Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

It takes a special kind of person to trust our intelligence community after everything that’s been revealed the past 20 years.

All you have to do is look what happened over Biden's laptop. When 50 intel guys came out and said Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation with zero evidence you know there is a partisan bias there.
 
All you have to do is look what happened over Biden's laptop. When 50 intel guys came out and said Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation with zero evidence you know there is a partisan bias there.

The left is still pretending the laptop isn’t real.

I have no clue how that is even possible.

When it’s fully unraveled heads will roll.
 
What did he give to Kilimnik and how many times did he meet with him, etc.

Was he aware that he was being used for Russian disinformation against the U.S.? Did he do it for money? How much?
 
What did he give to Kilimnik and how many times did he meet with him, etc.

Was he aware that he was being used for Russian disinformation against the U.S.? Did he do it for money? How much?

Questions he should be asked by a congressional committee in a public setting.
 
Not that I expect an answer from either of you but please let me know which piece of Russian disinformation you’re referencing.

don't you favor the theory that crowdstrike worked for ucrane to interfere in the 2016 elections

and that Mifsud is a deep state agent for U.S. intelligence agencies
 
Last edited:
don't you favor the theory that crowdstrike worked for ucrane to interfere in the 2016 elections

and that Mifsud is a deep state agent for U.S. intelligence agencies

Never mentioned anything about crowdstrike other than there ceo stated there was no physical proof of the Russians hacking the dnc server.

Mifsud has a public record of his work so maybe you can help me understand why that is Russian disinformation.
 
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
 
Just want to make sure that we understand who is believing propaganda here.


But sure, without any evidence at all keep believing the hack was done by the Russians. I’m sure it’s as reliable as the Russian bounty story.
 
To wrap up a media angle to this. You’ll find difficulty finding those articles on google but with the same search words in DuckDuckGo you get the articles immediately.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm
 
Why did Mifsud's lawyer Stephan Roh scrub his website of all information about the extensive work he did for Russia and Russian clients. Why did Roh write a book packed with deza about Mifsud being an agent for western intelligence services?

Why is Roh involved in money laundering schemes with shady Russian oligarchs?
 
Last edited:
Why did Mifsud's lawyer Stephan Roh scrub his website of all information about the extensive work he did for Russia and Russian clients. Why did Roh write a book packed with deza about Mifsud being an agent for western intelligence services?

I can't speak to anything that Roh did. He would have to explain why he did or did anything.

There is as much 'evidence' of Mifsud working with western intelligence as there him working against it. Seems like you are still falling for the same things over and over.

Why not have Mifsud testify? Did Mueller try to make that happen? If he is so central to the theory (which he is) then why has he been ignored?
 
Back
Top