The Russians and the 2016 Election PT III

DWags wrote:How on earth does this somehow give that pussy grabber absolution if he conspired with the Russians during the election?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:How on earth does this somehow give that pussy grabber absolution if he conspired with the Russians during the election?

Get over the pussy jealousy.

and the operative word is IF - so far it's all bullshit and no proof. Anyone in the know says it didn't happen.

So get over that too.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:How on earth does this somehow give that pussy grabber absolution if he conspired with the Russians during the election?

Get over the pussy jealousy.

and the operative word is IF - so far it's all bullshit and no proof. Anyone in the know says it didn't happen.

So get over that too.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Get over the pussy jealousy.

and the operative word is IF - so far it's all bullshit and no proof. Anyone in the know says it didn't happen.

So get over that too.

Kind of like the Obama "wiretapping" claim?

11. What Barry Did To Trump Is a TEXTBOOK Definition of 'Wiretapping'

Yes, Trump was 100% correct when he accused Obama of "tapping his wires." Feel free to argue with an actual MIT textbook if you don’t believe it:

Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.

Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "communications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations. Much the stronger of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target, in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is being done by the police.

--

Obama weaponized the IRS against his political opponents, those everyday, powerless Americans in the Tea Party.

Obama weaponized the Department of Justice against the media, even though the media adored him.

And now, perfectly in keeping with The Chicago Barry we all know and loath, like the leader of a Banana Republic, he weaponized state surveillance against his political opposition.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:How on earth does this somehow give that pussy grabber absolution if he conspired with the Russians during the election?

Get over the pussy jealousy.

and the operative word is IF - so far it's all bullshit and no proof. Anyone in the know says it didn't happen.

So get over that too.

LooseGoose wrote:Give it time boys...when all this shit washes out I'll be laughing at you.

Trump didn't collude with Russia.

Obama spied on his political opponents and YOU seem to be supporting that.

For one thing, stepping aside on the Russia inquiry isn’t as big of a deal now as it might have been months ago. That’s because the Russia investigation isn’t really going anywhere. On March 9, BuzzFeed reported that Democrats on the committee are worried that their base is expecting dramatic results that simply won’t be coming.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

“The Russia narrative has been a sensational marketing effort, but the investigation won’t live up to the hype,” Michael Sainato writes. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept has a good rundown of the problems caused by Democrats hyping Russian conspiracy theories.

LooseGoose wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah....they had hacked all of the DNC's shit long before.   And sad as it was for Hills that's not hacking the election.   But grasp at straws as your Russian theory vanishes.

For one thing, stepping aside on the Russia inquiry isn’t as big of a deal now as it might have been months ago. That’s because the Russia investigation isn’t really going anywhere. On March 9, BuzzFeed reported that Democrats on the committee are worried that their base is expecting dramatic results that simply won’t be coming.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

“The Russia narrative has been a sensational marketing effort, but the investigation won’t live up to the hype,” Michael Sainato writes. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept has a good rundown of the problems caused by Democrats hyping Russian conspiracy theories.

NigelUno wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah....they had hacked all of the DNC's shit long before.   And sad as it was for Hills that's not hacking the election.   But grasp at straws as your Russian theory vanishes.

So you admit the Russians hacked (after Trump asked them to) in an effort to influence the election.

And you're cool with that because your guy (the "asshole") won.

I think we're done here.

LooseGoose wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

So you admit the Russians hacked (after Trump asked them to) in an effort to influence the election.

And you're cool with that because your guy (the "asshole") won.

I think we're done here.

"long before" is what I said you stupid ass. Twist as you may, the whole Russian thing is a flop and a failure just like most Liberal theories.

LooseGoose wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Kind of like the Obama "wiretapping" claim?

That happened.....

11. What Barry Did To Trump Is a TEXTBOOK Definition of 'Wiretapping'

Yes, Trump was 100% correct when he accused Obama of "tapping his wires." Feel free to argue with an actual MIT textbook if you don’t believe it:

Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.

Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "communications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations. Much the stronger of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target, in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is being done by the police.

--

Obama weaponized the IRS against his political opponents, those everyday, powerless Americans in the Tea Party.

Obama weaponized the Department of Justice against the media, even though the media adored him.

And now, perfectly in keeping with The Chicago Barry we all know and loath, like the leader of a Banana Republic, he weaponized state surveillance against his political opposition.

LooseGoose wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah....they had hacked all of the DNC's shit long before.   And sad as it was for Hills that's not hacking the election.   But grasp at straws as your Russian theory vanishes.

For one thing, stepping aside on the Russia inquiry isn’t as big of a deal now as it might have been months ago. That’s because the Russia investigation isn’t really going anywhere. On March 9, BuzzFeed reported that Democrats on the committee are worried that their base is expecting dramatic results that simply won’t be coming.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

“The Russia narrative has been a sensational marketing effort, but the investigation won’t live up to the hype,” Michael Sainato writes. Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept has a good rundown of the problems caused by Democrats hyping Russian conspiracy theories.

Cameron wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

That happened.....

LooseGoose wrote:Blah, blah, blah, blah....they had hacked all of the DNC's shit long before.   And sad as it was for Hills that's not hacking the election.   But grasp at straws as your Russian theory vanishes.

When you quote long chunks of text, and especially when you present them as somehow authoritative, I would appreciate it if you would source those quotes. I'm sure you have the links, just C+P those along with the quote. It annoys me to have to ask, and it seems like something you do kind of a lot.

LooseGoose wrote:

Cameron wrote:



When you quote long chunks of text, and especially when you present them as somehow authoritative, I would appreciate it if you would source those quotes. I'm sure you have the links, just C+P those along with the quote. It annoys me to have to ask, and it seems like something you do kind of a lot.

I would be willing to wager that I link to the sources of my quotes more than the average here. there was a link in the 1st one when copied I don't know why it didn't carry over.



https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/07/sorry-democrats-the-obama-spying-scandal-isnt-going-away/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15179/cover-11-things-media-wont-tell-you-about-obama-john-nolte#

And a link to the MIT textbook.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nMY8yHaTQi4C&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=the+word+is+no+longer+restricted+to+communication+traveling+by+wire&source=bl&ots=DR1XFWAnbh&sig=ZQR-yI_wUbcjHFuE0ITtG58hQP4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjysfSYvOzSAhWJjlQKHZGqCCAQ6AEIGjAA#v=one

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/12/trump-says-russia-relations-may-be-at-all-time-low-praises-tillerson-trip.html

Are we talking post USSR breakup here? If not then the Cuban Missile Crisis says hello.

GRR Spartan wrote:Putin has got his base in Tartus with a 49 year lease signed in January.  
Even Trump's trusted advisors know that that's not going away.  

True believers like Goosechev want us to believe one launch of 59 cruise missiles along with giving Russia less than an hour advance notice is Trump showing he has no ties to Russia.

More GOP/"conservative BS from Goosechev.  

Incredibly we have no reports of any Russian onsite losing their lives and no reportes on how many fixed wing aircraft.

But now Trump is tough?  Ever think Putin is in an even better position to threaten Trump with enough info to out him?

DWags wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Putin has got his base in Tartus with a 49 year lease signed in January.  
Even Trump's trusted advisors know that that's not going away.  

True believers like Goosechev want us to believe one launch of 59 cruise missiles along with giving Russia less than an hour advance notice is Trump showing he has no ties to Russia.

More GOP/"conservative BS from Goosechev.  

Incredibly we have no reports of any Russian onsite losing their lives and no reportes on how many fixed wing aircraft.

But now Trump is tough?  Ever think Putin is in an even better position to threaten Trump with enough info to out him?

I don't care if we go to war with Russia.(well of course I do...)   If the Trump team was implicit in dealing with and using Russia, I want to know.  If they weren't I want to know, then we'll all move on.  Get this off the table so Trump can be President.  The whole Nixon thing just got tiring.   He spent too much time dealing with that shit.  Trump doesn't need distractions, get this done with, do it ASAP, lets move on to Tax Cuts and Health Care.  Oh, and building the wall. We have to build that wall.   It makes me feel better here.

GRR Spartan wrote:

And I was eating this beautiful piece of chocolate cake when we launched cruise missiles into Iraq errr Syria.

GRR Spartan wrote:We don't have a good relationship with Russia
China doesn't manipulate currency
NATO is no longer obsolete

And I was eating this beautiful piece of chocolate cake when we launched cruise missiles into Iraq errr Syria.

GRR Spartan wrote:We don't have a good relationship with Russia
China doesn't manipulate currency
NATO is no longer obsolete

And I was eating this beautiful piece of chocolate cake when we launched cruise missiles into Iraq errr Syria.

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Goosechev with the mainstream media link..

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Goosechev with the mainstream media link..

Links to the Guardian of London. Sorry that the story damages your pinko overlords.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Goosechev with the mainstream media link..  

Links to the Guardian of London.   Sorry that the story damages your pinko overlords.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Links to the Guardian of London.   Sorry that the story damages your pinko overlords.

You didn't read the Guardian article, did you?  Because it says pretty much none of what that article that you posted claims.  Your article takes one or two things from the Guardian about the British letting Brennan know what they've found, and then takes a massive leap to everything else that they claim with no sources, quotes, or attributions.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Links to the Guardian of London.   Sorry that the story damages your pinko overlords.

You didn't read the Guardian article, did you?  Because it says pretty much none of what that article that you posted claims.  Your article takes one or two things from the Guardian about the British letting Brennan know what they've found, and then takes a massive leap to everything else that they claim with no sources, quotes, or attributions.

LooseGoose wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You didn't read the Guardian article, did you?  Because it says pretty much none of what that article that you posted claims.  Your article takes one or two things from the Guardian about the British letting Brennan know what they've found, and then takes a massive leap to everything else that they claim with no sources, quotes, or attributions.

British papers use more coded terms because of their libel laws. when you see Brennan frog marched you'll know the truth of it.

LooseGoose wrote:Update:

The CIA started all of these false rumors to help Hills. Dems not worried about spies interfering to help her.

Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump

An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.

Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.

John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.

A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”

The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.

Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).

LooseGoose wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You didn't read the Guardian article, did you?  Because it says pretty much none of what that article that you posted claims.  Your article takes one or two things from the Guardian about the British letting Brennan know what they've found, and then takes a massive leap to everything else that they claim with no sources, quotes, or attributions.

British papers use more coded terms because of their libel laws. when you see Brennan frog marched you'll know the truth of it.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

British papers use more coded terms because of their libel laws. when you see Brennan frog marched you'll know the truth of it.

You can't be serious? I read quite a lot of British papers every day (sports/soccer related content), and they throw so much lying BS out there, it's astounding. Things you would NEVER see in a US paper, unless it's running next to articles about aliens and Bat Boy. One thing that the British press can never be accused of is being too careful on their claims.

LooseGoose wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You can't be serious? I read quite a lot of British papers every day (sports/soccer related content), and they throw so much lying BS out there, it's astounding. Things you would NEVER see in a US paper, unless it's running next to articles about aliens and Bat Boy. One thing that the British press can never be accused of is being too careful on their claims.

Well you're provably wrong since they just were.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well you're provably wrong since they just were.

Just were what? Accused of being too careful? You mean accused by you? Maybe I should have said that they're never accused of being too careful by anyone who reads them regularly. Either way, you know what I meant, and playing semantics doesn't change the point.