To Give You a Size of the Immense and Growing Size of Illegal Immigration

[Emily Lake]

The democrats spent 4 years trying to prove that Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate voters,

Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?

Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.” (Manafort was later convicted of tax and bank fraud.)

Do please try to keep up with the news.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

But, according to Durham, the FBI rushed into the probe without having any evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign had had any contact with any Russian intelligence officers. It identifies by name the Russia experts in the FBI and other agencies who were never consulted before the investigation was begun and says that had they been, they would have said there was no information pointing to a conspiracy between Russia and the campaign.

The report contends that the FBI fell prone to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring, minimizing or rationalizing away evidence that undercut the premise of collusion, including a conversation in which Papadopoulos vigorously denied knowing about any cooperative relationship between Russia and the Trump campaign.

It also says investigators did not corroborate a “single substantive allegation” in a dossier of Democratic-funded research that was compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, and yet continued to cite it in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

There's been more recent work done on this, you know.

 

[Emily Lake]

That is not what you are doing when you promote this "both sides" false equivalence, What you are arguing is a serial rapist and someone who doesn't pay parking tickets are exactly the same because they are both breaking the law. Nope. One is clearly worse than the other. Same deal when it comes to election fraud and domestic terrorism. The right do it significantly more than the left. Deal with it.

Not really. The left uses different terminology for the right than it does for itself. Like, you know... "russian collusion" and "antifa".

The entire objective of "russian collusion" was to undermine and delegitimize Trump's presidency. The intention was to make people believe that he wasn't the actual real president, and had only got the position by cheating. That's the exact same intention that the right had with claiming fraud.

When a right wing group sets something on fire, it's "domestic terrorism". When a left wing group sets something on fire it's "protesting". When a right-leaning nutjob shoots up a school, it's "domestic terrorism". When a left-leaning nutjob shoots up a school, it's "poor mistreated victim of right-wingery who was so upset that they acted out".

Just because the left and the right use different tactics and different language doesn't make the actions or the intentions fundamentally different. A pox on both your houses.

You don't have to agree with me. But freedom of belief and freedom of expression are still things in the US, so I'd appreciate not being hounded for thinking that both parties suck a whole, whole lot.

 

[ZiprHead]

The democrats spent 4 years trying to prove that Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate voters,

Senate Russia report proves Trump collusion was very real. But do voters care?

Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.” (Manafort was later convicted of tax and bank fraud.)

Do please try to keep up with the news.

Durham report takeaways: A 'seriously flawed' Russia investigation and its lasting impact on the FBI

A 306-page report by Justice Department special counsel John Durham is refocusing negative attention on one of the most politically significant investigations in FBI history: the probe into whether Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was colluding with Russia to tip the outcome of the...

apnews.com

But, according to Durham, the FBI rushed into the probe without having any evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign had had any contact with any Russian intelligence officers. It identifies by name the Russia experts in the FBI and other agencies who were never consulted before the investigation was begun and says that had they been, they would have said there was no information pointing to a conspiracy between Russia and the campaign.

The report contends that the FBI fell prone to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring, minimizing or rationalizing away evidence that undercut the premise of collusion, including a conversation in which Papadopoulos vigorously denied knowing about any cooperative relationship between Russia and the Trump campaign.

It also says investigators did not corroborate a “single substantive allegation” in a dossier of Democratic-funded research that was compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, and yet continued to cite it in applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

There's been more recent work done on this, you know.

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled (Published 2023)

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Shadowy Man]

Saying that the Russians may have influenced voters with misinformation is not the same as saying that actual cheating was done via fake ballots and rigged vote counting machines?

What actual claims of cheating were made with respect to the Trump/Russia collusion allegations?

 

[barbos]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same. Just because republican scam is a scam does not mean they colluded with Russia.
Democrats are scam too.

 

[ZiprHead]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same. Just because republican scam is a scam does not mean they colluded with Russia.
Democrats are scam too.

As is typical from you, you spout bullshit.

 

[Shadowy Man]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same.

please point to the reference in the report. should be easy since you are so familiar with it.

 

[barbos]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same.

please point to the reference in the report. should be easy since you are so familiar with it.

Everywhere in the report.

 

[barbos]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same. Just because republican scam is a scam does not mean they colluded with Russia.
Democrats are scam too.

As is typical from you, you spout bullshit.

It's not me, it's you.

 

[Shadowy Man]

OMG! You're actually taking the Durham report seriously? He was handpicked to write this report by none other than Attorney General Barr to whitewash the investigation.

Mueller report said the same.

please point to the reference in the report. should be easy since you are so familiar with it.

Everywhere in the report.

give me one example you can quote. Since it is everywhere this should be easy.

 

[barbos]

give me one example you can quote. Since it is everywhere this should be easy.

It's not really about what report says but rather about what it DOES NOT SAY.
Report was underwhelming for Russia haters like yourself to say the least.

 

[Shadowy Man]

give me one example you can quote. Since it is everywhere this should be easy.

It's not really about what report says but rather about what it DOES NOT SAY.

You just said it says it all over, so you should be able to quote it.

Do you want to take back what you said earlier?

I’m giving you a chance to be taken seriously but you’re making it difficult.

 

[barbos]

You just said it says it all over, so you should be able to quote it.

You want me to quote the whole report?

Do you want to take back what you said earlier?

No

I’m giving you a chance to be taken seriously but you’re making it difficult.

LOL, he is giving me chance.

Why are we talking about RussiaGate here?

 

[Shadowy Man]

You just said it says it all over, so you should be able to quote it.

You want me to quote the whole report?

No. Just one example.

Do you want to take back what you said earlier?

No

I’m giving you a chance to be taken seriously but you’re making it difficult.

LOL, he is giving me chance.

Well, you are coming across as someone who hasn’t read the Mueller report but has a very strong opinion about what it says.

Like a kid giving a book report on a book he forgot to read for class.

Should be easy to prove me wrong if you have actually read it.

 

[barbos]

Well, you are coming across as someone who hasn’t read the Mueller report but has a very strong opinion about what it says.

Sure, it must be saying that Trump used secret channel between his server and Alfa Bank to receive instruction from Putin
Care to point where? It should be easy, cause you read it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, you are coming across as someone who hasn’t read the Mueller report but has a very strong opinion about what it says.

Sure, it must be saying that Trump used secret channel between his server and Alfa Bank to receive instruction from Putin
Care to point where? It should be easy, cause you read it.

I didn’t say I read it. I’m trying to learn from you what it says but you don’t seem to know.

 

[barbos]

I didn’t say I read it. I’m trying to learn from you what it says but you don’t seem to know.

You just said that I look like someone who had not read it. How can you say that without reading it?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I didn’t say I read it. I’m trying to learn from you what it says but you don’t seem to know.

You just said that I look like someone who had not read it. How can you say that without reading it?

I don’t need to have read it to know that you haven’t either.

If you’ve read it you can quote from it. You haven’t done so despite asking multiple times for a single quote from it that supports your previous assertion about it.

Since I haven’t read it you could just make up some bullshit quote and I wouldn’t have known (though I would then look it up). But you couldn’t even be bothered to do that.

That’s why looks like you haven’t read it.

I think my point is well proven; no sense in beating a dead horse.

Good night.

 

[barbos]

I don’t need to have read it to know that you haven’t either.

You are implying that Mueller report confirmed at least something that Clinton and her gang of deplorables (c) insunated.
So what is it?

If you’ve read it you can quote from it.

I just did. I mentioned how Mueller found nothing with respect to Alfa Bank BS your side was yapping about.
For me it's more than enough to convict your side.

That’s why looks like you haven’t read it.

I actually skimmed over it and then read what deplorables (clintonites) thought about it. They were disappointed.
That's all you need to know.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is not what you are doing when you promote this "both sides" false equivalence, What you are arguing is a serial rapist and someone who doesn't pay parking tickets are exactly the same because they are both breaking the law. Nope. One is clearly worse than the other. Same deal when it comes to election fraud and domestic terrorism. The right do it significantly more than the left. Deal with it.

Not really. The left uses different terminology for the right than it does for itself. Like, you know... "russian collusion" and "antifa".

The entire objective of "russian collusion" was to undermine and delegitimize Trump's presidency. The intention was to make people believe that he wasn't the actual real president, and had only got the position by cheating. That's the exact same intention that the right had with claiming fraud.

No. We were (and are) saying that Russia is helping him win. There appears to be improper communication between his organization and Moscow.

Much more serious is the binder of intel information that disappeared from the White House. Of great interest to Moscow and something that should never have even been in the White House in the first place. If what actually happened is what it looks like that's Leavenworth.

When a right wing group sets something on fire, it's "domestic terrorism". When a left wing group sets something on fire it's "protesting". When a right-leaning nutjob shoots up a school, it's "domestic terrorism". When a left-leaning nutjob shoots up a school, it's "poor mistreated victim of right-wingery who was so upset that they acted out".

Terrorism is a crime of intent, not any specific action.

You don't have to agree with me. But freedom of belief and freedom of expression are still things in the US, so I'd appreciate not being hounded for thinking that both parties suck a whole, whole lot.

The problem is that you have bought into a lot of the right wing lies.