anybody that thinks different is a waste of space.

Granted as President he should be the bigger man but anybody accused is going to be on the defensive because they are forced into that situation.

A cop knocks on your door tomorrow and says you have been accused of this and we are investigating,the first thing one does is deny it and then hire an attorney.Because guilty or not the law has twists and turns.

[noise]

Thing is,from the start it was not a case of the Russians interference with the election,so let's investigate and see where it leads.

It immediately became a Trump collusion with the Russians to win the presidency,so the verdict was already in,and people wonder why he went on the defensive.

You see it here in the discussions,I do not like Trump and the only reason he is there is because he colluded with the Russians and anybody that thinks different is a waste of space.

Granted as President he should be the bigger man but anybody accused is going to be on the defensive because they are forced into that situation.

A cop knocks on your door tomorrow and says you have been accused of this and we are investigating,the first thing one does is deny it and then hire an attorney.Because guilty or not the law has twists and turns.

How many dishonest claims about individuals has Trump made throughout the campaign and to this day?

The difference is that there's an actual investigation going on into the Russian situation.

Not like Trump's birther claims. Not like Trump's illegal voters claims. Not like most every other personal attack Trump has made.

[Richard]

How many dishonest claims about individuals has Trump made throughout the campaign and to this day?

The difference is that there's an actual investigation going on into the Russian situation.

Not like Trump's birther claims. Not like Trump's illegal voters claims. Not like most every other personal attack Trump has made.

The actual investigation started before president Trump was in office and the previous administration was well aware of what was going on.

Back to square one.


http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/art...arch.yahoo.com

[Pam]

Jimmy Dore again:

https://youtu.be/FWYPmHJ3WeU

[noise]

The actual investigation started before president Trump was in office and the previous administration was well aware of what was going on.

Back to square one.


http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/art...arch.yahoo.com

This was a pretty amusing response. It added nothing to the conversation, but addressed none of the criticisms of your line of thinking. Perfect. As I said, you deflect. Lowest common denominator.

[Richard]

This was a pretty amusing response. It added nothing to the conversation, but addressed none of the criticisms of your line of thinking. Perfect. As I said, you deflect. Lowest common denominator.

Why do you insist in injecting mirror images into a discussion.

I will always be the lowest common denominator in your eyes because in your conditioning you believe that anybody that represents democracy is the lowest common denominator.

You are forgetting about phrases like,capitalist pigs,western scum etc. if I have forgot any I am sure you can think of a few more.

[noise]

Why do you insist in injecting mirror images into a discussion.

I will always be the lowest common denominator in your eyes because in your conditioning you believe that anybody that represents democracy is the lowest common denominator.

You are forgetting about phrases like,capitalist pigs,western scum etc. if I have forgot any I am sure you can think of a few more.

No, I think you're the lowest common denominator because you have no grasp of the English language, you openly defend Nazis, you type endless streams of nonsense, and the few points you're able to adequately convey are incorrect.

If it helps at all, my business has seen pretty steady growth the last 15+ years, we're up to about 75 employees, and we just purchased a new building. Why would I use those phrases? Your worldview is limited.