Crime Clinton Lawyer finally charged over Russia-gate hoax.

[HOLA]

#blueAnons with their panties in a bunch cause they follow narratives that any one who isn't a fucking retard saw through years prior. Is normal

This would perhaps be more effective if you weren't still whining, daily, about election fraud in the Bamboo Ballots thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hackery for who? I don't support either of the corrupt parties. You're the one being a partisan hack for the Dems. They can do no wrong in your book.

You say that, but all your posts are just echoing GOP propaganda, no? And your attempt to rubber-glue me is a blatant lie. FFS, I made multiple criticisms ITT.

Whether its paying Fusion GPS for a fabricated peepee dosier, lying to the FBI or hiding the servers so the FBI can't confirm their fabrications, you don't care. Its "go, blue team, GO!" Its the definition of partisan hackery.

Huh? First, these are all lies, and dumb ones. Why would anyone pay for fake oppo? You're aware that the dossier wasn't intended to be released and wasn't public until after the election, right? So this is another example of you just pushing a dumb partisan talking point without even thinking for a second about whether it actually makes sense. No servers were hidden from the FBI. They're the ones who reported the problem. Again, you're repeating a talking point without thinking about it.

No. My logic is that if the democrats intentionally help an extreme right winger into their party because they dont think they can win based on the merits of their platform, they don't get to make excuses for being politically impotent when that guy always votes with republicans.

Well, Manchin isn't an extreme right-winger, stupid. Every single member of your party is to his right. He's in a right-wing area so Democrats' choices are to pick someone who will agree with them half the time and win some battles or someone who will agree with them never and block everything they want. Obviously you know this, but you're playing dumb.

It doesnt matter who is actually in power.

Well, then maybe you should stop following politics, stop throwing out dumb partisan lies, and move to Antarctica or something. The world would be better off.

Twitter is a Platform, not a Publisher. Their job is to host a conversation, not to interrupt it.

That's how they choose to operate, but you don't actually need the gov't to license you to have freedom of speech, and if you support that (as you do), you don't support freedom of speech.

They literally get blanket legal immunity from liability for their content specifically because it is understood that they are not the publisher.

They literally don't, though. That's just another partisan lie that you're throwing out.

Imagine you were on a phone call and every time you said something that the phone company disagreed with, a bot would interrupt your call and tell you the phone company's official position on the matter. That's not how phone companies or platforms are supposed to operate. They exist to facilitate discourse, not to manipulate it.

Um, Twitter isn't an Internet service provider. They're a web site.

If they want to edit like a publisher, then they should be considered publishers and be legally responsible for everything published on their platform. Barring that, they should know their place and stay the fuck out of other people's conversations.

Publishers are not legally responsible for everything published on their platform.

Completely braindead take right here. Freedom of speech is an individual right. Such an important one in fact that it is protected by the very first amendment to the constitution, which bars state interference in matters of speech.

This might be difficult for you to understand, but corporations aren't human beings; they are inanimate. Corporations cant talk.

People own websites.

Are you talking about the report that found insufficient evidence for the russiagate conspiracy theory?

No, the Mueller report.

Not defending anything Trump actually said or did, but i dont think he was being blackmailed by the Russian government. He was harder on the Russian government than the Obama administration. Russiagate was a hoax..

LOL! Like I said, literally everything you say is just GOP propaganda, and you have no interest in whether it even sounds plausible.

 

[skysolo]

Hackery for who? I don't support either of the corrupt parties. You're the one being a partisan hack for the Dems. They can do no wrong in your book. Whether its paying Fusion GPS for a fabricated peepee dosier, lying to the FBI or hiding the servers so the FBI can't confirm their fabrications, you don't care. Its "go, blue team, GO!" Its the definition of partisan hackery.



No. My logic is that if the democrats intentionally help an extreme right winger into their party because they dont think they can win based on the merits of their platform, they don't get to make excuses for being politically impotent when that guy always votes with republicans. They made their own bed; they are comfy in their blanket of excuses. If they wanted to get policy passed, they can either make specific concessions and deals that favor West Virginia to get it done or stop supporting his candidacy. Absent that, they don't actually care about passing the policies they campaigned on.

Once again, the Republicans are just as bad as the democrats; the difference is the democrats promised a lot of things that they dont deliver on. Joe Manchin is just the fall guy they use for public opinion while they conveniently dont pass any of the policy objectives that conflict with their donors interests. They are all bad because of that; Joe Manchin is just one of their many convenient excuses. If it wasn't him, it would be the parliamentarian. They don't actually care. They had the opportunity to pass the $15 minimum wage without Joe Manchin. All it would have taken was for Harris to overrule the parliamentarian and she chose not to because they honestly dont care about increasing the minimum wage; its just theater for the public.



It doesnt matter who is actually in power. Progressive change will not happen because both parties are bought by interests that oppose it. Republicans in power - no progressive change. Then the dems use that to try and fear-monger voters into electing them. Then Democrats in power - no progressive change. It honestly doesn't make much difference which party controls the government; neither party is willing or able to pass the most popular policies the American people want - because neither of them actually want to.

That's not partisanship; they both suck. Partisanship would be always advocating and voting for one side even though they cant get anything done. Partisanship is making excuses for one sides impotence and defending them for not doing what they say they're going to do.



When it comes to progressive policies, the outcome of electing either party IS the same. Neither party makes any progressive changes when they are in power.

How are the democrats treating refugees at the border right now? Why isn't AOC down there crying for the cameras? How's the illegal occupation of Syria going? Why are we trying to do regime change in Ethiopia right now? Why are we drone striking Somalia, Syria and Iraq?

Both parties are pro-illegal wars of offense. Neither party passes progressive agendas even though one party pretends to support them during campaign season. Both parties take bribes from the same large corporate interests. Everything else is just pro-wrestling style public theater.



Twitter is a Platform, not a Publisher. Their job is to host a conversation, not to interrupt it. They literally get blanket legal immunity from liability for their content specifically because it is understood that they are not the publisher. Imagine you were on a phone call and every time you said something that the phone company disagreed with, a bot would interrupt your call and tell you the phone company's official position on the matter. That's not how phone companies or platforms are supposed to operate. They exist to facilitate discourse, not to manipulate it.

If they want to edit like a publisher, then they should be considered publishers and be legally responsible for everything published on their platform. Barring that, they should know their place and stay the fuck out of other people's conversations.



Completely braindead take right here. Freedom of speech is an individual right. Such an important one in fact that it is protected by the very first amendment to the constitution, which bars state interference in matters of speech.

This might be difficult for you to understand, but corporations aren't human beings; they are inanimate. Corporations cant talk.

This comes back once again to all the hearings the tech giants kept getting summoned to on capitol hill. The democrats kept threatening them to censor their platforms of face regulation. They didn't want to, but complied under threat of the government. There is no practical difference between state censorship and private censorship at the behest of the state. Its immoral to anyone with principles in line with freedom and constitutional freedoms.

But look at all the partisan hacks. "They're a private company; they can do as they please!" When did liberals become so pro-corporate power??? Oh, that's right! It was the second those corporations started taking power and using it to forward the democrat agenda.

I oppose excessive corporate power because I have principles. It's bad whether it suits republicans or democrats because it in some way diminishes the power of the individual.



When it comes to policy outcomes, it doesn't matter who is in power. Both parties answer to the same corporate overlords at this point. I'd like to vote for the anti-war party that invests in educating its people, talking care of the poor and eliminating extreme wealth and power disaprities......oh, wait. We don't have one of those as an option.

Biden is basically carrying out most of the same foreign policy and border policy as Trump did, he just isn't being crucified by the Democratic party or the MSM because they are all partisan hacks.



Are you talking about the report that found insufficient evidence for the russiagate conspiracy theory? The one that was based on a fake peepee tape dosier paid for by the clinton campaign as opposition research?

Not defending anything Trump actually said or did, but i dont think he was being blackmailed by the Russian government. He was harder on the Russian government than the Obama administration. Russiagate was a hoax.

There were a million things Trump could have been RIGHTFULLY impeached for, like violating the emolument clause. But democrats would rather make things up than impeach him for corruption because its corruption they engage in aswell.

Jack is being more a partisan bootlicker than usual. I don't know how people are still defending this Russia bs to this day.

I like how he criticizes you for being a little hyperbolic then in his very next sentence, he says "every single member of the republicans is to the right of Manchin". Except that's not true. Massie is to the left of Manchin.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack is being more a partisan bootlicker than usual. I don't know how people are still defending this Russia bs to this day.

I like how he criticizes you for being a little hyperbolic then in his very next sentence, he says "every single member of the republicans is to the right of Manchin". Except that's not true. Massie is to the left of Manchin.

"This Russia" is (intentionally) vague. There are lots of issues related to Russia. We know they illegally hacked Americans and spread the stolen material in a way designed to help Trump. We know the campaign at least had some awareness of that before the material was released. We know the campaign shared confidential polling data with Russia. There's a lot more. But hacks try to distract by talking about Trump not being a Manchurian candidate or taking jokes about the pee tape seriously. If it were a Democratic candidate who benefitted from a hostile country committing crimes against Americans, it would have led to impeachment and removal, and you guys would have been on the front lines cheering the effort.

 

[giusti825]

You say that, but all your posts are just echoing GOP propaganda, no? And your attempt to rubber-glue me is a blatant lie. FFS, I made multiple criticisms ITT.

You call me a hack, but I haven't defended the actions of a single politician or party in this thread. I've said numerous times that they both suck and I wouldn't advocate or vote for either.

Huh? First, these are all lies, and dumb ones. Why would anyone pay for fake oppo? You're aware that the dossier wasn't intended to be released and wasn't public until after the election, right? So this is another example of you just pushing a dumb partisan talking point without even thinking for a second about whether it actually makes sense. No servers were hidden from the FBI. They're the ones who reported the problem. Again, you're repeating a talking point without thinking about it.

Actual journalists and commentators covered it earlier than this, but here is the washington post covering the peepee dosier. If even the MSM is covering it, you know it has been reported on numerous times and at no risk of libel:

https://web.archive.org/web/2017102...6fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

Original Paywalled article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

Here is another MSM article covering the fact that the Clinton campaign withheld their servers from the FBI and instead hired crowdstrike:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html

This was done with the intention of hiding the fact that it was a leak and not a hack, which wouldve been evident by the speed of the file transfer. Guess who hired Crowdstrike.....Yep....its that same attorney, Michael Sussmann who has been indicted for fabricating evidence and lying to the FBI.

Well, Manchin isn't an extreme right-winger, stupid. Every single member of your party is to his right. He's in a right-wing area so Democrats' choices are to pick someone who will agree with them half the time and win some battles or someone who will agree with them never and block everything they want. Obviously you know this, but you're playing dumb.

You clearly dont understand the concept of right wing and left wing.....You think "democrat=left", "republican=right". They are political philosophies, not just party labels. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are ideologically to the left of many democrats, especially Manchin and Sinema.

Well, then maybe you should stop following politics, stop throwing out dumb partisan lies, and move to Antarctica or something. The world would be better off.

Nah...I believe it can be fixed. If people wake up and start smelling the corruption, things can change. But it can't as long as there are a bunch of partisan cheerleaders for political parties that lack principles, direction and a genuine desire to help the people of this country. This country would be far better of if both the republican and democrat cheerleaders started looking to alternatives to these two institutionally and morally corrupt parties. Parties have bit the dust in this country in the past; it can happen again.

That's how they choose to operate, but you don't actually need the gov't to license you to have freedom of speech, and if you support that (as you do), you don't support freedom of speech.

I'm perfectly ok with them wanting to censor and edit public discourse if that's how they'd like to run their business. However, if they aren't going to operate as a platform, then they shouldn't enjoy the blanket legal protections of one.

They literally don't, though. That's just another partisan lie that you're throwing out.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Um, Twitter isn't an Internet service provider. They're a web site.

Nobody claimed that they were....

Publishers are not legally responsible for everything published on their platform.

If Dave Weigel writes a story saying Britney Spears killed 5 people without any evidence, the Washington Post can be sued for libel if they publish the story.

If J03bl0W69 posts the same thing to twitter, twitter can not be sued due to the protection they enjoy from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The difference is one is a publisher and one is a platform. Dave Weigel is an employee of the Washington Post, J03bl0W69 is a random user of a platform.

People own websites.

And people enjoy the right to say what they want. Websites, however, cant talk. They aren't sentient.

No, the Mueller report.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ongress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/mueller-report-summary.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-to-release-summary-of-mueller-report-1233771

https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...orth-america-ea617240fe264947a967f8d13ed9a9a5

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-mueller-report-russia-release-20190324-story.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-some-questions-left-unresolved-idUSKCN1R504O

https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...s-no-evidence-trump-team-colluded-with-russia

How have you not heard about this yet???? It's impossible to have missed the story or for any one human being to be in this much denial....Are you okay?

LOL! Like I said, literally everything you say is just GOP propaganda, and you have no interest in whether it even sounds plausible.

You're either a clown or you can't read. I hate both major political parties in this country. I sincerely hope that both parties' voters find alternatives, because nothing will ever improve in this country if both the major parties in power are bought off by corporate interests. This country needs to move forward instead voting for the same two parties that are selling out the country and expecting different results.

 

[skysolo]

"This Russia" is (intentionally) vague.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[SBJJ]

Wait....Jack still believes that gas attack was carried out by Assad?

LMFAO!!

 

[Jack V Savage]

You call me a hack, but I haven't defended the actions of a single politician or party in this thread. I've said numerous times that they both suck and I wouldn't advocate or vote for either.

Why do you keep pretending to be confused after I've already explained? Do you think that advances anything? Obviously, you're just blindly repeating Republican talking points with no concern about whether they are true or even whether they make sense. Defend it or stop doing it, but denying it is stupid (just like you try to do when you defend Assad).

Actual journalists and commentators covered it earlier than this, but here is the washington post covering the peepee dosier. If even the MSM is covering it, you know it has been reported on numerous times and at no risk of libel:

Um, look at the dates on those pieces, genius. Whooops!

This was done with the intention of hiding the fact that it was a leak and not a hack, which wouldve been evident by the speed of the file transfer. Guess who hired Crowdstrike.....Yep....its that same attorney, Michael Sussmann who has been indicted for fabricating evidence and lying to the FBI.

It was a hack. There's no question at all about that at this point. You're basically a Flat Earther.

You clearly dont understand the concept of right wing and left wing.....You think "democrat=left", "republican=right". They are political philosophies, not just party labels. Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are ideologically to the left of many democrats, especially Manchin and Sinema.

And now you're comically misrepresenting my thinking. The fact that you're citing two rightist nutballs as being to the left of many (!) Democrats shows that you're either a clueless idiot or liar, doesn't it?

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

And nowhere does it state that the gov't has to give you a license for freedom of speech. Publishers also are not liable for comments unrelated parties make in comments sections. Social media companies are liable for comments their employees make. And this attack on their freedom of speech is all about Twitter putting a fact-check label on something the president said. Rightists (and useful idiots like you) are down to arguing that the First Amendment was designed to protect the gov't from criticism.

If Dave Weigel writes a story saying Britney Spears killed 5 people without any evidence, the Washington Post can be sued for libel if they publish the story.

If J03bl0W69 posts the same thing to twitter, twitter can not be sued due to the protection they enjoy from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Dave Weigel is an employee, dummy. Of course his employer can be sued for publishing his writing. If J03bl0W69 posts that in the comments section of an article, the WaPo can't be sued. Similarly, if Twitter hires J03bl0W69 and publishes his piece, they can be sued. There's no difference. No rule that if the gov't considers you a "platform" you lose your freedom of speech, and your suggestion that there should be one is an attack on freedom of speech.

How have you not heard about this yet???? It's impossible to have missed the story or for any one human being to be in this much denial....Are you okay?

I've actually read the report, not just Barr's spin of it. Maybe if you did the same (or generally looked into things instead of blindly accepting partisan spin), you'd do a little better. Though you still have to be able to read well and to have some integrity so I'm not holding my breath.

You're either a clown or you can't read. I hate both major political parties in this country. I sincerely hope that both parties' voters find alternatives, because nothing will ever improve in this country if both the major parties in power are bought off by corporate interests. This country needs to move forward instead voting for the same two parties that are selling out the country and expecting different results.

First, hating everyone is stupid. Second, maybe stop spreading partisan lies constantly if you don't want to seem like someone who constantly spreads partisan lies.[/QUOTE]

 

[HOLA]

You call me a hack, but I haven't defended the actions of a single politician or party in this thread. I've said numerous times that they both suck and I wouldn't advocate or vote for either.

You started off this thread writing this:

Maybe now people will stop pretending these obvious fabrications were real. Making up lies to the FBI as an excuse for losing an election to a game show host is still lying to the FBI.

That is, you offered a story which is only about a lawyer who handed in a relatively small piece of evidence. The lawyer is being accused of not being forthcoming with who he was representing while he did so, while he maintains what he did has no relation to any client representation. Because of that you're making some throw the baby out with bathwater attempt to discredit anything and everything to do with the Russian interference story, when you know this doesn't do so. That's hackery.

Saying "both sides are the same" or "I'm not even a Trump supporter!" are two very tired clichés all the chuds use in an attempt to portray objectivity with what they're pushing.

 

[giusti825]

You started off this thread writing this:

I stand by the statement. If Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, Russiagate never happens.

That is, you offered a story which is only about a lawyer who handed in a relatively small piece of evidence. The lawyer is being accused of not being forthcoming with who he was representing while he did so, while he maintains what he did has no relation to any client representation. Because of that you're making some throw the baby out with bathwater attempt to discredit anything and everything to do with the Russian interference story, when you know this doesn't do so. That's hackery.

He lied about who he was working for. He lied about the sources of the information he was providing when he knew the truth at the time. He hired Crowdstike to hide the DNC servers from the FBI so they couldn't see that it was a leak and not a hack. Why would he do that if it was in fact a hack? Wouldn't he like to find the culprit? Nah....he'd rather just use a private firm to manufacture more bullshit instead of turning over evidence to legitimate investigators so the truth can be discerned. Why conduct a proper investigation when you can just cry "the Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!"

I find it sad that some people can't get over partisan interests enough to see when fishy shit is going on.

Saying "both sides are the same" or "I'm not even a Trump supporter!" are two very tired clichés all the chuds use in an attempt to portray objectivity with what they're pushing.

I wouldn't say just because I hate both the major parties that that makes me objective. While I want voters of both parties to form and find new parties to vote for that aren't bought off by corporations, I am more interested in leftists actually finding a party they can vote for without having to hold their nose. Leftists are politically homeless right now. Bernie isn't standing up to the Biden administration for reneging on every campaign promise he made that appealed to the left. Hell, even AOC voted "present" the other day to fund the Iron Dome of an apartheid state so that country can get back to ethnic cleansing with relative impunity. Leftists can't function in the Democratic party. When the leadership is corrupt, that corruption spreads even if those suffering from the spread aren't taking any corporate money themselves.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You started off this thread writing this:

That is, you offered a story which is only about a lawyer who handed in a relatively small piece of evidence. The lawyer is being accused of not being forthcoming with who he was representing while he did so, while he maintains what he did has no relation to any client representation. Because of that you're making some throw the baby out with bathwater attempt to discredit anything and everything to do with the Russian interference story, when you know this doesn't do so. That's hackery.

Saying "both sides are the same" or "I'm not even a Trump supporter!" are two very tired clichés all the chuds use in an attempt to portray objectivity with what they're pushing.

I made the point earlier that it's natural for people to apply an "is it at all possible to deny this" standard to stuff they want to believe, and an "is there any basis at all to suspect this could be false" standard to stuff they don't want to believe. People acting in good faith will try to watch and fight that tendency, but these guys take it to a ridiculous extreme. "Russiagate" is first used to apply to anything at all related to Russia, and if one aspect is questionable, boom, they feel justified in ignoring everything. But we know that there are a lot of different claims involved here--some proved true, some plausible but unproved, some proved false, some not disproved but implausible, etc. Someone acting in good faith is going to A) separate it on a case-by-case basis and B) conclude that there is a mix of true and deeply concerning stuff, true and trivial stuff, and false stuff.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I stand by the statement. If Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, Russiagate never happens.

The hacks happened before the election, genius. As did the meeting, and Trump's team lying about the meeting. And more. Trump doesn't obstruct justice with the same effectiveness if he loses the election, too.

I wouldn't say just because I hate both the major parties that that makes me objective.

Bud, you're about the least objective person here. Your beliefs appear to be based entirely on who you think benefits.

 

[giusti825]

I made the point earlier that it's natural for people to apply an "is it at all possible to deny this" standard to stuff they want to believe, and an "is there any basis at all to suspect this could be false" standard to stuff they don't want to believe. People acting in good faith will try to watch and fight that tendency, but these guys take it to a ridiculous extreme. "Russiagate" is first used to apply to anything at all related to Russia, and if one aspect is questionable, boom, they feel justified in ignoring everything. But we know that there are a lot of different claims involved here--some proved true, some plausible but unproved, some proved false, some not disproved but implausible, etc. Someone acting in good faith is going to A) separate it on a case-by-case basis and B) conclude that there is a mix of true and deeply concerning stuff, true and trivial stuff, and false stuff.

Are you kidding? The central claim of the Russiagate conspiracy theory was that the president of the United States was compromised due to the Russians having a peepee tape with a prostitute. Not that its really relevant, but I can't remember if the assertion was that the prostitute was also underage.

The whole fearmongering campaign was about a potential manchurian candidate in the white house. How many times did we hear the phrase "putin's puppet". It was ridiculous and a sad fiasco for American politics.

This was ridiculous on its face. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If this was some tangential claim that turned out to be false, i'd agree with you here. But this was the claim that started it all. To casually gloss over that is overly dismissive.

 

[giusti825]

The hacks happened before the election, genius. As did the meeting, and Trump's team lying about the meeting. And more. Trump doesn't obstruct justice with the same effectiveness if he loses the election, too.

There were no hacks, just leaks. Wikileaks is a place for people to leak documents. Assange has stated many, many times that it was a non state actor, that it was a leak and not a hack. He should know; he was the one who published it.



EDIT 2: First video was not the one where he mentioned it wasn't a state actor. This one is:



EDIT: Haven't watched this interview in a while. What a weasel Chuck Todd is. He states his narrative before even conducting the interview while incorrectly stating that Assange had been charged with rape.

Bud, you're about the least objective person here. Your beliefs appear to be based entirely on who you think benefits.

The irony here cannot be overstated.

 

[HOLA]

I stand by the statement. If Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 election, Russiagate never happens.

Well that's a pretty ridiculous statement to stand by, since It started before the 2016 election even took place. If you can't even get the basic timeline right, what hope is there for you with the other aspects of the story?

The FBI opened their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31st, 2016. The election was months later. Comey wanted to write an op-ed outlining it. Obama shut it down, because it was too close to the election and he didn't like the optics. Other lawmakers were briefed. Some went public. Like Harry Reid. He wrote this in October of 2016:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you kidding? The central claim of the Russiagate conspiracy theory was that the president of the United States was compromised due to the Russians having a peepee tape with a prostitute.

No idea about the conspiracy theory, but the focus of serious people was on the hacking and the potential involvement with the Trump campaign, as well as possible exchanges related to it. That's exactly why propagandists keep trying to divert to the pee tape, which was more of a funny thing that added on.

The whole fearmongering campaign was about a potential manchurian candidate in the white house. How many times did we hear the phrase "putin's puppet". It was ridiculous and a sad fiasco for American politics.

Well, Trump was bizarrely deferential to Putin, which obviously is a concern. As was his longstanding attempt to get a huge bribe from Putin. Agreed that this was a sad fiasco. Also sad that to this day, you have hacks defending it or trying to deflect.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There were no hacks, just leaks. Wikileaks is a place for people to leak documents. Assange has stated many, many times that it was a non state actor, that it was a leak and not a hack. He should know; he was the one who published it.

Well, I guess if it's in the name and Assange said it, case closed.

 

[giusti825]

Well that's a pretty ridiculous statement to stand by, since It started before the 2016 election even took place. If you can't even get the basic timeline right, what hope is there for you with the other aspects of the story?

I know the timeline. The media hysteria and [propaganda dies immediately after the 2016 election if Hillary would have won. From then on, it was revenge and a way to save face in the event she decided to run in 2020, not so much unlike Trump lying about the election results in order to save face in the event he decides to run in 2024. Both parties' cheerleaders are that easily duped. One side would erroneously blame Russia to excuse Hillary's loss in 2016. The other would erroneously claim election fraud to excuse Trump in 2020. Partisan hackery and cheerleading really makes people in both parties that blind and stupid.

The FBI opened their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31st, 2016. The election was months later. Comey wanted to write an op-ed outlining it. Obama shut it down, because it was too close to the election and he didn't like the optics. Other lawmakers were briefed. Some went public. Like Harry Reid. He wrote this in October of 2016:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information.

What a coincidence. It started 4 months before the election; almost like it was designed to sway the result. Why did the FBI open that investigation??? Could it be fabricated opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign??

As far as Reid goes, he likes his corruption nice and stable. He saw Trump as an unstable, unstatesmanlike baffoon who would destroy the Republican party. Of course he would advocate for the story to be passed along.

 

[HOLA]

How many times did we hear the phrase "putin's puppet".

Yeah, famously during the debates, where Hillary accused him, and Trump, without guile, went, "No Puppet! No Puppet! No, you're the puppet! No, you're the puppet!"

As I said, this stuff was going on before the election happened.

 

[HOLA]

What a coincidence. It started 4 months before the election; almost like it was designed to sway the result.

If it was designed to sway the results why would Obama refuse Comey's request to make it public, because Obama was afraid it was too close to the election and was afraid it would appear too political?

Your theories are full of more holes than Swiss cheese.