Senate committee unanimously agrees there was massive Russian interference in the 2016 election

[Trausti]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, could you review those transcripts and let us know of all the direct evidence of Russia collusion you find?

No need, unless you have shit for brains.

When people say there is no evidence of collusion, they mean, we suppose, that there is no evidence of covert or illegal collaboration with the criminal activity undertaken in the course of this foreign intelligence operation against the United States.

But that is rather a different matter than acquitting Trump and his campaign of collaborating with the Russians. It ignores, after all, the overt and perfectly legal collaboration they plainly engaged in with what they knew to be an ongoing foreign intelligence operation against their country. We don’t need an investigation to show that this overt activity took place, for the Trumpists were caught in flagrante delicto throughout the entire campaign; indeed, caught is even the wrong word here. The cooperation was an open and public feature of the campaign.

It included open encouragement of the Russians to hack Democratic targets; denial that they had done so; encouragement of Wikileaks, which was publicly known to be effectively a publishing arm of the Russian operation, in publishing the fruits of the hacks; and publicly trumpeting the contents of stolen emails.

Most notoriously, on July 27, Trump stated during a news conference: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” He later doubled down on the statement...

In other words, after the Russian government had already been publicly associated with the hack, Trump urged it to conduct further hacking. One of the present authors wrote as much at the time, arguing that Trump had just “call[ed] on a foreign intelligence service to engage in operations against the United States.”

On at least one occasion, Trump also publicly celebrated a pending Wikileaks release of further hacked information, that is, the release of stolen material by an organization whose connections to Russian intelligence were hardly a secret. Giving a speech in Miami on November 2, he declared: “So today, I guess WikiLeaks, it sounds like, is going to be dropping some more, and if we met tomorrow, I'll tell you about it tomorrow, but one beauty that's been caught was, and this was just recently, newly released, where they say having a dump. We're having a dump of all of those e-mails. . . ."

He also declared multiple times that he “love[d] Wikileaks” or “love[d] reading those Wikileaks”—that is, knowing that a foreign intelligence operation had taken place against his opponent and the Wikileaks was publishing the fruits, he publicly celebrated the publisher. Three days before the election, he riffed at a campaign rally: “You know, as I was getting off the plane, they were just announcing new Wikileaks! And I wanted to stay there but I didn’t want to keep you waiting. I didn’t want to keep you waiting. Let me run back onto the plane and find out!”

Included below in the Appendix to this article is a rough and incomplete timeline of both Trump’s statements obscuring Russia’s intervention and his appeals to Wikileaks material—that is, material stolen by the Russians and published by an organization publicly identified as fronting for them—throughout the campaign.

All of which is what Clint Watts was talking about last week when he told the Senate Intelligence Committee that: “part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander-in-chief has used Russian active measures, at times, against his opponents.”

Said Watts:

On 14 August, 2016, his campaign chairman [Paul Manafort] ... cited the fake Incirlik story as a terrorist attack on CNN, and he used it as a talking point. On 11 October, President Trump stood on a stage and cited what appears to be a fake news story from Sputnik News that disappeared from the Internet. He denies the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged, that was the number one theme pushed by RT, Sputnik News, white outlets, all the way up until the election. He’s made claims of voter fraud, that President Obama’s not a citizen, that, you know, Congressman Cruz is not a citizen. So, part of the reason active measures works--and it does today in terms of Trump Tower being wiretapped--is because they parrot the same lines. So, Putin is correct, he can say that he’s not influencing anything because he’s just putting out his stance. But until we get a firm basis on fact and fiction in our own country, get some agreement about the facts, whether it be do I support the intelligence community or a story I read on my Twitter feed, we’re going to have a big problem. I can tell you right now today, grey outlets, that are Soviet pushing accounts, tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know he’s online, and they push conspiracy theories. So if he is to click on one of those or cite one of those, it just proves Putin correct, that we can use this as a lever against the Americans.​

But by all means, keep pretending that deliberate and extensive obstruction of justice on Trump's part is what an innocent man in a "hoax" would do.

 

[Trausti]

Koy, could you review those transcripts and let us know of all the direct evidence of Russia collusion you find?

No need, unless you have shit for brains.

Are you aware that opinion piece was written long before release of these sworn transcripts? You afraid to look at the transcripts, Koy?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

You need to be standing in front of a Confederate flag flying in the wind with swelling music behind you so that the inbred morons you're appealing to can get the full effect.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Koy, could you review those transcripts and let us know of all the direct evidence of Russia collusion you find?

No need, unless you have shit for brains.

Are you aware that opinion piece was written long before release of these sworn transcripts?

Are you aware that doesn't matter?

You afraid to look at the transcripts, Koy?

Have you stopped beating your wife, Trausti?*







*well known example of a the fallacy of the loaded question for the brain dead

 

[Trausti]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

You need to be standing in front of a Confederate flag flying in the wind with swelling music behind you so that the inbred morons you're appealing to can get the full effect.

Ah, poor Koy. You fell for all it. So scared to learn you’ve be taken for a sucker.

 

[TSwizzle]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

It actually became a bit of a cottage industry for "insiders" hawking their fantasy books on tv shows. Catnip for the MSM, conspiracy theorists and TDS sufferers.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

You need to be standing in front of a Confederate flag flying in the wind with swelling music behind you so that the inbred morons you're appealing to can get the full effect.

Ah, poor Koy. You fell for all it. So scared to learn you’ve be taken for a sucker.

Just keep up with the ad hominems and desperate reliance on the usual fallacies, Trausti. We all know you can't ever attack the actual arguments.

 

[Trausti]

Ah, poor Koy. You fell for all it. So scared to learn you’ve be taken for a sucker.

Just keep up with the ad hominems and desperate reliance on the usual fallacies, Trausti. We all know you can't ever attack the actual arguments.

What "actual" argument? That the Obama administration - the AG, CIA, FBI, etc. - knew there was no evidence of Russia collusion? Can you try to address that Koy?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And this is what Clapper actually said:

"There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

As every fifith grader knows by now--and the reason I reposted that previous article detailing the fact that "collusion" is not a legal term--everyone has concluded that there IS evidence of collusion, just no smoking gun of the type necessary in a court of law, which is a very different standard of proof. Again, short of an actual conversation between Putin and Trump, or between Trump psychophants and Russian operatives (which we know existed, we've just been denied their testimony by Trump), it's difficult to prove.

Hence Mueller and Clapper saying the exact same thing; there is evidence, but it does not pass a particular legal threshold.

He could not be exonerated by Mueller and he can't be exonerated by Clapper. Even Senate Republicans agreed that he committed the crimes, just that the crimes did not merit removal from office in their biased and preformed (publicly) opinions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

Hoax? Well, we know that Russia was involved in trying to influence the election. We know that Mueller was able to identify who they were, by name. We know that Wikileaks dumped documentation at times immediately in the favor of Trump such as during Pussygate.

We know that Mueller was unable to tie these people directly with the Trump Campaign.

So this whole "hoax" thing is a load of bullshit. We know Russia was involved. We know that members of the Trump Campaign were popping up in foreign intelligence gathering accidentally because the Russians being monitored were in contact with Trump campaign officials. We know that Jared Kuschner wanted to create a secret communication tunnel to the Russians. We know that the very top of the Trump Campaign had a secret meeting with Russians who said they had intel on Clinton. And we know that the Trump refused to testify, be questioned in person, and refused to answer most questions even on paper. At the very best, it is shady as all heck.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What "actual" argument?

That there is abundant evidence of collusion--as I have provided and Mueller and Clapper affirmed--just not any found that could pass the higher legal bar necessary for removal of office according to Republican senators, due exclusively to Trump's proven obstruction of investigations.

Just keep hiding under "hoax" and you'll get paid. Don't worry.

 

[Trausti]

A disquieting thing is that some of these people went on the MSM shows and played up the Russia collusion hoax - having earlier testified under oath that there was no evidence of it. We can see on this very forum how effective their lies were.

Hoax? Well, we know that Russia was involved in trying to influence the election. We know that Mueller was able to identify who they were, by name. We know that Wikileaks dumped documentation at times immediately in the favor of Trump such as during Pussygate.

We know that Mueller was unable to tie these people directly with the Trump Campaign.

So this whole "hoax" thing is a load of bullshit. We know Russia was involved. We know that members of the Trump Campaign were popping up in foreign intelligence gathering accidentally because the Russians being monitored were in contact with Trump campaign officials. We know that Jared Kuschner wanted to create a secret communication tunnel to the Russians. We know that the very top of the Trump Campaign had a secret meeting with Russians who said they had intel on Clinton. And we know that the Trump refused to testify, be questioned in person, and refused to answer more questions even on paper. At the very best, it is shady as all heck.

No, it was a hoax. There was no evidence of collusion. None. Nada. The Obama administration knew that. That was known before Trump was inaugurated. That was known before Mueller was appointed special counsel. Mueller found no evidence of collusion. Yet, Democrats and the MSM kept pushing Russi, Russia, Russia.

 

[Trausti]

What "actual" argument?

That there is abundant evidence of collusion--as I have provided and Mueller and Clapper affirmed--just not any found that could pass the higher legal bar necessary for removal of office according to Republican senators, due exclusively to Trump's proven obstruction of investigations.

Just keep hiding under "hoax" and you'll get paid. Don't worry.

How was Trump "obstructing" when Obama was president? When they were getting the illegal FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign? Do tell, Koy.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What "actual" argument?

That there is abundant evidence of collusion--as I have provided and Mueller and Clapper affirmed--just not any found that could pass the higher legal bar necessary for removal of office according to Republican senators, due exclusively to Trump's proven obstruction of investigations.

Just keep hiding under "hoax" and you'll get paid. Don't worry.

How was Trump "obstructing" when Obama was president?

Wow! Going all the way back to confirm that Flynn lied and Barr has just destroyed the DoJ for a traitorous reality TV personality who gave the white power sign and so all is forgiven.

Thanks!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There was no evidence of collusion.

Always wrong no matter how many times you pretend it's the case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's "hilarious" is how desperately fucktards try to obfuscate the fact that a "smoking gun" in the case of proving collusion in regard to Trumnp would necessarily entail written or orally recorded conversations between Putin and Trump directly. Short of that, written or orally recorded conversations between Trump's campaign and Russians, which we know exist but Trump has refused to allow released or those subpoenaed to testify.

The entire reason Mueller could NOT exonerate Trump is because of his deliberate obstruction. This fact won't ever go away.

We have more than enough existing empirical evidence of collusion, but that is not a legal term as the usual fucktards all know. Just keep dancing and repeating the word "hoax" all day long. That's such a good use of your time and something to be so very proud of on your death beds! You insignificantly contributed to the most corrupt administration in US history! All out of bigotry!! YAAAAYYYYY!!

Now we have learned why the Democrats are blue and the Republicans red.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ah, poor Koy. You fell for all it. So scared to learn you’ve be taken for a sucker.

Just keep up with the ad hominems and desperate reliance on the usual fallacies, Trausti. We all know you can't ever attack the actual arguments.

What "actual" argument? That the Obama administration - the AG, CIA, FBI, etc. - knew there was no evidence of Russia collusion? Can you try to address that Koy?

The problem is that you won't accept anything less than a smoking gun. In the real world you don't have many smoking guns.

 

[Trausti]

What "actual" argument? That the Obama administration - the AG, CIA, FBI, etc. - knew there was no evidence of Russia collusion? Can you try to address that Koy?

The problem is that you won't accept anything less than a smoking gun. In the real world you don't have many smoking guns.

But, surely, you need more than hyper-partisan, pull-it-from-your-ass, speculation?

 

[Trausti]

Shawn Henry. President of Crowdstrike on investigation of the "hack" of the DNC servers.

So. No proof that Russian hackers pulled the emails from the DNC servers. Wow. Julian Assange has been saying this for years.