What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (11 Viewers)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
I actually read these things. The complaint in one section is that Schiff described Nunes as having made a 'midnight run' due to a Daily Beast report that stated, 

Mollie Hemingway's complaint is that this was a "lie" because this wasn't done at night - oh no - there was a press conference "while the sun was out."
Click to expand...
I did one of these sources just for fun in this very thread...similar result.  Funny how that works.

 
Mario Kart said:
So, the American intelligence arm is flat out wrong. Just flat out wrong about anything and everything that was found and reported on in The Mueller Investigation? Just flat out lies, lies, and more lies?

Where are you getting your conclusions from? I ask because to follow the above sentence, to adhere to the first sentence, to claim our intelligence agencies are flat out wrong, is conspiratorial in nature and, most of all, so many people would have to be a part of the conspiracy that it makes zero sense. Zero.
Click to expand...
At best, it's their word versus Wikileaks.  They never released the technical evidence that would prove Russian culpability for the email "hacks".  Never proved that the WL publications were from the Russian govt and not another source.  They will never have to prove their allegations of Russian hacking in court.  Never explained their steadfast refusal to interview anyone from Wikileaks (yet found the time to interview circus clowns such as Jerome Corsi).  

Their timeline doesn't even make any sense- Assange announced possession of Clinton-related emails on June 12th, before even communicating or transacting with Guccifer2/DCLeaks?

Mueller's refusal to elaborate on any of the things in his report that correspond to this narrative- Mueller "deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" by NBC's count- only raises doubts about their assertions.  

Yes, they are making it up.  It's security state garbage on a WMD/Iraq scale.  

 
ren hoek said:
At best, it's their word versus Wikileaks.  They never released the technical evidence that would prove Russian culpability for the email "hacks".  Never proved that the WL publications were from the Russian govt and not another source.  They will never have to prove their allegations of Russian hacking in court.  Never explained their steadfast refusal to interview anyone from Wikileaks (yet found the time to interview circus clowns such as Jerome Corsi).  

Their timeline doesn't even make any sense- Assange announced possession of Clinton-related emails on June 12th, before even communicating or transacting with Guccifer2/DCLeaks?

Mueller's refusal to elaborate on any of the things in his report that correspond to this narrative- Mueller "deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" by NBC's count- only raises doubts about their assertions.  

Yes, they are making it up.  It's security state garbage on a WMD/Iraq scale.  
Click to expand...
And, where are you getting your information to deduce the implications from the report to be wrong? I'm not asking for a book of your own however you're making claims with zero sourcing. To believe your assertions, no offense, is getting close to lunacy.

 
ren hoek said:
Their timeline doesn't even make any sense- Assange announced possession of Clinton-related emails on June 12th, before even communicating or transacting with Guccifer2/DCLeaks?
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, you do concede the Feds have the transfer of data you're relying on, right? What is the reasoning about the receipt of that data, WL/Assange just sat on it then and did nothing with it? Sent it back, asked for a refund because they already got one?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
At best, it's their word versus Wikileaks.  They never released the technical evidence that would prove Russian culpability for the email "hacks".  Never proved that the WL publications were from the Russian govt and not another source.  They will never have to prove their allegations of Russian hacking in court.  Never explained their steadfast refusal to interview anyone from Wikileaks (yet found the time to interview circus clowns such as Jerome Corsi).  

Their timeline doesn't even make any sense- Assange announced possession of Clinton-related emails on June 12th, before even communicating or transacting with Guccifer2/DCLeaks?

Mueller's refusal to elaborate on any of the things in his report that correspond to this narrative- Mueller "deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" by NBC's count- only raises doubts about their assertions.  

Yes, they are making it up.  It's security state garbage on a WMD/Iraq scale.  
Click to expand...
Their word is far more credible  than wikileaks

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart said:
And, where are you getting your information to deduce the implications from the report to be wrong? I'm not asking for a book of your own however you're making claims with zero sourcing. To believe your assertions, no offense, is getting close to lunacy.
Click to expand...
Mueller's uncertainty over the theft and transfer of Democratic Party emails isn't the only gap in his case. Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.

This is an excellent rundown of all the report's problems: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html

 
ren hoek said:
Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
Click to expand...
I just asked you a very specific question about this.

 
According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.
Click to expand...
Malloch stated to investigators that beginning in or about August 2016, he and Corsi had multiple Face Time discussions about WikiLeaks ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ had made a connection to Assange and that the hacked emails of John Podesta would be released prior to Election Day and would be helpful to the Trump Campaign. In one conversation in or around August or September 2016, Corsi told Malloch that the release of the Podesta emails was coming, after which “we” were going to be in the driver’s seat.
Click to expand...
This isn't strictly campaign<->state coordination, but it's more like campaign<->'associates of campaign'<->Wikileaks<->Russia coordination.

- That's redacted as "Ongoing Matter" btw.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Out of curiosity, you do concede the Feds have the transfer of data you're relying ion, right? What is the reasoning about the receipt of that data, WL/Assange just sat on it then and did nothing with it? Sent it back, asked for a refund because they already had a grail?
Click to expand...
I only concede that they went with whatever Crowdstrike told them.  

  • June 12: Assange tells Britain’s ITV that another round of Democratic Party disclosures is on the way: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great. WikiLeaks is having a very big year.”

    June 14: The Democratic National Committee accuses Russia of hacking its computers.

    June 15: Guccifer 2.0 claims credit for the hack. “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks ,” he brags.  “They will publish them soon.”

    June 22: WikiLeaks tells Guccifer via email: “Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing.”

    July 6: WikiLeaks sends Guccifer another email: “if you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.”Replies Guccifer: “ok . . . i ”

    July 14: Guccifer sends WikiLeaks an encrypted file titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”

    July 18: WikiLeaks confirms it has opened “the 1Gb or so archive” and will release documents “this week.”

    July 22: WikiLeaks releases more than 20,000 DNC emails and 8,000 other attachments.
Why would Guccifer brag about giving WikiLeaks “thousands of files” that he wouldn’t send for another month?  

The narrative doesn’t make sense – a fact that is crucially important now that Assange is fighting for his freedom in the U.K.  New Yorker staff writer Raffi Khatchadourian sounded a rare note of caution last summer when he warned that little about Guccifer 2.0 adds up.  While claiming to be the source for some of WikiLeaks’ most explosive emails, the material he released on his own had proved mostly worthless – 20 documents that he “said were from the DNC but which were almost surely not,” as Khatchadourian puts it, a purported Hillary Clinton dossier that “was nothing of the sort,” screenshots of emails so blurry as to be “unreadable,” and so forth.

While insisting that “our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party, Assange told Khatchadourian that the source was not Guccifer either.  “We received quite a lot of submissions of material that was already published in the rest of the press, and people seemingly submitted the Guccifer archives,” he said somewhat cryptically. “We didn’t publish them.  They were already published.”  When Khatchadourian asked why he didn’t put the material out regardless, he replied that “the material from Guccifer 2.0 – or on WordPress – we didn’t have the resources to independently verify.”

I don't think the leaks were actually derived from the hacks outlined in the GRU indictment or Crowdstrike report.  

 
ren hoek said:
July 14: Guccifer sends WikiLeaks an encrypted file titled “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”
Click to expand...
ren hoek said:
I don't think the leaks were actually derived from the hacks outlined in the GRU indictment or Crowdstrike report.  
Click to expand...
If you get the July 14th date, from the Mueller report, from the indictments, from Crowdstrike, wherever (it is in the Mueller report), then if your point is they received the data after the June 12th Assange statement, my question is very simple - if WL already had the data from elsewhere what did they do with the GRU/Guccifer data? There's no reason for them to ask for it or receive it or hold it if their data source was elsewhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bananafish said:
Given Trump's hiring checklist has one single criteria: "Loyalty to me", this is the most terrifying development in an administration full of them. 

Having an organization whose singular mandate is to search for the clear, unvarnished truth and "tell it like it is" so decisions can be based on the best information available is vitally important for our country. When the facts on the ground already conflict with the President's message on almost every issue, my guess is that with Coats out of the way that mandate is about to change.

There must be protocols in place to protect the lives of our overseas assets, but it's already been proven that everything that Trump touches, dies. I pray for the poor souls who put their lives on the line to serve America who now must consider the very real prospect of being betrayed by that very same country. What a disaster.

I'm no history buff, but the threat this administration poses to our country is greater than anything I remember learning in class. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Per CNN Ratcliffe will be the nominee to replace him.

I agree with everything you have there, yep it's a dangerous moment for the country.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
if your point is they received the data after the June 12th Assamge statement
Click to expand...
It isn't- I think they already had the data, otherwise they wouldn't have announced it.  Why would he announce documents that he didn't yet have possession of, from a source he hadn't communicated with yet?

SaintsInDome2006 said:
if WL already had the data from elsewhere what did they do with the GRU/Guccifer data? There's no reason for them to ask for it or receive it or hold it if their data source was elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't know what they did with it. They said they didn't publish because they couldn't independently verify it. 

Even if they received documents from a different source, there was no reason for them to turn down potentially new material.  

 
ren hoek said:
I don't know what they did with it. They said they didn't publish because they couldn't independently verify it. 

Even if they received documents from a different source, there was no reason for them to turn down potentially new material.  
Click to expand...
Thanks that was my point.

If they had an original copy then they would have had verification.

And potentially new material would have meant it had been leaked *and hacked? Ok.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
CNN reporting DNI Dan Coats will be stepping down in the coming days, which is potentially a near disaster national security wise given whom Trump might replace him with.
Click to expand...
John Ratcliffe.  

 
bananafish said:
If you are as concerned about the manipulation of intelligence to manufacture support for nefarious political and foreign policy objectives, the unauthorized surveillance of American citizens without their knowledge or consent, and the weaponization of our intelligence services agaisnt the perceived political adversaries of those in power as you claim to be then your head must be exploding right now. I assume you've already contacted your representatives. 

All your worst nightmares are about to come true.
Click to expand...
We already had those things.  Looks like another DNI that’s going to stoke fear about Russians lurking under the mattress like Coats did.  Right up your alley.  

 
On March 22, 2017, the President asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA Director Michael Pompeo to stay behind in the Oval Office after a Presidential Daily Briefing.334According to Coats, the President asked them whether they could say publicly that no link existed between him and Russia.335 Coats responded that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has nothing to do with investigations and it was not his role to make a public statement on the Russia investigation.336 Pompeo had no recollection of being asked to stay behind after the March 22 briefing, but he recalled that the President regularly urged officials to get the word out that he had not done anything wrong related to Russia.337

Coats told this Office that the President never asked him to speak to Comey about the FBI investigation.338 Some ODNI staffers, however, had a different recollection of how Coats described the meeting immediately after it occurred. According to senior ODNI official Michael Dempsey, Coats said after the meeting that the President had brought up the Russia investigation and asked him to contact Comey to see if there was a way to get past the investigation, get it over with, end it, or words to that effect.339 Dempsey said that Coats described the President’s comments as falling “somewhere between musing about hating the investigation” and wanting Coats to “do something to stop it.”340 Dempsey said Coats made it clear that he would not get involved with an ongoing FBI investigation.341 Edward Gistaro, another ODNI official, recalled that right after Coats’s meeting with the President, on the walk from the Oval Office back to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Coats said that the President had kept him behind to ask him what he could do to “help with the investigation.”342 Another ODNI staffer who had been waiting for Coats outside the Oval Office talked to Gistaro a few minutes later and recalled Gistaro reporting that Coats was upset because the President had asked him to contact Comey to convince him there was nothing to the Russia investigation.343

On Saturday, March 25, 2017, three days after the meeting in the Oval Office, the President called Coats and again complained about the Russia investigations, saying words to the effect of, “I can’t do anything with Russia, there’s things I’d like to do with Russia, with trade, with ISIS, they’re all over me with this.”344 Coats told the President that the investigations were going to go on and the best thing to do was to let them run their course.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucky86 said:
Andrew Desiderio‏Verified account @desiderioDC

FollowFollow @desiderioDC

More

BIG >> Oversight Dems also obtained docs showing KT McFarland & Steve Bannon were talking with Tom Barrack about transferring “sensitive U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.” Barrack pitched the plan to Bannon through Bannon’s personal email account.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/elijah-cummings-jared-kushner-encrypted-app-1230978
Click to expand...
Tom Barrack features throughout this thread and here he is again.

Federal Inquiry of Trump Friend Focused on Foreign Lobbying

WASHINGTON — As Donald J. Trump was preparing to deliver an address on energy policy in May 2016, Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman, had a question about the speech’s contents for Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a top campaign fund-raiser and close friend of Mr. Trump.

“Are you running this by our friends?” Mr. Manafort asked in a previously undisclosed email to Mr. Barrack, whose real estate and investment firm does extensive business in the Middle East.

Mr. Barrack was, in fact, coordinating the language in a draft of the speech with Persian Gulf contacts including Rashid al-Malik, an Emirati businessman who is close to the rulers of the United Arab Emirates.

The exchanges about Mr. Trump’s energy speech are among a series of interactions that have come under scrutiny by federal prosecutors looking at foreign influence over his campaign, his transition and the early stages of his administration, according to documents and interviews with people familiar with the case.

Investigators have looked in particular at whether Mr. Barrack or others violated the law requiring people who try to influence American policy or opinion at the direction of foreign governments or entities to disclose their activities to the Justice Department, people familiar with the case said.

The inquiry had proceeded far enough last month that Mr. Barrack, who played an influential role in the campaign and acts as an outside adviser to the White House, was interviewed, at his request, by prosecutors in the public integrity unit of the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn.

The special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has ended and federal prosecutors in Manhattan have signaled that it is unlikely they would file additional charges in a separate hush money investigation that ensnared members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle.

But as the scrutiny of Mr. Barrack indicates, prosecutors continue to pursue questions about foreign influence. Among other lines of inquiry, they have sought to determine whether Mr. Barrack and others tried to sway the Trump campaign or the new administration on behalf of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two closely aligned countries with huge stakes in United States policy.

Between Mr. Trump’s nomination and the end of June, Colony Capital, Mr. Barrack’s real estate investment and private equity firm, received about $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates through investments or other transactions like asset sales, Mr. Barrack’s aides said. That included $474 million in investment from Saudi and Emirati sovereign wealth funds, out of $7 billion that Colony raised in investment worldwide.

An executive familiar with the transactions had provided The New York Times with somewhat different figures last year.

Investigators have also questioned witnesses about Mr. Barrack’s involvement with a proposal from an American group that could give Saudi Arabia access to nuclear power technology. And they have asked about another economic development plan for the Arab world, written by Mr. Barrack and circulated among Mr. Trump’s advisers. ...

Although he was not always successful, Mr. Barrack had substantial sway within the campaign when it was overseen by Mr. Manafort, a longtime friend, and Mr. Manafort’s deputy, Mr. Gates.

Mr. Barrack recommended that Mr. Trump hire Mr. Manafort, who rose to campaign chairman before he was fired over a separate foreign lobbying scandal. Mr. Manafort, who was awash in debt and had no income, had hoped that after the campaign Mr. Barrack would use his deep ties to the oil-rich nations to drum up business for them both, according to people familiar with the situation.

In one email to the U.A.E.’s ambassador in Washington, Mr. Barrack promoted Mr. Manafort as someone who was “totally programmed” on the alliance between the Saudis and Emiratis.

Mr. Manafort, in turn, was willing to describe Mr. Barrack to foreign officials as someone who could speak for the campaign on all subjects. ...
Click to expand...

 
Bucky86 said:
This is weird.

https://twitter.com/kombiz/status/1155818467125338113?s=21
Click to expand...
Then in July, Mr. Barrack informed Mr. Otaiba that the Trump team had removed language from the proposed Republican platform that would have called for the disclosure of redacted pages related to Saudi Arabia in a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

“Really confidential but important,” he wrote, enclosing campaign emails on the subject. “Please do not distribute.”
Click to expand...
Sounds similar to the Ukrainian arms platform situation, basically the campaign was open for business, even if that meant hiding details on the 9/11/01 attacks for Saudi Arabia's benefit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
And?  We already know the dossier was not the basis for the investigation (despite the false ramblings of Trump and his people)
Click to expand...
No we don't.  They said it was a random tip from Downer, but this came long after the FBI already had receipt of memos from Steele.  I'm not saying it is the root of the investigation, I'm only saying that it's plausible.  The FBI received memos from Christopher Steele before opening CH on 7/31- that's just plain fact.  

There was nothing there with George P and Carter Page.  There was no reason, other than the Steele memos, for them to connect any of these nonevents to a grand conspiracy with the Kremlin, or anyone else with the Trump campaign for that matter.  None of this should have gone even remotely as far as it did.  

 
ren hoek said:
No we don't.  They said it was a random tip from Downer, but this came long after the FBI already had receipt of memos from Steele.  I'm not saying it is the root of the investigation, I'm only saying that it's plausible.  The FBI received memos from Christopher Steele before opening CH on 7/31- that's just plain fact.  

There was nothing there with George P and Carter Page.  There was no reason, other than the Steele memos, for them to connect any of these nonevents to a grand conspiracy with the Kremlin, or anyone else with the Trump campaign for that matter.  None of this should have gone even remotely as far as it did.  
Click to expand...
By we, I mean people who accept facts presented.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Republicans haven't rebutted any of the central crimes and claims recounted in the Mueller report:

  • Russians interfered with the election to help Trump.
  • The Trump campaign was aware of it.
  • They didn't report those efforts to law enforcement.
  • They accepted that help and used it in their strategic planning.
  • When questioned about it, they lied about it under oath.
They had a full day of hearings just this week and didn't bother to deny any of that.

Unless I missed something, the entirety of their response was, "HEY, LOOK -- A SQUIRREL!"
Click to expand...
I don’t know, I distinctly remember reading on this board there cannot be obstruction because there's no underlying crime. 

 
ren hoek said:
At best, it's their word versus Wikileaks.  They never released the technical evidence that would prove Russian culpability for the email "hacks".  Never proved that the WL publications were from the Russian govt and not another source.  They will never have to prove their allegations of Russian hacking in court.  Never explained their steadfast refusal to interview anyone from Wikileaks (yet found the time to interview circus clowns such as Jerome Corsi).  

Their timeline doesn't even make any sense- Assange announced possession of Clinton-related emails on June 12th, before even communicating or transacting with Guccifer2/DCLeaks?

Mueller's refusal to elaborate on any of the things in his report that correspond to this narrative- Mueller "deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times" by NBC's count- only raises doubts about their assertions.  

Yes, they are making it up.  It's security state garbage on a WMD/Iraq scale.  
Click to expand...
There were Clinton emails released before June 12. Assange made an announcement in the British press on June 12 that he would release more.

Assange released an entire searchable database in March. 

 
About that, the worst thing was some WL/Assange followers thought WL was releasing leaked emails. They weren’t. It was the same Foia’d stuff that State & FBI were rolling out, and which were published on State’s website and WSJ. So yeah when Assange said more emails were coming that’s true, there were, and State published them and WSJ, etc etc. That was a totally different set of data.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TripItUp said:
Just checking in on my good ol impeachment buddies.

How close are we getting?
Click to expand...
As close as we have ever been...rule of law blocked by partisan hacks not willing to put the best interest of the country ahead of their party.  Nothing has changed over the past year.  

This was my basic answer last time you asked and it will be next time as well.

 
ren hoek said:
No we don't.  They said it was a random tip from Downer, but this came long after the FBI already had receipt of memos from Steele.  I'm not saying it is the root of the investigation, I'm only saying that it's plausible.  The FBI received memos from Christopher Steele before opening CH on 7/31- that's just plain fact.  

There was nothing there with George P and Carter Page.  There was no reason, other than the Steele memos, for them to connect any of these nonevents to a grand conspiracy with the Kremlin, or anyone else with the Trump campaign for that matter.  None of this should have gone even remotely as far as it did.  
Click to expand...
I really wish the old Trump <3 Russia thread wasn't nuked.  It would show that there was a hell of a lot of suspicious stuff, publicly available, prior to 7/31... Enough for FBG folks to note it, make a thread, and chronicle it.  All without any knowledge of Steele, Downer, etc.

 
moleculo said:
I really wish the old Trump ❤️ Russia thread wasn't nuked.  It would show that there was a hell of a lot of suspicious stuff, publicly available, prior to 7/31... Enough for FBG folks to note it, make a thread, and chronicle it.  All without any knowledge of Steele, Downer, etc.
Click to expand...
I recall saints was on that scent very early on.

 
Bucky86 said:
Per the new Q-poll, public opinion is shifting increasingly towards the belief that the Mueller report did NOT clear​

@realDonaldTrump

of any wrong-doing, at least since May. Report cleared Trump/Did not clear Trump:

Now: 31/56%

June: 35/55%

May: 38/51%
Click to expand...
It means nothing unless republicans think they have a real chance of losing their power. Which they don't. 

 
moleculo said:
I really wish the old Trump ❤️ Russia thread wasn't nuked.  It would show that there was a hell of a lot of suspicious stuff, publicly available, prior to 7/31... Enough for FBG folks to note it, make a thread, and chronicle it.  All without any knowledge of Steele, Downer, etc.
Click to expand...
Why was it nuked? Some posters didn't like the direction so they reported it or what?

 
Is the commander in chief a military position?  Can military charges be brought against him when he sides with the kgb instead of his intelligence analysts?

 
David Dodds said:
I did not delete the Obamacare nor the Russian thread, but I can understand why a mod might have as the toolish levels of all things political has been pretty awful to watch manifest itself on the boards. 
Click to expand...


David Dodds said:
I am not sure who even deleted it.  
Click to expand...


David Dodds said:
Bob Magaw confessed to deleting it likely because I sent him a note saying both he and I were likely adding to the frenzy of these political threads.  So I guess I am to blame here.
Click to expand...
Never really got a clear explanation for why the old Russia thread was nuked, but it seems Magaw deleted it on his own.  

 
moleculo said:
I really wish the old Trump ❤️ Russia thread wasn't nuked.  It would show that there was a hell of a lot of suspicious stuff, publicly available, prior to 7/31... Enough for FBG folks to note it, make a thread, and chronicle it.  All without any knowledge of Steele, Downer, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, me too.  I remember being one of the first people to cast doubt on it, back when doing so was borderline heresy.  It's a shame I can't go back and read it again. I've tried everything I could to find it- I even searched the Internet Archive for an old snapshot of Magaw's profile to see if there was an old link to the thread.  I wonder if @David Dodds or @Memphis Foundryor someone has an archive of the board's database that might still have a backup of that thread.   

 
moleculo said:
I really wish the old Trump ❤️ Russia thread wasn't nuked.  It would show that there was a hell of a lot of suspicious stuff, publicly available, prior to 7/31... Enough for FBG folks to note it, make a thread, and chronicle it.  All without any knowledge of Steele, Downer, etc.
Click to expand...
The "Trump Russia connections" storyline actually originated from a small neoconservative clique in Washington.  They were pushing antiRussian policy long before the 2016 elections- the Magnitsky Act, fighting ISIS in Syria, even tried to weaponize gay rights as a way to condemn Russia.  They badgered Obama for coordinating with the Russian military against ISIS in Syria.  They found Clinton to be a reliable conduit for their foreign policy brand, and Trump to be an existential threat to it.  It's hard to pinpoint exactly who this came from, but it clearly was consistent with their foreign policy views.

The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is a madeup fabrication. It is a total falsehood.  It's a hoax.  Somebody made it up, and then news organizations mainstreamed it into the American conscience.  None of this was an accident.  None of it was an innocent mistake.  Just like WMDs in Iraq, and the news cycle's abject failure in reporting that episode, this was done to advance neoconservative goals, like sanctions with Russia, escalated tensions, a new nuclear arms race with Russia, bigger military budgets, a litany of proxy wars (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela) that could trigger a wider conflict.  It allowed everything to be framed in terms where Vladimir Putin was basically the antichrist.  It allowed any move away from a confrontational stance by Trump to be cast as 'weak', 'returning the favor' to Putin, being a "traitor" again.  I remember very clearly when Trump was talking about pulling troops out of Syria, people immediately jumped to how it benefits the Kremlin, what a gift to Putin it was, etc.  There was a #treasonsummit hashtag for the meet in Helsinki.  It's a really simplistic and destructive worldview.  

 
The Indestructible said:
Asha Rangappa‏Verified account @AshaRangappa_

Some background on the lawyer who drafted the Nunes memo, Kash Patel: He got benchslapped with an "order of ineptitude" by a federal judge in Houston in February 2016 for wasting taxpayer money and being "one more nonessential employee from Washington"

Also, if you are not following Asha Rangappa you are missing out.  She is excellent.  
Click to expand...
Nunes Ally Kash Patel Who Fought Russia Probe Gets Senior White House National Security Job

Patel was one of the leading staffers pushing back against FBI investigations of Trump-Russia. He’s now senior director of the National Security Council’s terrorism directorate.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top