Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Julio3000 said:
Buried in that Jane Mayer piece was an allegation that the head of GCHQ flew to Washington to brief John Brennan on a "stream of illicit communications" between the Trump campaign and Russia. That seems like it might be rather a big deal.
Click to expand...

As so many things have been already in the past. This will surely be the time it's real.
 
thethe said:
I guess you missed the article I referenced about lawsuit filed where it was determined over 100k illegals were registered to vote? Just another 'glitch' I suppose.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...awsuit-100000-noncitizens-registered-vote-pa/

Still fighting the good fight on bias. My word you are dug into your ideological trench. How it can be even debated at this point after the reveal of those conversations is beyond me.

How about when you denied the dossier played a role in the fisa warrant? Care to go down that rabbit hole again? The fact that the Democrat memo didn't even refute McCabe testimony tells us all we need to know. So what was once a conspiracy (voter fraud / bias / use of the dossier) is now the truth. Care to dismiss anything else as a conspiracy?

Further, you're awfully quiet on the carnage migrants are causing in Europe. Even the times had to admit that Sweden is a disaster now.
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading or misconstruing the "100,000" allegation. If that number itself turns out to be accurate, remember that it's over the course of three decades.

I did not deny that the dossier was used for the FISA warrant on Page. I said I doubted that the warrant primarily depended on uncorroborated raw intelligence from the dossier. I'm willing to concede that *based on currently available information, * IF you take the Nunes memo at face value, it appears that the application might have leaned on the dossier more than I suspected. Even that statement is rife with significant caveats, considering that we have not seen the rest of the supporting information.

Your yelling about bias doesn't make it so. Beyond that, you've never explained exactly how the purported bias has compromised the investigation.

I find it funny that you're holding my feet to the fire on factual accuracy while believing fairy tales about Seth Rich gleaned from Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think you're misreading or misconstruing the "100,000" allegation. If that number itself turns out to be accurate, remember that it's over the course of three decades.

I did not deny that the dossier was used for the FISA warrant on Page. I said I doubted that the warrant primarily depended on uncorroborated raw intelligence from the dossier. I'm willing to concede that *based on currently available information, * IF you take the Nunes memo at face value, it appears that the application might have leaned on the dossier more than I suspected. Even that statement is rife with significant caveats, considering that we have not seen the rest of the supporting information.

Your yelling about bias doesn't make it so. Beyond that, you've never explained exactly how the purported bias has compromised the investigation.

I find it funny that you're holding my feet to the fire on factual accuracy while believing fairy tales about Seth Rich gleaned from Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange.
Click to expand...

That number is 'registered' to vote. Therefore in any given election moving forward there is the potential for 100k illegals voting. Which is something many already know are happening. If states actually cooperated we would find this is widespread and aggregates to several million.

We are going to criticize assange? How about discussing his record on accuracy?
 
That number refers to the number ID'd as potentially registered over (I'm assuming unless you have evidence to the contrary) the life of the Motor Voter law.

That's not people known to be registered, or people known to have voted. I will grant that is a legitimate issue which should be addressed, but let's not exceed the realm of fact, eh?

As for Assange, if you're willing to state unequivocally that you believe he is acting in good faith, that's your right. Seems ridiculous on its face to me, fwiw. I understand the reason why the government's evidence for Russian culpability in the hacking has not yet been made public. They're building a criminal case and will ultimately have to show their work. What I don't understand is why evidence to the contrary has not been released, since Assange is under no such structures.
 
Julio3000 said:
That number refers to the number ID'd as potentially registered over (I'm assuming unless you have evidence to the contrary) the life of the Motor Voter law.

That's not people known to be registered, or people known to have voted. I will grant that is a legitimate issue which should be addressed, but let's not exceed the realm of fact, eh?

As for Assange, if you're willing to state unequivocally that you believe he is acting in good faith, that's your right. Seems ridiculous on its face to me, fwiw. I understand the reason why the government's evidence for Russian culpability in the hacking has not yet been made public. They're building a criminal case and will ultimately have to show their work. What I don't understand is why evidence to the contrary has not been released, since Assange is under no such structures.
Click to expand...

First it was assuredly a nonissue. Now it's a concern but let's not get ahead of ourselves. How much do you need to realize this is an issue. If this is Pennsylvania what do you think is happening tlink California where they treat their illegals the same as citzens?

As far as I know the fbi has not requested any information from assange. Do you know anything to the contrary. If I were him I'd use that information as leverage.
 
[tw]970650759091163137[/tw]

thethe still thinks there is nothing

the liar in chief even admits in that dumb rant to meddling at least.
 
nsacpi said:
would you change your mind if Mueller indicted the Russians for stealing the emails and/or conveying them to Wikileaks
Click to expand...

If said indictment had actual proof detailing chain of custody I would absolutely say the Russians executed a comprehensive interference campaign.
 
fookin guy thinks he's Casey Stengal

Katy Tur
‏Verified account @KatyTurNBC
10m10 minutes ago

Trump asked what advice he'd give Sweden on Russian meddling.

Trump:

There was meddling from probably other countries and other individuals...

Also there's going to be a deep study And we have great judges

And black unemployment is down

And we need paper back up.


 
Forever Fredi said:
Looks like Nader meeting was in the Seychelles...
Click to expand...

Good time to be minister of tourism for the Seychelles. Best beaches in the world. Plus world class intrigue at the bar of the Four Seasons. I imagine Mueller has already talked to the bartender in addition to Mr. Nader.
 
Interesting that this was first leaked to Axios back in January soon after his interrogation at the airport. But the parties who were the sources for that article were a bit sketchy about Nader's background. I'm guessing the Qataris might have gotten wind of his interrogation and passed the story on to Axios.

And now, CNN and the NY Times are being fed the story. With a lot more detail. Suggesting sources much closer to the situation. I'm guessing one of them is from Nader's legal team.

So it would appear that Nader/the UAE were assisting in setting up some sort of backchannel between Trump and the Russians. Wonder what might have flowed through this backchannel. And what was in it for Nader and the UAE.
 
thethe said:
We know Russia meddled. Crazy FB adds. Super scary
Click to expand...
You forgot about Reddit and Twitter and the purchased server space under aliases and the voter lists and the specifically targeted districts and the cherry picked emails on abortion that appeared in high Catholic voter areas the moment the 20 million hacked emails were released.
 
Funny that a Trump surrogate, a Russian banker, and a UAE fixer had to go to the Seychelles to talk about security policy. Wonder if they also discussed adoption?

On a related note, Erik Prince is bad people and I dearly hope he takes some manner of fall here. I doubt he will, but a boy can dream.

"Drain the swamp" may end up with an entirely different connotation when this is over.
 
There's a republican running for Missouri Senate, Austin Petersen. He is essentially a libertarian which is why I'm following it.

Facebook just banned him again for 30 days (2nd time). His offense was raffling off an AR-15

Is this considered "election interference?" By this thread? If so, are we outraged by it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top